Discussing DAC's past

 So...DAC is short for Darializa Avila Chevelier, a communist who basically won a NYC house primary recently. And yes, I do mean COMMUNIST. Like, not socialist, COMMUNIST. We might have an outright communist house member here given she ran in a deep blue district where the primary is the real general election. And uh...let's discuss it. Because THIS lady? Yeah, she's pretty much the one situation where the centrists red scaring over progressives winning primaries might actually have a point.

Like, this person was praising flat out communist revolutionaries and crap. Especially non white ones, because hey, let's also combine that with an insufferable amount of intersectionality. Like, basically, they're not just a demsoc, they're a tankie who engages in the most obnoxious communist brainrot I've seen outside of reddit and outright communist countries where that brainrot is literally mandatory.

She has said she's distanced herself from those ideas somewhat, but much like with Graham Platner, how much has she distanced herself, REALLY?

She ran on a pretty socdem type platform, admittedly, and does align with me significantly on priorities, even advocating for a UBI (not sure how serious she is about that), so she seems good at first glance, it's only when the oppo research comes out that you realize she's totally NUTS. So idk. I dont know how to feel about her. Neither do a lot of dems. The centrists are screeching like angry chihuahuas at her for just existing, with some even saying we shouldn't seat her. Jeffries seems willing to accept her though, at least showing all that big tent rhetoric isn't just for show. 

Honestly, seating her is probably for the best. I think refusing to seat someone duly elected by their constituents is a crappy move, and likely to incite more division within the party (I probably would go off about it, communist or not). Let's face it, she's SIGNIFICANTLY less threatening than Trump and his ilk right now. And I do think there is SOME room for socialists in the tent. I would just like someone a bit less apologetic for literal communist revolutionaries. 

Like here's my take. It's fine to criticize capitalism. Hell, I'd echo DAC here in saying that Kapital is probably a good book people should read. Agree with it or not, it IS one of the earliest and most thorough critiques of capitalism. I myself have disagreements with Marx, which I have expressed on this blog, but yeah, it's good for its historical contributions to the debate. A bit dense and difficult to read, but eh, again, it kind of produced a huge worldview there. I'd actually say my worldview competes with Marxism's takes, being similar but differing ever so slightly on certain topics, leading to much different conclusions. 

So yeah. Would I feel comfortable voting for this person myself? I mean she isnt in my district, but I feel mixed. On the one hand, hey, an actual UBI supporter, at least in name only. I just wish they didnt engage in so much commie brain rot. Still, as long as she doesnt bring THAT crap to congress, right? Really, couldnt her district choose someone else? Like someone with similar ideas, but WASNT an out and out commie? Still, she was chosen, she is distancing herself from the most offensive positions, and she seems pretty based in her actual platform. So....give her a chance at least. We can always censure her later if she acts up. 

"But but, they'll turn on you!"

 A common argument I hear from centrists trying to talk me out of supporting DSA style candidate is that they'll "turn on me" when they seem me ideologically impure.

Idk what kind of argument this is supposed to be, but it's not convincing. Are centrists my ally? Do centrists support my goals? No. It's like they're entire existence is dedicated to explaining to me in 87 ways how a better world isn't possible, I shouldnt bother, I shouldn't try, no, I'm not getting good things, but I better vote for them anyway. I mean, that's pretty fricking hostile to me. Are centrists my friend? No, they're not. I actually consider them ideological enemies at this point.

Does that mean the DSA is any better? I mean, kind of? But also no. Here's the thing about the DSA. Yeah, they are pretty extreme. Yeah, they're very purity testy. And yeah, I fail their purity tests. I'm a "capitalist", I like UBI. I've seen those guys crap on Yang relentlessly and I understand that they might not like me either. But I am aware of these differences. And the same applies to them. They dont always pass my purity tests. They do better than most, but let's face it, I gotta grade on a curve because NO ONE, and I mean, NO ONE, gets a perfect score on my own tests. I could run for president myself and I'd be grading my own weaknesses as well. And someone like Bernie at best scores around like...80-85/100. 

WIth that said, my vote is transctional. I dont declare loyalty to any group or candidate. If anything, I'm just strategically voting to get what I think is CLOSEST to my goals. My own stances are pretty clear, Im lukewarm on leftists, yeah, I think sometimes their extreme social and foreign policy positions are cringe. Yeah, I dont even align with them entirely on economics. 

But at the same time, are YOU, THE CENTRISTS interested in achieving my goals? Hell no. And you guys clearly despise me, and I despise you. Really, it's just a matter of who I hate less, or like more. And guess what? You guys aint winning. When it comes to change vs no change, some progress vs none, I am pragmatic enough (ironically enough) to align with the faction that will get me closest to what I want. Doesn't mean that I have any illusions about how they view me, or how I view them. I've hashed out these views already. And I crap on both moderates AND leftists. Hell, I crap on everyone,, if you give me enough time. I'm a purity testy ###hole myself. I know I am. A bit more rational than most, but still, purity testy all the same. If you want me to vote for you, you gotta meet MY purity standards. Not the other way around. Again, I have metrics, I measure them. Hell, let's go over briefly why I side with DSA types over moderates.

