StyxHexenhammer666 / Tarl Warwick - Oddball Occultist Neckbeard (who can make some intresting content)

IcyHotStuntaz

kiwifarms.net
As I've said, there's plenty of reasons to criticize him. That's not the point. Before there was TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome - there was BDS: Bush Derangment Syndrome. It usually stepped beyond policy, and typically got into conspiracy theory territory. The meer existience of Bush was enough to send these people over the edge to the point where there were media productions fantasizing about assasinating him. So many Hitler comparisons, too. In fact, many of the same charges hurled at the Dyslexic Man are now hurled at the Orange Man. The fact that many Democrats pretend to love George W. Bush now is more of a testimony to how much more they hate Trump.

What makes Styx, Aiden, et al so lolworthy in this regard is just how outdated it is, like they're still stuck in the 2000s.
Well sure... I guess... there were eventually Hitler comparisons in his 2nd term... but 9/11 happen in his first year.... I mean long before there was this Bush backlash there was CDS - Clinton Derangement Syndrome. It was steeped well beyond policy and was mainly media productions enthralled with cum stains on a dress. Clinton was attacked by unhinged looneys just like Trump and/or Bush. That's the way it's worked since the GOP wanted to sink Slick Willy over a blowjob.

All that said, Bush easily and clearly defeated Kerry in both popular and electoral. So... I'm not too worried about Trump. The silent majority will vote this November.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: UnKillFill

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Anyone gonna acknowledge that Styx has zero clue what neoliberalism actually is (namely him to a T)?

He seems to think it just means "center-left person who likes blowing shit up."
It's sort of annoying the term is as completely misused as it is when the "liberalism" in neo-liberalism is laissez-faire capitalism, not some left wing thing. It's about free market capitalism, not politics. The primary names associated with neoliberalism are Austrian school economists like Hayek and politicians like Augusto Pinochet, not a left winger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Based Cheeto

Rekkington

Obama chuckled. "You mean the chaos emeralds?"
kiwifarms.net
It's sort of annoying the term is as completely misused as it is when the "liberalism" in neo-liberalism is laissez-faire capitalism, not some left wing thing. It's about free market capitalism, not politics. The primary names associated with neoliberalism are Austrian school economists like Hayek and politicians like Augusto Pinochet, not a left winger.
Yeah whenever I've seen neoliberal used, it's always a cocktail of Enlightenment-Era individuality with a love of global capitalism, the cultural/religious stuff always seems across the board so they're always running up against nationalist stuff. That appears to be the contradiction of Styx, and if on that specific test you're high on Patriotism and high on Liberty you might as well make your single-issue vote be for getting a fucking time machine. You're just Ron Swanson with a bunch of Slipknot-tier mysticism slapped over top.
 

RedStorm

Marius Mule
kiwifarms.net
and, worst of all, to this day, refuses to admit that Kirsten Gillibrand was a shit candidate who came off as even more inauthentic, desperate, and pandering than Kamala, Pete, or even Hillary ever did. He admitted he overestimated Julian Castro, but with Gillibrand, literally her entire campaign was nothing but cringe, panders (especially to IDPol), and gimmicks. If you only listened to Styx, though, you'd think she was a juggernaut who would've beaten Trump if only she'd gotten more media attention. Apparently he doesn't know that she's never been some god-tier candidate; her only really earned victory was a House race 14 years ago. After she got appointed to the Senate (which only happened because Caroline Kennedy flamed out hilariously) she's just coasted because New Yorkers would vote for a dead goose if it had a (D) after its name.
You're exactly right about this; the one thing I'd slightly disagree with is that he "refuses to admit" it because I don't think he's ever been questioned on this to begin with. He does still say it repeatedly in vids long after she dropped out though. If I ever got the chance to interview him I'd ask him about it and mention everything you just said, which is what I thought of on my own too (Gillibrand is my Senator, and when she joined the Presidential race I knew she'd easily flame out because she reeked of 'generic backbencher politician.' I was surprised when Styx said she was one of the few who could potentially beat Trump.

On the other hand I do think he's right on the money about most of what he says about electoral politics (e.g. Biden's weaknesses, Bernie's weaknesses)
 

RedStorm

Marius Mule
kiwifarms.net
On the subject of the VP candidate from Maine: I believe Styx is referring to Susan Rice, who currently lives in Maine but won't bring anywhere close to a home state advantage for that state.


She was born in and grew up in Washington D.C.. She never ran in any election. All her political offices were via appointment.

Styx speaks off the cuff and seems to be lazier in his political analysis these days (for instance, he mixed up Kamala's and Tulsi's birthdays).
 

