Hardkill

So, you want to just give up and let the authoritarians win? Do you know which party has the more popular and more effective policies? What kind of leader do you exactly suppose should run the country who has a real shot at winning the presidency sometime soon? Which party should run the country?

That all sounds good, but you can't just sit back and do nothing to fight against a monster like Trump/MAGA. You have to choose the right side of things from a truly wise and forward-thinking perspective.

To be quite frank, that kind of false-equivalency or bothsideism thinking is an example of how people like you go too far with centrism, which plays right into the hands of authoritarians like Trump even though Trump will never gain total unchecked power like Hitler or Stalin did.

I know that most single men in their 40s usually don’t go to bars, clubs, chaos-driven parties, or wild places like Vegas or Cancun to meet women—at least not the way younger guys do. Either they’re just not interested anymore, or they have a harder time relating to those environments, especially when most of the women there are in their late teens to 20s. So, do you still meet girls in any of those kinds of places, Leo? Or not so much anymore? I’m asking because I only have a couple of years left before I turn 40, and I know I won’t be ready—at least for another year—to fully commit to consistently cold approaching, especially in nightlife settings. I still need to focus on finishing my doctoral degree in physical therapy, figuring out how to get my own place, and getting other parts of my life in order. I don't see meeting women just through social circle ever working for me unless I get really lucky.

It has been very clear to me in recent years that if you’re serious about improving your dating life — especially daygame or nightgame — the best move is to leave your small town and relocate to a big city like LA, NYC, Vegas, or London. I understand that: more women, more variety, faster feedback, and better exposure. But here’s the issue… We're living through one of the worst housing affordability crises in the entire developed world — and the epicenters of that crisis are the very cities guys are told to move to. In the U.S., cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York have become financially unsustainable for many men — even for those making what used to be considered good middle-class incomes. A huge percentage of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30–50% of their income just on rent. And unlike places like Vienna, Berlin, or Tokyo, the U.S. doesn’t have strong public housing systems or rent controls to balance it out. Hell, U.S. Big Cities have become the worst of the worst or ground zero for the housing affordability crisis in the developed world. Even suburbs or mid-sized cities near big metros (like Pasadena in LA) often don’t help much. I lived there for years, and while technically it had nightlife and population size, it lacked the sexual energy, social dynamics, and foot traffic needed for consistent game. It was expensive, very very frustrating, and low-yield. So here’s what I’m really wondering: Is it still wise or realistic for most men to move to major U.S. cities for dating/game — given how unaffordable and unstable those environments have become? Or would it make more sense in 2025 and beyond to: Choose smaller, more strategic cities that balance affordability and dating volume? Do game in bursts through travel or event-based windows? Build your finances and remote income first before relocating? I’m currently working toward a Doctor of Physical Therapy degree — so I’m not broke, but even on that income, LA or SF would require serious compromises. Curious what others here have done or recommend — especially anyone who’s made that big-city leap and had to navigate both the dating and financial terrain.

What do you think about Vlad Vexler's take on him foreseeing right-wing authoritarianism not going away even after Trump is gone and that there will more than likely be a second wave of authoritarianism that's more strategic and more disciplined? However, he said months ago that Trump’s 2nd term would likely erode and damage U.S. democracy — perhaps deeply — but it’s extremely unlikely to end democracy outright, kind of like you've been saying.

Manchin has reared his ugly head again and even though he said before that both parties have gone too far to their respective extremes, he's now normalizing Trump and his actions, delegitimizing the whole modern Democratic Party by framing it as out-of-touch with average Americans, and is still representing corporate extremism. Kyle Kulinski's Key Points in the Video: 1. Manchin complains the party isn’t neoliberal anymore 2. But the ‘Democratic Socialists’ are returning to FDR-style governance 3. Manchin represents the failed corporate wing Kyle not only slams Manchin’s Trump-friendly, anti-progressive shift, but flips the script to argue that Manchin is the outlier, and figures like AOC, Sanders, and Mamdani are in a sense the true heirs of American democratic tradition even though they are self-described Socialists.

Oh, so even a middle-class or working-class guy could live comfortably in cities like that?

Thanks man — appreciate the perspective. Yeah, I’m not looking to dabble — I want to go deep with cold approach and push my edge, after I get this DPT degree down and out of the way. Yeah, I actually had the thought in my head about how even living in a suburb would make everything more inconvenient as everything would still be logistically slower and more fragmented, especially for dating momentum, like you said. I lived in that city, Pasadena for years, which technically had a fair amount of nightlife, but it was still missing that social energy you get in places like downtown LA, WeHo, or even Miami Beach. I’m also realistic about how much of my income would go toward rent, even on a DPT salary — especially if I want to avoid roommates. But I hear you: if the purpose is strong enough, it’s worth stretching a bit to make the logistics tight. That Miami spot looks pretty solid, too. Although, I really don't think that living in a place like Miami will ever personally be for me. But I get your point. I'll definitely weigh some different cities for best game-to-cost ratio.

