Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    5,180

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  2. Posted

    15 minutes ago, Johnny Galt said:

    The mocking and ridiculing, do we not see the causes and effects of this, within our own interiors? 

    If one believes that they are God, that they are all sparks of awareness having an individualized experience, then why would one choose to attack themself?  

    "To experience myself!!!!!"

    Yes, this is a part of it, and yet what happens when one is "awake" to it? At this point, does one not now have a choice? to cultivate towards life or death? 

    More directly, to the topic in this thread, I ask, why is it, that experts seek to silence conversations, rather then face it head on, with long format dialogue and debate? Why has there been such absence of this, in society?

    The implications of this, I urge you to take a moment to feel into this. If this is happening in the house of science and medicine, pillars of society, that's a huge red flag, as these are the houses that require open dialogue the most. 

    Here are some examples:

     

     

     

    Because debating about it doesn’t seem to work so well for convincing either side because of how defensive each person is going to be with their arguments.

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, TDLH said:

    Totarialism  

    Is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqPJiM5Ir3A

     

    You couldn’t even spell totalitarianism right. Lol

    Besides, I honestly still think that totalitarianism is a great thing for any society that is in any kind of emergency or dire situation.

     

     

  4. Posted

    28 minutes ago, Roy said:

    No, the cat is out of the bag. Things will never be quite as they were before. They will probably get closer to how it was before, but it will never be the same.

    Lots of different countries, provinces/states, and probably cities will all have varying degrees of lockdowns yes. It's a tool that will need to be used unless we want the virus to run completely rampant and overwhelm healthcare infrastructure. Though I'm sure lockdowns will be less common as better vaccinations and other medicines come out, not to mention their growing unpopularity.

    I'm sure some will. Many will get better at dealing with it over time, and they won't need be overwhelmed if people are responsible and governments actually commit to certain plans and protocols instead of the mass confusion and incompetence we see now.

    Well it says 4.82 million have died already now but the number is probably in the 6-8 million range or even higher when you consider most of humanity is actually in third world countries that can't report accurate data + bad healthcare infrastructure.

    So I'd estimate another 2-3 million die per year, for the next few years.

    Things will get better it will just take some time. In the meantime tell every anti-vaxxer you come across to go fuck themselves for making this pandemic worse and longer than it has to be.

    I see.....well, I like how China literally forces everyone in their country to take the vaccine.

  5. Posted

    7 hours ago, Roy said:

    Yes it is unfortunate in some of the ways people are behaving, but you can't really control them, and it's not worth the cost of trying to. So best not to waste energy on it. If they want to learn the hard way and put themselves and others in close relation at increased risk, that's on them. They will be the ones facing the worst of the consequences. 

    If people want to remain ignorant and stupid in face of so much evidence, there is nothing we can do to change that. Just accept it.

    It should have been obvious from how contagious it is that it was never going anywhere. We are going to have to learn to live with Covid for our lifetimes most likely, and hope that with enough measures it's potency is reduced to more of that like an actual seasonal flu.

    Improve your health, get vaccinated, follow basic protocols, and just continue living your life.

     

    1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    Their minds are rotted. You can never rely on these people to turn around and stop the pandemic. You gotta accept that 25% of folk will just be dogmatic on this issue come what may and that will not change. Our Covid strategy must assume that 25% will never be vacinated or lift a finger to help society.

    Then, will things never get back to normal? Should we also assume that there are going to be more lockdowns in the US in the future? Will hospitals around the world forever be overwhelmed by the amount of COVID patients they have? How many more people in this world are going to die from this virus?

  6. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    All of the remaining unvaccinated Americans throughout the entire country still won't take any vaccines despite the current gravity of situation with Omicron.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/25/us/omicron-unvaccinated.html

    At least a majority of them say that they won't even take the new antiviral pill, Paxlovid, no matter how sick they got from the disease.

    https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-would-take-covid-pill-if-they-got-sick-except-unvaccinated-poll-1654126

     

    This is unbelievably frustrating and very worrisome, guys. Now, I am not feeling optimistic about COVID ever ending.