Basic income

Neither faction supports it. Progressives might be a little more willing in practice, but yeah. Both centrists and leftists are hostile to it: THey might support a CTC expansion but that's it.

Centrists- 2/10

Leftists- 3/10

Universal healthcare

I currently support a strong public option. Centrists will support a weak one at best, or ACA expansions, and most of the time do F all to actually advance that. Progressives support single payer and dogmatically so. I actually like single payer in practice. However, I just back away from it because I prefer UBI. 

Centrists- 4/10

Leftists- 10/10

Economics

Centrists are variable, sometimes offering policies I like, sometimes not. I have to admit they've gotten better on my other priorities and I sometimes align with them more than leftists, but leftists do tend to more strongly support my secondary new new deal priorities. 

Centrists- 7/10

Leftists- 10/10

Social issues

I really dont align perfectly with either faction on social issues. Even centrists tend to lean too obnoxiously into the woke stuff, and tend to be too extreme on guns and stuff at times. They might also offer weird compromises on religious social issues, although this is increasingly rare these days. Leftists tend to lose the plot, go too deep into like "abolish the police" land and can be mega cringe though. I'll go with the centrists here but neither are perfect.

Centrists- 8/10

Leftists- 6/10

Foreign policy

Centrists tend to be near perfect. I would concede the Israel issue somewhat to the left these days, but leftists suck at foreign policy and tend to have an unworkable foreign policy. They mean well but they lose the plot.

Centrists- 9/10

Leftists- 2/10

Ideology/Worldview

Centrists are often a rather poor match, as to some degree they seem conservative in nature and I do tend to have a progressive flair. In a way, despite being practical on solutions I do think like a leftist to some degree. I guess I have a partial match with centrists, but I also tend to a bit better with the left. On economics we both want big things, but we dont always want the same things for the same reasons. On social issues and foreign policy, they get brain worms at times. neither are perfect, and both have pros and cons, but I tend to align a little better with the left.

Centrists- 10/20

Leftists- 14/20

Dedication to progressive goals

Leftists tend to believe in the crap they advocate for. That's why they purity test, they are ride or die on policies and if you flip flop, you will feel their wrath. Centrists....you can never be sure what they're for. They say one thing, do another, and then attack you for wanting things in the first place. Theres a reason I despise many centrists. Cant trust them at all.

Centrists- 2/10

Leftists- 10/10

Experience/Competence

This is where centrists shine and leftists crap the bed. Many centrists have a wealth of experience and institutional knowledge where they know what they're doing and they run a tight ship. Many leftists are green, inexperienced, and dont know wtf they're doing.

Centrists- 10/10

Leftists- 0/10

Electability

Well, the electability debate is out. I would give a slight edge to centrists, but I think it depends on the race and district. Sometimes progressives ARE more electable. Sometimes centrists are. However, I will say this, to win, you gotta run WITHIN the democratic party. And half the time progressives don't. So I'll give an edge to the centrists here.

Centrists- 6/10

Leftists- 3/10

Total

Centrists- 58/100

Leftists- 58/100

This is not intentional, but yeah, they get the same score and have different strengths and weaknesses. Centrists are more institutional, are more pragmatic, but often lack ambition on economics. Progressives have more passion, loyalty to big ideas, but they tend to lose the plot outside of economics and often times...on economics. Seriously guys, no one wants actual socialism but you guys. 

Anyway, why do I go with the left then? Because my top priorities tend to be weighed more heavily to top priorities, so in the event of a close match, Im gonna focus on which side advances my goals better.

Also, this is basically a stereotypical thing. Individual candidate quality can change this. I mean, I was imagining one of the most unhinged types i leftists here. If you get someone more well rounded like Sanders, this goes up to like 80. You can also improve with a moderate if they support good policies, but theyre typically only gonna top out in the 60s.

Either way, it depends. 

But yeah, I know what Im voting for. I have no illusions about it. I dont fully trust lefties. I also dont trust centrists. I think centrists are more well rounded outside of economics, yes, but at the same time, leftists have the big ideas and passion for implementing them that I want from people. So....push comes to shove, I think that's why I support progressives over centrists. That and I was rather uncharitable to the progressives and was assuming DAC or green party level brainrot here. Again, progressives have a much higher ceiling when competent. 

Centrist democrats condemn "socialism" in new "pledge to America"

 So, 13 democrats decided to condemn socialism in their new "pledge to America". *rolls eyes*

This is a virtue signal, and one of the worst kinds. They extol the values of "hard work" and "growth." They condemn the evils of "socialism" as they understand it, insisting we'll never be a socialist country. This basically comes after 3 socialists won primaries in New York. 

Again, I personally dont like socialism myself. I aint huffing whatever THESE guys are on, with their hard work hugboxing, but I ain't big on eliminating capitalism. However, I'll be frank, sometimes it seems like it's only the socialists who actually have a systemic analysis criticizing capitalism properly, and proposing solutions. Many of their solutions arent even socialist in nature, but social democratic. Hell, they propose similar stuff to me. That DAC chick who won in NYC wants basic income and medicare for all. And yeah, I'm now aware she's absolutely coo coo for coco puffs on foreign policy to put it lightly, but yeah, on economics, sometimes it seems like socialists are the only ones doing anything. 

