The Guy Christensen situation is wild

 So, Kyle Kulinski just had a guy named Guy Christensen on his show, and man, this situation is WILD. So guy Christensen is a pro Palestine activists. Ya know, one of the more annoying "free palestine" ones who were super early and super militant/opinionated. However, despite whatever disagreements I might have with him, I would say this, as long as he's expressing his views peacefully, he deserves free speech.

But did he get free speech? NOOOO!!!!! And that's concerning to me. His story kinda sounds parallel to Nick Fuentes' villain origin story on the right. THis guy started out apolitical, but felt what was going on about Palestine was wrong and started talking about it. This led to all kinds of crazy crap including being bribed, doxxed, threatened, censored off of social media, kicked out of his college, etc. over his views on Israel/Palestine. Like, they basically tried bribing him to be pro Israel, and when that didnt work, they basically censored him, and even tried to ruin his life. It's wild.

Honestly, my opinion on free speech is this: unless your views are so extreme you're inciting violence or calling for actions that would, in some way, fundamentally violate peoples' rights in an extreme and obvious way, you shouldn't be censored. We have a free market of ideas, and that should be respected. I wont say I'm QUITE a "free speech absolutist" any more after witnessing the rise of literal open fascism in America, but I still try to push it to as much of an extent as reasonably possible. And I think being critical of israel and supportive of palestine falls within that realm of acceptability.

But...here's the thing....Israel....is basically committing information warfare on social media and the American people. Christensen even discussed this in his view. They view social media as a new battleground, and they wanna win at all costs. And apparently that involves bribing our politicians, and bribing influencers, and trying to silence and censor and violate the rights of those who wont play ball. It's all about total information control and crushing dissent. And we have a good picture of this. Some on the right have discussed this, heck, it's why Nick Fuentes went into the full anti semitic nazi direction, and some on the left are reporting the same thing. So this is all over the spectrum. It's an establishment/anti establishment thing, with the establishment waging an information war against the anti establishment factions. And they're trying to control all levers of power, lock down the internet, and shape discourse in their image. 

And....it sickens me. This is why I've been turning on Israel SO HARD lately. I mean, again, let's go back to October 7th 2023. I was sympathetic. I saw them as the victim. I saw Hamas as radical terrorists (and quite frankly, they still are, let's not get it twisted). And I studied the conflict's history and was more sympathetic toward Israel. But then Israel started bombing more and more civilians, and lost the pretense of being the "good guys" in this (there are no good guys in the israel-palestine situation tbqh, just different factions of genocidal radicals), and buying off our politicians, and censoring the opposition, and honestly? I've just soured on them more and more.

We have this foreign power coming into OUR country, centered on FREEDOM, including FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND RELIGION, and basically trying to limit what we can say and tell us how we conduct themselves. And my honest opinion, as a freedom loving American, is that they can kindly F off. 

I know they love to cry foul and scream anti semitism any time they get push back, so I wanna make this clear. 

In America, we have freedom of religion. I have nothing against "all Christians", or "all Muslims" or "all Jews." I mean, I'm critical of ALL religions, don't get me wrong, I'm basically a secularist who thinks that we're better off without religions, including all three Abrahamic ones. Really, I'm kinda soured on religion in general. BUT...you know what? You have freedom of speech and freedom of religion too. 

My problem is with the EXTREMISTS. It's with the people who try to inject their BS into politics and use it to force people to live a certain way. We always love to scream about how extreme some muslims are and how they're for sharia law and oppose western values. I dont believe all muslims are extreme, I think a lot are peaceful people, but you know what? Some are. And F those guys. I don't support Islamic terrorists. But that said, we say this stuff about Muslims, but then we ignore the Christian extremist problem in the US, with Christian nationalists being up to 40% of the population and being a very scary political coalition that threatens the foundations of our democracy. But they somehow get a free pass despite wanting to impose the Christian version of sharia law on us.

And what of Jewish extremists? These "zionist" types? They are those extremists. They're fighting a war straight out of the book of Joshua against their neighbors and acting like they alone are entitled to the land they live on by the fiat of God. And that it's totally okay if they just wage war and slaughter their neighbors to do that. I mean, again. It was okay in Joshua, why is it not okay in the modern day? But that itself IS the problem with religious fundamentalists. They dont understand their texts were written in different times and in the modern day come off as barbaric. And they just decide, well, it was okay then, it's okay now, God said so, and they basically want to impose their beliefs on others and oppress them. That's my BIG problem with religion at this point. I mean, again, im critical of all religions, but if you're peaceful, meh, live and let live. I mean, I'm not so much of a new atheist I'm gonna insult the beliefs and customs of someone who isn't even challenging me to a debate or isn't trying to make their religion somehow political, and therefore, ALL of our problems. It's kinda like the "predator" aliens. Ya know, they only go after warriors, not innocent civilians. Same with me, I'm to the point, I'm not gonna really push the religion thing with you unless you make it my problem, or everyone else's problem. So get the hell out of here with that "antisemitism" crap. I have nothing against you as long as youre sane enough with your religion that you're not imposing it on others.

but that's the problem with these militant zionist types, they ARE making it political. And they ARE waging an information war against us. And they ARE trying to impose their beliefs on the American population through force. And THAT'S my problem with these guys. I feel like THIS IS SPARTA, ya know, we're living in 300, and these guys are the persians buying off our senators in order to sow discord from within. And that's my problem with Israel here. 