  8. Posted

    24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    The bill was popular among his voters.

    It's his corpo donors who wanted it killed.

    The dude has investments in coal companies.

    Yeah, but you said that voters don’t vote logically on policies regardless of what the polls say about how popular certain ones are. They vote base on how electable something or someone is based on how emotionally compelled they are about a certain politician or a certain policy. So, is it possible that while the West Virginian voters who voted for Manchin may have liked all of the provisions within the Build Back Better bill from a logical standpoint, they were more afraid of the bill granting more government takeover of some kind if it had passed through both Congress and Biden?

  9. Posted

    47 minutes ago, Opo said:

    I doubt anyone's argument is that the money completely controls the laws. 

    It's just that you can tip the scale a bit in your favor. 

    Yeah, that's what I was kinda thinking. I hope that's true.

     

    1 minute ago, Joel3102 said:

    It's not because of the lobby money lol. He's a Senator for West Virginia, one of the most conservative states in the country. If he voted like a normal Dem he'd just be voted out and replaced with a Republican. He doesn't want to lose his seat

    Yeah, I was thinking that too.

  10. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    42 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Democrats are also corrupted by lobbying money. The Dem admins have been pretty weak amd neoliberal for the last 30 years.

    Clinton and Obama were both neolibs.

    Joe Manchin is a fucking Dem who acts like a Repub thanks to the lobby money. Single-handedly stopped a $2 trillion deal. Stuff like this happens all the time.

    Yeah, from what I understand, Dem became neoliberal and weaker when the New Democrats (Clintonian Democrats) first emerged during the late 1980s in order to effectively counter Reaganism. Though wasn't Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s pretty weak?

    Also, I still don't get why corporate lobbyists weren't able to stop liberal legislation that did create more progress for our society  such as the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the 1993 Clinton tax increase, Dodd-Frank Act which passed in 2010, or the ACA which also passed in 2010?

  11. Posted

    1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

    Obviously it's not that easy.

    But lobbying money is retarding all progress.

    Hmm, I see.

    So, if corporate lobbying contributes to getting in the way of all progress, then how were Democrats ever able to pass any liberal legislation such as raising the taxes on the wealthy and other laws that would benefit the middle class during Clinton's first presidential term in the 90s or pass both the ACA and Dodd Frank act during Obama's first term?

  12. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    14 hours ago, mw711 said:

    Yes, correct. The Colors build upon another. 

    So, then why not skip Blue unless you're in the military, the police, some kind of religious organization, or in a 2nd or 3rd world country?

    Why does Leo say that you can't forgo the stage Red or stage Blue work values? Why not just skip to the stage Orange work values?

  13. Posted

    1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

    If lobbying didn't significantly distort government, it wouldn't be a thing. Think about it.

    People like to say that lobbying isn't significant, yet billions are spent on it every year. So obviously it must be significant or no fool would be paying billions.

    So are you saying that without lobbying then the Democratic and liberal independents would be able to easily get enough Republicans in the country to to vote for passing something like a constitutional amendment that would abolish the electoral college or a law that would allow reform or expansion of the Supreme Court?

  14. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    Gerrymandering, the whole electoral college system, the Senate, and the Supreme Court all need serious reforms. Lobbying makes these things impossible to reform.

    Health care industry spent $300+ million in lobbying just this last year to stop medicare for all and cheaper drugs.

    Joe Machin killed Biden's whole bill and he is corrupt with lobbying money.

    But I thought that it was mostly the conservatives and Republicans throughout the entire country who are getting in the way of eliminating the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression even if they weren’t lobbied by any corporations. Don’t we definitely need at least half of all Republicans in the entire country to agree with every Democrat and left leaning Independent throughout the whole country to pass a major constitutional amendment that would permanently abolish the electoral college?