Good question. I would hope that that could work great.

You're totally right that older generations "settled" more — because they had fewer options, stricter social roles, and more immediate survival concerns. And yes, material comfort has absolutely led to greater freedom, but also to spoiled expectations — in both men and women. But I don’t think it’s just about "people being spoiled" or men "playing video games." That’s only part of it. There’s a much deeper existential and systemic breakdown underneath this. Our generation is trying to create meaning and intimacy in a radically deregulated cultural and technological environment — where capitalism has commodified everything, including sex, love, and identity. So yeah, we have freedom now — but with no clear guidance, no cultural guardrails, and algorithms that reward superficiality and infinite choice. That creates emotional paralysis and relational inequality, not just “spoiled people.” You're right that “it was easier to be married when life had a gun to your head.” But the paradox is this: too much freedom without structure becomes its own form of suffering. It’s not a call to roll back feminism — it’s a call to build new collective frameworks for love, meaning, and connection. So I’d say: both things are true. People today are more free and more lost. We’re living through the collapse of old relational paradigms, and the new ones haven’t emerged yet. This isn’t about blaming feminism or men’s choices — it’s about realizing we need more than freedom. We need wisdom to navigate it.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that the rise in sexual inequality we’re seeing—especially in modern dating—is deeply connected to broader systemic trends that began around the late 1970s and early 1980s. Just as neoliberalism deregulated markets and led to massive concentrations of wealth and power, decades of sexual libertinism—removal of norms, expectations of commitment, and male responsibility—have created a deregulated sexual marketplace. And like the economy, it’s ended up concentrating power in the hands of a small elite: mostly high-status men and, to a degree, some high-status women. Both systems—neoliberal capitalism and post-sexual revolution dating culture—promised freedom, choice, and personal autonomy. But in practice, both atomized society, undermined community values, and left many feeling powerless, isolated, and unfulfilled. And in both cases, if you're struggling—financially, emotionally, sexually—it’s framed as your own fault. “You just didn’t play the game well enough.” It’s sad how far we’ve drifted from collective well-being, serious structural analysis of power, protection for the vulnerable, and any real sense of solidarity. Especially in America, these values have been almost entirely displaced by hyper-individualism and commodification. We’re now dealing with the psychological and spiritual consequences of both revolutions—economic and sexual—happening in parallel.

Two things can be true at the same time — which is something I’m still learning as part of the broader concept of non-duality and/or duality. Of course, dating has never been completely equal, nor will it ever be, just as a system like communism would (theoretically) aspire to create. However, @Jodistrict makes a valid point: older generations, on average, didn’t complain nearly as much about finding or maintaining long-term relationships as younger generations do today. Feminism and women’s rights over the last 4 to 5 decades have been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, these movements empowered women to say no to men who were bad for them or simply incompatible, and gave them fairer opportunities in nearly every aspect of life. Plus, women’s sexual satisfaction has generally improved across generations. On the other hand, these shifts have also contributed to women becoming, on average, less traditionally feminine than previous generations, developing much higher standards than ever before, and feeling lonelier and more lost in the modern dating world. The media landscape — especially the rise of online dating and dating apps — has turbocharged women’s options, particularly for the most attractive women, in ways never seen before. Most men now have to compete more than ever before. Btw Leo, you’ve pointed out how hypercapitalism erodes consciousness. Well, a hyper-commodified sexual market does something similar — it reduces people to utility, status, and looks. That’s not freedom, that’s algorithmic determinism. In fact, I fear that excessive dating and sexual inequality can become undemocratic because it undermines social cohesion, creates resentment, and fosters the conditions for radicalism, demagoguery, and anti-democratic backlash.

I am very disappointed in Owen. In a way, he's turning out to be a phony. Of course, people like him will say that at least they are winning and that most other people out there are just mediocre simps or lazy losers.

