Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,058

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted

    I agree that offline, average women date average men, and that apps skew attention. The “top 20%” thing mostly describes app attention, not offline selection. Two truths can coexist:

    Boosting your own package (health, style, social skills, purpose) helps a ton—do it for you.

    In recurring, talk-friendly scenes with warm intros, assortative matching and mere exposure kick in, and most guys do fine without being “top 10%.”

  5. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    It adds up.

    Charlie has said so many racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and regressive things, with such aggressive ignorance and arrogance, that out of tens of millions of viewers, one of them is bound to have a mental illness and hold a grudge.

    What most normies do not understand is that if you have 1+ million YouTube subcribers and you speak on controversial topics, you are guaranteed to get death threats. We all get them. It's only a matter of time until one of them is acted upon. The more hateful things one says, the bigger the odds become. Every hateful or bigoted statement pissed off one extra psycho person who might decide to act out.

    Also, Charlie was directly involved in getting Trump elected. He wasn't just a pundit, he was the chief MAGA vote recruiter. His entire agenda is putting MAGA in power. Of course some unhinged viewer will want revenge for that.

    It may take just about 100K YouTube subcribers for talking about controversial topics from either the Left or the Right to get death threats and all other kinds of harassment.

    Around the time Allan and Sam Lichtman got about 100K YouTube subcribers and he predicted that Harris would win the 2024 election, Allan said at the time that he and his family were threatened in many ways by a lot of crazy right-wingers out there.

  7. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    The face he has been making is strange. It does appear to be a sign of a stroke or Bell Palsy.

    However, we don't know what kind of stroke he may have had and/or how severe it was.

    We would need to know a number of things that might have been impaired including his speech, comprehension physical capabilities, etc.

  9. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Holy moly!

    Finally some law and order.

    If only we had that in American politics.

    That's how to preserve democracy. No slaps on the wrist for coups and insurrections.

    You know, our country should be absolutely embarrassed that a developing nation like Brazil was able to hold a fascist accountable, but America, which is still a developed nation and has had the longest-running democracy in the history of the world, can't hold a fascist accountable.

  10. Posted

    I've been contemplating on the notion that “women only want the top 20%” meme and I now find that to be really misleading. It seems to mostly describe app dynamics (photo-first, inbox floods, safety filters, status amplification). Offline, in socially dense contexts (recurring mixed-gender scenes, warm introductions, real third places), the old forces still run the show: taste diversity, multi-factor attraction, repetition, vouching, assortative matching, and satisficing.

    That’s why, historically, most men (not 100%) ended up with partners by mid-life. Also, paying for sex is a minority behavior, and even among men who’ve ever paid, most of their encounters are still unpaid.

    For premodern settings, “most men had sex by mid-life”—typically ~90%+ in many regions—while ever partnered ranged roughly ~80–95% depending on marriage system (lowest where late marriage or polygyny left more men single).

    For modern settings, like in the past, most men have had sex by mid-life (often ~90–97%), and most will have ever partnered—but the age it happens and the share who never marry vary more now by region and economy than ever before.

    Two things seem true and in tension:

    1. App markets look extremely top-heavy; lots of men feel invisible.
    2. Historically and across many countries, most men eventually have sex and many partner by mid-life (even average/below-average guys).

    How do you reconcile these? My current hypothesis: the 20% vibe is mostly platform structure (photo sorting, message overload, safety screening), while offline contexts (warm intros, repeated contact, assortative matching) broaden who gets chosen. If you disagree, what data (not anecdotes) best shows the 20% dynamic holds offline?

  12. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Just practically, Charlie would have done 40 years of new propaganda had he lived. So it is a setback for the right. It will not be so easy for them to replace him. He was a huge leader on their side and he played a big role in winning elections for MAGA. He swung elections.

    But even so killing him was wrong. We can't kill people just for having ideology we disagree with.

     

    If that holds true, then that could be a silver lining for our society.

     

    12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    I think this is quite different. Trump was shot at but lived. So it wasn't a big deal.

    I've already seen frightening levels of radicalization and demonization of the left and Dems as evil for causing this.

    What's also crazy about this is that no known Democrat or Leftist out there had ever suggested to anyone to go out there and assault any right-winger let alone kill any of them. If anything, every actor out there aligned with the Democrats and progressives has also made it clear that violence of any kind is never the solution to any problem and that it instead plays right into the hands of conservatives, Trump, and MAGA. 

    Even today, every Democrat and Leftist out there has already made all kinds of public statements vehemently condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

    So, wtf are Democrats and the left-wing supposed to do?

  13. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    It's a huge deal. He was a major political actor. This goes way beyond just some dude getting killed. The implications are deeply ideological and national.

    I already see right-wingers going full patriot lunatic mode.

    This murder is horrific and dangerous. The great risk now is a policy overreaction—using tragedy as pretext for excessive sweeping crackdowns. The right will rally; fundraising and “law-and-order” proposals will surge. Of course, shock events are often leveraged to expand surveillance/policing beyond the narrow threat. Social media can harden identities, spread misinformation, and reward maximalist narratives.

    But “fascism spiral” isn’t inevitable. U.S. history shows even the worst assassinations didn’t collapse our system. Multiple assassinations of towering figures (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, RFK Sr.) produced turmoil and policy shifts, not regime collapse. The modal outcome has been institutional continuity with some ratcheting—serious, but short of an authoritarian break.

    Federalism, courts, divided media ecosystems, civil society, and elections create friction against rapid, durable autocratization. Attempts at overreach face litigation, street-level pushback, and electoral penalties.

    Such broad collective blame tends to alienate moderates and institutional conservatives, who become pivotal in blocking maximalist responses. Post-shock politics often re-centers once facts and prosecutions clarify responsibility.

