Talk:Styxhexenhammer666/Archive1

Pronoun genocide
The entire middle of this article is formatted as "He says ...", "He did ...". Maybe diversify the grammar with some uses of "Tyrell", eh? :) 21:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Opening quote
Should we use the abbreviated quote (current):

In the good old days, the establishment, when it looked down its nose at people, its very very large nose, let's just leave it at that...

Or the full quote:

In the good old days, the establishment, when it looked down its nose at people, its very very large nose, let's just leave it at that, typically did mince its words and did try to insinuate the masses were ignorant without actually stating it outright.

Do the ellipses make it seem as though we're hiding relevant context? 22:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not as if there was any important detail left out, but upon you mentioning it, I'll add the rest just to complete the full sentence. EstablishmentShill (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Defamatory
A proportion of this article amounts to defamation- amusingly, more of it lacks neutrality than is defamatory and appears to have been written by one of my many critics.

I am hardly a "racist dog whistler" first and foremost, and spend nearly as much time sparring with mgtow and the skinheads as I do with the fringe left- as to the "large nose" reference, have you never heard of Pinocchio? I'm vaguely surprised the people here, with their rationality, did not consider that possibility, that I was referring to the MSM as a bunch of complete liars hellbent on starting wars for their clickbait stories.

For the record, I do not oppose islamic immigration; I support a temporary ban on immigration from some islamic states linked with terrorism, and an end to our cooperation with refugee programs.

It appears that my statement regarding Milo Yiannopolous has been taken out of context, as well; my reference to him being gay, jewish, and a zionist, was used in the context of proclaiming that his adversaries (who were referring to him as a nazi) could not possibly be taken seriously.

The section regarding my holocaust views is potential slander; I never said people weren't gassed in the holocaust, I claim that some proportion of the death toll was due to typhus breaking out as industry broke down in the wake of the firebombings there. As far as I know, only the proportion thereof is disputed, not the general concept of epidemic.

In the conspiracy theory section, it is claimed that I stated the Russian interference story was concocted because Clinton had a low chance of winning; my actual stated view is that it was concocted to turn the DNC leaks into a partisan issue, to prevent Democrats from worrying about the content.

Thanks.

Styx666 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll go through those videos later today and update the claims as needed. -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I got about halfway through the Holocaust video and rushed to clarify the non-denial of the holocaust. (Bad form, I know.) Hertzy (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1: I've removed the intro temporarily.
 * 2: Could you link examples of "sparring with MGTOW and the skinheads"?
 * 3: Bullshit. In popular culture, "large nose" almost exclusively refers to Jews. Judging by the comments, it was interpreted that way by your fanbase.
 * 4: I've removed the Milo section temporarily.
 * 5: I've stated that you are a "holocaust revisionist", which lines up with our definition on Holocaust denial. Do you disagree?
 * 6: I've adjusted the DNC claim.
 * 14:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1: Now it's even worse
 * 2: MGTOW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djGzZLKrhlU Skinheads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezPkcPthwdU
 * 3: I am unconcerned with how you or anyone else misconstrues my views.
 * 4: Good, since anyone reviewing the video can garner the context.
 * 5: Yes, I disagree, since I have never denied the willful execution of millions of inmates in concentration camps (and would challenge anyone to find a link to me doing so.)
 * 6: Thanks.
 * Styx666 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Arguably worse than Two Days Ago
I am largely unconcerned with the "satire"/political opinions present here but as an editor and author it's bothering me considerably looking at the poor state of my article, since it pertains to such a vastly significant figure as myself. As such, I submit that I should be at least able to edit it for word usage, flow, and grammar- and regardless I wish someone would add context to my statement on Milo (or remove the section as irrelevant, since it is only relevant if taken well out of context.) If people lacking any depth of knowledge of my work wish to consider me a racist dog whistler or a holocaust denier, based on nothing but their own opinions, so be it- it's inevitable.

