StyxHexenHammer666

He's a troll, right?

This guy employs this methodological postmodernism/literary-type free association, and spouts a bunch of unfalsifiable trite, but makes *just* enough true statements to where people think he's onto something.

Take his unfalsifiable anti-establishment hypothesis, for example. Now, this isn't to indict anti-establishmentism in general, I'm just claiming that the method he uses for arriving at his conclusions aren't rationally justified. It doesn't appear that there's anything one could do to convince him that he's wrong (to any degree) about the establishment's endless corruption, and he takes almost every major political development to be further evidence of his hypotheses. This isn't how rational inquiry proceeds, and it certainly isn't scientific.

He seems intelligent enough, so he must be a troll, right? I mean, the dude said that Obama and the Clintons are *literally* warmongering by waging sanctions against Russia. First, this isn't what warmongering means, and second how tf are the Clintons involved in this? He just freely associates ideas and creates this giant web of bullshit with a few good points thrown in. Methodologically, it's no different than the unfalsiable "subconscious racism" theory that the left uses.

Goddamn I'm so fuckin tired of the polarization of politics. I'm hoping that he's just a troll.

He's a faggot.

It looks like he is making a living at youtube.

>accuse Russians of undermining your democratic process with no evidence
>kick out Russian diplomats from your country
>impose sanctions as "punishment"

that's not warmongering? At the very least it's incredibly inflammatory.

>accuse Russians...with no evidence

There is evidence, it just hasn't been made public. Styx doesn't recognize this elementary distinction. For him, if the evidence hasn't been made public, then the evidence can/should be rejected or there is no evidence.

You're right that it's inflammatory, but that doesn't entail that it isn't warranted. Styx's actual quote was "Obama and the Clintons are literally warmongering." No, Atilla the Hun and Robert Mugabe were/are warmongers. He just defines down the term and lets the connotations do the heavy-lifting.

I like him

Really? $13 an hour is all it takes?

No there isn't faggot, because I did it.

I'm not sure what you mean..

He is a Satanist. If you weren't fedoras, that should have told you all you need to know.

Every satanist I've ever met has been a troll

>Trusting unnamed CIA sources reported on by the propaganda media

Did you completely miss the Iraq war bullshit or something?

>There is evidence, it just hasn't been made public


How convenient.

Troll or not, anybody who serves or appears to serve Satan should be tied to a pole and set on fire. That includes Clinton and her pedophile buddies, whom Styx claims are "real" Satanists.

>are
*aren't

Nope, but I do remember the "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US."

Also, the CIA estimate with respect to Iraq was that there was "suspicion" that Saddam had WMDs. The Bush administration took the *suspicions* and ran with it.

Furthermore, there are multiple media outlets with a wide array of political leanings who are reporting on this, and it has turned into a non-partisan issue with the dems and half of republicans agreeing that Russia attempted to undermine our democratic process.

Alright youtube

Here's an old platitude: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if the lack of public evidence is a reason to withhold judgment, this doesn't mean that Clinton is paying off Obama to fuck-over Trump's administration. Styx says that he believes this.

>For him, if the evidence hasn't been made public, then the evidence can/should be rejected or there is no evidence.

there's nothing unreasonable about this position. Your government and your intelligence agency have proven to be unreliable and untrustworthy. If they won't provide evidence then there's no reason to take their claims seriously

Nice try, you're StyxHexenHammer666 spouting liberal shit so people will support you instead and watch your videos

But our gov't and intelligence agency has also been proven to be reliable. They called 9/11, found Bin Laden, they give constant updates about the state of the world everyday..your position would entail that we doubt *everything* they tell us. That's an untenable position.

Furthermore, the strongest claim that one can make against our intelligence agencies is that we should withhold judgment, but not that we should *reject* their claims. Obama has made an IOU to the public and says that he will release evidence.

You don't have to go tinfoil hat all the time.

>wide array of political leanings

Yeah. Okay.

You're stuck between a rock and a hard place by the way. For weeks these same sources were stating how impossible it was to rig the election, and that it was undermining the entire process to even suggest it when it looked like Trump was losing. Well, ding dong the bitch is dead, Trump won, and now you idiots are claiming an anonymous, unverified government claim to justify returning to cold war style diplomacy with Russia due to election hacking.

So, no. Burden of proof is on you yah fucking kike.

lol that'd actually be pretty funny. Please do not watch his videos.

Go back to /r/politics you stupid college kid.

