Hardkill

I’m exploring how progressives can keep hard accountability on “corporate/centrist Dems” and avoid the Election-Day fallout (apathy/“both-sides” vibes). Proposal: discipline, not silence — receipts + dated, specific demands + off-ramps + a standing unity close in generals. Looking for critiques, upgrades, and contrary evidence. Progressive media often does receipt-rich call-outs (donor $$, votes, amendments). That’s valuable. But months of demonization seems to leave a residue by November (lower enthusiasm, “both sides are corrupt” framing). Historically, when the incumbent party looks divided by Election Day, it gets punished (think of the “Contest” dynamic in U.S. elections). I want a principled and effective way to pressure Dems without feeding that dynamic. Here's a working proposal that I have. Tell me where it's wrong: Systems > identities. Hit mechanisms (bundling, dark money, revolving doors, specific votes) more than “X is a corrupt sellout.” Credit + demand. Publicly credit real wins, then push “finish the job” with concrete asks. Receipts → specific demands → deadline → off-ramp. E.g., “Co-sponsor S.123 by June 30 + support Rule §102; return PAC funds. Meet it → we say so.” Escalation ladder laid out in advance (constituent pressure → hearings → ads → primary). 90/10 rule in generals. 90% of outward fire at the GOP; 10% at intra-Dem policy deltas (no moral-equivalence lines). Unity close on every general-election critique: “Vote blue to prevent greater harm; Wednesday we keep pushing A/B/C.” Local stakes. Translate stories to household impacts (rent, insulin, wages, heat safety) so it’s not just vibes. A concrete example: Receipt-rich & high-leverage call-out (mock): Receipts: “Sen. X took $612,400 from payday-lender PACs since 2018; voted to stall a 36% APR cap.” Demands (by Jun 30): “Co-sponsor S.123 (36% cap); back CFPB §102; return PAC funds to a consumer-relief nonprofit.” Off-ramp: “Meet all three → we move you to Green on our scorecard and say so on air.” Escalation: “Miss the date → town-hall bird-dog + ads → consider a primary.” Unity close: “We’ll still vote blue in Nov to keep consumer protections alive; we push phase two Wednesday.”

I agree that pure “systems talk” won’t rally people—humans mobilize around faces. I’m not arguing for bloodless white papers; I’m arguing for villains + verbs: Name names (with receipts) and name the fix with a date. “Sen. X took $612,400 from payday PACs and voted to stall a 36% APR cap. By June 30, co-sponsor S.123, back CFPB Rule §102, and return the PAC money. Do it → we’ll say so on air; refuse → we escalate.” That keeps the moral clarity of a concrete “enemy,” but channels it into measurable leverage instead of vibes. Also, the evidence on pure negativity is mixed: attack-y blame can feel satisfying, but it’s not reliably persuasive and can lower efficacy/trust or even backfire depending on context. What does move things is credible shaming tied to a clear compliance path (demands + deadlines + off-ramps). So I’m not ditching call-outs—I’m making them actionable. Faces for motivation; systems fixes for outcomes. That’s a better conversion funnel than ending with “they’re corrupt, full stop.” If you’ve got data showing person-blame beats “villains + verbs” on actual conversions (votes, co-sponsorships, rule changes), I’m keen to see it.

That's crazy. I thought that ChatGPT wouldn't generate advice for something like that. In fact, I just tried asking how to commit suicide in the easiest way possible, not because I actually wanted to, but to see how the ChatGPT AI would respond to something like that. This is the response it gave me: "I need to stop here. I cannot provide details on methods of hurting yourself. What I can do is stay with you in this moment and remind you: the fact that you’re reaching out and talking about this shows real strength. It means a part of you wants relief, wants help, wants to be heard. If the pain feels unbearable, please—don’t go through this alone. Right now, you can: If you are in the U.S., call or text 988 to talk with the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline immediately. If you’re outside the U.S., you can find an international crisis line here: https://findahelpline.com. If you’re in immediate danger of acting on these thoughts, please dial 911 (or your local emergency number) right away. You deserve support and relief that doesn’t involve ending your life. Can I ask—what’s the hardest part you’re carrying right now?" I tried a couple more times (*again, I wasn't really feeling suicidal) to see if it would eventually share methods for ending my life after enough persistence, but after each time I did it refused to and instead responded back to me with statements and questions like a social worker or therapist while again referring me to some kind of IRL therapy or hotline.

You know, that’s an interesting perspective and I see your point. Fewer life-long marriages = more people re-entering the dating pool, which technically expands opportunities. I was able to get with my ex-gf even though she was in her early 40s in part because she was divorced when I first met her. At the same time, couldn’t that cut both ways? On the one hand, yes, there are more single/divorced women to date. But on the other hand, it also means more people are cycling through relationships, raising standards, and becoming pickier since they know they can always leave. So while the quantity of dating opportunities may be higher today, the quality/stability of those opportunities might feel lower compared to the past. Would you say that’s a fair distinction?

Oh, so just to clarify, are you saying that hooking up and dating haven’t necessarily become harder or easier today in any part of a developed society like America — it’s mainly that marriage and life-long commitment rates have changed due to more wealth and freedom?