Styx666 (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Enumerated response:
 * 1: Your concern trolling "as an editor" is duly noted, duly ignored.
 * 2: You're not special. You can edit any article you choose.
 * 3: I've removed the Milo section temporarily.
 * 4: I've removed the intro temporarily.
 * 5: I've stated that you are a "holocaust revisionist", which lines up with our definition on Holocaust denial. Do you disagree? 03:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1: See #2
 * 2: Good, then I hope nobody here minds me completely reformatting it to contain only relevant and accurate content. To be clear, my query before was meant as a sign of respect for a community I am not altogether familiar with- I did not know whether it was discouraged for the subject of articles to edit articles regarding themselves.
 * Styx666 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit any article. However, whitewashing is common. Take care you don't. 20:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made various corrections including grammar within quotes, added a couple of sections, and removed some total bullshit. I think someone added the racialist segment back though, which is very funny, since I have never denied the out of Africa theory; in fact, I see it as just another competing origin theory. The same video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXTBIWn9Nsc) being used as a source on my (admittedly hypothetical, subjective) idea regarding pre-Neanderthal hominids also refutes the point of the racialism section. Nowhere have I ever proclaimed that human populations did not breed so I'm not sure who saw fit to tack that on the end of the section either. Styx666 (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed content
racist dog whistler, occultist, conspiracy theorist and fringe theorist. An individual who used to and used his YouTube channel mostly for refuting Christianity, has over time shifted toward support for Donald Trump and opposing multiculturalism. As a former Ron Paul libertarian, he planned to vote for Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but like many other former Ron Paul supporters, found his way home to supporting Donald Trump because Gary Johnson was not opposed to immigration. He still calls himself a libertarian and is now devoted to opposing globalism, the mainstream media, SJWs, and multiculturalism. Warwick's subscriber count grew during 2016 due to his defensive videos of Donald Trump and after he made two appearances on Red Ice TV to discuss the alt-right and occultism.

He is not a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos though. He has also said that Milo is not alt-right, or even alt-lite, but a "gay Jewish Zionist with primarily black boyfriends".

Warwick has made a video wearing a Hitler moustache because someone he got occult books from dared him to do it. But said he is not a Nazi, he's a Libertarian!

He has also told a person posting swastikas in the chat box during a live video that he's on their side. But don't worry, he has already said he not not a Nazi!

===Metalworking Neanderthal civilizations=== Warwick also believes that Neanderthals possessed metalworking technologies but this civilization was wiped out:

In particular, he thinks that Neanderthals moved to Europe, Egypt, the Middle East, and the Indus Valley -- presumably implying that these Neanderthals helped build the early civilizations that arose there.

14:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I need to go to sleep now.
I haven't slept in hours and I was the one who approved Styx666's edits. My mistake. Off to bed. ClickerClock (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Attempting to insinuate that I fit in "most closely with the alt right" (I'm a libertarian) or that I "flirt with nazism" based on one book review and an offhand comment on how poorly communism has performed economically is strange, since I can source all of my positions; and why would my additions be removed- if my thoughts on Nelson Mandela (who I spoke of exactly once in a decade) are considered to be worthy of inclusion, why not my views on a dozen social issues I've spoken of frequently, such as abortion, green energy, etc? I fear that some here consider me a one-sided character, but my content says otherwise. Styx666 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I kept those social issues when I undid some of your edits. I will take another look at the flirt with nazism and alt right thing.ClickerClock (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you apologize for your "Nazism briefly worked" statement? And source so I can add it in.ClickerClock (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to apologize for a comment related to economics. The expansion of infrastructure under the third reich (prior to Hitler losing his marbles completely and attacking numerous states at the same time) and the expansion of its industry is fairly well known- comparing this to the USSR (which had to buy US goods because it was using WWI surplus) has nothing to do with any pro-nazi leanings on my part. I will edit some of the sections further myself as well. Styx666 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In addition, my edit to the "racialism" section is provably more accurate- I do not reject the Out of Africa theory, I consider it one of several competing and perfectly acceptable origin theories- recent fossil finds in Europe cast doubt on OOA. I anticipate the possibility that finds in the Middle East or Asia might eventually do the same. Never once in the video referenced do I claim that human populations "did not interbreed"- I stated that divergence occurs due to geographical isolation. This is purely part of evolution- I think you're confusing my claim of general and partial divergence (which is genetically obvious) with a claim of speciation. Styx666 (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

We can add a list of good things you done
Did you foster a cat? Did you donate to charity? Did you volunteer for charity work? Did you make a video encouraging your followers to donate? If you haven't done any of the above, maybe go do them? ClickerClock (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer merely an accurate article; as of right now this one is decent, but random interjections of others' opinions regarding my views seem a bit out of place. I understand that this site is primarily edited by people who likely lack an appreciation for my views on some political issues, but that doesn't make me some cookie-cutter alt righter, or anything of that ilk. Honestly, I've already written up a fairly lengthy section I intend to add regarding my occult/pagan beliefs- since nobody here thought to! Styx666 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your videos are inaccessible
Caption your videos.

