Why do the 2020s suck so much? Discussing the KIDS Act

 So, the KIDS act just passed the house. it was a grand compromise that traded internet freedom for the ability to rein in tech companies on AI. I wanna regulate AI, but Jesus Christ, this kind of deal with the devil is just....no to me. Here's the thing. THese companies have been pushing for age verification as an excuse to strip online anonymity from people. The goal is to attach all data to real persons, functionally allowing tech companies to build online databases of every user, which could result in blackmail over time. Some have talked about the end of section 230, which could greatly reduce online speech as well. And it's being sold all in the name of needing more security. Why? The internet has been fine in my view. But it's all ERMAHGERD WE GOTTA PROTECT THE KIDS! How about we make parents PARENT THEIR OWN KIDS! I mean, parental controls exist, use them. Dont make everyone have to submit IDs and stuff so they can access adult material, or really, use the internet in general, since this crap is gonna affect all social media eventually. It's ridiculous. I dont deny there are some problems with the internet these days in regard to the youth, but still. I really dont think that this is something that warrants literal government regulation. And any regulation you could possibly get me on board with would be so marginal and ineffective that it wouldnt really do much. Because I believe in freedom. i dont think the government SHOULD intervene heavily into personal issues like this. I dont want a nanny state. Ya know? I grew up in the days of the wild west of the internet, and I WANT TO REMAIN in the wild west days. Its like I said with gaming, i hate the current state of things, i wanna go back to the past. The internet peaked IMO back around the late 2000s, early 2010s, and it's been all downhill since. And now in the 2020s, everything is a dystopian nightmare. We got all this weirdo authoritarianism coming out of nowhere, and i really gotta ask, outside of the obvious bad actors, WHO THE HELL WANTS THIS? NO ONE WANTS THIS. STOP MANUFACTURING A FAKE CRISIS TO RAM THIS CRAP DOWN OUR THROATS. Really, I'm just over this crap. 

Discussing the PS6, Project Helix, and digitization of games

 So....in another hinting at next gen coming soon, Sony is discontinuing physical games in 2028. And....a lot of people are freaking out about this. Honestly, I have mixed opinions. I mean, I'm on PC, I've been using steam since like 2008, and while I initially was skeptical of the service because I was like "what if you lose all of your games", it was basically forced on us back then and by this point, it's kind of a fact of life for PC gamers, and a lot of us wouldnt have it any other way. For years, physical releases have just been a code in a box, maybe a stack of DVDs to install the game, but then youd need to update it anyway to play it, so...yeah. It's kinda been pointless for a while and I myself rarely buy physical media these days. 

At the same time, I get the concern. Game preservation, the whole "you should own what you buy" thing. And a lot of it is about corporate control. I won't go so far in the doomer camp of "you will own nothing and be happy and the future is streaming everything to chromebooks too weak to run anything natively", I do think there should be a physical option, but tbqh, companies dont like it because of possible piracy. Companies have been getting more aggressive every generation with security, and a world where we control the media is a world where we control the media more than the companies WANT us to control the media. So not only are consoles super locked down PCs, but they're also going to force everything to run through digital services to ensure they remain control. And oh well if the game gets pulled maybe you'll no longer own it. Theyve kinda been doing that with games with online integrated into them. Remember "the crew"? Yeah, im kinda salty about that one too. 

Idk, in some ways I kinda see it as...well...normal to move on this direction, but I also get the concern.

My whole thing with all of this is...DO WE REALLY NEED NEXT GEN CONSOLES RIGHT NOW?! Jesus Christ. I sound like a broken record but seriously, the hardware market has been a mess. They released the last one in the middle of COVID and it led to shortages, scalping, and $800 price tags. it took 2-3 years just to be able to afford a PC on par with said consoles. And at this point, that same hardware is more expensive than it was back in 2022-2023. The $500 consoles are $650-700 now for the base model. Getting an equivalent PC, as we've recently seen, costs around $750. WHY DO WE NEED NEW CONSOLES?! 

And they aint taking a loss on it either. I mean, Jesus Christ, this is my beef with nintendo as well. They had the $300 switch, had it never drop in price the 8 years it was the current gen thing, then they raised the price to $330 and dumped a NEXT GEN console for $450 $500. 

I'm gonna make things as clear as possible:

THIS CRAP IS NOT AFFORDABLE, NO ONE WANTS THIS!

Seriously. What drove the desire for new consoles in the past was the idea that due to moore's law and the rapid increase in tech specs for the same price, that we could produce a console with much better graphics for the same money as the last one. The old console would inevitably drop in price, be replaced with a new one, and the cycle would continue. But between graphics kinda bottoming out in the late 2010s, and rising hardware costs, I really dont see the point of a new console. Why should we buy a new console that barely has better graphics than the old one? Seriously, gaming has developed where we dont really need more power. if anything more power just allows devs to poorly optimize games for no apparent reason, while they barely look better than the previous title from a decade ago. I have not been "wowed" by a game's graphics for years now. They all look good, I'm kinda over it, but what I do notice is the fact that we're still expected to throw away money on new hardware for these new games, or we get left behind. Games are designed around the new hardware, run poorly on the old hardware despite it not being justified, and to go back to the previous topic, they're removing more control from the users and digitizing everything. 

Idk at my age, I'm feeling increasingly tempted to just live in the past, reject the present, reject next gen, reject the new games, and keep playing the old crap. Ya know, just cashing in my chips, riding the hardware I have for as long as possible, and just not buying into the new ecosystem. It's not justified, the entry costs are INSANE, the games arent that good, and yeah, I honestly think the gaming market needs a crash. This isn't sustainable. Nothing about "next gen" is remotely interesting to me. Even as a PC gamer. Like consoles have been a joke for a while IMO, but just the system requirements going up and getting increasingly insane forcing me to upgrade my hardware to run new games is just....no. I mean, the entry price for gen 9 was bad enough for me, there havent been enough games that really justified the hardware requirements, and I'm just...over this crap. Im not gonna rebuild my entire PC for $1k+ just to run some mediocre game that i dont even find as fun as a game from 2015 or 2005. I ain't just. 

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.