Wednesday, November 5, 2025

The GOP crashing out would be funny if it wasn't so scary

 So....I decided to don my radiation suit and wade into the toxic part of the conservative part of the internet. As much as I'd love to just do a reaction post where I quote them and mock them for being batcrap insane, I think I'll decline on quoting specifics since much of what was said was so bad if I repeat it, I fear my blog would get in trouble.

Let's just say it's a metric crapton of racism, and people acting like NYC is self  destructing because it elected a socialist, Muslim mayor. They seem to think we're gonna descend into an Islamic theocracy. I can assure you, no, it's fine. Because unlike you Christian nationalist types, it's possible to have religious views and keep them out of politics. Like everyone seems to mostly get that, except you guys. You guys act like if the world doesn't revolve around you and your white Christian crap, that the world is DOOMED, DOOMED i tell you. And I'd lap up all those tears like cartman in the scott tenorman episode if these guys weren't the ones who were completely psycho. 

Because let's face it, we're seeing white replacement theory crap on a mass scale over there. Like really, they seem to think unless white christians remain in control of everything the world is doomed. No, it's not doomed. It just doesnt revolve around you any more. And that's fine. Because maybe a little socialism is a good thing. yeah, a lot can go too far, keep in mind what I said, we need socialist types to be checked by the centrists at times to ensure they dont go too far with stuff, but again, having a socialist mayor doesnt mean that the world is over. These people are such big babies. Like my god. We're not the ones destroying the country because we fear losing power so much we turn into frieza when we lose and wanna take everyone down with us. 

And you know what? Maybe if actual progressives were in charged, your lives would be better. Maybe you should want a new york with...affordable housing...and affordable food, and free public transportation.  Maybe those are GOOD things. Beats FRICKING CONCENTRATION CAMPS FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE AND CUTTING OFF THEIR AID like you guys on the right are trying to do. 

I mean, I know that I might seem hyperbolic about what the right is doing, but thats the difference between me and them. I'm NOT being hyperbolic. But them? They think if the world doesnt revolve around them and their ideals that they're all gonna die or live in a dystopia. It's scary. And their ideals suck. So its like, wtf. They just live in a different world.

Honestly, the more this goes on the more I realize that the right is way more F-ed up than even I realize and they really keep surprising me in how low they're willing to go with things. If we have a problem in this country, it's with right wing extremism. Left wing extremism mostly just means "hey, a brown person might be in charge and he wants to offer to make your life better." And these guys act like it's the end of the world.

Chill. Most of us on the left don't want to make your lives worse. We're not donald trump, after all. Or the GOP. Most of us want to make YOUR lives better too. You just wont let us because, to be blunt, you're dumb and vote against your interests. Like, people think that that's such an offensive and controversial thing to say, but it's the truth, and after listening to what the right has been saying about us on the left tonight, I'll just go ahead and say it, what I jsut said isnt 1/10th as bad as the crap the right says about us in their natural habitat.  

WTF just happened? 2025 edition

 WOO! BLUE WAVE, BABY!

Just gonna take a victory lap here...(note: platz eins means first place in german)

Okay, so let's get into it. I know I just started out really excited and screaming BLUE WAVE, but I'm not gonna lie, a blue wave was expected. Republicans control the federal government, and that's gonna drive the democrats to overperform. The real question is: does this actually mean anything? Everyone is reading the tea leaves on this, and me? I'm a bit cooler on this, despite my initial burst of excitement. Honestly, these results, while good for democrats, are mundane. Like, I will say democrats overperformed, sometimes massively, but they didn't overperform so much massively across the country that this really serves as the repudiation that Trump deserves. Given the crap he's doing, we need like Reagan 1984 margins on this guy. And yet, again, this is just the dems getting their mojo back after 2024 and returning to the baseline give or take a few points. Let's go into details. (Results here). 

 Virginia Governor's race

 Spanberger (D) won by 15. She was supposed to win by 10. That is a solid margin of victory. A bit higher than expected, but hey, I'll take it. I guess here it kinda was a repudiation of the republicans. Still, it wasn't that insane.

VA Lt Governor

 Hashmi (D) won by about 11. Now this is significant because I only had her ahead by 4. But too be fair polling for the Lt Governor's race was pretty sparse, with a lot of polling having her winning by like 1-2. One had her win by 9, which was in line with what we got, but yeah, it was expected to be a bit closer.

VA Attorney General

 Jay Jones (D) won by about 6. This is the one race I predicted wrong. Polling had the republican ahead by 1, although I did note that there was a significant tightening in the last few days of the race, indicating a blue shift last minute. This instinct proved to be correct. Of course, any time I go by instinct like in 2024, I end up making an idiot out of myself, so I just let the data talk, and yeah, the dems overperformed by 7 here. Solid win here. And if anything really pushes back against republicans it's this.

NJ Governor

 Mikie Sherrill (D) won by 13. She was only expected to win by 3. So this was a crushing victory for the democrats here. Still, given this is NJ, this is a regression to the norm. D+13 is like the natural state of NJ. If anything was weird it's them only going D+6 last year. 

And let's talk about that in the context of virginia too. Virginia these says is what I'd call a likely D state. Ya know, D+5-10, normally D+8. So spanberger wins by 15, that's a healthy margin, but given I see D+8 or so as its natural environment these days, 15 isnt that crazy, and neither is 11, or 6 in the more competitive race. That speaks of a stronger D environment than we've had, but is it really that much crazier than 2017 or 2018 during trump's first term? Not really. The point is, yes, it speaks to voters being not happy with the GOP, but again, this is what happens when republicans are in office. Dems do better. And when dems are in office it goes the other way. Hence why I'm reluctant to read the tea leaves on this.

