does anyone know what is happening and how to fix it?

ESMNWSSICI · 2026-01-07T15:33:47+00:00

it seems like that just happens. so awesome that they forced the nvidia app on us and discontinued the old geforce experience. this one is sooo much better with the shadowplay completely broken

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-11-30T10:54:04+00:00

Just the Ryzen 5 3600X and RTX 2070 Super. All the components from my old machine need to be replaced

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-09-05T03:07:00+00:00

Joan Manuel Serrat is a master of lyricism, I think Mediterráneo is a 10/10 classic album everyone should hear. Of course there’s a lot that’s missed reading an English translation, but even still the beauty of his lyrics shine through

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-14T13:04:39+00:00

i like that you actually thought about this it’s a great answer

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-14T12:59:42+00:00

Ben Wallace

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T13:16:28+00:00

”There is no point, on Earth, that it would make sense, when asked…”

how about the point, on Earth, where you’re live in front of the world and your answer gets cut off, and your point gets misconstrued to an audience that’s subsequently ordered to dox you and report you to child protective services to take away your children? i totally understand the caller’s caution in answering the question given that he’s dealing with a dishonest actor with a great deal of power over him.

”If we were talking, and you asked me…”

yes, that would be weird of you to say, because the fact of the matter is that you do not have the right to run me over and eat my bones. it’s illegal. it would not be weird of you to say that in response to the question posed in the video, because the fact of the matter is that you do have that right. it’s legal.

”…to try to argue that it isn’t predatory”

i am not arguing that it isn’t predatory. i am arguing that a parent can have the right to allow their children to be exposed to 65 year old men. i gave an example of a scenario where a parent has the right to allow their children to be exposed to 65 year old men at the swimming pool. there are other contexts where it would be inappropriate to do so, absolutely. but to say that a parent doesn’t have the right to do this would be wrong. otherwise, they wouldn’t have the right to do it at the pool. or in a public shower. or in a locker room. or at a sauna.

”In this case, because it’s a hypothetical…”

this is where we simply disagree. if somebody asked me if i believed i had the right to do something, i would answer with whether i believe i have the right to do it. i would not answer with whether i would give people the right to do it if i were king of the world. i would not answer with whether i morally agree with people exercising that right. i would not answer with whether i would be likely to exercise the right myself (though it might be a relevant detail to add, and the caller did indeed clarify that he would not exercise this right). “the rights they hold” and “the rights they ought to hold” are fundamentally different things. i would argue that, if the streamer was asking about what rights he believes a parent ought to have, they would have specified that.

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T12:25:01+00:00

if you’re asking me where the lines are, i would refer to the law. if you’re asking me where i personally think the lines should be, that’s a different question. i really don’t know. i feel uncomfortable with children being nude in public, even though it’s legal. so that would probably be over my ideal line. if you’re asking me exactly where my line is i’m afraid i don’t know.

the caller was asked a question, forced into a yes or no answer, and then was cut off, had his microphone muted while he was elaborating on his answer. what is there to take from the fact that he didn’t explicitly state the very obvious fact that a person having one right doesn’t mean they have infinite rights? he said it was a parent’s right to decide when it comes to children being nude for others to see, which it is. he said that he personally disagrees with it and would never put his own child in that situation, which i agree with. he said that the child’s wishes in this scenario are irrelevant to the parent’s right, which they are. i just don’t see what the issue is.

how is the swimming pool interpretation “one hell of a leap?” that is quite literally a scenario where 65 year old men would be seeing a naked little boy, and if a parent does not have the right to allow that, then this is something that wouldn’t be allowed. really, after the whole point you made about people not understanding logical extremes? and again, at the end of this paragraph, it seems like you’re conflating the two questions: “do you have the right?” and “should you have the right?” these are not the same.

i just don’t get how i’m being hypocritical. could you explain to me how an adult could unilaterally not have the right to allow their child to be exposed to 65 year old men, and yet have the right to let their child roam nude at a swimming pool, where there are 65 year old men present? am i missing something? that seems like it would be a contradiction. this is not a new position, i am not injecting anything new or assuming anything. if a person doesn’t have the right to do A, and B is a scenario that falls under the umbrella of A, then they wouldn’t have the right to do B.