Okay, I'm resisting the urge to talk down to you because there is such a simple distinction that can be made here. One can hold that it is *impossible* (which in ordinary parlance really just means highly improbable) for a foreign entity to hack and rig an American election, and simultaneously hold that a foreign entity *tried* to hack and rig an American election.

It's impossible for a house spider to kill a man with an RPG while he's 40 yards away, but the spider could still try to kill him.

You don't have to take the will for the deed. You can just take the will, and punish Putin for that.

Read up on your deontology, brah.

He does seem to have fairly nuanced analysis of whats going on. I will admit I enjoyed his content much more during the election though.

Waiting for that proof there Mr. House spider faggot.

I'm I threatening the echo chamber? Why so hostile to differing opinions?

Oh it's because you try to fix your beliefs by sheer tenacity, and not by attempting to settle opinions within a community of inquirers who disagree on some fact of the matter.

Stop acting like a college education is an unmitigated waste. You sound like you could use one. Trying to fuckin invert values to make the inferior ones seem superior. "Ahhh wahh I didn't go to college and these college kids are creating dissonance in my head, college education must actually be a bad thing!!"

>I enjoyed his content

faggot

are you wearing an open leather jacket with no shirt underneath it right now?

That is simply not the distinction that was made. Nice attempt as gaslighting, though.

>Stupid analogy with a fucking house spider and explosives
Jesus just stop, the idea of you talking down to anyone (aside from house spiders) is mystifying.

I've already explained why one shouldn't be so quick to disparage the CIA and FBI and congressional and the White House estimates.

I also explained that Obama says he'll make evidence public.

If you reject all of these sources as being reliable, then I'm afraid you're propping up an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Keep on moving them goalposts.

I mostly listened to what he said while I had the tab minimized. The leather jacket/shades/shirtless are definitely cringey. Doesn't discredit what he has to say though.

The distinction wasn't made by whom? I just made it. It's right there in front of you.

>Doesn't understand a simple thought experiment illustrating deontological reasoning.

Damn dude, come on. It's not an analogy, it's a thought experiment. Thought experiments take abstract cases and demonstrate a general principle by which an actual case aims toward. Goddamn I can't believe I have to explain this. This is critical thinking 101. Our education system sucks asshole.

Even if l337 Russian hackers stole data from the DNC what difference does it make? In what way does that "Hack and rig" the election?

Now I know for sure you're trolling.

>I also explained that Obama says he'll make evidence public.

And until he does there is no proof. Before I'm okay with cutting diplomatic ties with a nuclear power, and levying sanctions on another nation, I need proof.

This is not a moving goal post, as proof has always been the sole requisite needed here. You have offered none, all you have said is that since several organizations (which in the past have worked together) are saying to trust them, that we should simply trust them.

I'm not saying that Russia actually rigged anything. First of all, don't fall for the rigged meme. The use of that term is thrown around so much it means almost nothing. Second of all, the hacking was used, presumably, to undermine the electorate's faith in the democratic process..kinda like what's happened on Sup Forums during the entire election cycle.

I'm claiming that Russia intended to sow seeds of disarray and that it doesn't matter if it ultimately worked, or tipped the scales in favor of Trump. They tried, and that's all that matters. I think Trump would have won anyway. It's the same logic that's behind the attempted murder law.

But, the claim isn't that Russia *tried* to rig the election. The claim is that they did. You cannot claim that an election is impenetrable and, after the election, that the result was tampered with by Russia.

>I paraphrase CS Peirce and you think I'm trolling. LOL

The problem is that you expect political discourse to have the kind of rigor found in a mathematical proof. That's never going to happen.

I know autism gets mocked around here, but I'm assuming, given your polysyllabic freakout and apparent lack of social awareness, that you're on the spectrum. I used to feel the same frustration you feel, so I probably have a touch of autism myself. What helped me was just regarding political discourse as a poem of sorts rather than some deductive exercise.

>There is evidence, it just hasn't been made public.
Saying that there is evidence of Russian hacking when you yourself can't provide it, analyze it, or even verify if it's accurate, then it's pointless to bring up in any discussion. You talk about shit not being scientific in the OP but what is scientific about accepting a claim based on evidence you can't even fucking see?

>And until he does there is no proof

You don't actually believe this, right? Do you understand the meaning of that statement if we take it literally? You're basically endorsing a crazy, nominalistic verificationism. "If I can't see it, then it doesn't exist!"

The grounds for justification that I'm providing is to trust our institution because they have been right more than they have been wrong. If you reject this, then idk how the fuck you think the US has gotten this far to begin with.

