79
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2026
79 points (97.6% liked)
Slop.
792 readers
490 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS


i think it's a stretch to say he supported the guy when he 1) wanted to interview him to grill him about being a repeat war crimes enjoyer but got dodged and 2) distanced himself after the nazi tattoo reveal. just in the interest of fair history.
That's fair. I remember from somewhere I heard he endorsed him even if in a limited way, but I could be wrong
I don't think he particularly likes Graham, but the "blue no matter who" worms get to him sometimes
he was certainly somewhat interested in platner at first, but that interest waned as more and more information came out, culminating in the nazi tattoo reveal. when platner has been brought up since then, the response is a joke about supporting janet mills, the establishment democrat alternative, and nothing further. i think he gets a bit golden retrievery about candidates that are vocally against giving the zionist entity lots of weapons, and especially was at the time that platner showed up. that said, of the antizionist candidates that popped up around the same time, i'd say that piker kept his enthusiasm most distanced about platner. certainly not the deep-throated defense of the nazi tattoo that so many commentators decided to do, like emma vigeland.
Good to hear, thanks