.jpg.3c04741955d62a5239fc02efa035ca7b.jpg)
Hardkill
Member-
Content count
5,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hardkill
-
-
9 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:@Hardkill Orbanization is the biggest threat that liberal democracies will face. Orbanization is much, much more accurate than calling MAGA fascist. Fascism will never happen in the west the same as it did in the 20th century, those who propagate this idea are people desperate for clicks.
However, Orbanization is extremely dangerous and oftentimes much more damaging than fascism because fascism is way to brutal to be tolerated in the 21th century. Orbanization means the normalisation of unchecked corruption and theft. Theft without police. That is what Orbanization means. Even in Hungary Orban can't really do what he wants because the Magyars are pretty educated, but even so, Orban managed to corrupt the entire governance apparatus from top to bottom with loyalists, the press in Hungary is basically similar to the Press in Russia, although to a lesser degree. In Russia if you criticise Putin you accidentally fall from a window, In Orban's Hungary, if you criticise the regime, the entire press that is subservient to Orban will accuse you of pedophilia, will find that you own obscene amounts of wealth while the average citizen has nowhere near the wealth that Orban's press found out that you "have" etc. Basically they will shoot the messenger until no one will believe that messenger. Hungary is not a bad place to live, but corruption is unchecked and the only way to have a successful business there is to be in bed with Orban's party. Basically Orban gave all the wealthy people in Hungary freedom to steal and exploit off of the plebs without any shame.
All right wing populist movements have in common the mantra that the corruption is not the bug, it is actually the feature. The people who vote for those parties don't want less corruption, they want more, they want to be allowed more to be corrupt themselves, they want to be allowed to pay less taxes, to do more fiscal evasion, to exploit more shamelessly the workers etc.
For Orban corruption is not a bug, it is a feature that must be amplified.
Yeah, but actually in the US, no leader or party in power can own more than about 39% of the entire media environment unlike in Hungary because of how much more fragmented and diverse the media environment is in a country like the US than in a country like Hungary. Furthermore, the US has legal and structural guardrails that Hungary doesn't have including:
1. No single branch can dictate content. The First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and federal procurement and antitrust laws all block the executive branch from directly coercing media or corporations.
2. Independent agencies and courts intervene. The FCC, FTC, DOJ, and federal courts have all stepped in against overt political interference before — and would again if a line were crossed.
3. Private ownership diversity. U.S. media, entertainment, and legal industries are massive and decentralized. No administration can capture all studios, platforms, or firms simultaneously.
We have to also considered the Political and market backlash that comes with an authoritarian leader in a county like America trying to cancel shows, movies, and news outlets just because our president and the Republicans didn't like what they heard:
1. Jimmy Kimmel, heavy-handed moves generate huge public, corporate, and advertiser backlash.
2. U.S. firms are highly brand-sensitive: if they’re seen as bowing to censorship, they lose younger audiences, international markets, and talent.
3. Shareholders, unions, and advocacy groups (WGA, SAG-AFTRA, ACLU, etc.) quickly mobilize when freedom-of-expression issues surface.
There's more Institutional pluralism in the US than even in a country like Hungary:
1. There isn’t one centralized “elite” to capture. Power is distributed among states, regulators, courts, press outlets, streaming platforms, independent production houses, and NGOs.
2. Even if one network or company caves, others often go the opposite direction — competition itself protects pluralism.
I now see that the real risk is incremental chilling, not total control:
1. I think that experts worry about self-censorship and “soft compliance” when threats become routine — not about full autocratic capture like Hungary or Russia.
2. The danger is cumulative erosion (companies avoiding controversy), but every attempt at direct suppression tends to spark loud resistance that reinforces democratic norms.
-
9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:What is there to say? It's already happening. How far it will go is hard to predict.
Vlad Vexler thinks that the 2030s in America will be more fascist than today. He thinks Trump is just the warm-up act.
That's a terrifying notion but he might be right. He could also be wrong.
Yeah, I mean I am still very worried about what may happen with the country in the future.
However, the more I think about it and the more I learn about different countries outside of the US, the more I realize how different a country like Hungary or Ukraine is in terms of history, geography, system, culture, and traditions.
Doesn't the USA still have a higher level of development and culture overall than Hungary or Ukraine do?
Hungary doesn't have the decentralized democratic media environment that the U.S. does, doesn't have deep, successful protest traditions that repeatedly reset the political game the way the U.S. does, doesn't have the cultural diversity that the U.S. does, and its elections aren't nearly as decentralized as elections in the U.S. are; moreover, its elections do not have the same level of oversight, the same degree of voting protections, or the same independence and “teeth” of the courts and legal remedies that the U.S. system has.