Obama has no gambit here with respect to fucking over Trump. Trump will catch flak for this Russia thing no matter what he does. Obama levying sanctions isn't an attempt to pull wool over anyone's eyes. If he wants to fuck Trump over, he'd have him assassinated if he's so powerful.

Plus, guessing at the CIA's and Obama's *real intentions* is so overdetermined. You can't just psychologize everything.

You're using the word 'rigged.' It hasn't been used unilaterally and in all cases. Therefore it is a fuzzy concept. You have one idea of what can be meant by it, and someone else might have something else in mind.

As I said, don't fall for the "rigged" meme. The use of that word is so vague. You're confusing word and object. Focus on the object and not the word.

You're a hypocrite and nothing but. You expect Styx to use the fucking scientific method when making his claims about corruption within the government when you yourself are just appealing to authority and justifying an assertion being made without any evidence being given.

>You don't actually believe this, right?

Yeah, I am actually. If someone says something is impossible and only a fascist/other horrible thing would even suggest it were possible, and a month later that same guy says it actually happened, and you just need to believe him even though he has in the past been proven to be a horrible liar, it is completely in the realm of sound logic to ask for some sort of proof.

That's about all, peace out.

You must be one of those kids born right before 9/11.
The CIA once said they had "evidence" that some bumfuck irrevelant country in the middle east had nukes. 10 years later? No nukes found.
>but.. muh evidence is just not public yet!
The evidence for the recent occupations we've gone through have been zero as well. You'd do your best to remember the CIA is not your friend, it seeks to live, and it doesn't care how many countries it ruins in the process.

I'm a philosophy grad student, so it's kind of my thing to break stuff down, reason them out, and critique the use of language.

It's one thing to say that we shouldn't have hope that our political discussions will follow this method, but it's another to claim that it shouldn't.

You're using the word 'discourse,' for instance, and you could be inchoately wandering between meaning discourse and meaning discussion. These are distinct things.

Op is a fag. Styxhexmeme is a faget too.

Because we are laypeople and don't directly deal with data. I don't doubt the shit my doctor tells me because I don't get to see the lab results..he's an authority on my health. Intelligence agencies are authorities on intelligence. This isn't to say that they can't be criticized, nor that they are infallible, but if you follow out the chain of reasoning that claims they are trying to pull a fast one, then it falls through. What subversive motivation would Obama have here? He doesn't need this Russia thing to gain an advantage against Trump because Trump is already fucked. People will criticize him unfairly no matter what.

Ah, we come to the root of the problem. You suffer from the same problem a lot of people in hard sciences. You fundamentally have too much faith in government and actually believe the intentions professed to the public correspond to the actual goals of agencies like the CIA.

You'll figure it out someday, maybe.

Dodging the question, are we? Fine then. Replace "rigged" with "tampered". The hypocrisy doesn't go away simply because of my diction. MSM and other officials made a claim that US elections could not be tampered with, that the elections were ironclad. That even suggesting vulnerabilities is "un-democratic" and "threatens our democracy".

These same people turned around and are now making claims that the election was, in fact, tampered with. Now, these claims make them hypocrites and outright lying little shits. People aren't willing to believe them because these claims have destroyed their credibility. Their word is worth nothing because they have proven to be lying shits.

Scientific method doesn't mean using a nominalistic verificationism. I'm not making an appeal to authority fallacy because I've already explained that in this case the authority shouldn't be distrusted for the reasons people are giving.

Again, authorities are right much of the time. Doctors are authorities on health. They aren't right all the time, but we should trust them.

I guess if Russia, under orders from the kremlin, hacked the DNC and used the information to manipulate the election, recourse could be reasonable.

That being said, I doubt it was them and I really doubt it will be possible to prove it came from Russians, let alone the Kremlin. I'd have to see this "evidence" that the CIA and DHS alleged exists.

Either way I'd imagine this subversion is common among both governments.

No, the CIA they had suspicions that Saddam had nukes. The intel didn't claim that he actually had them, the Bush admin. said that. You're crossing wires here.

Also, the intel community got 9/11 correct. Why does everyone conveniently forget this?

He's a good goy. Leave Styxie alone, Gentile!

>Yes, yes goyim, Obama and the Clintons are looking out for you, that big scary Trump will cause a world war! This Youtuber is wrong because reasons! Haha! I mean, he doesn't even wear a suit and tie!

Fuck off back to your safe space with this constant crap. You've been posting this same shit about Varg and every other person Sup Forums ever linked to in the election.

