Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,058

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted

    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:

     

    1. Systems > identities. Hit mechanisms (bundling, dark money, revolving doors, specific votes) more than “X is a corrupt sellout.”
    2. Credit + demand. Publicly credit real wins, then push “finish the job” with concrete asks.
    3. 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.”
    4. Escalation ladder laid out in advance (constituent pressure → hearings → ads → primary).
    5. 90/10 rule in generals. 90% of outward fire at the GOP; 10% at intra-Dem policy deltas (no moral-equivalence lines).
    6. Unity close on every general-election critique: “Vote blue to prevent greater harm; Wednesday we keep pushing A/B/C.”
    7. 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.”

  2. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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.

  3. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Logically, if marriages last less then dating opportunities are higher.

    About half the women I dated were divorced. Which means that if their marriages were the life-long kind of the good ol days, then I would not have been able to date them.

    Men who complain that dating is harder don't realizing that dating is actually easier today than it used to be thanks to the deterioration of life-long marriages. Less marriage means more dating.

    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?

  4. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    @Hardkill That relates to marriage.

    People are still as horny as ever and looking for sex and companionship.

    As far as life-long commitment goes, of course that has dropped due to having more wealth and more freedom.

    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?

  5. Posted

    36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Humans have been poor since the dawn of time. Nothing new about that. Poverty has deceased over the last century.

    No, I know, but:

    On 7/22/2025 at 11:10 PM, Leo Gura said:

    That is true because in the past people were less spoiled and less demanding for personal gratification. People would settle for the first person they slept with.

    Today it is impossible to be happy because everyone is looking to maximize personal happiness and there are endless options and much more freedom.

    It's easy to be married when life has a gun to your head.

    Blaming this on feminism is a sucker's move. The improvement of material survival conditions of society as a whole leads to freedom and also spoilage. Men today are very spoiled playing video games all day instead of socializing.

  6. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    19 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    It is harder in that too many people live online and don't know how to socialize. That is a real obstacle.

    But if you are out socializing it is not harder. The things that attract women have not changed and will not change.

    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?

  8. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    A lot of guys online say it’s gotten much harder to get women in developed countries today. But when you look closely, maybe it seems more complicated.

    Why People Say It’s Harder Now

    • Apps concentrate attention on a small % of men.
    • Marriage is delayed, so men compete longer in the casual dating scene.
    • Women aren’t pressured to settle for survival, so they can be choosier.

    This makes wealthy, urban dating feel cutthroat.

    But now that I think more about it the environment still matters, yeah?

    • Working-class / poorer areas: People settle faster into LTRs. Stability matters more than endless choice, so it can actually be easier to find a partner.
    • Wealthier / urban areas: More hookups, later commitment, higher selectivity.
    • Geography: The same man might struggle in LA but easily find an LTR in a small town.

    Therefore, perhaps it’s not simply “harder” or “easier.” It depends on:

    • Where you live
    • Your background (education, class, culture)
    • Your personal attributes (looks, charisma, ambition, etc.)

     

    So, is the so-called “dating crisis” mostly an upper-middle-class urban problem?

    Are men in poorer or smaller communities actually better off at locking down LTRs?

    Should men adapt their dating strategies to their environment?

  10. Posted

    6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Fanbases are not made of moderates.

    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?

  11. Posted

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    I don't feel a need to control progressive messaging other than to tell them to stop demonzing centerists and establishment Dems because that ends up helping conservatives win.

    The big mistake progressives make is when they spread the idea that centrist Dems are the same or worse than conservatives. This is not true.

    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.

  12. Posted

    3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    There is a kind of obnoxious arrogance and self-righteousness among many leftists.

    Cenk, Hasan, Destiny, Kyle, Vaush, etc. It sells to their most hardcore base. It's like throwing red meat to the leftist base. The more subdued and mature voices don't gain mass popularity.

    Sane, moderate voices don't get millions of views.