Meanwhile what do these centrist democrats do? Circlejerk all day about work ethic. Constantly miss the point that the economy isnt working, don't do anything, tell us we gotta vote for them or else because they're the only game in town, sign weird bipartisan virtue signals against socialism like 3 times a year, and then when socialists start winning, because they're the only ones who wanna do F all to solve the problems it seems, they get all weird and condemn them for it while doubling down on some of the worst aspects of the existing system, and acting like they're good things.

And I have one thing to say to these people. Screw you, get out of the democratic party and join the republicans already. I've been saying it for years, these guys are republican lites. They literally have ideals closer to republicans than us. Literally. THese are REPUBLICAN PARTY VALUES they're virtue signalling about. if I wanted this stuff, I'd vote republican. I want the democrats to CRITICIZE the system and actually propose fricking solutions. I'm not saying you have to be SOCIALIST. Again, I'm explicitly NOT a socialist. I consider myself a "human centered capitalist." here. Not quite in the same way Yang is, revisiting his stuff, but close to it. I basically understand all that work ethic and opportunity crap aint doing it for us and that yeah, we SHOULD want the government to do more. Again, if I wanted laissez faire economics, ID VOTE REPUBLICAN! But I don't, which is why i LEFT the republican party and joined the democrats. So yeah, if youre gonna do this crap in 2026 when income inequality is at record highs, the job creators arent creating jobs, and everything is prohibitively expensive, fricking be honest about it and get the hell out of the party. 

The reason people are critical of capitalism and increasingly supportive of LITERAL SOCIALISTS is because the democrats arent doing their job as the left wing party. Thse guys SHOULD be pointing out the problems with capitalism and FIXING THEM. The fact that they're NOT is why people are being attracted to radicals. When they're the only ones calling that out and are willing to fix it, people vote for them. Who ever could've fricking guessed? 

Worthless, these people are worthless. These democrats are not just a hugbox of uselessness, but even worse, when someone actually attempts to do stuff, they condemn it. I hope someone primaries all 13 of these guys and throws them out on their ###. Hell, I'll put it in capitalist terms for them to understand. The voters are the bosses, you guys are the hired help. Do your ####ing job, or get ####ing fired already. Sick of this ####. 

I don't want socialism, but I want change

 So, there's a lot of talk about the rise of "democratic socialists" in the democratic party. Some centrists are kind of missing the point, and saying the most deranged crap, going on about brown shirts and how radical these guys are and blah blah blah. Shut up, you sound like republicans. Really, this "leftist derangement syndrome" is insane and honestly, most of these guys are basically just socdems in practice, so you're tilting at windmills over nothing while looking completely ridiculous.

But some are kind of getting it, and I wanna discuss that. Look, the democratic party has been useless for 10 years now. In 2016, a lot of us wanted change. But then we were told we couldn't get change, and that we had to vote blue no matter who. Every election these guys would gloat and act like the most insufferable people on the planet, being such sore winners that it made us almost, kinda want MAGA to win. Because you guys suck that much. Seriously. 

And now we're wondering why socialists are taking over the democratic party. You could only hold back the wave for so long, and after you lost in 2024, people got tired of your crap. So now people are electing leftists. 

And I'm gonna be honest, I don't want "leftism." I'm not a socialist, I'm a social libertarian, which is basically adjacent to social liberalism or social democracy. I want policies like UBI, M4A (in theory, public option in practice), free college, student debt forgiveness, action on climate change, a housing program, and a shorter work week. 

I've been told for years all of this isn't pragmatic and we gotta settle for incremental change while you act more useless than a cable guy from south park. Well, that caused some to radicalize into literal socialists, I didn't follow this trend since I already had an established ideology, but when change doesn't come from within, it's gonna come from outside. When we don't make the necessary changes to our society to make the system work, people are gonna be attracted to more radical candidates....sometimes too radical.

Now, I'm not convinced many of the people running this year are "too radical." Abdul El Sayed, not too radical. People scream ERMAHGERD HE CAMPAIGNED WITH HASAN, but then he just wants everyone to have universal healthcare and for the ethnic cleansing in palestine to end. Graham Platner has some reddit communist ideas, but he seems to have disavowed them, again, running as a socdem. DAC in NYC who everyone is losing their crap about, one of the three who won the other night, people are making a big deal about crap she said on twitter a while back, but again, running more or less as a socdem, on policy I like like M4A, UBI, a higher minimum wage, etc. 

And that's the kind of stuff we need to discuss. I LIKE the fact that we're discussing this stuff. I like the fact that people who wanna take action on it are winning. Now, not all of them want the exact policies I want. I admit that. A standard socdem or DSA type is probably gonna abandon UBI and go all in with M4A and a GND instead. Standard practice for these guys. But when the options are "change" and "not change", well, I'm gonna vote for change. 

And that's where I'm at.

Look, I dont want "socialism" either, and I do think that long term, the prospect of a left wing tea party could radicalize like the right wing one did, to the point we get leftists massively out of step with the american public and reality. It's one of the reasons I think centrists ignore these guys, give an inch and they'll take a mile. But at the same time, the democrats have been resisting the leftward shift that they NEED to take. They are the only ones who have answers, the right doesn't, the centrists don't either. And we do need some form of second "new deal" here. Maybe it wont be UBI. Maybe it will be a more standard fare of policies. But we need SOMETHING. And we are here because right now, the socialists are the only ones who seem willing to make the changes we need. I probably wont align myself with them long term, especially if they radicalize into full blown communists or some crap, but right now, their policies are refreshing. They're running on stuff like a higher minimum wage, medicare for all, a green new deal, etc. And yeah. If the centrist wing of the party doesn't have an answer for that other than their typical hugbox of uselessness, they're gonna lose. 