The U.S. has also always had better stability, anti-corruption systems, and journalist safety/protections than even Ukraine, which, of course, is still a strong ally of Western nations and clearly believes in EU-style democratic standards.
Moreover, I now don't think that Trump and his party have the time or the means to install enough loyalists in the military, law enforcement, and other parts of the government who would allow him to do a true systemic capture of the military, law enforcement, the machinery of elections, other government agencies, or other institutions.
Additionally, Trump has never had net positive approval ratings and popularity ratings amongst the general electorate in America, whereas Orban has had net-positive approval ratings and popularity ratings at various points during his time as PM of his country.
-
24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:From the statistics immigranta commit less crime than locals.
You would need to statistically demonstrate the immigrants commit more crime.
The immigration issue is truly about xenophobia. Xenophobia is a serious force. Don't underestimate it. Most humans are xenophobic.
So True.
Btw, what do you think about how many people, including centrists and even some pragmatic progressives blame Biden for the historic level of illegal border crossings during his presidency?
Personally, I feel like he did the best he could to deal with such an unprecedented wave of illegal foreigners desperately trying to get into the country due to the ending of COVID and their own countries having suffered from really bad conditions at the time. Not to mention all of the legal constraints, partisan gridlock in Congress, and lack of infrastructure he didn't until he finally had enough in place to close down the border effectively in the summer of 2024.
Plus, that immigration crisis actually helped save our country from the inflation crisis and gave our entire economy a significant boost.
-
While it is unrealistic for America to fall under an authoritarian regime like Russia or China in the foreseeable future, some experts have warned about the risk of “Orbanization” in the U.S. — meaning the country could increasingly resemble Hungary.
Path-dependence of norms: Once a party learns that norm-breaking (press intimidation, selective non-compliance, threats to civil servants) pays and isn’t punished, it becomes the new baseline. Norm erosion is a ratchet.
State-level power as a workaround: Even if federal capture is hard, state governments can alter election rules, districts, and media/public-records environments—creating pockets of tilted competition that add up nationally.
Legal shifts that change incentives: Court decisions that insulate executive actions or weaken agency capacity can lower the cost of overreach, making Hungary-style tactics (pressure on regulators/independents) more tempting.
Media economics, not censors: You don’t need a ministry of information if local news collapses, ad markets consolidate, and a few platform or carrier decisions can starve disfavored outlets. That can mimic capture’s effects.
Intimidation at the nodes: Threats against election workers, prosecutors, and journalists can produce self-censorship and capacity loss even without formal control—an American analogue to “soft” authoritarian tools.
Polarization + minority entrenchment: With gerrymanders, malapportionment, and partisan administration, a coalition can keep governing with minority support, making “win at all costs” strategies rational.
Crisis opportunism: Wars, pandemics, or riots can be used to centralize discretion and marginalize oversight (emergency powers tend to outlive emergencies).
However, after learning about how things work in Hungary or in other Eastern European countries like Ukraine, I now don't think that America will even go through a democratic backsliding to the degree that it will be like even Hungary or Ukraine.
America’s mix of federalism, independent courts and agencies, decentralized media funding, much more entrenched protest culture and democratic traditions, overlapping watchdogs, and frequent competitive elections makes a single-party capture or wholesale media takeover far harder here than in Hungary or even in a country like Ukraine.
What seems plausible in my mind is that there will be more uneven, state-by-state illiberalism, deeper chilling effects, and a gradually tilted national playing field if multiple stressors coincide (economic downturn + court shifts + state-level rule changes + intimidation).
thoughts?
-
4 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:I do that too when I use AI, but for some reasons it always echoes back to me my pre existing worldview. I can't be already right on everything I already believe so it must be the case that AI is the same as Facebook, it only presents you in the feed your favorite conspiracy theories and your pre existing political agenda. Also when I push back against AI in the end it always reconfirms my pre existing bias.
Also I asked a far right nationalist acquaintance for his phone, I know that he also uses chatgpt to get information and I was shocked that it basically gave him the exact opposite information with the same conviction on the same questions or promts that I ask chatgpt on my account and device.
This far right friend is nostalgic for the communist dictatorship from the cold war era and chatgpt confirmed, validated and further strengthened his self bias for dictatorship and totalitarianism saying that people in deed lived a more prosperous life under communism and now people have it worse and they don't have a stable job etc. Basically chatgpt was spewing communist propaganda that was displayed on tv during that era.