We can make our article more accurate if more of our editors can actually watch your videos. ClickerClock (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if ClickerClock is being snarky or serious, but Styx's videos are quite edit-free and unorganized. 18:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Fun Edit Warring
Since others' opinions regarding what they merely think I believe are considered acceptable by some here (with meaningless interjections regarding the feasibility of things unrelated to central points I have made) I have decided to begin adding my own opinions as well. I'll add a paranormal/occult section later too once it's fully formatted, then the proportion of accuracy in the article will be substantially higher. Styx666 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Styx, your racialism is junk science
While your condescension is charming, those alleged high school flunkees have published innumerable studies explaining why you're full of shit. 18:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My claim of partial, historical divergence, though, is not speciation nor has any substantial social meaning. Kindly point out where I claimed it did. To be clear, I was discussing man before the eras in which civilizations readily traded and traveled longer distances; basically, before the bronze age. Since that time, the human race has re-converged to a greater extent. How does this have anything to do with me making any pejorative claims about any specific human group? Styx666 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1: If you've not realized, racialism != racism. We've not mentioned "pejorative claims about any specific human group", nor racism at all.
 * 2: We've not mentioned speciation. Racialists claim distinct "races", separated by genetics or phenotype, exist at a subspecies level among H. sapiens. Indeed, you mention "modern races" and write that "genetic difference [....] in the racial sense is not only accepted science but objectively true". These statements strongly suggest you believe in such subspecies level distinctions. This is racialism.
 * 3: In the quote from your "Human Origins" video, you explicitly discuss "race in the modern sense", not "historical divergence".
 * 19:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1: I have been categorized as a racist, within the categories section.
 * 2: I never said subspecies. There is one human species; the races are not different enough to comprise subspecies. It is the result of cultural divergence as much as genetic; and this divergence has decreased since world travel.
 * 3: Yes, race in the modern sense, as in the kind used on government forms, as in, how people are perceived in a human context (language, etc.) 19:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page
Hopefully this will allow the article to be designed around what I actually say and think as opposed to what others say and think regarding my opinions. In the near future I may make a lengthy video on this subject but I'll put it in brief here first to give my thoughts.


 * 1: Anyone considering me a fascist either does not know what the term means or is merely virtue-signalling. I've fought all authoritarian variants now for years. I'm a limited-government lover of freedom, not a nazi- as such, others calling me a fascist/cryptofascist is irrelevant- I have people call me all sorts of things every day.
 * 2: I am neither a white supremacist nor an ethnonationalist, have never used these terms to describe myself, and have fought with nationalists on this token. For a while I called myself a civic nationalist because I wish to preserve US culture- I eventually realized this was the same as calling myself a minarchist or classical liberal (because the US was founded with liberty as the national value.) Considering someone to have "flirted with nazism" for calling Hitler an idiot in a book review is the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty one can fathom and can only have been concocted by someone with an ax to grind.
 * 3: I have spoken with and read the works of Kuzniar. I have never spoken with nor know anything about Sexton. I suggest people read her works if they think they're in any way pro-Hitler/pro-WN.
 * 4: The anti-immigration section is now half comprised of others' opinions about things that have nothing to do with my point on the subject. I am anti-war and feel sorry for the refugees for dealing with the foreign policy mess of Bush and Obama (and unfortunately continuing now with Trump.) Whether or not ending "wars" (legally defined as conflicts and rather easy to end) is easy is not the subject of my video(s) on the topic. Whether or not "most refugees aren't terrorists" is also irrelevant; I never said they were mostly terrorists, I claim that I feel sorry for them because a steady trickle of islamofascists is entering alongside them only to subsequently suppress and antagonize the refugees, which never wanted to abandon their homes to begin with.
 * 5: Anyone who believes I am an anti-semite (one category I've been placed in!) is welcome to find any example of me saying anything antisemitic. You will fail at this venture unless you make assumptions regarding my Pinnochio joke (which you only make if you presume me to be a nazi!) I suppose you could conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but that would mean some millions of western Jews are also antisemites; an odd claim indeed.
 * 6: I never claimed the majority of people with aspergers' syndrome are assholes. I say Elliot Rodger was an asshole, and that some people diagnosed as such are similar. I claim that the "rise" in autism is due to an increase in what is considered to be part of the spectrum and that this will eventually be abandoned as a moral panic- "kids being kids" and "awkward people being awkward" basically.
 * 7: I appear to have been categorized as a racist. Please find an example of me being racist ("Islamic extremist" or "immigrant" isn't a race, don't waste your time.)
 * 8: For some reason I'm being categorized with the alt right- a label I've never used.
 * 9: The article says nothing about my admittedly out there paranormal beliefs. Since the article is now protected I can't really add a section regarding them; I'd be happy to place the source material in the talk section if prompted.
 * 10: I'm not pissed at rationalwiki, I'm bothered that the article is neither complete nor fully accurate.
 * 11: I'm hardly antifeminism. I'm anti-radfem AKA third waver. As in, I support actual equality between the genders, not gender war.
 * 12: Oddly I'm not in the categories for pseudoscience nor for authors, despite being a proponent of aspects of the former and definitively part of the latter.
 * 13: It seems some people think I believe the Human Race has speciated. I never made that claim. I am saying lineages of human beings, which were largely geographically isolated, diverged slightly over time due to selection and differential climate, food sources, etc. I use the term "race" in the sense that it is used on every government and academic form ever made in the western world. Some people here (not me, though) have inferred that I extend this beyond genetics into the social realm and give it greater importance.
 * 14: In essence the people here have made the same mistake as some ethnonationalists; they assume that because I voted for Trump and believe in borders I must be their fellow nazi, or fellow white nationalist. They then turn around and act shocked when I say I don't give half a damn about race and just want people to leave one another alone as often as they are able. Meanwhile, now I have some of you, who I assume lean left, taking the opinions of those same WNs and echoing them from the other side of the political spectrum. This is mildly frustrating, since it makes the job of simply believing in freedom a lot more precarious.