They're getting so involved in our politics, that they're violating the free speech rights of critics against them. They're getting so involved, they're buying off our politicians. They're getting so involved, they're getting us involved in WARS that should have nothing to do with us. Including Iran. Six more valiant American soldiers fallen today. Six people with their lives ahead of them. And for what? For Israel? F Israel. Let them fight their own goddamned wars with their own goddamned money. Leave us out of it. And when you commit war crimes, yeah, some people are gonna be critical of you, as they should be. Just because you were a victim on october 7th doesnt mean you have an unrestricted license to commit war crimes, just as just because we were victims on 9/11, doesn't mean Bush was justified in all the BS he tried to pull. 

And yeah, that's my view. Let Guy Christensen go to college, let him get a degree, and let him speak truth to power on a literal fricking genocide happening in our midst. The rules based US led liberal order....is morally superior because it is rules based. It is those rules, and those high minded ideals behind those rules that make them superior. Without them, we just have might makes right. Being rules based means following the fricking rules. Israel is not only not following the rules, but not even showing the pretense of trying to in good faith. So F them. Expel them from the world order. That's how I see it.

  And before people ask "but what about Trump?" Yeah. I believe he should be tried for severe moral/legal violations too in so many ways. He already had 34 felonies, and shouldn't been punished for them. He should've been tried for the other 60something that were against him too. He should be tried for the many many numerous severe violations that he's incurring during his presidency. He never should have been allowed to be president again after the crap he pulled on the way out last time. I'll stand by that. And I honestly think he's complicit in the Gaza genocide too. I believe he's committing serious war crimes in Iran. In Venezuela. I believe his immigration policy is basically a literal crime against humanity. And yeah, the list of crimes this guy should be tried to is just getting longer and longer. 

Again, the rules are what make us morally superior. They're supposed to be what separates the west from the authoritarianism of the east. Of the likes of russia and china. Of the likes of theocracies like, say, Iran, since that's a big topic in the news these days.  Again, the rules and morals those systems are based on, are what give them our moral superiority. They ARE why we can say that we are better than the rest of the world, and that the world should follow our lead. They're literally what makes us the good guys. Without them, we have nothing. We are just another bad guy. No better than the people we regularly criticize. Israel is no better than Hamas. We're no better than Russia, China, or Iran under Donald Trump. Because we dont support those rules, we dont support those values, and we lose all moral claims to being the morally superior party. 

 So yeah. Again, I know, this is getting rambly, but that's how I see it. I'm framing it like this because it's so easy for people to say 'well you just hate the Jews" or "you hate America", bull, fricking, crap. I love the moral values that are supposed to make us superior. And I still believe in them. Those I'm criticizing don't. And that's the problem. I believe in free speech, I believe in freedom of religion. I believe in human rights. In freedom. In live and let live. My issues are with those who don't, because they're just another tyrant that are a real threat to those values. And if you have an issue with what I'm saying while cloaking yourself in self righteousness, well, look in the mirror. Maybe you're the baddie. Just saying. 

Yeah...that coalition with MAGA TYT was trying to build was a stupid idea

 So...as we know, Cenk Uygur of TYT tried to reach across the aisle with MAGA to appeal to them on the idea of populism, and...it's not really working. And the humanist report just had a video basically gloating about it in a 'see i told you so" kind of way, and while I understand it content wise, I kinda didnt like the tone.

I mean, I was always skeptical of TYT reaching out to MAGA, because politics is a left/right issue, and the problem of the establishment is one of corporate power. But that doesnt mean that you try to build a coalition with these irrational right wing populists. As noted in previous articles I wrote on it, it's largely a worldview issue. And that's where THR and I agree. Mike talks about trying to reach out to MAGA family members and those guys being so insanely brainwashed they're unreachable, and they are. Like...80% of the MAGA base, or around 40% of voters, are like this. They're a lost cause. Which is why no matter how bad trump gets, he seems to stick around a certain floor of support. Trump's numbers are resilient despite how bad he's doing because his supporters are just too far gone. They really are. I mean, we saw this with Iran recently. originally, 20-27% of people seemed to support the war in Iran. This seems to be going up to 40% now. What happened? MAGA decided to suddenly back a war because Trump did it. And these are the kinds of people Cenk was trying to reach. Oh, they're anti war? Are they? I mean they were, until they were for it. And they kinda flipped on a dime here. The fact is, they're very much now pro war, because they got marching orders from their boss and now suddenly support him. These guys are the kinds of people who would drink the Kool Aid if Jim Jones told them to. 

