I don't understand why the GOP isn't being forced to do an actual talking filibuster

[USAFRetired_Liberal]

1. The filibuster was changed in the 1970's

Eliminated the need to stay and talk, and also eliminated the requirement for 2/3 of Senators present to 3/5 of ALL senators, yeah 2/3 is more than 3/5 so one would think lowering it to 3/5 would be better to end a filibuster, but the difference is that a senator had to be present in order to count in the 2/3.....for some reason, senators thought that these changes would end the gridlock and help to pass more bills, but it actually encouraged more gridlock and filibusters...I will try and find the reference.

Edit - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/topics/us-government/history-of-the-filibuster

Changes in senate practice would eventually curb the drama of the filibuster. In the early 1970s, Senate leaders adopted changes that allowed more than one bill or matter to be pending on the floor at once. Before, with only one bill under consideration at a time, a filibuster could stop all other matters in the Senate—as long as a senator kept talking. Now, with multiple measures moving at once, leadership can simply set aside a controversial bill as theoretical “debate” continues, and move onto other matters in the meantime.