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

  13. Posted

    19 hours ago, Raze said:

    Not only did this not happen, it was the opposite. Progressives repeatedly warned neoliberals they were empowering right wing populism and Trump, and were ignored but proven right. Examples being,

    Progressives criticized trade deals like NAFTA and supported movements like occupy Wall Street, neoliberals supported the deals and crushed occupy. The result of this was a hollowing out of the rural white working class and growth in their skepticism of economic elites creating a vacuum filled by right wing populist movements which trump later exploited.

    Progressives were against Hillary Clinton being the nominee claiming she represented the establishment which working class voters disliked, and was herself an extremely unpopular politician. The neoliberals backed Hillary to victory and she lost to trump, partially because of many Obama to Trump voters in swing states.

    Progressives were also against Biden for the same reason, however lost again and Biden ran but won, however progressives later wanted him to be a one term President with New Democratic primaries, neoliberals again got their way and the primary was essentially cancelled with Biden running again. However Biden revealed how degraded he was at the presidential debate and was forced to drop out, now much later in the primary damaging any new candidate.

    Progressives again were mixed on Kamala Harris being the candidate, as she bombed the last dem primary not even making it to get votes and didn’t seem particularly popular or charismatic. They argued Kamala should signal a more anti-establishment bend such as distancing herself from Biden and pledging to condition arm sales to israel. Again they didn’t get their way and instead Kamala declared she’d do nothing differently than Biden, not only refused to say she would condition arm sales but actually campaigned with Liz Cheney, someone deeply hated by not only progressives but also independents and conservatives after she turned on trump. Some progressives also pushed for Kamala to take a more pro union stance and to reach out to independents and young men by going on popular podcasts that invited her on such as Joe Rogan, Flagrant, Theo Von, Lex Fridman. Again neoliberals got their way and ignored this suggestion and Kamala did none of this, the largest Union the teamsters President said Kamala refused to signal she’d do anything different and instead vaguely threatened them,  so they didn’t endorse her and he spoke at the RNC, Trump went on the podcasts and got probably hundreds of millions in free media. Kamala lost by worse margins than Hillary Clinton.

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

  14. Posted

    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.

     

  15. Posted

    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.

  16. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, aurum said:

    I doubt Mamdani would get 10% of republicans as a presidential candidate.

    Obama only got around 9%.

    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.

  17. Posted

    6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    He was better in those regards than Obama and Clinton... that's for sure. His economic policies have been the most pro-middle-class politics that I've seen in my lifetime.

    But he still had the same problems as 98% of politicians with regards to being bought off by moneyed interests. And that is the primary eroding force of the middle class and working class.

    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?

  18. Posted

    34 minutes ago, Elliott said:

    Mamdani is running on standard Democratic policy. You think Biden was more progressive than Harris, you're high.

    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.

  19. Posted

    45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

    Yes... Democrats and Republicans are both doing the bidding of corporate interests and billionaires.

    And zero Republicans and very few Democrats take a principled stance against this where they don't take any billionaire dollars.

    So, they have both collaborated on the erosion of the middle class... though not 100% equally as Democrats have to occasionally throw the working people a bone if they want to be elected, as they don't have a coalition of working class voters who will vote for a politician based solely on the left-wing equivalent of the right's "guns and Jesus" vibes.

    But even if it isn't 100% equal, both parties have tremendously and significantly eroded the middle class.

    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.

     

  20. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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.

  22. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    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.

     

  25. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    3 hours ago, Basman said:

    Well, maybe not that granular kind of politics. I could probably have phrased myself better. 

    Trump himself used some broad economic talking points during the race, like wanting to protect working class people economically. There is a precedence for it. 

    He engaged in a kind of faux right-wing economic populism while appealing to about half the country on conservative cultural issues, including racism, xenophobia, sexism, and Christian nationalism.

    I hate to say it, but I feel like the Democrats may have no choice but to return to their more pro-white, pro–Judeo-Christian, more patriarchal, and more nationalist roots—albeit in a subtler way than the modern Republican Party—even though it seems unlikely the party will truly drop its support for civil rights, women’s rights, or immigration rights anytime soon.