And that's the problem with trying to appeal to MAGA. Sure, maybe like 15% of Trump 2024 voters are reachable. However, these are the people who supported him last year when he had 50-51% approval rating in line with his vote share...and now he's down to 42-44%, where he is toay. Yeah, things can shift something like 7-9%. And that's what we see in polling. But again, that's only around 15% of Trump's base. The rest of them are die hards for him. 

And yeah. Mike talked about something that's important, and it's what I mentioned in regard to ideological trajectory too in the past. What determines trajectory is worldview. Worldview is an anchor. When people talk about "leaving the left", often times it's because they're just ideologically unmoored from it. However, with me, it's different. Because my values are consistent, and I know what my values are. I am mature enough to know where i do and dont fit into the coalition and how to pick and choose my battles without turning into a rightoid. Many fear people "leaving the left" because they fear people questioning and rejecting their ideology. But what makes me so consistent is i can actually have certain debates over specific topics or nuance, whereas most actual "left the left" types just have no coherent worldview or set of values. i do believe at the end of the day cenk does have some left wing values, although they do shift right on some issues, and that they disagree with the so called "max left", which is the topic of this video, Mike kinda going full blowhard in saying the max left was right. Well...yes and no. I do think there are issues worth considering a tactical retreat from based on polling, some of the less popular trans stuff with 20% of the population, some level of immigration and guns. Being a dogmatic extremist idiot just turns off people who dont share those values at times. You gotta bend. but you can only bend so much before you either break or make a poorly aging tactical error. I dont think cenk sold out, but he did make an error in thinking he could align with MAGA. And yeah, Mike called it, as did I. It's always been an ill advised alliance with them not having a good chance to win people over.

And you know what? You need to hammer that home with that 15%+ of MAGA that is reachable. Some have shifted already, others may be thinking about leaving. And right now with the war in iran, if you notice, I kinda frame things on "america first" terms sometimes. Now, I do it from a point of genuine conviction, but I do spin it like "okay so werent half of you anti war? where are you now? dont say WE hate the troops, we arent the ones causing another iraq, etc." Ya know? Use that crap against them. Because to some degree theres nothing wrong with a country prioritizing its interests. It's just a matter of actually identifying what those interests are and how to best achieve them. And that's where i disagree with "america first" types most. I dont think pure isolationism is a good thing. i think it's short term thinking. I dont think this "murica F yeah" attitude is helpful and it creates resentment. The best way to achieve "america first" goals is through multilateralism and the rules based liberal order that we had until trump undermined it. And I know this because 1) i've studied this academically in college, and I understand international politics quite well, and 2) I've lived through the bush years, and even Trump bashed Bush for getting us into unnecessary wars. 

And again...if these people cared about principles...they SHOULD be against this war. But they're not. Because they're in a cult. Period, plain and simple. And yeah, most of MAGA is a lost cause. And you cant exactly reason people out of positions they didnt reason themselves into. You need to BEAT them and DEFEAT them. And this is why i hate the "compromise" people. F compromise. I dont wanna compromise with views I see as fundamentally evil, or out of touch with reality. I wanna BEAT them. Rather than try to compromise with the right, I wanna get the rest of the population to reject their values so we can build their own coalition. I dont care about meeting them half way. I care about DEFEATING them. That's been my goal from the start. To defeat them so thoroughly and generationally that their coalition collapses and becomes unelectable. By building a supermajority around the alternative. Not playing pattycake with them and meeting them half way. As I said back then in reacting to Cenk's idea of compromising with them, the problem with the establishment is they're already too conservative and they already compromise too much. No, I wanna DEFEAT the right, not by offering a moderate version of their values, but through an outright rejection of them and the building of something else. Only then can we actually move on from MAGA productively. Otherwise youre compromising with a bunch of unreasonable nutcases. Have fun with that. 

Oh god, can we NOT herald Talarico as the future of the democratic party?

 So, kyle Kulinski had a video today about so called "Talaricoism" and asking if he is the future of the democratic party. And, while Kyle's take has a lot of the same skepticism I have toward the idea, I just wanna say, can we PLEASE, PLEASE stop glazing this guy?

The problem with Talaricoism is that it's a substanceless mess that doesn't have a consistent set of philosophical principles. It's just a new form of moderation and centrism. For me, the right's worldview is dominated by evangelical Christianity. The left's should be dominated by the opposite of that: which is secular humanism. My introduction to the left is through the New Atheist movement, and quite frankly, I always kinda saw liberal Christians as being a bit of a contradiction. They have one foot in the religious world, one in the secular, and they kinda just pick and choose a la carte. maybe they dont see it that way. They love to act like they have a more "sophisticated" take on religion and reality, due to the fact that they express some nuance, but to me, it's just sophistry. It's being caught in between two worlds, and being inconsistent as fudge. It's being a lukewarm christian, and God in the Bible didnt like the lukewarm. He spat them out of his mouth. Well, that's how I feel about these kinds of liberal Christians. Maybe in their heads they can make all the internal contradictions of the religion work with a secular reality, but for me, it is just a lot of unnecessary complexity that shrouds one's vision.