    I kinda wish Biden and every single Democrat in the Senate all decided to vote for eliminating the filibuster in order to get voting rights passed, Supreme Court reform, and much much more. However if they eliminate the filibuster completely then wouldn’t that put the entire country at great risk of going through radical reversals of major legislation? Mitch McConnell has already warned Democrats that if they do it then one day when the Republicans regain control of the whole government trifecta again then they will repeal all kinds of liberal legislation that had been passed throughout all of US history including all civil and voting rights acts, all of the federal abortion rights acts, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. What do you think about that?

    Yeah...I am so depressed that Manchin ruined the whole Build Back Better bill. If  Biden doesn’t get any more passed then couldn’t the Democrats end up in great jeopardy? 

     

  15. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    14 minutes ago, Roy said:

    I wonder if Cenk is aware of the irony that TYT is also one of the most biased and delusion filled outlets you could consume in this day and age?

    They are a pretty prime example of toxic Green.

    - Cenk has openly denied the Armenian holocaust, as well as apologized for Islamist Terrorism.

    - Hasan has become a fulltime grifter for annoying online activist lefties.

    - Ana well, you can just see the righteousness and anger spewing out of her face. The only thing holding it back from exploding is the 4 pounds of makeup she wears every day.

    But yea it isn't even worth talking about. I don't even know why I am to be honest.

    Yes, they do have a tremendous amount of Green in them, but don't they also have a lot of Orange and even some Blue in them? After all, in terms of Orange, they all have had a solid, disciplined, work ethic and have been running a successful business of their own. Hell, they even have way more YT subscribers than Leo does. Also, Cenk graduated from a top law school and top undergrad business school and Ana got both her Bachelor's and Master's degree and started teaching at a university in her late 20s. Furthermore, unlike a lot of other toxic green people out there, the TYT people understand and accept the importance and need of having law and order, military, and police which are all Blue values.

    Cenk never denied the Armenian genocide: 

     

     

    Also, Leo said that even though every progressive media outlet has a significant degree of bias, it still has better political analysis than any of the mainstream media news outlets.

    Ana is hot, but I'll admit that she is really making feel depressed about the world.

  19. Posted

    I know that stage Red, stage Blue, and Stage Orange each involve the idea of having a strong work ethic.

    Stage Red has the values of action, hard work, willpower, ambition, pragmatism, and taking initiative & ownership.

    Stage Blue has the values of hard work, discipline, duty, structure, rules, and order.

    Stage Orange seems to have all of the values of both Red and Blue including action, hard work, discipline, duty, obsessive desire for achievement and success, determination, pragmatism, and independence & sovereignty, structure, rules, and order.

    Is this correct?

     

  20. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    13 hours ago, Tim R said:

    The vaccines are still the most powerful weapons we have against COVID. 

    Prevention is better than treatment. This is the key difference that must be understood. 

    Pfizer is 95% effective in preventing infection, Moderna 94% and J&J 66%.

    And all all of the above are extremely effective at preventing serious illness, hospitalization and death. 

    Paxlovid (Nirmatrelvir) and Molnupiravir are what are called "antiviral drugs". They are of course extremely valuable as a further asset in our toolkit against COVID, but they are not a replacement for the vaccines (but of course, people will treat them as if they were).

    If people don't get vaccinated, the pandemic will go on. And they will very, very likely be infected at some point, if not multiple times. Yes, we can treat them with antiviral medication after they got infected, but that's not the goal.

    The goal is that they don't need any treatment in the first place, and that will only by achieved by getting vaccinated. 

    Yeah, that's what I am saying.

     

    10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    I wonder what it costs.

    They may run out of it too given the Omicron surge coming.

    Yeah, I wonder about that too. Though this source says that the pill will be available at no cost: https://www.goodrx.com/conditions/covid-19/fda-pfizer-antiviral-pill

  21. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Great news! The Covid pill created by Pfizer, called Paxlovid, which is an antiviral pill that you can take home and reduces the risk of hospitalization or death by 89% for high risk patients who have been infected by COVID-19 finally got approved by the U.S. FDA today!