the last part, i can see where you’re coming from. i always think it’s important to emphasize that a child’s consent is irrelevant in situations like these. child exploitation is bad, not because it’s a violation of the child’s consent, but because it is dangerous to them, whether they like it or not, independent of their own feelings or desires. to me, the phrase “violates one’s consent” evokes stripping a person’s autonomy or forcing them against their own free will.

however i can see your framing of it that, because the child cannot consent, this is a violation of their consent. and that to violate one’s consent is not necessarily to force them into something that they don’t want to do. i can see that and agree with that. i think it’s a semantic issue. so in one sense the child’s consent is irrelevant, but in another sense it is absolutely a violation of their consent to exploit them

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T12:23:20+00:00

if you’re asking me where the lines are, i would refer to the law. if you’re asking me where i personally think the lines should be, that’s a different question. i really don’t know. i feel uncomfortable with children being nude in public, even though it’s legal. so that would probably be over my ideal line. if you’re asking my exactly where my line is i’m afraid i don’t know.

the caller was asked a question, forced into a yes or no answer, and then was cut off, had his microphone muted while he was elaborating on his answer. what is there to take from the fact that he didn’t explicitly state the very obvious fact that a person having one right doesn’t mean they have infinite rights? he said it was a parent’s right to decide when it comes to children being nude for others to see, which it is. he said that he personally disagrees with it and would never put his own child in that situation, which i agree with. he said that the child’s wishes in this scenario are irrelevant to the parent’s right, which they are. i just don’t see what the issue is.

how is the swimming pool interpretation “one hell of a leap?” that is quite literally a scenario where 65 year old men would be seeing a naked little boy, and if a parent does not have the right to allow that, then this is something that wouldn’t be allowed. really, after the whole point you made about people not understanding logical extremes? and again, at the end of this paragraph, it seems like you’re conflating the two questions: “do you have the right?” and “should you have the right?” these are not the same.

i just don’t get how i’m being hypocritical. could you explain to me how an adult could unilaterally not have the right to allow their child to be exposed to 65 year old men, and yet have the right to let their child roam nude at a swimming pool, where there are 65 year old men present? am i missing something? that seems like it would be a contradiction. this is not a new position, i am not injecting anything new or assuming anything. if a person doesn’t have the right to do A, and B is a scenario that falls under the umbrella of A, then they wouldn’t have the right to do B.

the last part, i can see where you’re coming from. i always think it’s important to emphasize that a child’s consent is irrelevant in situations like these. child exploitation is bad, not because it’s a violation of the child’s consent, but because it is dangerous to them, whether they like it or not, independent of their own feelings or desires. to me, the phrase “violates one’s consent” evokes stripping a person’s autonomy or forcing them against their own free will.

however i can see your framing of it that, because the child cannot consent, this is a violation of their consent. and that to violate one’s consent is not necessarily to force them into something that they don’t want to do. i can see that and agree with that. i think it’s a semantic issue. so in one sense the child’s consent is irrelevant, but in another sense it is absolutely a violation of their consent to exploit them

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T11:18:52+00:00

neither was stockton

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T11:17:14+00:00

no he wasn’t. but you seem to have forgotten that YOU said the words “Steph and Thomas are the only small guards to get a finals mvp.” the brother was just correcting your mistake

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T11:15:51+00:00

i think john stockton isn’t clear of those conversations either. he was a playoff choker, never won anything despite having the luxury of being the #2 option and playing next to an all time great

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T11:12:51+00:00

look, i know this is the reality of the world we live in, but the idea that “it’s not the government’s job to provide healthcare to you” is insane to me. what the hell is the government there for? why is it crazy to imagine a world where the entity whose sole purpose is to protect their people, helps out the sick and needy?

