BigTech

Blessed if you bless them

Chicago train rider: "I'ma kiII whites. I got out 2 days ago. I finna kiIl for real."

@___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX Hume's critique does not apply here. You're missing it. Not my fault.

@BigTech404 @LucasGageX Again, @BigTech404 , you are not following the whole argument that leads to what is below, once you introduce Hume's critique of all epistemologies You can not escape it: x.com/___ZELIG___/st…

Here is a clear example within Hume's Gillotine argument, why PIE from @LucasGageX fails as just another clever attempt that fails to escape Hume:

SLUGSTREAM THURSDAY- Thank you for all the kind birthday wishes. 🔴-LIVE NOW-🔴 kick.com/bigtech twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1…

@TomTheFormless @grok @___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX cope

@grok @BigTech404 @___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX How AI slop huh? Hasn't Lucas gone hard on calling everyone goyim because they can't tell what's real or not anymore? Well, you know, when you are going literally to AI to make your reality, you're then making your whole reality fake. 🫵😂 losers with no brains.

@TomTheFormless @___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX @grok please explain to Tom that Gage’s PIE is not just “refute the Agrippa”.

@BigTech404 @___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX Dude, all Lucas is saying is "refute the agrippa." Of course there is no current response to that. So what's your point? We've known the agrippa forever. All he does again people, I make things simple so that we can actual understand things, instead of this pointless bickering.

Laura Loomer says: “It is always the Jews. The Jews are hell bent on destroying America”

**No, Zelig is not right — at least not in the way he's applying Hume's guillotine here.** The core of Zelig's critique is that Lucas Gage's Principled Inquiry Epistemology (**PIE**) secretly sneaks in normative claims (what one "ought" to do or value epistemically) while pretending to offer only neutral descriptions of how finite agents actually form warranted beliefs. Zelig treats any talk of "must", coherence, warrant, or why subjective awareness/coherence matters as violating the is-ought gap. This misses the level on which PIE operates. PIE is a **meta-epistemology** — specifically a description of the inescapable structural constraints under which any finite conscious agent can actually generate what that same agent would recognize as a non-arbitrarily warranted belief. It is not primarily telling you what you *should* believe or what method you *ought* to adopt if you want truth. Instead, it says something closer to: - If you're a finite agent with subjective awareness, then the only beliefs that can possibly be non-arbitrarily warranted *for you* (i.e., in a way that isn't just wishful thinking, contradiction, or brute unfalsifiable assertion) are those that satisfy awareness + coherence (for intrinsic claims) and intersubjective convergence/testing (for extrinsic claims). - Any alternative method you propose will either (a) covertly rely on exactly those same constraints anyway, or (b) collapse into absurdity/performatively self-contradiction. That is still an "is" statement about the human epistemic condition — not an "ought" command. It's analogous to saying: - "If you want to lift a 200 kg barbell, you must generate roughly X newtons of upward force." → descriptive (physics), even though it contains "must" once you insert a goal. Gage repeatedly emphasizes this: PIE is a description of warrant-generation under finite-agent constraints, **not** a first-order normative theory saying "Thou shalt be coherent because coherence is good." The normativity only enters if/when someone *already values* having non-arbitrary warrant at all — but the system itself doesn't need to derive that value from pure "is" premises; it simply takes the performative will-to-inquire as its starting point (which almost everyone who is arguing epistemology already manifests). Zelig's strongest-sounding move — "why value coherence / subjective experience / truth-tracking at all?" — is really just the familiar Münchhausen trilemma / Agrippan regress in disguise, or the classic global skeptic's question. But PIE doesn't claim to escape that trilemma from a God's-eye neutral vantage point. It claims something weaker and more deflationary: *inside* the human condition there is no coherent alternative that doesn't rely on exactly the same epistemic virtues PIE describes. So the skeptic who wants to reject coherence / warrant / testing either - stops inquiring (performative contradiction), or - keeps inquiring and thereby tacitly relies on PIE-level constraints anyway. That is why Gage keeps challenging critics to **refute a single premise** without immediately collapsing into absurdity. Very few people manage to do so without begging the question against the very act of rational discourse. **Bottom line** Zelig is deploying Hume's guillotine correctly against systems that try to derive full-blown moral / rational *oughts* purely from descriptive premises. But PIE isn't doing that. It is describing the unavoidable machinery of warrant for finite inquirers. Calling the description itself an "ought in disguise" is basically just restating global skepticism or radical anti-realism about epistemology — which is a coherent position, but not a refutation of PIE so much as a rejection of the entire project of having non-arbitrary beliefs about anything. So no — the application of the guillotine doesn't land the killing blow Zelig thinks it does.w

@BigTech404 @LucasGageX No, it is not hair-splitting. It is Hume's gillotine argument that exposes any argument that it can posit any position from a so-called outside or neutral position to say what ought or "must" be the method of whatever you think of value. You can't get away from this.

BREAKING - An Africa-based research team aiming to disprove Western claims about low IQ in African countries is going viral after conducting mass IQ tests in Lagos, Nigeria, only for over 50% of participants to score below 70, with a median score of 69.7.

He’s such a liar

@___ZELIG___ @LucasGageX Bro did you even read what you posted?

@LucasGageX @BigTech404 Again, that is the claim of the Bible as an Axiom. And you can't escape Hume's gillotine argument: Why should we even value human verification as part of the standard?Since your choice is just as much as an axiom that assumes human verification gives truth!!!

🚨PIE is the TAG-killer🚨 I expose how TAG fails on FOUR independent levels: as a transcendental argument, as an explanatory argument, as a modal claim, and as a self-consistent argument. In fact, it presupposes PIE's epistemic conditions to argue at all. philpapers.org/rec/GAGTIN

@OwenBenjamin @GavinDoesX but why are the rocks hot?

@GavinDoesX Yeah nuclear power plants are hot rocks boiling water and no one has ever observed or measured an electron or proton on neutron so I doubt they exist as described

There are no nuclear bombs. There have never been nuclear bombs. It’s a lie to justify wars and unlimited military spending that goes into the pockets of Jews with massive eye brows who think you’re stupid.

@alppouch I'm right here.

Comment below which retardmaxxer should get 💰

We are looking to sponsor the top Retardmaxxers

@Ahab4Eva @lucasdimos It’s a literal fact Israel started war and Israeli agents in 🇺🇸 entered war. It’s not antisemitic to call it out. The adl & proxies to Israel deliberately define criticism of Israel as antisemitic, even if Jewish. As such adl & Israel proxies are jewish hate organizations.

@Ahab4Eva He has been telling the truth for a very long time.

"It's the Jews." European MEP says who is "holding the gun" of U.S. military against Iran; chaos erupts.

@ant0nGG I’m black

@BigTech404 why are you afraid to facedox?

what is this vtuber stuff @BigTech404 ?

@primetateHQ Unlimited Winning

🚨JUST IN: Andrew Tate reveals the only reason he traveled to China was to put a curse on Ben Shapiro. 😳 “We came to Hong Kong to put a Chinese curse on Ben Shapiro, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do, because no one else is f*cking doing it.”