    I am not sure if we have to wait for the CDC to give the final sign off for it before it can be used by anyone in the US who has at high risk of having a severe level of COVID after being infected by the disease. However, according to sources such as NPR "The federal government has a contract with Pfizer to buy 10 million courses of the treatment for $5.3 billion. But initial supplies of Paxlovid will be limited. The company says it will have 180,000 course of treatment ready by the end of the year."

    As for whether or not this pill will work against the Omicron variant, NPR says that "Although it's not certain, Paxlovid's efficacy is unlikely to be reduced in treating people infected with the omicron variant of the coronavirus virus. The drug, which belongs to a family called protease inhibitors, doesn't target the virus's spike protein, as the vaccines do."

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/22/1066761436/fda-authorizes-1st-antiviral-pill-for-covid

    One important caveat to taking this antiviral pill, is that it is not to be taken as a substitute at all for any of the current vaccines that protect you from this deadly virus. In order to have the very best chance of surviving COVID you still absolutely need to be fully vaccinated, boosted, wear a hospital mask indoors (ideally an N95 or higher version), and take Paxlovid (if you got infected by any COVID variant).

    https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-19-pills-are-coming-no-substitute-vaccines-disease-experts-say-2021-11-08/

  23. Posted

    Okay, I see what you guys are saying. I didn't know about the Treaty of Versailles and how and why fascism was not able to take over in countries such as the U.K. and US. After you guys mentioned those things I did some reading on Wikipedia on both the Treaty of Versailles and fascism that occurred in both Europe and the US during the 1920-1930s. Now I understand a lot more as to why a dictator never came to power in either the US or the U.K. during that era.

    Thanks guys.

  24. Posted

    53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Because the purpose of it was nothing more than to exploit for the benefit of the British.

    If there was some higher purpose, then it could work. But there was no such grand vision in that case. And also, the members of that empire were not at similar levels of development to make something like that work. It's important that all the member states are on a similar level. The EU works to the extent that the member states are at similar levels of development, otherwise there is too much tension.

    The US is also facing this problem as Blue states outgrow the Red states. Keeping a union together is difficult because all the divided parts want to pull in different directions, refusing to subordinate for a higher good.

    Nationalism is still a powerful force that most people are unwilling to surrender in order to create a truly benevolent empire. It will take another 100+ years for mankind to transcend nationalism.

    Ahhh, I see. Okay that make sense to me.

    So, it’s because of a number of things including some of he reasons that you just mentioned now up above that have caused empires throughout history to fail. You’re saying that one of the reasons that empires in previous history didn’t work in the past was because those empires such as the British empire had rulers or leaders that neither had a higher vision nor the interest to establish a widespread democratic system throughout their own entire empires. Another reason you’re saying as to why empires in previous times like the British empire couldn’t work for long was because each of those empires had too many different kind of societies that were too different from each other in terms of the  development that each of the societies were at. The reason a country has always worked and still works to this day is because everyone within a particular is close enough to each other in the level of development they are all at. The third reason you gave was because for millennia most people throughout the world have been too attached to the belief of nationalism which also prevents benevolent evolved empires from happening.

    You say though that perhaps the only  exception or the possible time throughout all of history that an empire may not have failed was the formation of the EU.

    Thank you, Leo. That really helped me a lot to understand better how societies work and develop.

    So, do you think that given how divided the US has gotten, that the US will split apart inevitably?

  25. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    Because they tend to be too exploitative.

    An empire would work if it treated all the states with genuine care rather.

    You can think of the EU as a benevolent sort of "empire" which is working.

    True. Empires are or were indeed exploitative. 

    However, let’s take the British empire as an example for the point I am trying to make. Instead of having that empire break apart, why couldn’t that entire empire turn into a democratic empire throughout the whole world just like how the entire country of Great Britain changed from being a country governed by monarchy to that being governed by democracy instead of breaking apart into various different tribes? Am I wrong? I am open to seeing my understanding as being possibly incorrect.