I would never accept the opinion of an “orthodox”

His rejection of sedevacantism led to embracing Orthodoxy.

So the principles that militate AGAINST sedevacantism tend towards Orthodoxy.  This thoroughly impugns R&R by the implication that R&R leads to Orthodoxy.

I didn't watch it, but why does the fact that he's EO automatically mean that he isn't right about this.  It could theoretically be the case that SV leads to EO, but that EO is wrong, therefore some other position (either R + R or hermeneutic of continuity) simply has to be correct.

I don't see why that isn't on principle possible. 

His rejection of sedevacantism led to embracing Orthodoxy.

So the principles that militate AGAINST sedevacantism tend towards Orthodoxy.  This thoroughly impugns R&R by the implication that R&R leads to Orthodoxy.

This^^. I am very, very familiar with Dyers arguments. He heavily promotes John Pontrello's book against SVism. 
Dyer is extremely dishonest in his presentations. Like them or not, the Dimond's just destroy him here.

Sedevacantism flirts with schism. Eastern Orthodoxy is just the next logical step.

I didn't watch it, but why does the fact that he's EO automatically mean that he isn't right about this.

It certainly discredits him as a credible source for Catholic theology.

It’s funny, of all the traditionalist groups, those of us who hold the sedevacantist position are always the most vilified, the most marginalized, the most demonized, and the most attacked by those both inside and outside of the Church. Granted, some dogmatic sedevacantists deserve the onslaught, but for the most part, the attacks are baseless, inappropriate, and lack the support of competent and approved theologians. This dumbbell in the video above apparently lost the faith and I never waste my time watching videos from schismatics. For a supposed Catholic to use a schismatic heretic to help prove his point, says all I need to know about him.

I think its less because Sede is (or isn't) the truth that everyone hates to admit, and more just that a lot of sedes are jerks.  Mind, I don't see a whole lot of jerky SVism on this forum, and I see more jerkiness from the R + R camp (which I'm probably closer to) but I see the opposite honestly most other places.  

Like I've literally seen Dimond Bros types borderline literally excommunicate people for having friends that aren't up their level of orthodoxy.  It gets pretty cultic.

Now I definitely think it can sometimes be unfair, and so I try to deal with each person on their own merits.  Also... like... just because a lot of adherents to a position can be jerks doesn't make them right.

But I *do* think there's more going on here than just "people can't handle the truth."

Meg, do you even know what schism means?

Yes, I do. It's the sedes and sedewhatevers who disagree that sedesim flirts with schism. I expect that.

The sedes and sedewhatevers deny that there is a Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox believe that either the Roman Pope has no jurisdiction or authority over them, or that there was never meant to be a Papacy in Rome which heads the entire Church. Take your pick. Either way, as the guy in OP video says, sedevacantism has a lot in common with the Eastern Orthodox.