NYC Mayor

 WOO!!! MAMDANI WINS! You see you silly centrists, the people want PROGRESSIVES (sorry, I just had to take a lap there given that's what centrists sound like when they win). However, he only won by like...8-9? Given he was supposed to win by 14, what happened? Well, in the polls I derived my data from, the exact spread was Mamdani- 46, Cuomo- 32, and Sliwa- 16. What ended up happening? Mamdani got 50, Cuomo 42, and Sliwa 7. So, Mamdani overperformed by 4. Cuomo overperformed by 10, and Sliwa underperformed by 9. Put another way, Trump endosing Cuomo to stop Mamdani led to Cuomo to underperform, Sliwa to collapse, and the margins to shrink. Still, our boy pulled it off. 

So...what does this "mean"? Does it mean progressives are ascendant across the country? Well, this is an important battle to win within the democratic party, but NYC is also deep blue, so a socialist winning here isnt really THAT crazy. AOC is from NYC too. And honestly, the party only halfheartedly backed him. It's been noted in the news that the dem leaders really didnt give a full throated endorsement and didnt even say who they voted for. Why? They're centrists like Cuomo.

Still, I do want to give a lesson on how the left can win on politics here. Note the results. It was primarily between Mamdani, an outright socialist, and Cuomo, a corrupt centrist who is NORMALLY a dem standard bearer. The dems normally run Cuomos in the party and tell us that we have to vote for them or get the republican. but here, we had the left go full on assault mode, where the REPUBLICANS including TRUMP rallied around the same centrists the dems normally run. And that's what the overton window should be in the country. We need a battle of ideas between a progressive left that's like CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE and centrists who are like NO NO NO but arent crazy regressive. I keep saying it, democrats are actually the real conservatives and the "conservatives" are weirdo progressives. If we want society to function well, we need the overton window to be a balance of progressives and centrists. The progressives are trying to improve things, and the centrists check them to make sure they dont go too far or do something too stupid. We DONT want to be on the other side of that, which is where we are nationally, where the republicans are die hard REGRESSIVES and the left is like the last bastion of defense at defending democracy and sanity itself. Nationally, we're on the opposite side of things and that's a very bad place to be. In reality, we want something between the centrist dems and the most socialist progressives. That's probably the sweet spot for the overton window and NYC is nailing it. The rest of the country, well, we're screwed, in part because we run centrist dems no one likes while the GOP is pushing batcrap insane ideas that only 30% of the country actually likes but 50% vote for for some reason. 

CA Prop 50

Seems to have a commanding 29 point margin toward yes (so gerrymander the F out of the state). 

PA Supreme Court Retentions

 All 3 are retained by a margin of 23. Nice try, GOP, nice try, but the voters saw through that.

As far as why I was so far off on that one....well, I only had 1 poll to go off of. It had radically different results for registered voters vs likely voters (RV was 4-10, LV was 10-17), and then it overperformed that. THis DOES seem to send a message to the GOP given this was a very bitter partisan fight. And there was a lot of uncertainty here about what would happen, although it has been noted that judicial retentions are very rarely "no." The GOP tried here, but they got draxed, to use a Kyle term. 

Cincinnati Mayoral Election

 I didnt predict this one, but apparently JD Vance's brother ran for mayor of Cincinnati. Current results are 78-22 in the democrat's favor, and I just gotta say, HAHAHA! LOSER! 

One might wanna interpret this as a referendum on Trump, but given the margins on other cities, they ALL looked like that, because cities are very urban and democratic leaning. So might not really speak that much about Vance's lack of popularity. Still, it's funny to see a relative of the VP get BTFOed by such a huge margin. 

What can we derive from this?

 Again it was a very good night for democrats. polling had this mostly sweeping in the first place and they swept even harder than expected, BUT...again, none of this was really unexpected. Even the Jay Jones upset was like "eh...this has a 40% shot at happening." It was a blue wave year, but that's to be expected. THe real question is, is this really a big enough blue wave to send a message to the GOP? And I dont think it is. I also dont think this is evidence of some realignment in the democratic party toward progressivism at large just because Mamdani won in NYC. Really...the results are largely within the range of expectations for the most part, although I couple races did surprise me to some degree. But really, if we want to sent a message, we need more than this. We need FDR style margins here, or Reagan style margins. Like 60-40 being the norm, not just happening in D+20-30 blue states in the first place. It was a good night from democrats, but are the GOP gonna learn from this? Probably not. And are the dems gonna learn from 2024? Probably not. They won like this in 2017 and 2018 and were really snotty over it. Hence why I took an extra victory lap over Mamdani winning, since the centrists are so insufferable when they win. But yeah. Standard blue wave year in response to a republican presidency. Nothing too out of the ordinary. We've seen these patterns hold steady since the 1990s, with the exception of the early 2000s when 9/11 happened. When the republicans take over government, democrats do better. When the democrats take over government, republicans do better. As such, Im cautious to actually see this as a massive repudiation of the GOP. Quite frankly, given how bad the GOP is governing, we really SHOULD see FDR style margins if the American electorate were sane and educated, but they're not...so...instead we get a more normal blue wave. A strong one at that, but nothing that screams it being so unprecedented it speaks of the GOP's imminant doom. Seriously, we should be like the GOP in 1977 or the dems in 1929 right now. That's how bad Trump is governing. A more normal year aint really a good sign here, although it does tell us democracy aint dead yet. And as long as that's the case, we still have hope of turning this ship around. 

Tuesday, November 4, 2025

TIL free college used to be relatively common in the US

 So...I've researching free college for my book, and this revelation is important enough to mention in my blog. I'm not under the impression the US ever had a truly widespread system of free college, but various states implemented it for a while. California was a big one. State college was tuition free until the 1960s when Ronald Reagan repealed it. Why did this happen? Well, there were a few reasons that all seem to come together within the zeitgeist of the 1960s:

 1) Increases in enrollment arguably made it "too expensive." I put this in quotes because while I do admit that more students means higher costs, conservatives like Reagan love to claim things are "too expensive" in order to push for lower costs.