With that said, this shift in the democratic party is a very good thing. if it shakes things up, and forces the party to reckon with what the future of the US should look like and what changes should be made, good. As I said, I'm a bit more moderate than the progressive wing in some ways, while being more progressive than the centrists. And quite frankly, whichever wing is closer to my goals is the wing I'm gonna go with in any given election. 

So yeah. I'm gonna join the common emerging narrative that centrists need to wake tf up, realize that they can't win on "nothing", and that they need to actually propose some serious legislation to appease the public here. Btw, this is also why we've been losing to MAGA, because they come off as more change agents than democrats are. And they're basically running on trickle down economics. So yeah, either get off your butts and start doing stuff, or you're gonna let the socialists win, and from there, idk where we'll go because yeah, i do see the same risk of a tea party esque escalation trap like the right has been engaged with over the past 15 or so years. 

As I always say, there are 3 forces in politics: progressives, conservatives, regressives. The left are progressives, the right are regressives. The real "conservatives" are the middle. Now, those "conservatives" will always exist. They'll serve as a moderating force on either the regressives, which represents the republican party, or the progressives, who represent this democratic tea party type wave. I'd rather we operate with a paradigm of progressives and conservatives, rather than conservatives and regressives. When the ideological spectrum is neoliberals and MAGA, it's conservatives vs regressives. When it's leftists vs centrists, it's progressives vs conservatives. Those moderate conservative types NEED to operate as a moderating force on the progressive force's worst impulses. But we still need the progressives trying to make society better, or else we risk stagnation and regression. it's all a balance. But when that balance is knocked out of whack, then what happens is you get radicals who keep getting more extreme, the more "polite society" resists making necessary changes. FDR doing the new deal wasn't just to make the american people better off, it was to head off support for both the fascists and the communists, who were at risk of taking over the country during the great depression. We need the democrats to actually do their job as the more progressive party, but not radically so, if we actually want the best results for society. 

And yeah that's how I see it. 

Hey look, this guy is too good for arguing on the internet now!

 ....See? Nobody cares.

 So, this is a new genetically modified skeptic video. And idk, I didn't vibe with this one at all. It just came off as like "arguing on the internet is a waste of time, i could have argued on piers morgan and instead spent 20 hours waiting to testify at the capitol! And idk, he looked so fricking drained. I know I would be. Like "oh god, why am I here? I can be arguing with steve bannon right now." 

But yeah. He literally had an opportunity, argue with steven bannon or go out into "the real world" and do something there. And like many who go out into said "real world", they come back and act all super self righteous for it, acting like arguing on the internet is wasting time and blah blah blah.

now, sometimes it is a waste, and even i tend to get a little too wrapped up in it sometimes. Like I spend too much time arguing with people, and blogging about it, when I could be doing other stuff. but you know, someone has to do it, it's outreach, and it can make a difference. Especially if, like GMS, you have actual reach with your channel. Like dont ever think, if you got 900k subscribers youre wasting your time. Also dont think youre wasting your time if youre debating ideology. That stuff is important as it can define movements. Like, me crapposting on reddit might have actually helped eventually inspire some of andrew yang's philosophy. If you get in with the right people, you can make a difference. 

if anything, for all the talk of "real world" activism changing things, i dont see how. And this is the disconnect I think a lot of people have with this stuff. Like Biden would always talk like he accomplished this, he accomplished that. but at the end of the day, a lot of people are like "did it actually tangibly make my life better? no". I mean, when you got people working all day, their work is their world. And most tend to define their world through said work as a result. But that also leaves people very distracted, and stuck in that little island of life, separated from everyone else. So people spend 40 hours a week working or more, they go home, they're too exhausted to do anything, they get a paycheck, and what do they notice? Rent going up, healthcare going up, groceries going up. And they get angry and vote for fascists like donald trump. because they dont know how to fix it, they see the democrats arent, so they vote for republicans. 

Often times, the right news guy, if they watch the news, or youtube personality is the only way to get through to them. They dont have time to think stuff through themselves so they consume stuff.

but then you guy this guy doing community stuff and its like YEAH THIS IS MAKING A DIFFERENCE. I mean, I wanna quote Thomas Paine here:

 There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed.

 And that's the thing, this itself is a trap. This idea that because you're doing "real world" charity work, youre making a difference. I mean, you might help SOME people, I'm not saying you wont. But are you gonna solve problems? Like on a systemic level? No. I mean, you might think arguing on the internet is like being the kid brother playing on a controller that isnt plugged in, but so is a lot of that stuff. It doesnt fix problems. it makes you feel like you are, but honestly, it's just too much work to solve problems. You need a systemic solution. And when I think of the most influential moments in history, like Jesus with his sermon on the mount, or various philosophers with their texts, or people like Rush Limbaugh, influencers MATTER. And we on the left need influencers. As some have been saying, we need our own Joe Rogan. We need people willing to put on that suit of armor and go out there and slay the dragon...which in this case means debate the fascists. 