Quite frankly, I have enough trouble consistently justifying my belief in something supernatural that isnt christian, and I make FAR fewer assumptions than those guys, and my worldview is FAR more consistent. I just can't do the moderate christian crap. I just can't. It makes me wanna spit it out of my mouth to go back to that quote.

And that's the problem with Talaricoism. It isnt what we need in this moment. We need a philosophical opposite of the right. We need a new set of principles, a new ideology, something rooted in fundamental opposition to the GOP and its ideology. All Talaricoism offers is a compromise. Maybe its a different compromise than we see with a lot of centrist new democrat types given Talarico can be more economically progressive, but it's a lot more similar than people realize. Again, keep in mind, my first exposure to the guy was the Jubilee debate and how he basically defended progressive economic ideas on right wing terms. But that's the thing, it IS right wing terms. And i dont wanna argue on their terms of work ethic and who deserves what, rather I want to throw all that out and think entirely differently. 

And really, that's what annoys me. The left looks at him like a marvel because he take's the right's value system and throws it back at them. but here's the thing, I kinda hate the right's value system at the core of my very being and my stomach turns at the idea of having to listen to this preacher fellow use THEIR ideology to advocate for OUR ideas. It kinda feels like ideological surrender. 

And this is what kyle kinda instinctually realizes here. He realizes that this guy has the same appeal of like Obama, and speaks in a similar cadence. Which makes him very charismatic, but also...isnt he kinda substanceless? Maybe what we need isnt someone who tried to heal divides, but someone who takes on the right directly and actually fights. 

But that's what talarico doesnt do. He is more the "let's not fight, let's all get along" guy, where he basically reinforces an ideological consensus around christianity, when my views are fundamentally against the religion in several key areas. And that's why I can never accept the guy as a thought leader on the left and resent the very idea of it. It literally goes against every fiber of my being. I tolerate the guy. he won his primary, he's arguably good for Texas, which is basically the heard of "jesusland", but honestly, I dont find the guy that endearing, and I feel like he's just creating this new brand of moderates who think they're so cool and edgy because they like christianity AND have mildly progressive views. And they just use it as a cudgel against people like me, considering me an unsophisticated brute for being a new atheist type while acting like they're so...sophisticated for having nuanced views. Like please, this is just hillary clinton 2016 wrapped up again. She did the same exact thing. She just bashed us for being "bernie bros" instead. But the whole religion thing was part of that schism too. And it played into the whole "oh you silly bernie bros, you just dont get MODERATES, blah blah blah', like, F off. I get them. I just dont see them as standing for anything, and that's the problem. Same with this guy. At the core of his ideology, we're just left with this philosophical mess, and one that does not rise to the moment to properly challenge the right for ideological dominance, but again, tries to cement it by offering a consensus with it. I dont want consensus around christianity. I want religion out of politics and I want us to debate topics based on reason and evidence, not religion, vibes, or feels. Ya know? I'm for using my brain and arguing ideas from deeply held principles, not just appealing to people with charisma and vibes. Sorry, not sorry. 

No, we anti war people don't hate the troops, Trump does

 So...this is a common retort being used against democrats by MAGA when we dont wanna fund the war with iran. The argument is we're unpatriotic, that we hate the troops, we hate America, blah blah blah.

And it's BS. 

First of all, let's not even BEGIN to discuss the ways Donald Trump hates the troops. Isn't he the "losers and suckers" guy? The one who had disdain for combat veterans who died over seas for being losers? Oh, and are we talking the guy who dodged the draft because he had "bone spurs"? Yeah, we got your number, Donald. Keep the idea of others hating the troops out of your mouth.

However, there is one thing Donald WAS right about, and it was the fact that Iraq was a mistake and we shouldnt get in more unnecessary regime change wars. If a war is necessary, it's one thing. But Iran did nothing to provoke this war. We just created some BS jusifications to rationalize it that were flimsy AF and we went in. And, again, the big reasons we're there? Epstein, Israel, oil. That's it. That and religious nutjobbery about bringing about the end times. There's no legitimate reason to be in this war.

And if there's no legitimate reason to be in this war, then guess what? Maybe we shouldn't be. And maybe we shouldnt be risking our own soldiers over such a pointless endeavor? What did I do the second I heard the first troops died in this war? I wrote an article about it. And I condemned the war. Because I don't hate the troops. I want our troops to remain safe. And the best way to keep them safe is not to deploy them in unnecessary conflicts. unncessary conflicts puts our soldiers in harms way, which means they come home in caskets. But for Trump, that's an acceptable sacrifice. "Oh well, it's war, some people will die." Really? And after he has that cavalier attitude the right has the gall to say WE hate the troops? We're the ones trying to protect them. 

There's a lot of talk about "America first", but for all that talk, the right never delivers. Bush campaigned in 2000 on not getting involved with UN peacekeeping missions and kinda just minding our own business. But then 9/11 happened and he turned into a massive neocon who got us into two major wars. Admittedly, Afghanistan was at least SOMEWHAT necessary. I do think Bush could've negotiated with the taliban better and got Bin Laden that way. But let's say we didnt agree with their terms. Okay, so we go in. I kinda think it was unnecessary. The american people wanted blood after 9/11 and being alive and remembering that time period quite well, they weren't gonna take no for an answer. And then Bush got us into iraq, which...at best was due to his own incompetence, and at worst was because of malicious intent. But at least Bush had that whole plausible deniability insofar as the nefarious option goes. He really kinda was that stupid.