 2) Dog whistle politics. There was arguably a racial component to the above. What drove the increase in enrollment was, in part, the fact that states could no longer discriminate against black people, and the right clearly didn't want black people to be educated.

 3) Protest culture and anti protest culture. It was the 1960s, a lot of people who went to college were protesting for civil rights, against the Vietnam war, and you know the right and protests, they HATE them. So they were like, "ya know, if we make these protesters get JOBS instead, they won't be able to protest!" There are even some quotes going around with Reagan and his advisers saying the taking away of free college was to "get rid of undesirables" and stuff like that. We've been seeing a lot of the same pushes against foreign students with the free Palestine stuff under trump. 

 4) Fear of an educated working class. An educated working class is the anathema of the right. Heck, educated people in general are the anathema of the right. This is why they spend so much time trying to corner K-12 education while making college inaccessible.  Educated people, to paraphrase George Carlin, can sit around the kitchen table and understand how badly they're being screwed. And given the anti marxist nature of the government at the time, they were afraid that a generation of highly educated people would create the conditions for revolution. 

5) Resentment politics. These were kinda created after the fact, but they pulled the whole "do you, Joe Workingman want to pay for all these rich kids to go to college?" And Joe workingman is like "I NEVER WENT TO COLLEGE, WHY SHOULD I PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO GO TO COLLEGE! LET THEM FUND THEIR OWN COLLEGE!" 

And thus, the student loan crisis was born. Colleges started charging tuition, the rates went up dramatically, and here we are 60 years later with a student loan crisis. Joy. All because conservatives hate good things. Just wanted to let you guys know that little fact of my research. Im still not under the impression free college was ever truly widespread in the US, like we never had a system of free college where anyone could go. But some progressive states did have it but it was a casualty of the 1960s, the fall of the new deal coalition, and the rise of Reaganism where it existed.  

2025 election predictions

 Okay, so, these might be a few hours old (EDIT: I updated the data), but meh, it's only 2025, I only go all out for major elections so YOLO. Nothing is really gonna change to invalidate my predictions.




 Yep, no fancy maps this time, just straight data. Not enough data to really do a map for. 

So, to discuss the key races:

 NYC Mayor

 Yeah, I hope you just Zohran Mamdani. Because he's gonna win. 100% shot more or less. 14 point margin. I guess it aint literally 100% and the fact that its a 3 way race could introduce more volatility, but as a numbers guy, well, I literally need to introduce more 0s to make it less than 100%. It's like 99.99%. 

That's gonna piss Trump off good, and the situation is so bleak Trump is literally endorsing Cuomo and throwing Sliwa under the bus. 

Anyway, love to see it. Again, not huge huge on Mamdani myself, but yeah I see why people like him, and he'd be my vote too. We need less establishment/corporate dems like Cuomo in charge and more progressives. Love to see this shift in the democratic party. 

NJ Governor

It's a relatively close race, but Sherrill is favored to win over Ciattarelli. Now, it should be noted it's not a 100% shot for the dems here, more 80-20, but still, I like those odds. 

VA Governor

 Looking at updated data it looks like it's actually 10.2% for Spanberger, which actually increases the odds to 99.5%, but whose counting? Point is, the dems are gonna stomp here, with them having a 99% shot at winning. 

VA Lt. Governor

 This one is expected to be closer, but less polling exists. RCP isn't really following this one, and the little polling I found suggests it's a bit more tumultuous, more similar to the NJ governor race. The democrat is favored here, but it's not a slam dunk outside of the margin of error. The democrat has an 84% chance of winning here, so a 1 in 6 chance of the republican winning.

VA Attorney General

 While the race is tightening at the last minute, the republican is still expected to win here. If anything, last minute polls have led to more momentum toward the democrats, with the margin being reduced to 1 point in favor of the republican. So this one is contentious. I still expect the republican to win, but a last minute polling surge in the opposite direction could be indicative of an upset. I mean, this is what happened with Trump before he won in 2016. The last polls shifted the predictions red, and given polling is a lagging indicator as it is a snapshot in time while public opinion is ever shifting, yeah, this is the race that we really need to keep an eye on. I still give it to the republican due to my own model's inertia given the older polls still in there, but yeah, only a 60% chance of them winning. This one is basically entering tossup territory last minute. 

CA Prop 50

This is California's referendum about gerrymandering the state in favor of democrats to respond to gerrymandering in other places like Texas. It's expected to sail to an easy win with an estimated 20 or so margin of victory, so virtually another 100% shot here. 

PA Supreme Court Retentions

So, this one isn't being followed nationally very closely, despite it being very heavily discussed here. I even wrote an article encouraging people to vote Yes on that. Basically the republicans want to push some liberal justices off of the PA supreme court to create a power vacuum and dead locked court that can't rule on anything effectively. Voting no would remove the justices, voting yes would keep them. 

Polling has been incredibly scant, and I'm mostly going off of a Franklin and Marshall poll from a month ago for these. They had different numbers for all registered voters vs likely voters. The LV ones were 10-17 points, but the all registered voter ones are down to 4-10. While it is expected to retain all 3 justices, as not retaining judges is extremely rare, republicans have dumped tons of money into this race to make it happen, and it is a very partisan issue here in PA. There's also a massive amount of uncertainty here in terms of the lack of polling, the fact that many people polled a month ago seemed to know little about the debate anyway, and things like voter turnout and partisan polarization playing a role here. So we're kinda flying blind, but the above numbers are the best I could realistically come up with. That's what the one poll I have says. Although, that really isn't a lot of data, now is it? So keep an eye on this one tomorrow, especially if you're from PA.

