Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,095

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  2. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Joshe said:

    Nice post Leo. It's going to be interesting how it plays out. I suspect one facet of this will be that centrists double down even further in their refusal to make a decision about which side to support because it will be harder for the average person to discern which side is less evil. Trust will degrade even further, which is a big reason we're in the situation we're in now. So it will come down to who can bullshit the best. And how do the centrists decide who is most likely correct? Whoever the majority sides with. And which side has the most money and is most gullible and corruptible? The right. So based on my spur of keystroke logic, it looks as though we're fucked. 

    What would FDR do?

  3. Posted

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Don't forget that trying to astro-turf a left-wing Joe Rogan may backfire. Dems already had an authenticity problem. These kind of programs feed into the view that Dems are fake. Although of course conservative pundits are shamelessly fake and corrupt and they get away with it.

    Why are Dems not able to get away with being fake and corrupt but the conservative side has been able to?

    I never totally understood that.

     

  4. Posted

    5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Transparency is necessary at the least.

    The fact that these paid pundits now act like nothing is wrong, nothing to see here, makes it all the more damning. They are acting like they don't even know what conflict of interest is.

    Basically you need people of integrity, and that will always be rare. Most political pundits will be hacks.

    I can't really comment on how to best wage a political propaganda war. That's not my area of interest. I focus on truth-seeking and sense-making, which is different from political activism.

    Can you make a case that things are so bad with Trump that we need an anti-Trump propaganda campaign? Maybe. But I want no part of it.

    Don't forget that trying to astro-turf a left-wing Joe Rogan may backfire. Dems already had an authenticity problem. These kind of programs feed into the view that Dems are fake. Although of course conservative pundits are shamelessly fake and corrupt and they get away with it.

    Of course I am not asking you to really get involved in it.

    I get it, but I feel like the Dems and progressives have no choice but to fight back against this monstrosity of right-wing propaganda and misinformation if they want to win the big elections such as the presidency in 2028 or even 2026 and beyond. 

    Otherwise, should the Democrats and the Left just hope that some TR or FDR-like saviour can one day rise from the ashes to save its party and the country? 

    What are the Democrats supposed to do to win back more power and stop MAGA when this terrible media environment is skewed heavily in favor of the Right?

     

  5. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    I just read the blog on Social Influencer Corruption.

    I agree the influencer space is ripe for abuse—opaque funding, NDAs, and pay-to-push politics wreck trust. Plus, it really has contributed to the widespread brain rotting in our country. But if the Left refuses to build a competitive creator operation while the Right scales theirs, we’re unilaterally disarming in the new media battlefield.

    Also: while mainstream media has better accountability/reporting than alternative media, much of it was complicit in normalizing Trump (2016 & 2024). These are profit-driven corporations that explicitly frame themselves as running a business—not guardians of democracy. You know that and you've talked about that before a number of times. They’re not natural allies of Democrats or the Left (maybe MSNBC is the closest exception) and they can't stop themselves with their constant bothsideism 

    My stance: Don’t abstain. Fight fire with clean fire—run an influencer program with hard rules so audiences can calibrate trust instead of losing it.

    Guardrails (non-negotiable):

    • Radical transparency: clear on-screen funding labels; monthly public funder logs.
    • Speech independence: no message vetoes or gag clauses; creators can criticize “their own side.”
    • Accountability: independent ethics audits each cycle; fast disclosure of contracts if challenged.
    • Quality: offer fact-checking help; require visible, time-stamped corrections.

     

    Politics is coalition-building under constraint. History shows you sometimes partner with imperfect actors to beat worse outcomes—but you do it with rules.

    If abstinence cedes the field, what’s the workable alternative?

    Which transparency standards would keep a funded creator credible to you?

    Where are the red lines (e.g., no foreign money, no astroturf, no deepfakes)?

    I remember you saying a few years ago about how even pompous and very bothersome progressives whom I can't stand anymore like Cenk are still trying to fight back against the greater evils:

    On 3/5/2021 at 9:41 PM, Leo Gura said:

    It's not a matter of money. Cenk isn't doing it for the money. He's a true believer in the Green crusade and cannot envision something beyond it. It's a paradigm lock.

    And I can't say I blame him. Cenk's role is needed. Someone has to fight the fucking MAGA devils and the corrupt neoliberals. In a sense, stage Yellow thinkers are not practical because they are too far head of everyone else. Cenk is at the right level to make significant social change.

    Yellow includes Green within it.

     

    Also, that woman, Taylor Lorenz gives me TYT vibes, which again I am getting sick and tired of, and she doesn't even seem to have impressive academic credentials herself.

  6. Posted

    8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    There are many degrees of democracy and the standard we set for ourselves is a low degree.

    It is convenient to regard democracy as a simple binary so that we can just say we have a democracy and not work towards a high degree of it.

    America has performative democracy. This is perfect for the ruling class because it makes the masses feel like they live in a democracy but in practice it is an oligarchy.

    Sounds kinda like how Putin says that Russia has democracy even though we know that that's a lie.

  10. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    No, they are just obnoxious on their own. Except for Pakman, he is fine.

    It's not autism, it's egotism.

    When you speak for a living on YT, especially doing criticism, it slowly poisons your mind.

    They claim that they doing it as part of the left wing or progressive movement and are holding both corporate Dems and Republicans accountable. They also pressure progressive politicians to fight hard.

    Yet, how should they criticize centrist/establishment Dems without causing Trump and the right-wing to win too many elections?

  12. Posted

    8 hours ago, aurum said:

    That actually feels backwards to me.

    People generally do not get rallied up by systems thinking. It's too complex and doesn't give a concrete enemy.

     If you're looking to be really pragmatic about winning, you're better off blaming individuals.

    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.

  13. 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.”

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  20. 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?

  22. 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?

  23. 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.

  24. 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?

  25. 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.