BananaGator

kiwifarms.net
On the subject of the VP candidate from Maine: I believe Styx is referring to Susan Rice, who currently lives in Maine but won't bring anywhere close to a home state advantage for that state.


She was born in and grew up in Washington D.C.. She never ran in any election. All her political offices were via appointment.

Styx speaks off the cuff and seems to be lazier in his political analysis these days (for instance, he mixed up Kamala's and Tulsi's birthdays).
I've been saying that for a while. In 2016 he gave himself a primer on who Tim Kaine was before he talked about him just for one example, but this year you can tell, for another example, that he didn't actually watch the Rushmore speech before talking about it.

He'll also make up some platitude about a candidate and just stick to it and nothing else when talking about them, whereas in 2016 he'd actually watch the debates and all of that and talk about it from different angles. So Hillary was "inauthentic, and a lot of her points don't make sense when you boil them down and think about her history, and she obviously didn't like being challenged by so and so," but now it's just "Tulsi hates guns" or "Buttigieg or Gillibrand would have been their best bet" with no evidence to back the statements up.

Occasionally he'll dive deeper, like when he figured Buttigieg had problems with black voters and would therefore do badly in South Carolina, but that's definitely the exception and not the rule. The only things he talks about in actual detail and with more than a few minutes of thought put into them now are topics that have already interested him for a long time, like disease and sociology-type things. Those are the only times now when you can call him even a little authoritative. But even with something like disease, he tends to really easily get overexcited and sensationalistic unless/until he's proven wrong. Remember when Ebola was probably going to wipe out half of humanity, in his own words?
 
Last edited:

RedStorm

Marius Mule
kiwifarms.net
@BananaGator My memory may be faulty but I also recall that in 2016 you'd see videos as long as 20 min and more (even on non special days like election day)

while these days he's sometimes releasing vids less than 4 min long
 

Based_Papa_John

Welcome to the Future you chose.
kiwifarms.net
Watching his video on the Patreon lawsuit made me wonder if he'd read anything more than a couple of tweets about it.
That's what happens when you just pump out video after video every day. I'd say he's getting lazier.

Going back to Kirsten Gillibrand, it was obvious when Trump tweeted about her that he was being sarcastic. Gillibrand is such a milquetoast, centre-left politician who was clearly going nowhere. That, and the one time when he said (I can't find the video) where he said that he almost didn't vote for Trump because Pence looked too much like the Dyslexic Man makes me wonder how much of an actual grasp does he have on politics.

P.S. He also called the UK Liberal Democrats further to the Left than Labour, which was definitely not the case.
 

RedStorm

Marius Mule
kiwifarms.net
He's suffering from the same problem pretty much every poor-->well-off person does. Their newfound wealth makes them rest on their laurels. Sure, Styx isn't necessarily 'rich' but going from working class to an upper middle class income means he doesn't have to work as hard. I don't recall how many subs he had in 2016 but I presume it was only in the low tens of thousands (20,000?) and now it's almost 450,000.

It's also partly a product of the fact that he forces himself to have a 3-4 videos per day quota, but not many additional standards on top of that, which leads to him phoning it in.

Not the worst thing a Kiwifarms subject has done though, tbh. I also doubt he'll have a Sargon UKIP moment any time soon. And I still think he's mostly right in his 2020 election analysis. Where I disagree with him on in regards to that is: debates being as huge a factor (expectations may be so low for Biden that a D performance becomes viewed as a B performance), Gillibrand and Castro being strong.

Where I agree is: economy will likely improve faster than the Dems would want, Trump's approval will continue to improve, coronavirus cases and deaths will continue to go down, far left extremism will help Trump, Biden is demented and a weak candidate, Buttigieg was possibly their best candidate (sure, weak with minorities BUT if he was the nominee the D next to his name would still have gotten many religious blacks to vote for him, and he's stronger with white independents than Biden is - just take a look at the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primaries)

The last thing I'll say is that Styx is another case study for a very important phenomenon that many aren't aware of -- once you get autistically knowledgeable enough in a niche topic (e.g. American elections) you'll realize how people you once regarded as extremely knowledgeable experts are flawed dilettantes when they talk about the topics you know about the most, and are therefore likely to be flawed dilettantes on other topics they talk about if they aren't autism tier experts on those things.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Where I disagree with him on in regards to that is: debates being as huge a factor (expectations may be so low for Biden that a D performance becomes viewed as a B performance), Gillibrand and Castro being strong.
Debates are meaningless. You'll never see another Lincoln/Douglas level debate again. Partisans will always think their guy won. Unless someone literally has a seizure or kills himself on stage it won't make any difference.
 
Tags
None