Conclusion

All in all, this looks like a fairly blue year, which is to be expected. The republicans control the federal government, when that happens, democrats are more mobilized and they tend to surge, while republicans sag in approval rating and energy. Most of the races are expected to go the democrats' way tomorrow, with only the VA attorney general race favoring the republicans. Even then, last minute shifts in polling have officially made the race a tossup. So...yeah. Keep an eye on that. 

Monday, November 3, 2025

Man, Yang really has lost the plot...

 So, Yang is continuing his crusade against smartphones and is platforming conservative Arthur Brooks on his podcast. *sigh*, how far you've fallen, Andrew. Anyway, I couldnt even finish this one. I havent even been listening to much of Yang's podcast since I've found it boring lately, but I didnt have anything else i wanted to watch this morning so I gave it a chance. UGH. 

So...this is more smartphones bad, living in the moment good, saying "it's good to be bored", that sort of thing. And sorry, I just hard disagree. I will admit, my own happiness went down the second the internet became prevalent in a way, but that was because I tried to pursue online relationships with girls my own age range, and....that sucked. Dont do it. LDRs suck. That's one thing I will be conservative on. 

But honestly, yeah, this guy is going into things like meaning and purpose, and IRL social contact creating oxytocin, and it's very traditionalist. It has very traditionalist vibes. Like, you're supposed to get meaning from your job (not explicitly said but I could infer it from his worldview), and oxytocin from a romantic partner, smartphones are an addictive drug and the devil, yay lifescript, blah blah blah.

Now, on outofplatoscave2012.blogspot.com, we do things differently here. We question the lifescript. Because that is the cave. This conservative idea of what life is...is the cave. And I reject the cave. I dont really even like the idea of meaning. In order to leave the cave, I had an existential crisis. This led me down a path of nihilism and absurdism. And now I don't really believe in objective purpose. I believe that life is a sandbox, and whatever you wanna do is what you should be doing in that specific moment, and sure, we do need to be functional enough to live in this shared reality and make society work, I do make concessions to that, but at the same time, I'm also like, DOWN WITH WORK. We should get rid of work and purpose and all of that protestant work ethic BS. Because to someone as enlightened as me, that IS the cave. That is what i call "sisyphusian hell", and keep in mind, for me, the lesson isnt that sispyhus is happy when hes forced to work for all eternity for no reason, he's PISSED. He doesnt wanna be there. And if the alternative is sitting there with a cell phone doomscrolling media, yeah, I'd rather be free to choose to do that, than to do all that traditionalist nonsense. That's the thing. If there is no objective purpose, there is no life but that which we make for ourselves. If there is no purpose but that which we make for ourselves, than we can spend our lives doing whatever we want, as long as we are happy. 

And while Brooks would argue social media and the like makes us unhappy, uh, I've thought about this philosophically too. What if we could be happy all the time and we had forced injections of happy drugs to make us happy all the time? Kind of like "joy" from "we happy few"? Does that make our existence better? No, it's better to be socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied. Theres higher pleasures and lower ones, and a lot of that meaning and purpose might be fulfilling but it also keeps people intellectually dumbed down. Keep in mind, for me, I frame things as the PURSUIT of happiness. Ie, a dimension of freedom. Rather than to be told what makes us happy and be forced to do it, we should be able to figure that out ourselves, without do gooder paternalistic conservatives telling us what a good life is and not allowing us to opt out. Because conservatives are masters at that. "You must be forced to do this thing for your own good." Screw off, and shove your sisyphusian dystopia where the sun doesn't shine. That's what I say, as someone who sees myself as one of the enlightened.

Conservatives see my idea of a good life as "Wall-E", I see theirs as the matrix. Again, I say we give people FREEDOM and let them decide.

Now, on the dating thing. Because that comes up. We're too busy on our phones, blah blah blah, social anxiety and depression, blah blah blah. 2008 was great, 2019 was horrible, blah blah blah. 

Okay, so, while the digitization of our lives may have had an impact on our well being, and dating sites have replaced traditional ways of meeting people romantically, I see things a bit differently. Dating sites suck, dont get me wrong, you probably arent gonna meet your spouse from them and the younger generation is particularly dysfunctional because of the zeitgeist of the times. BUT...I'm gonna chalk this one up to SJWs. I mean, I am kinda ahead of the curve. My own experiences with romance and relationships is kinda gen Z-ish. My first girlfriend was a teenage online relationship, we broke up over the distance, it sucked, never again. And yeah, I just...never really met anyone after that. I mean there was that one girl, who ironically blew me off for an online relationship of all things, but yeah. I mean, I'm socially awkward, probably autistic, and I never really had success with girls.

And ya know what? Im gonna call it. THEN the feminists come in. "Oh, you can't just approach women! That's creepy!" Remember elevator gate? We're all suffering the sins of elevator gate and SJW culture IMO. Traditional dating mechanics. Men get attracted, pursue women. Men are expected to make the first move. Then feminists comes in and say we can't. It's creepy, unwanted advances, blah blah blah. It screws up dating mechanics. Remember that commercial where the guy is trying to pursue a woman and then the other guy goes up to him and puts his hand on his chest and stops them? That's wokeism in a nutshell. And the current generation came of age in this generation of not just digitization of our lives, but wokeism. It's confused gender relations and mangled them. Again, men supposed to ask women out, but now struggle with even approaching them, lest they set off a landmine that pisses off the woman they approach. This leads to tons of sleepless nights and what ifs, low self esteem, and then people like andrew tate and jordan peterson come along and end up turning them alt right.

And yeah, I will say this. Dating apps. They suck. Men in particular likely arent gonna meet anyone on them. Totally in favor of women, who have such high standards and then swipe...reject (right? left? i dont even remember which is which) on everyone. 