That was the moment I decided I will never ask AI to give me information that could potentially shape my political worldview.
As of now I only ask it stuff about geography or facts from society such as who was Michael Jackson or other petty stuff like this.
What AI chat do you use and did you buy any paid versions?
-
5 hours ago, fabger said:I really want to get serious about this but since starting last year I haven't made much progress other then getting lucky a few times.
Lack of effort, laziness ,a strong victim complex and self-deception are all big hurdles in this area of my life. Especially the victim stuff it's strong.
I like to delay things but I feel like my time is running short. I haven't been in a relationship since 2019 plus I don't have close friends either.
The image of me being a lonely middle aged man is terrifying.
When I was your age, I used to think that maybe it was getting too late for me to learning pickup, dating, social skills, etc.
I am glad that I was able to disprove that by the following year, which is when I really began to get real results.
It was a very painful journey of self-improvement for me, but I only kept getting better and better with all of that in the long-run, including getting some sex partners without ever needing to pay for a hooker or escort and finally getting my first true gf ever by age 30.
I believe that I could've gotten even much better and faster results if I got to game in a big city practically every day as a routine lifestyle during my first years of improving my social and seduction skills.
Even when you get to your 30s, you will still be well into your prime for developing social and sex appeal, along with LTR experience.
Plus, there is a reason why as a man in your 30s, 40s, and 50s you are generally at your peak potential years for a serious relationship, if you develop material success in your life by having a good career that you are happy with and make enough money for both you and your romantic partner to live off.
To be clear, having those things aren't even necessary to attract women for casual or short-term relationships. However, the greater your material success, the greater appeal you will have to women who want to lock down a guy for an LTR, especially for marriage. Moreover, accomplishing serious achievements in your life helps improve your self-worth, increases your confidence around others, and makes you look like an impressive catch.
-
1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:You probably can cure some people that way. But that doesn't mean it is right for everyone.
Scientists make stupid avergae generalizations because they never deal with an individual. All they know are averages.
It's not always feasible for scientists to come up with findings that are based on one individual. They usually aren't clinicians who work with individual patients.
-
@Daniel Balan @NewKidOnTheBlock I get what you're saying and there is some truth to what you're saying about how using ChatGPT in the wrong way can lead to too much groupthink and atrophy of critical thinking skills and original thought.
However, I constantly push back against AI whenever I find something it says that I don't agree with or doesn't add up. I also, try the best that I can to have it respond to me with little to no bias towards my views.
-
21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Yes, because leftists do not care about borders. And they think everyone should not care, not realizing that most people care a lot.
This is the self-absorbed narcissism of the left. It makes leftists blind to serious political realities.
Border enforcement is very important if you want to win elections.
But you know that no progressive politicians, including Bernie Sanders and the Squad, aren't for open borders.
Even Bernie said before, "Nobody thinks illegal immigration is appropriate."
Even Cenk and Ana believed that Biden should've closed the border much sooner, despite how complicated legally, logistically, and geopolitically it was for him.
-
I would think that you would need some serious guts to do any kind of political activism in that country.
See how much support you would get for any ideas you have for any kind of reforms.
-
I asked ChatGPT many questions on whether or not it thinks that the US will fall into a dictatorship like in Russia because of Trumpism.
It said that that is very unlikely to happen for the following reasons:
Structural guardrails
Federalism & fragmentation: 50 states + thousands of counties/towns run elections, police, courts, and schools. There’s no single switch to flip.
Independent judiciary by design: Life-tenured federal judges with protected pay; removal only by impeachment. State courts use mixed selection systems—no one pipeline to capture.
Two-key appointment system: Presidents nominate, but the Senate confirms; turnover is staggered over decades, preventing personalist control.
Decentralized elections with paper trails: Nearly universal paper ballots / verifiable records, routine audits, and bipartisan local administration.
Reformed electoral certification: Post-2020 reforms (e.g., clarifying the VP’s ceremonial role, raising objection thresholds) closed a major loophole for national subversion.
Legal and constitutional brakes
First Amendment: Robust protections for press, speech, assembly—any blanket crackdown on critics/journalists gets enjoined fast.
Due process & jury trials: Independent courts and juries, plus state/federal dual sovereignty, make retaliatory prosecutions hard to sustain.
Military limits at home: Posse Comitatus and a narrow Insurrection Act; the armed forces are trained to refuse unlawful domestic orders.