I'm not going to say that everyone arguing on the internet is doing so effectively. Im not saying it changes that many minds. A lot of the time, it is a relatively thankless task. And maybe for some, it doesnt get the old dopamine centers in the brain going like real world interaction does. But yeah. Idk, as I see it, someone has to do it. otherwise the other side wins the ideological war to change peoples' minds. 

We need people who fulfill different roles. Some are good for in person real world things, but hey, dont knock the online crap, dont knock the arguing. Idk, it just comes off as self righteous. And then them talking about struggling and acting like they made a difference because they had to take care of a screaming kids or something, and how REWARDING that stuff is....ugh...no, can we NOT? Again, it's good SOME people get off on that, but I don't. And maybe I'm too terminally online here, but that's how I view it. Like, I just don't see the point. I dont think I would get enjoyment from that. I would find it very stressful. So stressful I'd probably be like "man I could be arguing on the internet right now instead of doing this." Or, you know, not just arguing, but you get the point. Point is, idk, I LIKE my quiet life of nto having to do a lot of in person things. Like, I watched another video where Linus worked at a tech mall in china for a day. And idk, again, I would find that stressful. Even if I like computers and could possibly enjoy troubleshooting stuff or doing tech support, I could see the pressure of the time sensitive nature of the job, the compulsion to perform quickly and well to be overwhelming. it would suck the enjoyment out of it. And yet, people act like this stuff is fulfilling, it just isn't to me.

Maybe I'm just different due to likely being autistic, but yeah.

I'm not saying this stuff to dunk on anyone who actually enjoys IRL stuff. I mean, we need people who do different roles, I just look at GMS and his choices and Im like "oh god, I'd rather do debate crap any day of the week than this crap." Even if I get burned out on it sometimes, and I DO get burnout from doing it too much, trying too hard, trying to force things, etc., I do get compassion fatigue and dillahunty syndrome, but a lot of that is because I dont really take care of myself and disconnect and chill sometimes.  And some of it is because people are genuinely morons. Idk, like, I should try to chill out and do other things sometimes too. Instead of feeling a compulsion to perform 24/7. Even though I hate the protestant work ethic, I get very work ethicy sometimes in my own life and I end up pushing myself too hard, rather than letting myself be rejuvenated and refreshed from breaks and occasional disconnects.

But that's a lot different than being like "debating is totally a waste of time, so why not engage in IRL charity work instead?" Again, if you're an extroverted person, maybe you like that stuff. I would find that to be hell. So nah, back to my cave with me. I'm good, GMS, really. You do you, though. 

Gaming on a 6650 XT in 2026

 So, this isn't gonna be a hard benchmark video or anything, but I get annoyed by comments i see online. ERMAHGERD THE STEAM MACHINE IS A PAPERWEIGHT, YOU CAN'T RUN GAMES ON 8 GB VRAM! and crap like that. Uh...no, it's not a paperweight. It's perfectly capable for today's games. It's not ideal, but it's not unusable. 

I mean, I've games on crap systems before. I used to game on integrated. I've pushed old laptops to their limits. Ive occasionally had to go back and test old GPUs as newer ones died and i had to wait for a replacement. I know what true "low end" gaming is like. I know what it's like trying to squeeze every frame out of a laughably inadequate system is like. No. THe steam machine is not a paperweight. It's not great value for the money, and I'll even admit, it's not futureproof. But acting like you CAN'T game on it is ridiculous. 

I would know more than most what a steam machine is actually like because my daily driver is functionally equivalent to one. My main GPU is a 6650 XT. it's roughly as powerful, has 8 GB RAM. In practice, it's...give or take, as capable as a steam machine. 

If anything, the rest of my machine far exceeds the steam machine. I got a i9 12900k with 32 GB DDR5 RAM. i dont keep XMP on as it's still under warranty and I quite frankly dont NEED the performance bump, but I also used to game on a 7700k with it, which is a bit weaker than the steam machine CPU. I can discuss my experiences from 2023 running it that way, but yeah, CPU bottlenecks are annoying. 

So, first of all, let's establish the standard. The standard is basically...60+ FPS, 1080p. Beyond that, I don't care how I get there. If I can run stuff on ultra, I'll run on ultra, if I have to run stuff on low, I will on low. If I gotta turn FSR on, I'll turn it on, but I prefer not to.

Generally speaking, this is a low-medium card. I'll be blunt. It does not run most games at high or ultra settings these days. I mean, just to give you an idea how games run on it:

Doom the dark ages- low settings, FSR on, but with sharpening to make it look native. I tried running it at 60 native but I did get some hitching. Part of this seemed to be VRAM, but part of it also seemed to be the fact that the game just runs poorly on all RX 6000 series cards for some reason. Not the first time doom did that to me. I know Doom 2016 ran weirdly like this back on my GTX 760 back in the day. ID tech games seem to run like magic on new cards, very well optimized, but on older ones, performance is a bit borderline. Still, it runs, and it was playable. And it wasnt a bad experience. And given this is one of THE toughest to run games, yeah. It kinda sets the baseline.