Everything is messed up. Again, it's all of this wokeism and toxic gender dynamics. WOmen get woke, become assertive, have unrealistic standards, make men feel like crap. Men become resentful, regress to traditionalism (also bad btw), want to force women to like and date them and marry them and never be able to leave. Both attitudes are unhealthy, and all of this social stuff has led to a very unhealthy society. The internet has just exacerbated that. But those dynamics are why things are so unhealthy. 

This guy claims that unhappiness comes when we approach right brain (emotional) problems with left brain logic (rational). To me, this is a rejection of rationality. Again, my whole thing is I use rationality to see through the veil that is this conservative lifescript and question things more deeply. I admit, being intelligent is more likely to make people unhappy, but that's really because society sucks, not because we just need to turn our brains off. Again, this is "we happy few" "you need more JOY" mentality. Meanwhile Im like "well maybe that pinata really IS a dead rat!" Sure, maybe im a kill joy, but again, better to be socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied. 

Ugh. Andrew Andrew Andrew, like wtf are you doing with this stuff? It really is sad to see this guy fall so hard. Even though we have a common ideology as a starting point he goes in a weird conservative direction while i go full progressive. I think tech enhances our lives, and i hate to see all these weird luddite types going on about how AI bad, smartphones bad, let's live like it's the 1980s again. Nah. The past was not always better. I aint saying the modern day is perfect or doesnt have challenges...trust me, it does. But people seem to be taking the wrong lessons here and demonizing the tech itself when the tech is just a tool. The problem is the underlying zeitgeists that are driving us into a very bad place. I really do blame 2016 for the encrapification of everything. Sure, without cell phones maybe it couldnt have happened as it did, but again, the problem is these bad ideas. Wokeism has been a disaster for the left. Traditionalism is a scourge on the right. If anything, we need to embrace more modernity and have a view that fits the times, rather than trying to force society to live according to past standards that dont work, and never were great in the first place. I know conservatives dont like change, but the answer is MORE change, not less. 

Another update on AMD drivers

 So, apparently AMD backtracked on their statement about putting RDNA1 and 2 into "maintenance mode" and ensured and pointed out that we will continue to get game optimizations. This seems like backtracking, but it also seems aligned with my interpretation of their statements from yesterday. Basically, AMD is splitting off the drivers. RDNA3 and 4 will get new tech like FSR 4 due to having the AI stuff in the GPUs to accelerate it, while RDNA1 and 2 will not. This isn't surprising. While RDNA2 is a very capable and relevant architecture (also their most popular one between the PS5/XBSX/Steam deck and the fact that some of the most popular GPUs in steam's hardware survey are stuff like the RX 6600 and 6700 XT), it just doesn't have the AI stuff for AMD's new tech. This doesnt mean it should be abandoned driver wise; RDNA2 is otherwise extremely capable and has all the modern tech for modern games, but yeah, given future upscaling tech is likely going to require AI, RDNA2 is probably stuck on FSR3. I'm okay with that, btw. Again, I don't care about AI and fancy upscaling tech, as long as the games run and support SOME form of upscaling (FSR 2/3 is acceptable to me). 

But yeah, right now the real debate is whether this was a miscommunication or a flat out backtrack. I think it's a combination of both. AMD has abandoned drivers on older GPUs after only a few years. They were REALLY bad about this back in the day, although a lot of Vega owners felt burned too. RDNA1 is still supported even though that's aged like milk (seriously, that one DOES lack of lot of modern features necessary just to make the games RUN in the first place), but again, dropping RDNA2 seems weird for the following reasons. First of all, it's not that old. The architecture is only 4-5 years old, with most cards being closer to 4 years of age. And it was still sold regularly until THIS YEAR. Seriously, I was recommending RX 6600s to people until the 5050, 5060, and 9060 XT came out this past summer, and cards like the 6650 XT, 6700/6750 XT, and 6800 were pretty common cards for people to buy and existed along side RDNA3 products until very recently. If anything, RDNA3 seemed very skippable and forgettable itself. It provided no real performance uplift over RDNA2 in practice outside of the high end, and AMD was more competing against itself with that one. With that said, even for AMD it makes ZERO SENSE to drop RDNA2 yet. RDNA1, I can see. It is a bit deprecated. But 2? No, that's still modern and quite performant. The 9060 XT 16 GB is still comparable to a 7700 XT or 6800, for only like $30-50 less than those were sold for. That's how little the market has really moved since in the past few years. 

With that said, putting RDNA2 on ice seems kinda ridiculous. While AMD is known to just ditch old architectures when it has something newer, again, ditching its most successful architecture since polaris seems...premature. Normally when it does this the cards have been out of circulation for at minimum 2 years, and that's if you get screwed. AMD CAN offer support as long as 6 and even as long as 8-9 in the card of the HD 7000 series if youre lucky. So ditching a 4 year old architecture that's still being sold is crazy even by their standards.

At the same time, does it make sense to split the drivers off between RDNA3 and 4 vs 1 and 2? Yeah, yeah it does. I mean, look, RDNA2 is great and all, but for AMD to really catch up to nvidia, it needs to invest in AI powered tech and RDNA2 just wasnt designed for that. it was designed for more open source upscaling methods that are a bit inferior (and a huge reason people dont buy AMD is BECAUSE it's inferior in this department), and it doesnt have the tech on board for AI powered stuff like nvidia has. FSR4 is intended to play catch up with Nvidia's DLSS, and you need a newer architecture that can run that. As long as AMD still supports the older standards along side the newer, again, I don't care. And that's where I'm at. FSR 2/3 is "good enough" for me. Sure, it aint great, it is blurry, it has artifacts, etc., but again, I'll use it to hit my target framerate. I just wanna run games and use this thing for a reasonable amount of time before upgrading. I was probably gonna upgrade in 2027-2028 or so, when the NEXT generation comes out, given I want roughly 2x performance for the same price range ($250ish), and I would like more than the same 8 GB VRAM. 