Plural power centers
Free press & civil society: Investigative media, NGOs, universities, bar associations, watchdogs, and opposition parties operate freely and sue effectively.
Elected and independent officials: Governors, state AGs, secretaries of state, DAs, and local clerks can—and do—resist federal overreach.
Markets and investors: Heavy-handed illiberal moves trigger immediate political, legal, and economic blowback.
Culture, norms, and incentives
Public opinion: Americans are frustrated with performance, but majorities still prefer democratic rules; “strongman” support remains a minority view.
Professional ethics: Judges, prosecutors, military, and career civil servants have strong norms and legal duties that resist politicization.
Transparency & detection: FOIA/public-records laws, disclosures, audits, inspectors general, whistleblower protections, and an adversarial press raise the cost of corruption or covert schemes.
What makes the U.S. different from Russia’s path
No captured national media system: Government cannot lawfully nationalize or centrally script news; independent outlets proliferate.
No centralized judicial discipline machine: The executive cannot hire/fire/discipline judges for outcomes; career leverage is limited.
Competition remains real: Opposition candidates, parties, and courts operate nationwide; alternation of power happens regularly.
Realistic risks to watch (not Russia-level, but worth vigilance)
Soft illiberalism: extreme gerrymanders, partisan election-law “hardball,” chilling effects on protest/activism, or selective investigations.
Concentrated influence that’s legal: big money in politics, media concentration, targeted funding of state/local offices.
Disinformation & intimidation: threats to election workers, deepfakes, and harassment that strain administration capacity.
Early-warning lights
Proposals to let the executive discipline or remove judges.
Laws that criminalize routine journalism or ban opposition on vague grounds.
Moves to bar independent election observers, centralize election control, or curtail paper audits.
Attempts to nationalize/censor major media or systematically block civil society.
U.S. institutions are messy by design, with many veto points, strong constitutional rights, and a vibrant ecosystem of watchdogs. That architecture—plus public culture that still leans pro-democracy—makes a Russia-style authoritarian turn extraordinarily hard to execute or sustain. Continuous attention to the “soft” risks keeps it that way.
-
54 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:If Trump vanished another like minded wanna be dictator would take his place. You guys said the same about Trump after he mismanaged covid and after 6 jan. Trump should have had 0 chances to get re-elected after the disaster in his first term. But it turns out that the citizenry wanted Trump so bad that he won even the popular vote by almost 2.5 million.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't go protest. By all means do that, but I understand it is futile as long as he has the majority of the population behind him. Like it or not but 50% of Americans want the kind of politics that Trump is offering. And that is a fact. You don't get to be president for 2 terms is that isn't the case.
If all the population would be extremely educated Trump would never poll over 30%. Some educated people sway conservative and would be also corrupt AF and would benefit greatly from Trumps politics. But the percentage would never be above 30%.
Since the propaganda apparatus of MAGA is so vicious at swaying the majority of the minds in the USA in the Trump direction you guys stand little chance. You would need a propaganda apparatus that could sway minds towards liberal democracy values. But you can sway towards liberal democracy only if you are educated and atuned to history and political science. If you are John Mccoy from Mississippi you don't give 2 flying fucks about liberal democracy, you don't care about such a thing and you only want Trump to puch in the face some sissy liberal on live television. That is the state of the situation.
Education is the only sword that can slay fascism.
Yeah, I've been feeling that way too.
It's hard to see how we get out of this dark place anytime soon.
-
9 minutes ago, enchanted said:That's the question Democratic leaders can't seem to answer. Except Mamdani.
Mamdani is the right way to do leftist politics, and it's the method he borrowed from Bernie Sanders:
Focus on the working class and stand up to billion donors. Promise real change and seem authentic.
Even if he does win, his campaign strategy won't work for most Democrats outside of the city. He's way too far to the left for rural Americans, suburban Americans, those in the South, and those in Middle America.
-
49 minutes ago, Emerald said:That's the wrong way to think about the purpose of this protest... and protests in general.
First off, it shows strength in numbers and that people aren't just going to stand down and allow the Trump administration to do what it wants.
Secondly, the Trump administration is cracking down on the right to protest. You see, most authoritarian regimes don't need to take freedoms by force. The people willingly modify their behavior before they're forced to because they get intimidated by the authoritarian regime. What Trump hopes for is to crack down on some protesters so that people get afraid and stop protesting. So, it's important to use the right to protest... or we will certainly lose it.
Third, it's a great networking event for grassroots political organization to get more average people pushing back in small ways.
