you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I am serious that anecdotal evidence is not statistically significant and that, therefore, one random child is not representative of anything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    If you only look at each individual tree as a tree, you'll fail to realize you're in a forest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So if the above person was familiar with Whitmer then I should presume that most people also are?

    Your points aren't making sense. Anecdotal evidence gathered from a non-American child's comments on a random post on a fringe STEM-lord website is not representative of anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Jesus you people are insufferable. Not knowing about Whitmer is a single anecdote that is consistent with a trend that is quite obvious and so help me god if you do that sealioning bullshit demanding a peer reviewed study about Whitmers name recognition

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    consistent with a trend that is quite obvious

    What trend?

    sealioning

    Using terms like this makes one sound socially maladjusted. Which makes sense given the site we're on. Which reinforces my point that a random comment has no representative value - people on here are STEM-brained weirdos or are bots. Either way, not exactly representative of the median adult US voter

  • source
  • parent