So...which one is it? Backtracking or clarification? A little of A, a little of B. I believe the thing about the split driver paths, but it seemed like AMD was looking to cut off RDNA2 to a much greater extent, no longer providing game specific optimizations, but offering really basic driver support. Now they're backing off and saying they'll support the cards more or less in full while simply splitting the driver paths. I think that they got roasted so hard by the internet (given all the big techtubers and the community was LIVID at them over this; again, RDNA2 is like their most successful and widely sold GPUs, dropping it seems very premature).

Just to make a point about that, here's AMD most popular GPUs according to the steam hardware survey:

AMD Radeon(TM) Graphics- 2.23%

AMD Radeon Graphics- 2.04%

AMD Radeon RX 6600- 0.92%

AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT- 0.75%

AMD Radeon RX 580- 0.69%

AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT- 0.65%

AMD Radeon RX 580 2048SP- 0.62%

AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT- 0.61%

You get the idea. Ignoring the top 2 (IGPs), we get 2 RDNA2 cards, 1 RDNA3 card, 1 RDNA1 card, and 2 polaris cards. Nvidia is massively more popular on the whole, but yeah. And if you go down beyond these GPUs, you get mostly a mix of RDNA2 and 3 GPUs. That's what's been the most popular over the past 3 years or so and what's most widely sold. AMD is shooting themselves in the foot by cutting off RDNA2. It's arguably among their most successful architecture. Also, those IGP people using "Radeon graphics" are probably Steam deck and other PC handheld users, which are mostly powered by...you guessed it, RDNA2. So yeah, AMD would basically be destroying their GPU brand by ditching those customers. And as one of those guys, if AMD did drop us...let's just say I'd highly consider paying the nvidia tax next time given longevity is important to me, and we're no longer in the 2022 market where Nvidia products were 50% more for the same tier of product. Now they're closer to 10-20%. So yeah...watch yourself AMD. You burn me and you lost yourself a customer. Of course, that's why they backtracked, they kinda realized the internet was PISSED at them for dropping a widely sold and used relatively modern architecture. 

Saturday, November 1, 2025

Discussing Groypers and why the right is falling into fascism

 So....there's been a lot of discussion about the whole Groyper phenomenon since Nick Fuentes went on Tucker Carlson's show the other day, and we can very obviously see that Nick Fuentes is one of the sources of the growing fascism in the republican party. The "Groypers" are his followers, and those guys seem to be leading the charge with the expression of fascist and even nazi sentiment within the GOP. And quite frankly, this scares me. I used to be a republican, and even a bit of what became "Christian nationalism" for a while, but outright nazi sentiment was basically not discussed, even in private. We hated the nazis. Of course, we called them atheists and socialists, and we kinda still believed in the limited government stuff back then, but in the 2020s, I'm seeing the rise of these open fascist types, especially among younger people, and again, this scares the crap out of me. As such, I wanted to discuss this a bit and why we're seeing this now. 

1) Growing GOP extremism

The growing extremism in the GOP is NOT a new problem. It's been a problem since the 1980s. The Reagan revolution happened, heralding in an era of ascendant conservatism. And...by the end of the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was shot down, and we started seeing the rise of Rush Limbaugh and then Fox News in the 1990s. The GOP began retreating from the shared reality that we all live in, and began building alternative media structures. Politically, we saw these shifts manifest electorally, with the contract with America in 1994 where the GOP started being more politically hostile and aggressive. Through the 90s and 2000s this growing extremism continued, which is what initially shaped my political values as a teenager. However, in the later 2000s and early 2010s, I distanced myself from that over time while the extremism continued. Even the 2011 era Tea party got too extreme for me, causing me to have a hard look at myself and my values, which in turn caused me to reject those values and become a progressive instead. I got out BACK THEN. They were getting too extreme BACK THEN. And I understood that it wasn't just their implementation of ideas that was bad, it was the ideas. Fast forward to 2016, we got Trump, Trump started pushing us toward fascism. We had charlottesville. We had the big lie when Trump won in 2020. January 6th. And now in 2025, we got the GOP pushing project 2025 and we are literally descending into fascism. 

2) The post truth world

This polarization in American politics has led to the GOP living in their own world. This isn't new. I mean, I was taught creationism and biblical literalism in high school. But yeah, that's why I keep saying it. The battle for American politics is a battle over WORLDVIEW, and the GOP has been distorting reality for the American people for a while. And at this point, half the country isnt living in reality. THis not only is the source of conservative politics becoming so scary, but in recent years it's getting so bad we're questioning basic facts like the efficacy of vaccines, and even the holocaust. Holocaust denialism is on the rise, especially among younger generations too. People can't agree on facts any more. And to make it worse...

3) The loss of the greatest generation and the holocaust survivors

I've been thinking about this for a while lately, and it's not really surprising, when one thinks about it, why this stuff is happening now. It's been 80 years since WWII. The people who remember it and fascism are now dead. And quite frankly, we didn't do a good enough job teaching people (at least in America) about the root causes of it. We just learned "it happened, it was bad", but we don't really teach people WHY it happened and what triggered people psychologically to accept it. And it is complicated but part of it is authoritarianism. We learned this with the milgram experiment and the stanford prison experiment, which taught us that a lot of the population has a predisposition to authoritarianism, and Germany isn't really unique in this sense, and it can happen here. 