Thanks for your response — I get where you're coming from. I’m not arguing for rigid, enforced monogamy or a return to outdated norms. As much as many men out there — especially conservative ones — wish for that to happen (and I admit I’ve had those thoughts at times too), that’s obviously never going to happen. And to be fair, there have been some real positives: women having more dating and sexual freedom than before, and men also not being forced to conform to strict traditional norms around dating, sex, and marriage. My point is that when we removed structure from dating without replacing it with emotionally healthy cultural alternatives, we ended up with a highly deregulated, winner-takes-all system — much like neoliberal economics. Yes, freedom can be fulfilling, but unstructured freedom without guidance or protection tends to concentrate success in the hands of a few — and leave many others feeling lost, lonely, or frustrated. Personally, what I struggle with most is how disconnected and transactional things feel today — how hard it is to find emotionally open, grounded people who genuinely want connection. It’s not just about effort; it’s about how broken the broader incentives and culture have become. Glad your strategy is working, though. I hope it leads to something deep and meaningful.

No, I get all of that. Though I want to do a lot of nightlife when I get enough of a chance to.

Start incrementally by asking about 20 random people simple questions like, “What time is it?” or “Where’s the nearest coffee shop?” Once you’re comfortable with that, take it a step further: ask another 20 random people for advice on what kind of gift to get for a friend’s birthday party. Or, pretend you have a girlfriend and say something like, “I want to get my girlfriend a romantic one-year anniversary gift, but I’m not sure what to get—do you have any suggestions?” Once that starts to feel natural, begin having short, casual conversations with women you’re at least somewhat attracted to. Try to keep the conversation going for a couple of minutes, then give a compliment like, “You’re beautiful,” “You’re attractive,” or “You’re gorgeous,” and leave. Do this with about 20 different women. After that, approach 20 more women and get used to being blown out of the conversation by intentionally saying something dumb but funny—like, “Hey, I’ve got a white van parked around the corner. Want to hop in?” or “Hi, I’m looking for a really good time... if you know what I mean.” The goal here isn’t to get a number but to desensitize yourself to rejection. And if one of them actually stays and laughs, you can pivot into a normal conversation. No pressure to ask for a number. Finally, once you’re comfortable doing that, approach another 20 new women you find attractive. Start with a compliment about how they look, walk, or dress, chat for a few minutes, and then go for a number close.

1. The Democratic Party lost horrifically to Trump/MAGA. 2024 was winnable. But Democrats blew it — paralyzed between loyalty to Biden and fear of change. Now the far right controls the narrative and the government. 2. Biden’s exit cost them big. Yes, he was aging. But forcing him out late meant: Losing the incumbency effect Losing party unity Gaining confusion, infighting, and scrambled messaging 3. The DNC under Ken Martin is a slow implosion. He promised modernization and unity. Instead: Mismanaged 2024’s transition Alienated progressives and youth Failed to build long-term infrastructure 4. David Hogg got pushed out as DNC Vice-Chair. A young, energized activist removed for being too vocal. The message? "Sit down, fall in line, or get out." Great way to keep the next generation engaged, right? 5. And now? The DNC is facing a funding crisis. Donors are pulling out Grassroots enthusiasm is dead No vision, no inspiration — and it shows 6. The “Big Betrayal” bill gutted Biden’s biggest win. The Inflation Reduction Act — climate investments, tax reform — rolled back. Meanwhile, Trump-era tax cuts were extended. So… what did Democrats actually defend? 7. Trump owns the narrative. He speaks in emotion and clarity. Democrats speak in half-apologies and policy memos.You can’t beat propaganda with bullet points. 8. Right-wing media is a war machine. Fox, YouTube, TikTok, podcasts — cultural dominance. Democrats? Still living in the MSNBC bubble, clinging to legacy media. This isn’t just bad strategy. It’s suicide. 9. The courts are fully captured. SCOTUS has shredded: Voting rights Student debt relief Climate authority Executive power And Dems still won’t touch court reform. They act like the rules are fair. 10. Economic populism was the one unifying message — and they ran from it. The working class wants bold action. Democrats gave them donor-tested slogans. Trump moved into the anti-elite lane. Again. 11. Now they’re terrified of Zohran Mamdani. He won NYC’s mayoral primary on rent control, public goods, and worker-first messaging. The DNC is panicking. Why? Because he connects. Because he exposes their timidity. 12. I don’t think Gavin Newsom can save them either. I like some of what he’s done. I respect his pushback against Trump. But right now, he governs safely within the donor bubble. He hasn’t shown bold economic vision. Could he be pushed left like Biden was? Maybe. But I’m skeptical. 13. And I’m not just focused on him. There are leaders I respect: Josh Shapiro Tim Walz Andy Beshear Wes Moore But even the best of them can’t fix a party this broken — not alone. It’s the system that’s collapsing. 14. The party’s approval rating is at a historic low. That’s not about “messaging.” It’s about people giving up — on leadership, on vision, on a party that talks equity but won't confront power. And I’m starting to feel that too. 15. I’m not feeling optimistic right now. I want to believe we can turn this around. I want to believe someone will rise to the moment. But watching the same mistakes play out again — while the right consolidates power — is exhausting. This doesn’t feel like a crossroads anymore. It feels like decline. 16. Still, I believe in the people — not the institution. Maybe the Democratic Party can change. Maybe it has to be rebuilt from the ground up. Either way, it won’t be saved from the top. It starts with those of us refusing to settle. The party needs an exorcism. Or it needs to be replaced. * Sorry if I bolded too many words.