Thanks. Styx666 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't read everything you've written and know nothing about you but you're not doing yourself any favours using the term "virtue signalling". Christopher (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Styx, both terms "Islamofascism" and "virtue signalling" have spread beyond their racist-right fever swamps, and it's possible that he's using them without believing the ideology.
 * @Styx: I'll try to respond itemwise this evening. On a specific note: I think the "problem with Islam" is that Muslims are substantially more conservative than Western citizens, in the same way that the "problem with Christianity" is that Christian Westerners are substantially more conservative than non-Christian Westerners. If you agree: Why do you use the term "Islamofascism" but not "Christofascism", to describe theoconservative tendencies among Christians? If you disagree: [1] How is Islam fundamentally different from its older Abrahamic brother, Christianity, and [2] why is that difference fundamental to Islam, rather than something reform-able? 19:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a problem with people who take their religion to violent or hostile extremes, not with islam itself beyond parts of its doctrine I find objectionable; I've pointed this out a number of times. I have repeatedly condemned evangelical christianity for homophobia, pro-war sentiment, and its treatment of women among other things.


 * As to whether islam is reformable; of course it is! But not when there is no attempt made by the more progressive swaths of western society to cause the same to occur- instead large numbers of people refer to any criticism of islamic doctrine or the actions of its adherents as islamophobic. I wonder sometimes whether they realize their apologism is the same as saying "it will bother liberal muslims to criticize religious zealots" and how this is the same as saying it will bother the average unitarian or methodist to criticize the Westboro Baptists.
 * Just popping my head in to say: we certainly don't think that there is no such thing as "valid criticisms of Islam", if that was your impression. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Styxhexenhammer666 is alt right, just admit it...
Guys,

We all know most Alt-righters & white nationalists don't like these terms because they're not then taken seriously (these terms are toxic to ordinary people), and so they either play rebranding/re-packaging word games like "race realist", or pretend to be "libertarian" (the YT user "libertarian race realist" is a good example.)

Its clear from Styxhexenhammer666's videos that he's an Alt right looney-tunes and his recent videos about Charlottesville confirm this.

Styx in his videos on Charlottesville defends the far right protesters and only attacks the Antifa side.

On a personal note: I think both sides are as bad as each other, but Styx never criticizes the far-right side, only Antifa.