 A lot of it is also racism and xenophobia taken to unthinkable extremes. Like the term "final solution" came from the "Jewish question" of "what should Christian European societies do with the Jewish people?" And there was a lot of anti semitism at the same, and debates and for some, the answer was "extermination", hence, the "FINAL solution." 

 We have our own analogues to this in America. What do we do with the massive black population that used to be freed? What do we do with the growing latino population coming here through immigration? What do we do with the 11 million illegal immigrants who are already here? And...a lot of the current answers are chillingly looking like what the nazis did. You see they didnt start with the gas chambers. They started with deportations. They deported immigrants to poland, etc., and then when they expanded their empire through military action and got into WWII, then they started thinking darker. They never START with the gas chambers. They build up to that. 

And...quite frankly, we never properly dealt with the latent racism that was underlying American politics. We had the civil war, the south lost, and reconstruction never really purged that sentiment. Jim crow existed for another hundred years until the federal government said "no more" to that too. And then the stuff went under the surface, where quite frankly, I was never really introduced to the full brunt of it, being a northerner, but that stuff RUNS DEEP with these people. So I kinda didnt see the dog whistle until I was older and realize holy crap these people still exist, but yeah, they still exist. They were just kinda pushed out of the spotlight. To be fair, a lot of nations in Europe are seeing a surge in this stuff too due to immigration. To some extent, I think that some level of racism and xenophobia probably is natural among humans and it really does take a lot of philosophical spring cleaning to throw that stuff out entirely. But yeah. The point is, it's kinda reaching that fever pitch again.  And that radicalization isn't good.

There are other concerns but I would like to address those separately.

4) The 2016 social split and the loss of shame

 While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American politics, shaming has often been an effective informal measure of social control and keeping people from extremist opinions. You're not going to be arrested if you have extreme opinions, but people may also not want to associate with you either. Unfortunately, America has lost that as a measure of social control in the modern political era.

It all goes back to Trevor's Axiom, trolling, and SJW culture.  In 2016, our politics functionally realigned along the stupidest of battle lines. The left embraced this brand of milquetoast corporate centrism, and the right started embracing "alt right" politics, which was just repackaged fascism. For the right, this was just a continuation of their downward spiral since the 1980s. THere had been this dynamic in American politics before. The left would always been seen as too sensitive and politically correct and the right would be like F YOUR FEELINGS and developed an "own the libs" mentality. Owning the libs is seen as a form of virtue signalling itself, or anti virtue signalling. I've seen a lot of terms for it recently, "based signalling", vice signalling, etc. Basically, the whole point is to piss the libs off. So when the libs get offended and say you can't say that, they'll double down and say it. Because F your feelings lib. On the left, we have forms of this too, and I use them. For example, I can be quite blasphemous toward Christianity and I do tend to reject a lot of right wing ideas, openly. But the way things unfolded in 2016, we got the democrats go all in with wokeness, offense toward anything even remotely "racist" or controversial, and cancel culture, which is basically trying to ruin the life of people expressing sentiments they disapprove of. Meanwhile, the right would be all "what about free speech?" and start doubling down on the offense. They'd say increasingly offensive things to own the libs, and as the libs kept screaming "fascist" back in 2016, 2017, 2018, etc., if anything the overplaying of the mechanisms of shame and social unacceptability to the point that they lost all power. And the right just got emboldened to dial up the offense. 

Well, you can see where this is going. A decade of this and now you got people like Nick Fuentes and his Groypers being like YOUR BODY MY CHOICE, advocating for women to be back in the kitchen, arguing for like tradcath autocracy a la Mussolini or Franco, or flat out saying things like "Hitler was based" and joking about the holocaust. Heck, due to the loss of the WWII generation and the increasingly post truth world, the right is just starting to dispute the holocaust and act like "well maybe it wasn't that bad" or "maybe it didn't happen", believing it all to be an elaborate hoax. And because the people who lived it are now dead, no one can really dispute that as well, despite the mountains of historical evidence in that regard. 

Also add into the fact that young people are particularly immature. So this offense culture is especially funny to them, and they end up getting sucked up into this whole "own the libs" "based signalling" thing. Hence why the young republicans these days are full of people making holocaust jokes. But they are just jokes, right, right?

Well...I'm not sure. The fact is, I do think people are being attracted to genuinely authoritarian and autocratic ideologies, and that the whole JUST KIDDING thing is giving cover for the actual authoritarians to influence the population, gain power. While pre 2016, these people literally werent allowed in polite society, now they're climbing the ranks of the republican party, and it's unclear how much of this fascism stuff they endorse is an elaborate joke to piss off liberals and leftists, and how much they're serious about. 

5) Political implications of the modern era

The 2016 realignment (which may still be undergoing, it's hard to say) has had, and will continue to have long term political implications as it continues to evolve. 

a) Economic

The economy doesn't work for people any more. That was what drove a lot of the 2016 changes in the first place. Originally, Trump and Sanders arose as a political revolution by the people as a backlash against the status quo. The most healthy resolution of this push for change would have been the democratic party moving left economically and embracing a progressive platform aimed at addressing the root causes of these problems. 

However, instead, they embraced wokeism and centrist establishment politics that actually ended up being very unpopular. They fumbled the ball they got in 2008 with Obama, and gave it back to the republicans. And the republicans RAN with it. They don't offer anything new, but they at least have the aesthetics of populism, which the dems don't even have. The dems have "the economy is fine actually and if you're suffering that's on you", which is what you'd expect from republicans. When people demand change, the democrats tell them no relief will come and they better vote for them anyway. And when they DO offer change, its often incrementalism around the edges and not anything that amounts to actual useful changes for the public. 

This has caused a generation of young people to become distrustful of the democratic party, where many will vote for republicans instead. Even among those who see through Trump's grift, they've become so hopeless at ever living a normal life and having the things previous generations have had that they've developed a "burn it all down" mentality. I see this a lot among young people and you see this with the likes of asmongold too. It's sad because I can sympathize with their plight, but rather than get out that frustration in useful ways, they end up voting for these fascist types instead. 