Oh... Yeah, I hear you. Are you just preoccupied with other areas in your life right now or just had your fill with socializing, dating, and like you used to? But honestly, I really want—and need—to get good with people, especially women. I know I’ve got a limited window before I hit 40, and even though I’m still deep in school and figuring out my living situation, I don’t want to keep putting this part of life off. Social skills, connection, confidence—it all matters. That doesn’t mean I should be discouraged from practicing socializing and interacting with a lot of people—including women—in bars, clubs, big chaotic parties, and similar settings, even in my late 30s or early 40s, right?

Well, going to war with China isn't happening for the foreseeable future, not to mention how truly catastrophic that would be for our economy and the rest of the global economy. Having all of NATO really join Ukraine in the war against Russia would be suicidal. So, do you think that the US should wage an all-out war in the Middle East against Iran?

As damaging as the radical right-wing propaganda machine and the extreme anti-mainstream propaganda machine have been to the United States, the pervasive and deeply ingrained Communist propaganda that permeated every aspect of life in the Soviet Union was far more destructive. This propaganda apparatus systematically manipulated public opinion, employing a range of tactics – from outright disinformation to subtle psychological manipulation – to indoctrinate Soviet citizens with the idea that authoritarianism, if not totalitarianism, was essential to achieving communist ideals. As a result, the Soviet people were left with deeply entrenched beliefs that were resistant to change, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 1. Control of media: Communist regimes tightly controlled all forms of media, including newspapers, radio, television, and film, to ensure that only approved messages were disseminated. The Soviet government jammed foreign radio broadcasts to prevent the spread of dissenting ideas. 2. Censorship: Strict censorship was enforced to suppress any dissenting voices, opposition views, or sensitive information that could undermine the regime. Books deemed counter-revolutionary or anti-Soviet were censored, confiscated, or burned. 3. Ideological indoctrination: Communist ideology was deeply ingrained in education, from primary schools to universities, to shape young minds and ensure loyalty to the regime. 4. Public events and rituals: Communist regimes organized public events, parades, and rituals to promote their ideology, showcase their power, and foster a sense of community and shared values. Sports events and achievements were used to promote communist ideology and Soviet patriotism. 5. Propaganda through science: Scientific achievements and discoveries were promoted as evidence of the Soviet Union's superiority and the power of communist ideology. 6. Personality cults: Communist leaders often created personality cults, presenting themselves as infallible, wise, and benevolent leaders, to consolidate their power and authority. 7. Agitation and Propaganda (Agitprop) Agitprop trains and ships: Special trains and ships traveled throughout the Soviet Union, spreading propaganda and promoting communist ideology. Agitprop brigades: Mobile teams of agitators and propagandists performed plays, songs, and other cultural events to promote communist values. 8. Symbolic Propaganda Red flags and banners: Red flags and banners with communist symbols were displayed prominently in public spaces. Monuments and memorials: Monuments and memorials were erected to honor communist leaders, events, and ideals. 9. Repression and Intimidation Show trials: Public trials were staged to demonstrate the Soviet government's power and to intimidate potential dissenters. Forced labor camps: Millions of people were imprisoned in forced labor camps, often for perceived counter-revolutionary activities or thoughts. Despite being subjected to intense Communist propaganda throughout their lives, enough people in the USSR ultimately resisted its influence. They demanded an end to communist rule and successfully advocated for the independence of every Soviet republic. I've searched extensively for explanations online of how this happened, but none of the sources I've found provide a clear answer. It still is unclear to me how people were able to overcome the extremely intense and pervasive propaganda and groupthink that had shaped their worldview for so long.

So, why are the Democrats, particularly the Democratic leadership, still struggling to come up with an effective message strategy right now? So far, I fear that the only way they’ll be able to present a united front with a strong message grounded in social moderation and economic populism is if they’re pressured into it by an extreme economic crisis—or some other unprecedented threat we haven’t seen in our lifetimes, like another Great Depression or even World War III.

Polls more than a year out generally don't mean much, but so far, the Democrats are off to a bad start for the midterms.