Trump though? No. This is pure malice. He lied to get us into a war that he campaigned against getting us into. Why? Again, Epstein, Israel, oil, and religious nutjobbery. None of which are legitimate reasons. And he's putting our troops on the line, for a war that has no clear goal in mind, with shifting goalposts, and is already getting good American soldiers killed. For what? I ask, for what?

See? I keep saying it, that's the big reasons I'm against interventionism. I dont wanna see our troops getting killed for no reason. If we gotta send people to their deaths, let it be for a good cause. Ya know, like storming the beaches of Normandy or Iwo Jima. Necessary sacrifices for the good of the nation. This serves no one, but Donald Trump himself, Israel, a foreign power I'm hating more and more by the day, and oil companies. And it feeds into a bunch of delusional religious nutjobs' delusions about end times prophecy. But the American people? We ain't being served by this. This isn't making us safer. It's actually making us less safe. Because now we gotta worry about retaliation because we started an unprovoked war. 

Trump and republicans would be best to know that there's a difference between hating our troops/hating the country, and hating the current leadership of said country. And that's what applies to the Bush era, and the Trump era. You can support the troops and the country, but think current war was a terrible, stupid idea, and that the leadership was daft or evil for getting us into it. And that's where I'm at. That's where most of us were during the Bush era, and that's where we're at now. 

I ain't saying there isnt a small but vocally loud contingent of anti war leftists with deranged ideas that hate the US no matter what we do. But that's not what around 85% of the opposition to this current war is saying. And one can check my posting history, I was heavily critical of those guys during the Biden era and believe that they are a detriment to the left as a whole because they fall into the same stereotypes we're often lambasted on. 

Believe it or not, I actually would say I like the idea of "America first" in theory, just not the execution. I believe that a nation state's first responsibility is to protect its interests. I just believe that soft power and multilateralism is the way to do it. I believe that institutions like NATO and the UN serve our collective security, and that liberal democracies are all best served by working together in mutual alliances. I believe that the US led ruled based order that we had under Biden served America's interests, and was shaped in our image. Im not saying it was perfect. We clearly only applied the rules when we felt like it while exempting ourselves and our allies from them when convenient, leading to some global resentment, but still, I believed in the idea of it and largely supported Biden's leadership there. 

But it was Trump that upset that because his type of thinking is stuck in the 19th century. he only understands hard power, spheres of influence politics, and imperialism. His way with the world is might makes right. He is the hunter from starfield, whereas I am the emissary. He's might makes right, we're all rules and principles. Both are self serving in their own way, which is the hunter's point, but at least one has some philosophical legitimacy. The other is just a raw execution of power. And that's what Trump's foreign policy is. A raw execution of power. Might makes right, unmasked. 

But again, I'm not against the US looking out for its interests. I just believe those interests are best served in that international order, and using soft power, ie, relationships, alliances, rules, and legalism, rather than the raw "MURICA F YEAH!" stuff of the Bush/Trump type people. One builds alliances, leaving a global network of rules and allegiances that serve our best interests, and the other alienates everyone and makes them hate us. And trump is the latter. 

So yeah, dont ever get it twisted. We on the left dont hate the troops, we dont hate the country. We just have a different and better idea of how to make us safe, and it generally works better. It's the intelligent way to run the world, while trump is a stupid and boorish cave man who only understands how to swing a stick. But the problem is if you swing sticks too often, people start swinging back, and then we're LESS safe. The damage trump is doing to the US in the long term is stacking up, and it could do immeasurable damage to us in the future. Is that really "America first?" Not really. it might seem like it, but it's a 70 IQ take on leadership when we need a 130 IQ take instead.  

What AMD isn't getting in the current market

 So, Hardware Unboxed had a Q&A session where they were asked what AMD doesn't get about the current GPU market, given their tiny and rapidly declining market share. As a GPU customer myself (a gamer), I'll give my thoughts. 

This is gonna be hard for AMD to hear, but they're basically considered the "cheap" brand. Nvidia is the brand everyone wants, they get the best cards with the best silicon, and the best features and longevity, and AMD is kinda that cheaper brand that cuts corners and tries to compete. AMD has always been the underdog throughout my life, on CPUs AND GPUs, although on CPUs they've improved their standing significantly. AMD is known as the "value" brand, the "price/performance" brand, and from an economic standpoint, the only thing standing between Nvidia just being a total monopoly. 