Battlefield 6- This is my "main game", it looks amazing, and I spent a lot of time tweaking it to my liking. originally I ran like medium/medium-high, but I'd run into a VRAM limitation where I'd start dropping down to 30 FPS every so often, so after significant tweaking and turning future frame rendering on, it runs at like 100 on average generally, minimums in the 80s, which is how I like it. It's low-medium mostly, but with high textures, ironically. But yeah. Looks great, runs great, all native resolution. 

Call of Duty Black Ops 7- While previous CODs typically ran at high or ultra, this one runs closer to medium. And I did have to use an upscaler to get the most out of it, otherwise it would hover around 60 FPS, when in reality, for a game like this I'd like it to run above like, 80 at all times, so I ended up settling on fidelity FX CAS. Gives it a native like look but with the performance of upscaling. Anyway, runs great. 

Outer Worlds 2- Native resolution, medium low, runs around I'd say, 80ish FPS. Havent checked recently, but yeah. Could get more if you upscale. You can ALWAYS get more if you upscale. if you upscale enough you can get insane FPS on this card in most games. BUT...it looks horrible so native it is. And yeah, that limits me, again, to low-medium settings. 

Heck, that's kind of the trend with everything relatively demanding. Wanna play, say, starfield? low medium. Callisto protocol, which came free with the card? Low medium.

Dont get me wrong, older games run great. Typically high-ultra at high FPS with no ray tracing, but yeah. Great experience. Even cyberpunk runs like 60+ on like high-ultra without ray tracing. 

And yeah, that IS a necessary compromise, these older AMD architectures have poor RT abilities, so yeah, you cant really ray trace in most games while getting above 20-30 FPS. Of course, nvidia cards, or cards with 8 GB RAM in general don't really do great either. You kinda need to pay 2-3x as much for a card to be able to reasonably do that stuff.

Which kinda brings me back to a point I've always noticed on hardware forums. Most of the people who post on them these days are not scrappy middle class buyers with 3060/4060 tier hardware like your median gamer on steam hardware survey. They're these hardcore enthusiasts with 1440p or 4k setups, they want high FPS (120FPS+), and they often wanna play with ray tracing. And, of course, if you try to game on ultra at a high resolution with ray tracing, yeah, this card is gonna get CRUSHED. It's literally not designed for that. It never was. It was a 1080p oriented card released 4-5 years ago now (6650 XT is 4 years old, but the underlying architecture was released in 2021, with the 6600 XT originally being a $400 1080p card competing against the 3060 ti). It's always had inferior ray tracing, it doesnt have DLSS, and it didnt make sense at $400, which is why it quickly went down to $230-250ish just a year or two later. And at that price, it was great for those of us who saw the writing on the wall with our aging 1060/580 type GPUs. And honestly, it's been a decent card. it's not perfect. The 8 GB VRAM buffer is the worst aspect of it, but still, it runs stuff on low-medium perfectly fine, and if youre like me and you're fine just playing the game at a decent FPS and getting SOME decent experience out of it, it's fine. 

I will say it's had some quirks though. While the problems of AMD drivers are exaggerated, problems exist. Like when I first got it, I decided to use Crysis and Crysis 3 as benchmarks. And Cry engine does NOT like AMD cards. I know this was true back in the day as well in some regards, but yeah, it did stutter a lot more than I hoped. Now, with crysis 1, I blame the CPU. I ran it on a 7700k, and was HEAVILY CPU bottlenecked. And that's kind of the issue with crysis as a benchmark in the modern day. The game wasnt designed with multithreading in mind so basically it runs on 2 threads and the rest of your CPU is idle, and the CPU is now the benchmark. And while I was getting like 120 FPS, it felt like a stuttery mess, because CPU benchmarks DO feel like that. heck, COD games like MWII, MWIII, and BF games like BF1, BF5, and BF2042 all ran with a horrible stutter on it simply because I had a CPU bottleneck early on. This alleviated itself after getting the 12900k, proving it was indeed the poor CPU that held me back, but yeah. Would a 3600x tier CPU do better? A little, but I do suspect that it might be too little in some instances too. You dont really wanna game with a CPU bottleneck, and for as much hate a weak GPU gets, I'd take a weaker GPU like a 6650 XT over a weaker CPU like a 3600x or 7700k these days. Because at least with the GPU, the games mostly feel smooth and can be scaled to the GPU in question, as long as it's not horribly weak or outdated. CPUs, you run games at that frame rate and if you dont like it, tough. It's one of the reason I got such a bonkers CPU with such a "weak" GPU. The other reason being microcenter deals. Seriously, $400 for the CPU, motherboard, AND RAM. A typical CPU upgrade runs $500ish when you do that, and that's for a mid range build. $400 is like a budget upgrade, $300 being ultra budget, and $600 being more premium. So....this isn't really out of sync money wise with the price I aimed for.  But I digress.

Another issue I had with the AMD side of this card was the game delta force. It's basically a F2P Battlefield 2042 type title, it's pretty good, highly recommend it if you cant afford BF6 and want a BF experience. But yeah, it kinda ran weird on AMD cards for a while. It got better over time, but yeah, there was a certain stutter that seemed related to AMD drivers and yeah. It did make the frame pacing highly inconsistent. 