I mean, I suppose it's a good start, but what exactly are the people protesting going to be asking for?
There is no unified or cohesive plan and no message discipline for sharpening any serious demands.
What concrete demands do they want from the government and from the political parties?
Do they want these ICE raids to go away for good? Are they wanting free and fair elections, including the elimination of nationwide gerrymandering for future elections? Do they want Trump to stop these stupid fucking tariffs and pressure him to help fix the people's financial situation like he promised he would?
We desperately need an MLK or Obama-like figure to step up and give some kind of incredibly powerful speeches that will truly grab the people's attention and move them towards getting the support we need to get some kind of major policy win from the government.
-
By the end of Obama’s two terms, Democrats had lost nearly 1,000 state-legislative seats, along with dozens of congressional seats and a dozen governorships—the party’s worst down-ballot wipeout since Herbert Hoover’s time.
Even Democratic and Black commentators like Roland Martin have argued that Obama’s team prioritized his personal brand/OFA over rebuilding the DNC and state parties—contributing to those losses.
Honestly, what makes this even harder to swallow is seeing how deeply the effects of that down-ballot collapse are still shaping the country today.
Democrats haven’t held a majority of state power — not in legislatures, governorships, or trifectas — since 2010. That’s fifteen straight years of structural disadvantage.Republicans used that power to redraw maps, pass voter restrictions, reshape courts, and ultimately lock in control of the Supreme Court for an entire generation. The result is a political imbalance so entrenched that even a popular Democratic president can’t easily undo it.
And now, with Trump’s movement still alive, the GOP controlling most of the states, and a conservative supermajority on the Court, it’s hard not to feel like democracy itself is hanging by a thread.
Sometimes it feels like we’re watching the slow undoing of everything people fought for in the 20th century — civil rights, voting rights, environmental protection, women’s autonomy — all of it eroding in slow motion. It’s honestly depressing.
Because it’s not just about Obama, or even the Democratic Party — it’s about the long-term failure to build durable power that can defend truth, fairness, and the rule of law. -
I’ve heard Leo say several times that eventually at least 50% of Americans will wake up — that people will see through the lies, the tribalism, and the authoritarian slide, and that progressives and centrists will eventually fight back and regain control.
But I can’t shake this feeling that it might be too late by the time that happens.
The Left and the Democratic Party have always been far more circular and divided than the Republican Party. The Right operates like a top-down machine: disciplined, unified, and emotionally cohesive. The Left behaves more like a loose confederation of internal wars — centrists vs. progressives, idealists vs. pragmatists, activists vs. institutionalists.
It’s not that the Left lacks moral or intellectual grounding; it’s that it lacks strategic unity. Every attempt to form a broad coalition seems to implode under the weight of purity tests, ideological infighting, and a near-religious obsession with nuance.
So, my question is: What makes you think the Democratic Party and the broader Left will get it together in time for any of the most critical elections — 2026, 2028, or even beyond — before it’s too late?
Even if 50% of people “wake up,” how does that awakening translate into coordinated, effective political power? How does consciousness overcome disorganization, ego clashes, and the structural advantages the Right already holds in media, the courts, and the electoral system?
I’m not trying to be cynical — I’m genuinely looking for the mechanism that connects awakening to real-world results. Because from where I stand, awareness without unity might not be enough.
-
Lately, I’ve been feeling a growing dread that America might not even make it to 2028 with real democracy intact. This isn’t paranoia. It’s looking straight at the trends — the propaganda, the disinformation, the collapse of trust, the power grabs at state and federal levels — and realizing that we might be watching the slow-motion death of free and fair elections.
And what terrifies me most is that I don’t see an easy way out of it. I don’t see any stable path forward that doesn’t involve massive social upheaval, disillusionment, or even violence.
1. The Feeling of Powerlessness
It’s one thing to know that democracy is fragile — it’s another to feel it collapsing in real time. You can sense the numbness setting in. People are so divided and confused that even blatant authoritarian behavior gets normalized. Lies don’t matter. Institutions don’t matter. All that matters now is tribal victory and emotional gratification.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if there’s any peaceful route left. If elections themselves lose legitimacy, then what tools do conscious people have left to restore truth and justice?
2. A Civilization Regressing in Consciousness
From a developmental perspective, it feels like we’re witnessing a collective regression — from Green and Yellow values back down to Red and Blue. Fear and ego are swallowing empathy and truth. The system is too complex, too corrupted, too emotionally charged for most people to even perceive what’s happening, let alone correct it.