The whole "i'm a libertarian thing" is just a word game like "i;m not racist, i'm a racial realist!" you're being fooled...Welliver (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * He advocates for granting amnesty to all non-criminal illegal immigrants currently residing in the US. Despite the diversity of thought that may exist on the alt-right, having and espousing that opinion is completely antithetical to the core white nationalist ideology upon which the alt-right is founded and thus he cannot be considered as so; it's a complete non-starter in that realm. I don't think however that it's wrong to say that his content is intentionally catered to an alt-right audience. Judging from the stats of his Patreon account, it appears to have been a good business strategy. 108.30.175.182 (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

He openly states libertarian politics and today made a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO5D4p0zEis talking about the alt-right in a third person perspective where he is highly critical of "them". Labelling him as alt-right is disingenuous and irrational given the evidence. 86.170.203.103 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He lied. 12:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation needed douchebag, any evidence at all that he lied?50.86.22.101 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's Styx openly promoting Stonetoss just a few days ago: https://twitter.com/Styx666Official/status/1286279154955096065 DemSocks (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's funny how for leftists they can describe themselves in the most euphemistic means, while they still hold the privilege to also describe all others, even those they oppose, in the most viciously deceptive and hostile means possible. You know this trash article has zero value for anyone who actually knows what he says and who he is? Ah... of course you do. You just try to discredit him to anyone interested in looking into him. It's a propaganda war - truth does not matter, right? Power above all & "the end justifies the means". It appears it's our fate to be described by our enemies. Marxists are truly the purest of all evils. 2001:16B8:425E:D800:8478:6BB3:5B5D:3C71 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's all they can do, somehow every liberal is an individual, Antifa is not a gang of thugs/organization (Which they are.) but an idea. Yet they view all right of center as alt righters. Styx is a libertarian END OF DISCUSSION. You can't say someone who thinks the alt right is communist and hates communists is an alt righter it shows the people writing this tripe have no concern for the truth. "Reality has a liberal bias therefore we can lie and it's allright." Yeah? and Stalin killed more than hjitler and you're far more like Stalin, rationaliwiki bots.50.86.22.101 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I like rocky road ice cream. 20:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Cookies and cream is the best flavor50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Such a rational response!50.86.22.101 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Styx is triggered
RationalWiki bit starts around 6 minutes in. 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair you guys are a lot more biased then the guys over at wikipedia, Sincerely- TheDarkMaster2
 * To be fair, we never said we weren't biased. We even have a godsdamned disclaimer. 20:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be even more fair, this place is called Rational Wiki, not Rational Blog. If you put *no* effort into removing bias from your articles, then you're just an intellectually lazy piece of filth. Tyrone8934 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "If you put *no* effort into removing bias from your articles, then you're just an intellectually lazy piece of filth." What an adorable ad hominem attack, one that you apparently felt you simply had to add to your comment, given that you made an extra edit just to do that. While it is true that bias should be taken into account and minimized where possible, it is equally true that calling someone out for being wrong is in and of itself a biased thing to do. Styx is full of crap, calling him out on that is biased, that bias is acceptable given the content of the criticism. 16:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Call us intellectually lazy only if your own arguments aren't trite and cliche. You need to understand bias rather than act like it's the worst thing ever and hand wringing about it. It's more accurate to say you disagree with the content and don't like what it says than say it is biased. 18:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Call us intellectually lazy I see your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking. I said "IF you put no effort into removing bias from your articles, then you're just an intellectually lazy piece of filth." The key word here is "if". Why so defensive over a hypothetical statement? Guilty conscience, perhaps? Tyrone8934 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * calling someone out for being wrong is in and of itself a biased thing to do. Where did you get that silly-ass idea? Bias is just an error in processing information. If you criticize someone for being factually wrong, that's not bias. Are you too much of a bum to read some of your own pages before you comment? That's just a rhetorical question. Of course, you are. Tyrone8934 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Are you too much of a bum to read some of your own pages before you comment? That's just a rhetorical question. Of course, you are." Are you too much of a twatwaffle to not use Ad hominem attacks? That is not a rhetorical question, given that your only interactions with other users have been to insult them and declare yourself the arbiter of knowledge. 00:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this your idea of a sick joke? You insult other users all the time, you hypocritical swine! In fact, that's why I feel morally justified in doing the same to you. Tyrone8934 (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Shame there was never an actually rational response to this video.108.208.14.123 (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's 2020 and no such response has been made2600:1702:2A00:D120:DCF2:3E32:1158:5C2E (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they can't! that would require honesty and this group cannot be honest.50.86.22.101 (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking to yourself? 20:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is there still a lack of a truly rational response to the video made by styx calling you out for your double standards. David Pacman is a hack but at least he actually responds to criticism.50.86.22.101 (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No I'm merely agreeing with an old post by another person, we're allowed to do that on the free internet. it's 2020 and there still has not been a refutation of this video by either "rational" wiki or David Pacman.50.86.22.101 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Styx is mad because he's getting called a Holocaust revisionist