Now, for a lot of steam machine buyers, they're likely not gonna play these kinds of titles. As people can tell, I like playing multiplayer FPS. But steam hardware aint good for that. You normally need a native windows environment due to anti cheat, and half of the above games won't even run on a steam machine running steam OS. Speaking of which, what kinds of games do steam machine buyers play? Well, a lot of people attracted to the deck seem to play indie games. They play relatively simple, low requirement 3D games like subnautica and stuff. Ya know, stuff that runs on 10 year old hardware just fine. So....if one of those super weird, trendy niche SFFPC buyers who dont care about playing the best, you just want a living room experience playing low spec games, yeah, this machine is overkill. 

As for how futureproof it is. How long is a 6650 XT tier card going to last? Under normal circumstances, no RAMpocalypse, I'd be aiming for 2027 to replace it. I'd expect the 6000 series nvidia cards and their AMD equivalent to be out by then, and hopefully we'll get a decent bump over the 5060/9060 XT, with 12-16 GB VRAM becoming standard. Honestly, I prefer to upgrade when I can double my performance, and my next card is probably going to REQUIRE more VRAM. Seriously, when I think about what's gonna kill my current card's viability, it's not the raw power. It's the VRAM, and probably AMD's shoddy driver support for older architectures. Keep in mind I got a 6000 series card, whereas the steam deck is 7000 series. Despite the 6650 XT and 7600 being functionally about the same, AMD has been seemingly leaning toward sunsetting support on the 6000 series earlier than the 7000 series. Which is...well...an AMD issue. They're infamous for that. But still. The point is, when I look at future titles and this GPU starting to show its age, it's not the raw power that's gonna be the biggest issue. I mean, you can always scale down the resolution more and more, and I dont see a huge jump in power any time soon, even with "next gen consoles" around the corner (given the economic situation). It's the VRAM that ultimately becomes the factor of "yeah, either this GPU runs the game fine or it's a stuttery 15 FPS experience." It's ultimately driver support that determines "will this game even start?"  

Now, given the fact that even before RAMpocalypse, you were looking at $350 just to get more than 8 GB VRAM, and even the base 9060 XT and the 5060 both having 8 GB,  it's possible that 8 GB was gonna be the standard for running a game for another 2 years or so, but I think that might be extended further given the crisis and the fact that next gen consoles are likely going to have a several year phase in period. It would be a gut punch to anyone who bought a current gen 8 GB card to not get support. Still....I know how these things go historically and uh...remember the 960 2 GB? At this point, Im sitting here on the equivalent of the 660 ti in 2015, and people are buying 960s. Now, maybe if you could afford that fabled 970, you'd be good for a while (equivalent of buying say, a 5070 today), but below a certain price range? Yeah, you're boned. And right now, you need to pay around $450 to get a decent GPU that isnt 8 GB (intel notwithstanding). 

So yeah. I jsut cant see them requiring 12 GB for games in the next, say, 2 years or so. Like HARD requiring it. It would screw over much of the existing PC market with no real affordable replacement. So with that said, I'd expect the steam deck to be relevant for 2 years at least.

Still....is $1050 a good deal for a machine that might lose its relevance 3-4 years from now? Hell no. A $1k PC should last, I'd say, about 4-6 years without too many issues. The Steam Machine is using what amounts to 3 year old mid range parts NOW (comparing to the 7600). Assuming a 5-6 year lifespan, that's 2-3 years left. 

But at the same time, I'm just trying to prove that, yeah, you can game on it. Some people are acting like this is obsolete TODAY, and it's a paperweight TODAY, and that just ain't true. It will be eventually, but if we wait long enough, so will everything. I'd say the steam machine's hardware is dated, I wouldnt recommend buying it at the price it's at, but can you game on it right now? Yes. It'll probably be fine until we get next gen consoles and we see a rapid increase in system requirements that goes along with that. Which...we might see next year, but I honestly dont think they'll push the requirements too hard until people can actually afford the hardware to run the next gen games. 

Again, I'd say it'll be fine for probably 2 years. After that it gets iffy.  

Contrasting Yang's ideology with my own

 Just as I don't fit exclusively within the DSA led progressive wing of the democratic party, neither do I fit exclusively into Yang's ideology either. Both of us have similarities, but we have major differences.

Core similarities

Both of us are members of basic income's third wave, ie, the wave of support that happened after the 2008 financial crisis pushed us toward new solutions to deal with the economy.

Both of us recognize the current jobs based system isn't working. Both of us are for UBI. Both of us were initially for medicare for all but shifted in a more public optiony direction. Both of us are for "human centered capitalism." We seem pretty similar, but we're also much different.

Working class vs entrepreneurial class

Perhaps the biggest difference is our backgrounds. I'm from a more lower middle class background, and in my adulthood, Ive become a bit of a self described champion of the working class. I come at the topics of economic change from a left populist standpoint, combining the class consciousness aspect of things with a more reformist, capitalist outlook. But the whole point of these policies and ideas is to challenge the left. Yang sees himself more as a moderate and a problem solver. I'm less compromising and more ideological, he's more compromising and pragmatic. Basically, I'm more radical, and he's more moderate.