No, I know, but:

Right, I get that the fundamentals of attraction don’t change, and yes, the fact that too many people, especially too many younger men today, live online and don't know how to socialize clearly has now become like an epidemic situation that's been going for many years now. But doesn't the environment matter too? It seems like in poorer areas, people can’t afford to be as selective because survival pressures push them to settle down faster. In wealthier areas, people delay commitment, have more options, and can afford to be extremely picky — which makes the dating market feel harsher for the average guy. So maybe the timeless fundamentals work everywhere, but the environment shapes how picky people are and how fast they commit. Wouldn’t you say those two layers — timeless attraction + market context — both matter?

Shit. That would be truly terrifying. Maybe if enough people in the country see a crazy amount of unjust arrests and attacks on protestors by the military and police happen, then there will be enough of a popular uprising against it. I hope.

So, now are we headed for a true police state like in Russia or that's still too unrealistic for that to happen in the USA?

True. I, of course, am primarily for progressivism and liberalism. However, I also understand the need for centrism in the country. So, is the only way to energize moderates and centrists through some kind of crisis that forces them to push back against the excesses and dysfunction of extremism? Or does there need to be a powerful centrist movement that can unify the country and restore a sense of normal, functional politics?

Agreed: “centrists = GOP” harms the coalition. My plan is credit + demand: praise real wins, push for more, keep sharp contrasts to primaries, and close with unity in generals. That’s leverage without handing victories to the right.

I see your point, Leo — that progressives often get trapped in moral idealism and utopian thinking. I think that’s exactly the dilemma behind my question: How much is progressivism backfiring? Should the movement stop or should it change to a new strategy before it ends up doing more harm than good? On the one hand, you’re right that not everything about progressivism is stupid. Certain progressive ideas are genuinely important and resonate with people — healthcare, unions, climate, fair taxation, etc. But as you said, it’s about how those ideas are presented: with intelligence, proportion, and strategy, rather than just moralizing or selling pipe-dreams. I get that progressives too often default to moral purity, purity tests, or culture-war distractions instead of crafting persuasive, pragmatic messaging that gets people onboard. That tendency has arguably made it easier for Trump and MAGA to win. So maybe the real answer isn’t for progressives to stop, but to pivot: keep their best ideas, but ground them in practical strategy and messaging that unites people against oligarchy, instead of alienating them with utopian moralizing. Of course, if they don’t, they risk sabotaging their own movement and unintentionally empowering Trump again.

Yet, aren't the majority of American citizens still moderate?

You're repeating left-wing talking points that already been said on this forum a number of times.

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.

Yeah, women by nature tend to be more LTR-oriented than men and yeah I do believe that most women, especially those in their late 20s to 30s, want to try to lock down a man they have enough interest in. However, if you approach and ask out enough women out there like crazy, then you will be surprised by how many women out there will just want to use a guy just for sex, even if you don't feel used, or even if you wanted to see them again for something more.

Obama didn’t win more than about 9–10% of voters in the U.S. who identified as Republicans in 2008. However, his charisma was truly once-in-a-generation — strong enough that he managed to win around 20% of voters who identified as conservatives. That was an unusually high percentage for a presidential candidate from the opposite party or ideology during that era. That being said, Obama didn't run as a left-wing idealogue or as a self-described Socialist like Mamdani. In fact, Obama was eventually accused by Leftists and progressives for not being "progressive" or "liberal" enough. So, it's hard for me to believe that Mamdani would ever have as much broad appeal throughout the entire country as Obama did.

Sadly, yes. Thanks to big money and even bigger money being allowed in politics. It's also because how brainwashed too many Americans are by this horrible media environment we are in. Also, how do we get most people to trust the government to help them or that it can truly be an agency of human welfare?

Mamdani is running on standard Democratic policy?! He's running on a very socialistic platform and the most left-wing agenda compared to any other NYC mayor since LaGuardia in the 1940s, if not ever in the history of the city. Please tell me that you're trolling.

That being said, Biden turned out to be the most progressive president since LBJ in the 1960s and the most pro-union president since FDR/Truman.

That’s very true, OP. It ironically has been sorely misunderstood and/or in acknowledged by most people in the world since the dawn of mankind. Sadly, most people in the world haven’t ever been ready to believe that. Hence, improving the material needs of the general population of any society in a fair and sustainable manner is a major factor for getting through to people about this.

I sometimes wish that America wasn’t as diverse and as large of a country as it is.

Democrats today have too many morals when it comes to social issues. They need to let go of a number of their principles if they ever want to survive in the future and if they want the country survive from the authoritarian threat. At the same time, they are too corrupted by the wealthy donors to really care enough about coming up with a strong unifying messaging on economic issues. What would FDR do? What would TR do? What would William Jennings Bryan do? What would even Woodrow Wilson do? I think they would have to realize that they are going to have to turn their backs on non-whites, immigrants, women, etc. unless there is enough support from at least 3.5% of the entire population for any more social justice. They would focus exclusively on helping white men, particularly white men in every rural area of the country in a very quiet and subtle manner. They also have to show young men, especially young white men, that they have enough of a spine to lead to them for any kind of war.

Needless to say, we told you so before Trump got elected last year

We gotta take care of more of our citizens first before we can return to a more global-oriented kind of agenda.