    We should do two things at once: (1) condemn the killing and harden security narrowly around real threats, and (2) reject collective blame and resist broad limits on speech/protest. Courts, federalism, elections, and civil society make durable autocracy hard here—if leaders and citizens insist on due process, proportionality, and facts over outrage.

    Targeted hardening (event security, threat interdiction) can proceed within rule-of-law constraints, obviating the “we must curtail liberties” narrative.

    The more we generalize and catastrophize, the more we hand authoritarians their justification.

    Nevertheless, I think that this political violence that we will experience in the coming years could very well parallel that of what occurred during the late 1800s, 1910s–20s, or 1960s–early ’70s. Perhaps not even as bad as either of those periods.

  14. Posted

    29 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

    Dude, you give them and inche and they run ten miles with this. Every opposition to the Dems is already screaming at the top of their lungs they are gay brown communists overtaking this Christian nations. They’ve been saying it since Obama. Not a single innocent bystander will be affected by the messaging form this. They’ve already been told every lie under the sun by right wing fascists since 2009. 

    That’s very true. 
     

    It’s not fair or right.

    If it wasn’t for the dominance of the growing right-wing media and alternative, most of the mainstream media not fighting back right wing extremism, and the growing division in our country then the left and the Democrats wouldn’t keep losing the messaging war.

     

  15. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    30 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Dude, come on. Don't make us look bad.

    Former Democrats turned Independents such as Joe Manchin and Chris Cuomo say that they left the party because of how “extreme, partisan, and crazy” the Democratic Party has gotten like the Republican Party has in its own way.
     

    I fear this tragic event could give more ammunition to the idea that both parties are equally bad and other asinine false equivalencies.

  17. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    The military has to be conservative simply because it's hard to shoot someone in the face if you're a Lib.

    Yet, some prominent figures leading the military have been left-leaning.

    TR was a military war hero who didn't mind putting up a fight if need be. He even killed several enemy soldiers himself in combat.

    Woodrow Wilson was forced to lead the country in WW1 to help the Allied Powers defeat the Central Powers.

    FDR was forced to lead the country in WWII to help the Allied Powers defeat the Axis Powers.

    LBJ put our country into full-blown combat mode in Vietnam, which turned out to be one of the deadliest and probably the most disastrous war in the history of our country.

    All four of those presidents were arguably the 4 most progressive presidents in the history of the country.

    Plus, all of them, along with Truman, who was another prominent liberal president, were responsible for upgrading our entire national security state, including our military, in such revolutionary ways. 

    Don't forget that JFK, who was a liberal icon, and Jimmy Carter, who had several liberal beliefs himself, were proud members of the US Navy.

  18. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    3 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

    In my opinion, this is beyond just being conservative. 

    The way I see it, having Trump as your commander in chief should feel like an insult to most military people. He is like a complete opposite of them, a caricature. A corrupt, hedonistic, golden baby draft dodger vs common people who work and train hard daily and actually die for their country.

    Yeah, I think that the majority of the military and law enforcement don't really like Trump, but uncomfortably support him because the majority of them are conservative-leaning individuals and given the extreme political polarization our country is going through in this day and age most of them feel like it's always better to vote Republican than Democrat in any given election, because clearly the Republican party is the only party today that strongly stands for conservatism and American traditions.

  19. Posted

    53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    No, this is false if you know political science. There are no far left parties in America.

    Americans who think Dems or progressives are far left have no understanding of political science or global political history. They are just consuming right wing news.

    No far left party has ever held office in America.

    True.

    Though:

    On 3/15/2025 at 0:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

    They are still very left relative to the rest of the country.

    The problem is that leftists are so out of touch with how conservative and traditional most of the country is because they only listen to themselves.

     

    However, I think that the Democratic party has gone too far to the left on social issues, while still being too much to the right on economic issues for decades, despite having shifted more and more back to New Deal style economic stances since the election of Obama in 2008 and the rise of the progressive movement in the mid 2010s.

  20. Posted

    5 minutes ago, kray said:

    I kinda miss the days when we had boring bureaucrats running the show. I don’t think any administration had created such a divide in our country as trump’s second administration. The facists are a useful tool for the top 1% to control and divide the population. We get screwed over and deal with the social divide, while the top 1% enjoy their tax cuts 

    This is another reason why I miss the 1990s.

  24. Posted

    4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Yes, but even modern socialism would still involve a heavy-handed redistribution of power and wealth, otherwise it would be pointless. But given the historical track record of socialism's implementation over the last 100 years in dozens of nations, you can appreciate why capitalists would be so leery and resistant to try that experiment again with their wealth on the chopping block.

    Imagine you worked hard and honest for 30 years to earn yourself $10 million dollars. And now some naive socialist comes along and suggests taking that away. Of course you will fight it tooth and nail.

    Imagine working hard and honestly for over 30 years, only to earn next to nothing, and now you’re starving through no fault of your own. Then along comes some robber baron who wants to drain the very soul out of you by exploiting you as a slave for only $7 an hour. You have no choice but to work literally every hour of every day—including weekends—just to barely survive, or even then, still not make ends meet at all.

    Now multiply this by millions of people across the country who have been going through the same struggle for years, utterly betrayed by the false promises of "capitalism free from the government" and the so-called “American Dream.”

  25. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    51 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

    I think this is a more mature and nuanced perspective. 

    It's like Jordan Peterson - his shit on psychology etc can be top notch! But then there is a whole lot of crap he claims and gets into that is way off the mark.

    Discernment 😊

     

    9 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

    Someone can have solid insights about dating and attraction but have terrible character.

    Most pickup artists are that.

    Yeah, that's the feeling that I've gotten with her.

    I don't like how she seems to be okay with people like the Tate brothers.

    Then again, I am not that surprised.