Honestly, I've bought several AMD products throughout my life, and my experiences are always somewhat middling with them. Here's my overall experience:

HD 3650 AGP (2008)- Needed an AGP card for an aging HP desktop to turn it into a makeshift gaming PC. Nvidia wanted like $200 for a 7600 GS which was insane. They were offering like $60 for a 6200 and $80-100 for a 7300 GT. These were all poor value. AMD offered $60 for a HD 3450 or a x1600, $80 for a HD 3650 which was on par with the 7600, and $130 for a HD 3850 which was just a step or two below the venerated 8800 GT. Given I was rocking a single core CPU at the time, and had a limited budget to upgrade, I saw little value in going for the 3850 so I went for the 3650.

It was kind of a crapshow. The day I installed it I booted up FEAR combat, a game I wanted to play...and it crashed. The whole computer. I booted it up again. AND it crashed again. I thought something was wrong with my build, but googling the issue, I found that it was a driver issue. Apparently the drivers for the card were old and limited and had a weird compatibility with athlon XP processors, and I had to literally use some dude's custom hotfix drivers just to get the issue to stop. So yeah...not a great experience. Good enough given how cheap the cards were but yeah. 

HD 5850 (2010)- Got this for my first REAL gaming PC. Nvidia had no real competitor at the time as the 460 didnt launch yet and my options were the GTS 250 for like $150, the GTX 470 for like $380, or I could go for like a HD 5750 for $150, a HD 5770 for $200, or a HD 5850 for like $300. So basically AMD dominated that price range at the time.

It was a good card, but I did have some issues with it. Crysis had a weird driver crash with it. Dishonored was a chore to get running at all. Long term, AMD GPUs at the time suffered poor longevity. By 2015 drivers were dicontinued. The 460, however, got drivers through 2018. 

In 2012, my friend gave me an old 580, wanting to go up to a 680, it was a significant upgrade, although it died and EVGA upgraded me to a 760 eventually. And...my friend was big on Nvidia. he hated fussing with drivers and the like, and nvidia "just worked." I cant say nvidia performance was as seamless as people act like it is but between this and the 1060, I went team green for a solid decade after this.

I feel like this is where it's time to really discuss, as a gamer, what AMD does wrong. You got cheap products that typically have inferior support, more issues, and yeah, then you lack features like physX or ray tracing. I'd argue at the right price, AMD is worth considering, but a lot of gamers got turned off from it, and honestly, if AMD offers cheaper products, Nvidia will just cut their prices too and yeah. AMD wins short term, but it's argued their strategy sucks long term. So now they don't even cut prices and seem to be doing an Nvidia -$50 strategy which isnt working either. 

Anyway, let's fast forward to the present:

RX 6650 XT (2022)- I went AMD again purely because nvidia stopped trying. They got greedy. They introduced features like DLSS and ray tracing i didnt care about and bumped the price up significantly, making their "60" cards $300+ and ultimately phasing out their lower price ranges. Occasionally they'll offer a $250 "50" card like the 3050 or 5050, but yeah. 

Anyway, for me, $300 was the max I was willing to spend on a GPU. Because that's what I always paid and I saw the price increases as insane and unjustified. And post COVID, when GPU prices dropped, AMD caved first. Their RX 6000 series cards got REALLY cheap REALLY fast. My options were RX 6600 for around $190, 6650 XT for $230, 3050 at $280, 3060 for $340, or 6700 XT for $350. I went for the 6650 XT as it was the best bang for the buck, offering 3060 performance for over $100 less. Which is like a 30% price cut. 

I have to admit, 3+ years later, I'm mixed on my choice. 8 GB VRAM is kinda limited. AMD is already limiting RDNA2 driver support and throwing its buyers under the bus to some degree. Game developers seem to be just expecting you to use upscaling, which looks like crap compared to native. DLSS is the best upscaler and its just expected you'll use that, but the AMD options are worse and that can impact things. And yeah, it's kind of the same issues, you get cheaper cards, but you also get inferior features, more limited support, etc. People dont wanna buy AMD cards if they dont feel like they'll last. And it's not like cards are cheap any more. 

10 years ago when they had polaris, the idea was OH LOOK, THIS 1060 KILLER FOR $200. Yeah they never competed at the high end, but honestly, I think the products they did have were good for what they are.

Fast forward to now. If I were to buy RIGHT NOW, I'd go Nvidia, and here's why. 

AMD has basically discontinued its older cards like the 6600, the 6650 XT, and even the 7600 is an iffy buy as its like $280 or what amounts to like a....5050. Yeah, Nvidia has that $250(260 currently) 5050 and that itself is kind of a poor buy, but it's better than buying AMD. At least AMD will likely support the card well into the future. Meanwhile my RX 6650 XT feels half abandoned despite being roughly as powerful. 

The 5060 costs $330, and launched at $300. It was significantly better than the 5050. And it likely would have been an option for me if I bought late last year. The 9060 XT was AMD's equivalent and was $270. It also was a possible option, but unlike in 2022 it went up FASTER than the Nvidia cards and is now $345 at minimum...for the 8 GB version. ugh....8 GB. But yeah. Until october last year, RAM was cheap, they couldve added 8 GB to a card for like $20-50 and instead they charged like $100 more with the 9060 XT 16 GB being like $370 (now $440) and the 5060 ti 16 GB being $430 (now $550). I cant blame market conditions too much NOW, but yeah they were overcharging BEFORE we got to this point, basically leaving you with the same 8 GB RAM for like $250-300 that we've had since the RX 480/580 in 2016 ten years ago now. Now it's just a no go. 