It’s like watching a global mind fragment into incoherence. The higher functions are still there, but the organism is turning on itself.
3. Searching for a Response That Isn’t Hopeless
I know there are people who say, “Just organize, just protest, just vote harder.” But what if that no longer works? What if the very mechanisms of accountability are rigged or erased? What if truth itself has no authority anymore?
Part of me wants to believe in collective awakening. Another part sees how deep the rot goes — how addicted people are to outrage, how incapable they are of nuance — and it feels almost irreversible.
Maybe the only thing left is to hold on to inner integrity — to refuse to let cynicism or hatred consume us, even as the structure around us collapses. To form small communities of sanity, consciousness, and love while the wider system burns.
4. The Hard Question
If the United States truly loses free and fair elections — if the game itself becomes rigged beyond repair — what then?
What do conscious people actually do when the political system no longer responds to truth or reality?
Because right now, I honestly don’t know.
-
We need a centralized, charismatic leadership to lead the entire No Kings protests. Otherwise, what will we really get out of any of it?
-
7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:Authenticity in the domain of politics is a very loaded and tricky notion. No politician is allowed to be truly authentic, otherwise they would never get elected and the public would take them.
Politics is not a domain for authenticity, honesty, and truth because the entire political system is built on lies, fantasies, and corruption.
So, then how are moderate/establishment Democrats going to be able to fix their messaging problem or win in future elections if they can't sound "too authentic", but at the same time have an authenticity problem, which is a big part of why Harris and the Democrats lost in 2024?
Btw, have you watched this vid from David Pakman on this problem?
-
11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:It is easy to be authentic when you hold no power and no responsiblity.
Venting online is very authentic. But it's a freedom people in positions of responsibility and power mostly do not have.
I kinda get what you're saying, but what about the presidents who actually became more fiery and populist after taking office — like TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Trump, and even Biden to some extent?
Doesn’t that suggest that authenticity can evolve with responsibility rather than disappear under it? Maybe the real challenge for leadership today isn’t choosing between authenticity and restraint, but learning how to stay emotionally real while holding power. Especially now, when voters are so sick of polished, poll-tested language, do you think that kind of “strategic authenticity” might actually be what effective leadership requires?
-
So, progressives can’t win much power because they will always be too radical for most Americans. Meanwhile, moderates are becoming less electable because people are tired of them sounding like soulless vessels who lack conviction, sound too rehearsed, don’t answer the questions like everyday people, come off as too pro-establishment/too pro-status quo, and have no clear bold reason for why they are running for office.
I really feel so dejected about all of this….
-
That's a pretty good list of reasons why it will be almost impossible for Trump and his party to pull off a true authoritarian takeover of the country.
Although I am still very worried about the elimination of free and fair elections as a real possibility.
Then again, I now think that maybe we have too much democracy because of how many stupid people we really have in this country.
-
19 minutes ago, Apparition of Jack said:Any genuine attempt to understand the world’s problems inevitably lead to a progressive outlook. Capitalism as it stands has turned into a nightmarish leviathan that exists to suck the life out of modern society.
Being a moderate means to live under the delusion that somehow this leviathan can be tolerated or reasoned with. It can’t. That’s why we got Trump.
But being a hardcore progressive/leftist doesn't work for winning the greatest amount of power.
-
Lately, I’ve been reflecting on something I’ve noticed in U.S. politics — specifically within the Democratic Party.
Progressives often feel more authentic than moderate Democrats. Even when people don’t agree with their ideas, they often say: “At least I know what this person really believes.”
Meanwhile, moderates tend to sound more calculated or scripted — even if they may actually be more pragmatic or experienced in governance.
So, why is this?
Is it simply that:
Progressives’ messages align more closely with their moral convictions, giving off a stronger sense of integrity and passion?
Or that moderates, by definition, have to balance multiple constituencies and compromise, which naturally dilutes perceived authenticity?
Or could this be a media/psychological phenomenon, where our brains reward moral clarity and “unfiltered” communication — even if it’s less nuanced?
From a Spiral Dynamics or consciousness-development perspective, maybe progressives are expressing Stage Green idealism (values-based authenticity), while moderates often operate from late Orange/early Green pragmatism — more focused on results and systemic stability than on “vibe” consistency.
It also raises a deeper question:
Is political authenticity about being true to your values, or about being honest about the trade-offs you’re willing to make to get things done?
in Society, Politics, Government, Environment, Current Events
Posted · Edited by Hardkill
Even though Navalny completely failed, maybe enough people in Russia will one day be inspired to believe in his cause.