Human centered capitalism

For me, human centered capitalism is a philosophy. It's based in humanism, and defines my ideological goals. It challenges the existing worldview based on fundamentalist christian hegemony and the protestant work ethic, and is intended to be a counter to it, citing that human institutions exist to serve us, work is merely a means to an end, and gee maybe we shouldnt spend all of our time working and focus on things other than GDP than growth.

Yang's take is a bit more...surface level. Its like came into contact with some iteration of my ideas via scott santens and used it in a more pragmatic way. He still wants to downplay GDP and have human centered institutions, but his big goal was to push his american scorecard thing, representing his more pragmatic technocratic background, whereas my goal was an ideological recentering of our institutions in a way to serve us better.

On work

For Yang, work is generally a good thing. He fundamentally believes in the American dream and that work gives people purpose and structures their lives. He just understands that work isn't working and we need some way to take care of people as we automate jobs and the job markets are disrupted.

I'm more explicitly anti work. I want to actually move away from our obsession with work. It's part of the reason my human centered capitalist vision is designed as it is. It's designed explicitly to reorient how we approach the economy morally, and to break all that protestant work ethic nonsense.

I recognize that no matter how ambitious Yang is on the economy, that the powers that be will resist his policy prescriptions. Because we got a huge moral problem with work. Yang is a little too naive and practical for his own good, not understanding this. Anyone who has studied the issue thoroughly knows the issue isnt whether we CAN make a world with less work, the real question is whether that's actually desirable. For me it is, for those in charge it isn't. Even Yang seems to struggle with this, given how we've been brainwashed as a society to be pro work, and given his entrepreneurial nature, i dont think he's truly against work. This is why he's experimented with ideas like "social credit" (not China's social credit, but an alternative currency for doing odd jobs) and stuff. He actually sees the idea of men who don't work as sad and thinks their lives will go badly because humans fundamentally need work. Meanwhile, I see the aspects of the current system that try to coerce people into work. So my focus is on changing the social stigma around not working, making it more acceptable, and crafting a society that allows people to opt out. So my vision is more transformative than Yang's. 

UBI and healthcare

Yang's policy expertise (or lack thereof) kind of shows through with his policy ideas. He developed his UBI assuming that the wealthy would stop hiring people and we can't rely on income taxes. So he funds it via a consumption tax. I fund mine on an income tax, seeing it more as a redistribution from the rich to the poor, and understanding that these MFers will always create new jobs for people to do. They wont be good jobs, and they'll pay poorly, but UBI for me, is intended to work around these tendencies. Again, Yang just sees UBI as a pragmatic solution to the problems of the current economy.

On healthcare, we shifted to a public option for different reasons. he got scared off of the logistics of shifting. I dont think the logistics are a problem as any plan would have a reasonable phase in. Even my public option would be similar to the early phase ins to single payer, I just stop at it being a public option and dont ultimately outlaw private insurance or force everyone onto the public plan. 

I see Yang as not knowing what he's doing a lot of the time. he comes up with ideas, doesn't know how to implement them, does it poorly and backs away from stuff. I know what I'm doing, and make my decisions a bit more strategically and with intent. Just the benefit of understanding the issues and the policies more deeply. 

On ideology and compromise

 Due to my working class background and humanist ideology, and desire to crush the republican party and its current ideological hegemony, I'm less likely to compromise. I know what I want and my goal is to get it and win. yang....he seems more willing to compromise. More willing to build relationships. More willing to abandon ideas. And this kind of makes me frustrated with him because he seems to not keep his eyes on the prize. He also seems to diverge into other issues, going into stuff like political reform, which is also important, but then kind of backing away from his core 2020 ideology to make others happy. He's also doing this cell phone thing to try to get people less hooked on smartphones. Meanwhile, as an anti work enthusiast, I dont see the time "wasted" on the internet as wasted. This is, also, to some extent, a generational issue. Being younger, I'm more open to technology while older generations are more in that "back in my day we went outside" mode. 

Conclusion

So, with that said, Yang and I are fairly similar in our ideologies, but we also have significant differences. Ultimately, it really does come down to working class populism vs upper class technocracy, as well as ideological dedication to goals, vs pragmatism and willing to compromise. In a way, Yang is more like an "establishment" type figure on UBI, and yes, I know he's anti establishment himself, but he really lacks that anti establishment populist vibe, and I tend to offer that instead. Like, he IS anti establishment, dont get me wrong, but in a much softer way. I'm more hard nosed, more like a bernie sanders in that I'm more fiery, more ideological, seem more aware of what we're up against, and more knowledgeable in getting us where we need to go. 

Contrasting with the DSA types

 While my ideological goals are closer to Yang than they are to what the DSA types want, I still have that DSA like populist vibe, where I have a leftist critique of capitalism, but I also have more liberal solutions. Yang is just, a moderate lib through and through. he positions himself from the center with his version of the ideology, I position myself with the fiery, populist left. it's why I end up, push comes to shove, falling in line with the left sometimes. Because sometimes Yang just seems to lack that authenticity. Again, he's too pragmatic, he offers too many compromises, there's too much wondering "will he actually do what he says he will do?" I'm more thoroughly loyal to my own ideas, I dont care about compromise, and I care about pushing my goals, even if it does, sometimes, make others unhappy. 

Idk, just how I see it.