Anyway, at this point, you gotta bite the bullet and get 8 GB, but let's talk about the overall lineup.

AMD....competes too much with Nvidia. For the past 3 generations, (6000/7000/9000), they've been competing too much at the high end with cards like the 6900 XT, 7950 XTX, 9070 XT...and here's the thing...why would ANY premium buyer buy AMD? Even if raster is good, they lack the ray tracing, they lack the technology, they lack the long term software support. They're the cheap brand, and yet, they seem to have forgotten their place in the market. They compete with nvidia head to head in premium segments when their tech is still very much behind Nvidia. No one is gonna wanna spend $500, 700, 1000 on premium GPUs when they can just...buy Nvidia. Their products are worse than Nvidia. They age worse. They lack features. They lack support. Drivers are still a nightmare for some people (I've had occasional issues but to be fair Nvidia isnt spotless either, I had issues both on the 760 and 1060). 

For me at the new "low end" of $200-300, you're getting a card with 8 GB VRAM where you're expected to upscale to get acceptable performance in games (an industry problem), and AMD lacking an answer to DLSS is painful. It was fine using FSR on an aging 1060 for a while, Im glad AMD had SOMETHING but in order to compete with nvidia, they need new features, and to get those new features they gotta screw over existing customers. And the fact is, we're far enough into Nvidia's new upscaling and ray tracing driven ecosystem where buying AMD kinda locks you out of features needed to make modern gaming good.

Again, it would be fine if GPUs were cheap, but they're not, and that's another problem. I keep saying it. We used to have a market that went from around $100 up to $700. Now we got a market that goes from $250 up to $2000. And AMD is kinda abandoning low end customers just as Nvidia is. They dont have answers for low end gamers. For a while it was just "buy a 6600" and now those have dried up. Their lowest end options worth a crap are now the 7600, which competes directly with a 5050 and fails for the reasons mentioned above, and the 9060, which fails vs the 5060. 

They need lower prices. They just do. They need to aggressively break into the low end market and flood it with cheap GPUs. Why do they not have a 9050 XT? They could charge $200-250 for that and have it compete with the 5050 (ideally, I think $200). They could offer a sub $200 card as well, something 3050/6600 level. A 9040 so to speak. Again, why have these guys abandoned the low end market? They have these kinds of SOC configurations in mobile devices like the rog ally and steam deck. They should exploit the market for something above the steam deck level but below their current entry level offerings. 

And they could do what they did with zen, aggressively price them to make up market share. I mean, we gotta remember that. I was crapping on zen early on because AMD was STILL a budget brand. But at least they knew their place. And they priced their products accordingly. And they were still the value kings for a while for that lower-midrange consumer base that no longer exists. 

Honestly, I think there's an adage I hear in PC gaming a lot. There are no bad products, only bad prices. To be fair, you CAN make a bad product, like an exploding power supply or something, BUT....assuming it passes basic QC...the adage holds. AMD is actually a good mass producer of GPUs. They power most modern consoles like the last 2 generations of Xboxes and Playstations, shipping millions of units. They have entry level graphics for handhelds. But then their discrete GPU division is a hot mess. They are trying to compete with like the 5070 ti with the 9070 XT, and they're matching Nvidia roughly on price/performance...but with inferior features and support. And a lot of us gamers are like..."why buy AMD? why not just buy Nvidia?" 

And that's why Nvidia has more market share. AMD has given us no reason to buy their products for the most part. Now, again, I'm open minded to buying them. I run AMD now, I've run it in the past, but what's the trend? AMD had its hooks into markets that Nvidia ceded ground on. Nvidia is a company that makes very good products, but they get arrogant. They get too big for their britches, they overcharge, and then AMD comes in and exploits the market. 

Right now, there's arguably a whole market out there for budget GPUs that AMD is barely touching. And while, again, I get it, kind of a bad market right now with the rampocalypse, but yeah....AMD has to offer cheaper GPUs, like not just a few dollars cheaper, but to shake up the market. If they cant do that they need to somehow offer better products with more complete feature sets and longer driver support...and to make up over a decade of poor good will from the community. 