If their intentions were honest and our elections in serious jeapordy then they should provide the evidence of Russia "undermining our entire republic." Your doctor has an incentive to not lie to you, he can be sued or fired and loss money, this doesn't apply to the government. And as the other user said, the last time the government said "just trust us" we were in Iraq under the guise of WMDs.

I love Styx, but I feel that he just pretends to be a Trump supporter. He probably wouldn't be a Trump supporter if he did it all for free.

My position is that faith in the system is a practical belief, and without it there can be no rule of law. If we disbelieve the current admin, then I can disbelieve even a political outsider (Trump) on the exact same grounds. Your cynicism entails a heavy skepticism that would block even our ability to communicate about this very topic. I reject it because it is an incoherent position to so heavily distrust government.

t. 2003

>I'm a philosophy grad student

Well, dropping the word 'deontological' makes you sound like a starry-eyed philosophy freshman. Moral philosophy is riddled with logically irreducible dogma, yet you apparently haven't questioned what your Kantian professors have fed you and just accept the semantic gymnastics and ad hoc justifications behind any attempt to universalize a maxim as per their throned categorical imperative.

>You're using the word 'discourse,' for instance, and you could be inchoately wandering between meaning discourse and meaning discussion. These are distinct things

Get yourself a dictionary and some familiarity with denotative plurality. Words have multiple meanings. MWCD, for instance, gives one of the definitions of 'discourse' as "verbal interchange of ideas." AHD, that bastion of prescriptivist pedantry, offers "verbal expression in speech and writing" and "verbal exchange or conversation" as its first two definitions.

Maybe the problem is that you're not as impressive as you think you are.

Cool, fuck the MSM. I'm making the claim that they tried to tamper with it. To hell with what the MSM has to say. You're focusing on the wrong thing. Pay attention to the general thought, and not who's saying it. If one party commits to a contradictory position, this doesn't mean both arguments are false.

>hur just believe the government guys!
>hur this new McCarthyism is totally legit this time guys!
>WE WANT THE COLD WAR BACK GUYS, WHY AREN'T YOU BEING MORE LEVEL-HEADED?

I swear to god the shit in this thread has to be fucking bait.

I cannot actually believe you're willing to sour relations with a world power because the current administration says they're bad with no transparency.

If there's evidence. They should release it.

If there's no evidence, obviously they won't release it and we shouldn't support this kind of bullshit.

So until they provide evidence, I'm going to assume they have none in case they're fucking bluffing.

There's no hacking elections.

If Russia hacked the DNC and revealed the truth, how the fuck is that a bad thing? I want more world powers being the tattletales if our own media won't be.

The truth has to come out. Doesn't matter whose mouth it comes from or how they got it as long as it's the truth.

If the integrity of our election rests on the citizens being in the dark, then what kind of integrity did our elections have in the first place?

Your "belief" is just as invalid as Styx's baseless assertions. We should be skeptical of our government. Our constitution was written by people who didn't trust the government. If you just take whatever someone says as fact you are just a christcuck.

What evidence do you have for this claim?

Shit man I could make up a prima facie good reason to distrust doctors right now. Doctors get paid on comission to sell drugs by big Pharma. Gotta keep a clientele. Sound kooky? Because it is. Why would gov't have any more reason to lie? You see, the burden of proof is on you to show why we should take such a cynical view of gov't.

Nobody cares that you read Plato once. Philosophy is not key in the discussion, Political History is.

We don't even have to read a book to see why trusting government without evidence to back its claims is a bad idea; Tonkin, Iraq, the list goes on. Our government claims all the time that other governments lie to their population constantly so why would we make the assumption that ours alone is sheltered from this apparent innate tendency? (Hint; power corrupts.)

It's not bait, read this comment here:
This guy actually believes what the government tells him when it comes to war even though they have lied over and over and over regarding it.

Looks like a fuckin derp I wouldn't even start the video lol

A lot of these folks are shills. They've been attempting to attack every significant alt-right/alt-lite/libertarian/ancap personality as well as any and all threads about them for a month now; at least one of these idiots is that halfassed weeb Maldraw with his fetish for christ anime.

It's a lame attempt by Soros and a bunch of other half baked demagogues to do whatever they can to disunify what is slowly emerging as a hegemonic conglomerate of generally anti-leftist political movements. Woe unto them if we merge further I suppose.

Fuck mayne, read Kant's CPR or something before you haphazardly denounce the concept of faith. Second, don't use the word 'skeptical' it's more complicated than most people think it is. Use 'wary' or 'suspicious' or something. You're correct that we shouldn't trust *everything* the gov't says, but this is just as good as saying that the gov't is fallible..but, like, duh everyone is fallible. It's such a trivial thing to state in this day and age. The forefather example is disanalogous because they were combatting literal tyranny by a hereditary monarchy who could hang people for dissidence.