Honestly, this does have historical parallels to the 1930s. When the great depression hit, people were attracted to the fascism of the far right at the time. All this talk of democracy goes out the window when the political parties don't seem to give a crap about you anyway, and you can't afford to eat. Desperate times creates desperate people, and desperate people act more like Scar's hyenas from the Lion King than upstanding citizens. 

 b) Social

 Things aren't working for people socially either, especially among younger people. Remember, young voters were born in the 2000s these days. They were born around the time that I became an adult myself. An 18 year old was born in 2007. A 21 year old was born in 2004. A 25 year old was a Y2K baby. Now you probably feel old. But yeah. We're just as far from the 2000s now as we were from the 1980s in the 2000s. And uh...these younger people aren't all right. They inherited the same economic crapshow that I was calling out for relief from 10-15 years ago, for one, but instead, we got wokeness. And what does wokeness do? It divides people. Girls and women since then have become far more left wing, feminist, etc., while men are disgruntled and sucked into the alt right ecosystem. While porn is omnipresent, many are pushing back against it, believing womens' liberation was a mistake and women are sluts because of egirls and only fans and crap, while simultaneously wondering why they themselves can't get a girlfriend. Just as they're disaffected economically, they're also disaffected socially. THe lack of jobs and economic stability puts demands on them they can't meet with dating because let's face it, most changes have been one sided. Women have gotten more demanding with partners, and men just fail to meet their standards. Some of this is the traditional dream of a steady job and a spouse. No job, no spouse. You need economic success to attract women since that traditional aspect of gender has never changed (and I, quite frankly, represent a more radical progressive response of abandoning traditional expectations in the first place). However, most people arne't me and instead long for the past, and wishing to go back to the 1950s when men just did what they wanted, women were kept barefoot, pregnant, and economically dependent, and yeah. They've become traditionalist. So a lot of them find relief in religion, believing the loss of traditional values and gender roles was a mistake, and wanting to enforce those in society. Even though they weren't that great. But yeah. That's where a lot of the weird tradcath authoritarianism a la fuentes is coming from. Fascism is the highest form of social conservatism, ie, the most extreme form, and a lot of people are embracing views that just reject all modernity and believe the answer is to go back to the past. This is also why conservative men keep harping on the democrats and claiming they never have an answer for men on stuff. Because these young men aren't just longing for economic relief any more, like I was, they want this full monte of going back to traditional gender roles and traditional expectations of what makes men men. And this is why the dems struggle, even as they now sometimes try to offer the progressive economics I wanted a decade ago. They don't just want success, they want meaning, and they want a society that affirms them as men within the confines of all this traditionalist crap. 

As such, the boys are not okay. Combine that political polarization between the genders with COVID screwing up their teenage years (an 18 year old today was 13 when COVID hit, a 23 year old today was 18 when COVID hit) and yeah, a lot of these are coming out into this world and they aren't exactly well adjusted. We got basically a generation of incels, and they're all embracing incel ideology and radicalizing that way. It's actually really scary. 

Conclusion

Our society is kinda screwed. We still dont know what the full implications of all of this is, as history regarding it is being written. We dont know if fascism is the future, or just a temporary manifestation brought by the rot of woke neoliberalism and the ineffectiveness of the left to offer real solutions, but it seems clear that a lot of historical forces are coming together, giving rise to increasing fascist ideologies, among younger people. This COULD be THE realignment into the 7th party system. Surprise! It's fascism! We're screwed! It could also be an awkward end game manifestation of the 6th party system and its flaws that we need to purge from our society to fully go into a 7th yet to come. Remember, the transition between party systems isn't really clean sometimes. For example, we saw the fall of the new deal coalition in 1968, but we didn't see reagan fully replace it until 1980. We did start seeing outlines of the direction the GOP was going with nixon though. 

Likewise, we don't know where THIS is going yet. Maybe 2024 is the 1980 moment, or maybe it's more like a 1976 moment that needs to happen so the left can REALLY have its 1980 moment. Either way, I will say this. I really do not believe that things had to go this way. I believe, in an alternate timeline, that bernie could have won 2016, and none of this nightmare would have happened. People debate what about Hillary winning, but eh...I have mixed thoughts on that. I honestly believe clinton would have realigned the country along its current lines as well, and while her beating trump in 2016 might have served as a temporary respite from the trends we've seen since then, I believe that some iteration of the conservatives coming back in the 2020s was inevitable. Just as, in a way, Biden being a temporary respite, leading to the rise of more open fascism in 2024 was a thing. The point is, the centrist democrats did not have the ideas, or ideology, or solutions to our problems that were needed to actually get us to a more positive realignment. The right would have come back anyway. Still, would things have looked differently if we had a Clinton -> someone else timeline? maybe. It's hard to know how though. Point is, I believe some iteration of this trend would have happened regardless. It might have even been Trump again in 2020. He would've done his big lie stuff anyway if he lost in 2016 and wouldnt have taken no for an answer. It just isnt in his nature to do so. 

So...idk. As long as the same forces were present, weak and feckless democrats and increasingly extreme republicans, I believe the end result of this realignment was going to be the same. If anything, maybe the repeated losses of democrats will give rise to a more aggressively progressive left who will actually fight for things in 2028. Maybe this is the only way to have the good outcome happen. Or maybe im just an old bernie bro who is still trying to do wishful thinking for "this is how bernie can still win". Who knows? Either way, the left needs to get their crap together fast, or democracy is done. Unless the left can pull off a stunning upset that reverses everything that happened, and FAST, fascism is the future of the GOP, and the democrats will be powerless to stop it.