 Honestly, I think the cheaper GPU route is better. Maybe right now that involves a lot of sub $300 8 GB GPUs. Maybe in the future it means offering 12-16 GB where Nvidia offers 8. But yeah. When I think about why I bought AMD GPUs in the past, it's always because they were cheaper and filled a niche that nvidia simply didn't. The quality of the products often arent up to nvidia's standards, but they're normally a whole lot cheaper to make up for it. But when you're literally at Nvidia +/-10% price, and you offer inferior features and less support, why would anyone buy them? AMD has trouble selling stuff at a discount, which IMO is because, in part, they dont offer enough of one. Again, when nvidia products are similarly priced, most would rather buy nvidia so you gotta be the value brand and sell cheap stuff. You gotta be that guy offering a 6 core 12 thread CPU when intel offers 4/4 (looking at you, 1600x vs 7600k). You gotta do that, but for GPUs. Idk, it seems like AMD gave up actually competing and would rather preserve profit margins on what they do sell, but in doing so they lose volume. And now Nvidia has like 94% of the market. I dont think AMD is gonna command a majority any time soon, but they could get in the double digits just by offering better products for less money. I get it, it sucks being the "cheap" brand, but that's what AMD is, and they gotta play the hand they got, not the hand they want. As long as they make any sort of profit, they should be happy. And maybe over time they can actually do what they did with ryzen, but let's face it, that's probably gonna take around a decade for them to actually come back. Kinda like it took AMD a decade to fully come back after bulldozer. Just how I see it. 

The James Talarico crowd is insufferable

 So, I'm gonna start this with a disclaimer. I formally support James Talarico for the senate. He's the dem nominee. He won fair and square, and while I hate the dude's aesthetics, he's pretty decent on policy.

But man, can we STOP fricking fawning over him? People need to stop treating this guy like he's this big rising star in the party, and how Crockett sucked, and Talarico is so great. Aesthetically, I liked Crockett. I liked her direct, confrontational approach to politics. I dont like Talarico's soft spoken obsession with religion. People seem to treat this guy like a novelty. Can you imagine? A hyper religious guy ON OUR SIDE, TURNING THEIR IDEOLOGY AGAINST THEM. Yeah, but it's still...their ideology. Sure, there's a lot of interpretation in the bible as far as economics goes, and one can make a strong progressive Christian case for left wing politics.

However, I'm gonna be blunt. It's not MY case. Again, I'm too reddit atheist to appreciate this guy. And Im gonna be honest, I define my politics in large part by my moral opposition to evangelical christianity. It's a fundamental worldview thing for me. And seeing this guy using that worldview against the right...doesnt endear me to him, because to me, it's still a bad worldview. i tolerate the guy, because he is the nominee, and because he has a good chance of winning texas, which is basically the buckle of the bible belt. But...I dont LIKE the guy...I dont wanna see more of him. he kinda alienates me. And his die hard supporters alienate me big time. 

I want to see a nonreligious left fighting against the evangelical nuts, and I see the moderate christians as this sort of swing vote. And keep in mind my views on moderation. Even if moderation is sometimes necessary, i dont value it for its own sake. And it seems like a lot of his appeal is because he has this unique "electability" among religious moderates when in reality, I'd rather just see people leave Christianity. 

Maybe had my life gone a bit different, I would be a "James Talarico" in a way. I could see a potential alternate life path where I remained christian but turned progressive. But at the same time, in stark worldview terms, I just see it as contradictory. Sorry, it is. I dont value the idea of having one foot living a myth and the other living in reality. I'd rather just...ya know...live in reality. 

I hope he turns texas blue, but my support for the guy is more transactional than full throated. And I wish my fellow lefties would stop acting like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. 

I mean, maybe it's good some dems have enthusiasm for the guy, but I sure as fudge dont. Sorry, I can't just get hyper enthusiastic for good old christian boy over here.  

The marine was right: no one wants to fight for Israel

 So...there was a marine at a congressional hearing that yelled "no one wants to fight for Israel" and got unceremoniously escorted out of the room. That's what really got attention here. Because his arm got stuck in the door, the use of force caused a very loud crack to be heard on camera...which was the guy's arm breaking. And apparently Tim Sheehy (R-MT) helped the security push the guy out. After taking like $600k in cash for Israel. 

And I'm gonna be frank with you, I think the marine was right. We can debate whether what he did was acceptable. I'm not always a fan of loud self righteous anti war protesters. But idk, in this case it seemed somewhat justified. This isn't just an abstract "over there" issue like Palestine was. This is putting our troops on the line for what? And you know what? That soldier was right. Why the hell should we die for Israel? Screw Israel. I want nothing to do with Israel. And neither do most Americans. This is a fundamentally unpopular war.

However, even if we do say "okay well is interrupting a hearing justified? is security removing the guy justified?" Okay. But let's face it, this amount of excessive force was not. The dude's arm was jammed in the door and they kept pulling. Quite frankly, he got a much harsher treatment than 99.9% of January 6th rioters who unceremoniously stormed the capitol building. The only one you could argue had it worse was Ashli Babbitt. And you know what? In THAT situation, I could see breaking a dude's arm if he was trying to get into the capitol chamber. But here? nah, this is excessive AF. 

Either way, I'll just repeat what he said. NO ONE WANTS TO FIGHT FOR ISRAEL. If Israel wants this war, let them fight it themselves, without our help. Stop making us do their dirty work. The vast majority of the public wants less foreign interventionism, not more. Even Biden was doing too much in the eyes of many voters, and I thought Biden had the balance right 95% of the time. Seriously, half the public is like full on isolationist. They might at best support the liberal world order and leading from behind. But the last thing around 75% want is a boots on the ground war for regime change.