>Obama doesn't provide evidence
>hurrdurr he doesn't have to prove god doesn't exist therefore he exists

You seem to think there is something inherently wrong with distrusting someone. It's perfectly rational to question doctors, accountants and the like to make sure your money is not being wasted.

>the burden of proof is on you to prove we shouldn't trust the government.
This is the biggest load of horseshit you've spouted in this entire thread. You made the claim that Russia hacked the election ( "I'm making the claim that they tried to tamper with it"). The burden of proof is entirely on you and as you've told us in this thread as well, you don't have the proof. The burden of proof falls on the person making the assertion.

>You see, the burden of proof is on you to show why we should take such a cynical view of gov't.

You misunderstand the burden of proof, a typical rookie mistake. The burden of proof is on anyone making a non-trivial claim. "The government is lying about Russia" is a non-trivial claim, but so is "The government is telling the truth about Russia."

In freshman philosophy class, students typically learn from Descartes' first meditation that suspending judgment is an option when truth is elusive (though Descartes, of course, ended up satisfying himself with his truths).

>the semantic gymnastics and ad hoc justifications behind any attempt to universalize a maxim as per their throned categorical imperative.

What is happening here in this thread right now is no different than what the Obama/Clinton/other shill political establishment did after the NSA revelations. After four or five times getting caught out lying about the scope and usefulness of the data gathering the left (and neocons) defaulted to a game of "Snowden is a russian espionage agent and you're a literal commie if you disagree." They're doing the same thing now with this crap about Russian hackers; to try to keep the anti-left conglomerate political movement from ever solidifying into something that could actually threaten globalism.

The global order doesn't care if some halfassed third world state renounces global ties; they can always march in under the guise of aid or liberation. But how do you march into a rogue nuclear state with a well armed civilian population, the largest navy in the world, and its hands in every other nation? It would be an unstoppable imperialistic force they could never contain; the globalists would probably cause a nuclear exchange because the alternative would be, to them, even worse.

Haha damn this is bad. You didn't go to college did you?

Inb4: see you changed the subject and committed an ad hominem, you must realize you've lost.

>your position would entail that we doubt *everything* they tell us. That's an untenable position.

Questioning any claims they make is sensible at this point, especially with Obama repealing laws prohibiting the use of propaganda on the American public.

No, that is not what he is saying.
What Obama is doing is punishing Russia for a claim he made that he hasn't proven. That is downright unjust.
Common sense says that the one claiming something has to provide proof first.

>Fuck mayne, read Kant's CPR or something before you haphazardly denounce the concept of faith.

CPR is full of faith, aside from the antinomies and other negative results of transcendental idealism.

I think you're pretending to be a philosophy grad. You're way too exuberant, in a green, just-read-my-first-phil-book way, with the terms you drop.

So much effort put into the people you disagree with

>turn the other cheek when you agree

So much for being logical, there is plenty to be saind about the alt-right , about as much as the sjw

So how exactly do you "problem-solve" the Jews actively working against every country they've ever been in to the benefit of their in-group?

Haha! J-just trust the government! *sweats profusely* g-goy

Yep. This good goy posting here venerates the CIA when he seems to forget that Clapper sat before the Senate just a few years ago and flat out lied about domestic spying, but it's "untenable" to treat the kind of war-inducing claims with suspicion. It's so transparent and fraudulent.

I agree with your take on why this is happening and what the stakes are.

Maybe personal grudges against Trump and Russia?
The doctor comparison was pretty bad btw. You can always ask why the doctor thinks so and ask for proof, such as x-ray scan pics or such. Or you can go to another doctor to double check.

styx is alpha as fuck. People criticising his lifestyle are probably cucked and enslaved by their own retardation

>Muh echo chamber

>Muh right wing safe space

Really could not be more obvious which website you are coming from at this point.

OP took a class on logic and now thinks he's hot shit

People can ignore 90% of what OP is saying because it's all fluff

The ultimate irony in all of this OP, assuming you aren't a shill and just some bluepilled retard that tried to come here and "change minds", is that you're gonna be redpilled in a few months.

Just look what happened to Ben Garrison. Enjoy your stay faggot.

The guy is either a ruseman, a retarded liberal or just dumb. I'm guessing the first.

...

> sow seeds of disarray

They've been doing that since the 30's. Try and keep up. Remember that evil villain Mcarthy? you need to stop red baiting man, it's not cool.