it's all a conspiracy 01:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * part deux: rationalwiki is leftist conservapedia 04:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've always found it amazing that internet cranks are unaware of their own insults being applicable to themselves. Comrade GC (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two years later, after several increases in U.S. involvement in the Middle-East and at least one open assassination, the second part of that second Twitter post aged very well... For me. Not for styx, he looks like (more of) an idiot now. 16:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this confirmation that you are Classiclib3ral.2600:1702:2A00:D120:DCF2:3E32:1158:5C2E (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Terms
Is there some kind of term for his particular brand of political views (being rather firmly altright on some issues while totally disagreeing with what most of the altright thinks on others)? Is it altlite or something else?--Klaksozavr (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alt lite is when you agree with the alt right on pretty much everything but you either pretend not to or are a bit less extreme. Christopher (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even when it's on core issues of the altright (e.g. hating gays)?--Klaksozavr (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The "Trump" Shooter
Now many people (Both on this website and off) Have claimed that the recent bombs sent to leading left wingers are the fault of Trump and other right wingers, This Video explains why this is Bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raaEwxTy9zU&t=195s
 * No. The evidence leads to a Trump supporter, therefore that person is to the best of our knowledge likely the culprit. If it had led to a left-winger trying to frame right wingers, we would be opposed to that as well. You don't seem to be able to grasp information and evidence that doesn't fit neatly into your pre-defined narrative, which makes me wonder what the fuck you hope to accomplish here (on a Skeptic website) beyond concern trolling. 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You got a citation? Even if you are whith (Which I doubt) how does that disprove that the MSM and silicon Valley caused this by their censorship. Your missing the Forrest for the trees;
 * Further evidence:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5X59EOGUFs&index=2&list=UU0rZoXAD5lxgBHMsjrGwWWQ
 * TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster
 * Let me guess, that link you just added is to another Styx video. If it is, you're using circular reasoning, i.e. "Styx is right because Styx says he is right." 15:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Uhh no it's a video with more evidence in it, why don't you watch it? Aren't you the GRAMMER Commie?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
 * It's another Styx video. 02:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK then, this twit just used up the last of my patience and goodwill. I can handle being threatened, I can handle stupidity, I can handle ignorance, and I can handle disagreement, but when someone starts lying straight to my face, then we have a problem. 02:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean like what you do on a regular basis?TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)TheDarkMaster2
 * How Is it that a lego youtuber is more rational than this whole wikia?50.86.22.101 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a wikia now. 20:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice necropost. 20:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think TheDarkMaster2 and his IP friends are big fans of this guy. 20:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who? Never heard of the guy50.86.22.101 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never heard of him until this page started getting attention. 20:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Styxfanboy sighs: Lmaoo oh yeah
Lmaoo oh yeah... Thinking something happened slightly differently TOTALLY means that they secretly dont believe it happened at all. You cant have a slightly different opion without being 
 * Well that's the left for ya. Styx is an evil nazi despite being a libertarians and thus less like a nazi than say the communists that run this place2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:B56A:BBE4:74F9:84B7 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the communists that run this place" I think this really says all we need to hear about you when assessing your credibility and judgement. 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do Alt-righters(and occasional angry Socdem) who claim communists run this site never prove their assertions? Like, point out the communist on the mod team please.-Flandres (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly, why am I here? I literally have an anti-communist userbox on my userpage...shouldn't I have been banned by the "totalitarian communists" by now? IveBeenFrank (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Same here. It's also worth noting that a certain Oxyaena, our pet anarcho-syndicalist who loves to fiercely defend communism and anarchism on the Saloon Bar by calling everyone who disagrees with her a "fucking privileged idiot"- and yet we still let her bicker, even though most of us disagree with her. -- Goatspeed. 17:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a Soc dem and I can say point blank this page is very biased against styx, because you view libertarians as Nazis. Which I hope I don't have to explain why that is wrong.50.86.22.98 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you know what's also wrong? Claiming that the Nazi's were socialists. 2003:EE:CF10:FC90:BD11:8FE4:7614:8126 (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a counter argument it's a "what-aboutism"2600:1702:2A00:D120:31C8:C232:69D6:BDD0 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You know for a bunch of rationalists it's very disgusting that when you make a claim about an individual and they address your claim you delete the thread without even commenting on it. I don't care if it's from this individual.
 * https://youtu.be/s7Bk3ACzMvI
 * https://youtu.be/20am_Z57wog
 * https://youtu.be/1v5mvmFM-TI