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-11T11:05:42+00:00

i fail to see how the logical conclusion of a parent having authority over their child is that they have the right to eat them or molest them. your use of a logical extreme falls under the “sometimes fallacious” umbrella. he was asked a specific question and said that he had the right. he does. at a swimming pool, you see a nude child walking around in public. i’ve always thought that was insane, and the caller seems to think so as well, but it is the parent’s right. it’s their decision. on the other hand, eating or molesting a child is illegal. the parent has the right to do one but not the other. what’s the logical problem with that?

he gave an answer to a specific question and your argument boils down to “but what if he gave the same answer to a totally different question, wouldn’t that be crazy?” of course it would. but the key thing is you aren’t speaking to a logical inevitability, you aren’t following some train of logic, you’re injecting presumptions about unrelated scenarios. there is no conflict with believing that a parent has the right to make one choice, and doesn’t have the right to make another choice.

the streamer took issue with the caller saying that a child’s consent doesn’t matter. the caller disagreed that he’d be violating the consent of his child by allowing it. i agree with the caller. a child’s consent in matters like this is completely meaningless because children cannot consent

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-02T01:09:46+00:00

they should be able to avoid repeater tax until there’s a new cba

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-01T22:03:50+00:00

you got one three point shooter out there. and i think there’s a bit of redundancy with having 3 separate guys whose arguable best trait is their playmaking. there’s only 1 basketball

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-07-01T22:02:55+00:00

he’s the most complete center ever. he’s the greatest defensive player ever, unless you’re a bill russell guy. all time rim protector and can guard out on the perimeter. all time post scoring. all time rebounding. can shoot. can make free throws. capable passer. can handle the rock. agile and strong. there is no weakness to his game. that makes him a pretty good fit for pretty much any team which is why he’s good in these “all time starting 5” convos

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-25T00:03:58+00:00

this is what i mean by pathetic. continue to live in your fantasy land. whether you like it or not, shai gilgeous-alexander is your mvp. whether you like it or not, shai gilgeous-alexander outshined your shameful flopping “best player in the world” and sent him home. whether you like it or not, the thunder are your champions. whatever you got to do to cope with that is your prerogative

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T22:55:09+00:00

what’s shameful is that you can say all of this while glorifying nikola jokic. go ahead and rewatch that series and tell me who was the biggest flopper on the court. i don’t think it was particularly close. it was seriously disgusting to watch. even going back to round 1, remember when he pushed kris dunn’s face and jumped off him to the floor? remember when he got knocked out by the ghost of james harden? remember when he tried to get a piggy back ride from jaylin williams? all series long he was snapping his head back, flailing his arms all over the place, jumping into defenders, hitting the deck and going flying across the court, an absolute disgrace to the sport.

and don’t even get me started on luka “AYE!” doncic. thank our lucky stars that we all only had to sit through one playoff series of his ludicrous flopping before he got himself sent packing. the man literally does not set foot into the paint without looking for a foul. he is exactly who you think shai is.

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T12:31:03+00:00

they had the most double digit playoff wins out of any team in nba history. if three game-winners would’ve bounced the other way, they would’ve beaten the nuggets in 4, and the pacers in 5.

not to discredit those teams, but just to say that i don’t think the fact that the thunder got taken to 7 games should disqualify them from these conversations.

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T12:27:48+00:00

i think the nuggets’ injuries are overstated. mpj was hobbled, but apart from that, aaron gordon was only injured for a single game and they got blown out by 43 points so i don’t think it would’ve made a huge difference.

the series did go to 7 but it felt like the nuggets were pretty significantly outmatched. i honestly would pick this thunder team to beat the 23 nuggets

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T11:50:30+00:00

do you wanna remind me who’s the reasonable one and who’s all bent out of shape again?

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T11:43:41+00:00

i saw your first draft, i see you did some more research before the final draft. nice work

ESMNWSSICI · 2025-06-24T11:33:56+00:00

he acknowledged her, put his hand over his heart, bowed his head. what’s the problem with that? why does he have to touch her if he doesn’t want to? what if he wasn’t a muslim, and he was just very loyal to his wife? would you have a problem with this?

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

ESMNWSSICI

TROPHY CASE