I think he could argue that his stance hasn't changed given the bip 110 stance since 1) bip 110 is a consensus change 2) it is temporary 3) the low threshold for activation setting a lower president for future changes

There never needs to be any threshold for activation for a uasf. You could make your own soft fork tomorrow and as long as you are running the code it activates. It probably won't go anywhere with you being the only person running it, but it is a disingenuous argument to say something along the lines of a "lower precedent for future changes."

I don't find it disingenuous. If you wanted to call it naive, fine, but of you're making the argument that defaults are important (the beginning argument that lead to bip110), then I think you'd also have to argue that precidents are important for protocol changes. It's a straw man argument to say that I could just go uasf by myself tomorrow

It's not a straw man. You literally could. Anyone could. That is what a UASF is.

Go ahead then

We are. The thing is, just like BIP 148, and intolerant minority can make changes. Thats a feature not a bug.