50.86.22.98 (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Get back to us when you learn basic information evaluation. Tip, when someone's credibility is in question, you don't use them as a primary source for their credibility. It doesn't work with creationists, and it doesn't work here either. 00:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To quote the cretin "Get back to us when you learn basic information evaluation. Tip, when someone's credibility is in question, you don't use them as a primary source for their credibility. It doesn't work with creationists, and it doesn't work here either"

This only applies when the claim is not about the person to which it is about. If I called you a pedophile and you defended yourself saying you were not a pedophile and I in turn said "I don't trust you even though your the person I'm talking about" that would be a logical fallacy. You cannot outright ignore every single time he's addressed the claim just because you don't like them. Yo umight as well lynch every person accused of a crime ever.2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:6958:2FCB:BBBC:5ECC (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * especially when this page flagrantly ignores reality to create a convenient rhetorical angle to attack him. he used to be libertarian? he is a libertarian. he doesn't just say he's a libertarian, he talks about libtertarianism. he's explicitly in the center of the road socially and politically so i don't understand how anyone could construe him as "alt right" (what does that even mean?) unless its just an attempt to smear his character because you don't agree with the political opinions of a guy who calls himself an occult wizard &mdash; Unsigned, by: 170.76.237.251 / talk
 * Except you've both created a false dilemma. Here's how you solve contested credibility. Reliable secondary sources. There, easy. Because someone who's accused of something which might harm their reputation will almost always deny it, even if it's true. Morons. 20:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The HD section is a mess...
... written by someone who is as informed about the Holocaust as Styx.

For example, the claim is made: "He insists that Zyklon B was a mostly harmless delousing agent, and Auschwitz was burning through so much of the stuff mostly trying to keep lice from spreading the typhus epidemic brought about by Allied firebombing.[20] This is false"

Actually most of Zyklon B was used for delousing purposes, and only a small amount was used to kill hundreds of thousands Jews because it doesn't take much to kill people.

Reference: https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0015.shtml

"By far the greater part (over 95 percent) was destined for delousing (effects and buildings) while only a very small part (less than 5 percent) had been used for homicidal gassings."

Another claim: "In the same vein, he supposes the "shower" of Auschwitz to have been an actual shower. The "showers" were, in fact, disguised gas chambers."

That's just meaningless gobbledygook though. Auschwitz had lots of real showers and lots of gas chambers disguised as showers, one doesn't exclude the other.

Fighting ignorance with more ignorance is not the way. 2001:16B8:24E4:F400:F912:C1D3:E2BF:81DB (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to rewrite the section to be more accurate, it would be welcome. Thank you for providing reputable sources. 13:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * i learned that narrative about zyklon B in school from reading some book by ellie wiessel. what do you mean its false? That's what zyklon b was invented for. lice. they used it on the prisoners when they ran out of food. why is this even an argument in this page? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 170.76.237.251 / talk
 * You must understand saying Zyclon B was invented for killing Lice is evil and anti-sematic no matter the context. Because after all there has never been an invention created for benign purposes and later repurposed for ill intent. That has obviously never happened. Alsoa reminder that the clip being used is over 9 years old and out of context.2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:D04D:7C50:7E33:C365 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is the clip being "over 9 years old" relevant? He was a grown man at the time, and it isn't like denying the Holocaust is a normal part of growing up in America. Presumably that's why your lousy excuse is followed up by claiming it's "out of context." But how is it out of context? --Ismailov (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * it's now 10 years old. Though nice to see you think age doesn't matter. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 50.86.22.98 / talk / contribs
 * I don't think age matters in this specific case, and I explained why. If it was something like Warwick being nine years old and shocking his elementary school teacher by regurgitating nonsense he heard from an anti-Semitic uncle, that's one thing. For someone who is deemed old enough to legally drink, drive, and vote to advocate arguments used in Holocaust denial is a very different matter. --Ismailov (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)