Hardkill

Member
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    4,152

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hardkill

  1. Posted

    5 hours ago, Alex4 said:

    He’s not saying we should go back to the 1950s. I think Leo is pointing out the dangers of liberalism. Just look at any field or activity, and you'll see thousands of totally contradictory opinions, some come from ignorance (most), and others from bad intentions. Nowadays, any fool can grab a camera and start talking about politics, spreading false information and hate. You need to have a damn clear head to avoid falling into toxic traps nowadays. 
    At least in a theocratic society before the 20th century, there was little dissent within a community. When you hear elders speak, they often say that communities used to be more united. Even if part of that unity was based on ignorance, it helped prevent internal conflicts.

    Yeah, but conservatives in America, especially those on the far-right, have pushing so hard since the 1980s to eliminate any checks on their right-wing rhetoric, even if it causes mass chaos and confusion for the public.

    I think that right-wing libertarianism has been the true culprit.

    Mature liberals and progressives, who are generally smarter and more sophisticated than conservatives and traditionalists, want there to be fair regulations on all information and content from both the left-wing and the right-wing.

  3. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Alright guys, I know some of you don't believe in Lichtman and his 13 keys system, but I am telling that his system has been proven to work based on hard science and US political history. Not magic. His system has worked for every presidential election since 1860 (1876 and 2000 were stolen elections). Since 1984, he has predicted five Republicans having won the White House and five Democrats having won the White House. So, he has never been biased whenever he has made any of his predictions. 

     

    So, he predicts that Kamala Harris will win the 2024 presidential election!

    That being said, the only way she can lose is through voter suppression and election interference like what happened in the 1876 and 2000 presidential elections, especially if the race turns out to be extremely close.

    Therefore, we all have to get out there and vote as if our lives truly depend on it! We gotta get out there and vote in numbers that are too big to rig and too real to steal!

    Also, do whatever you can to help get out the vote for Harris/Walz and to vote Blue all the way up and down the ballot!

    Volunteer with organizations that work to increase voter turnout

    Help register voters

    • Assist with voter registration drives
    • Check if friends and family are registered to vote

    Educate yourself and others about voting

    • Learn about voting requirements and deadlines in your state
    • Share information on social media
    • Host a voter registration event or workshop

    Encourage others to vote

    • Offer to drive friends to the polls
    • Remind others to vote on Election Day
    • Emphasize the importance of voting in shaping our future

    Participate in get-out-the-vote campaigns

    • Join phone banks or text banks to remind voters to cast their ballots
    • Participate in canvassing efforts to engage with voters directly

    Support voting rights and access

    • Advocate for policies that protect and expand voting rights
    • Support organizations working to increase voting access

    Remember, every effort counts, and when the liberals/progressives, moderates, and even principled conservatives truly unite together in the USA then the Democrats win!

    The Harris/Walz slogan is "When We Fight, We Win!"

  4. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    12 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    @Hardkill Conservatives wanted you to pray to Jesus and don't think too hard for the last 80 years. But you disobeyed them. Now look what mess you're in.

    What?

    Why would we ever want to go back to being forced to live a Judeo-Christian life?

    Also, why has the past 80 years of liberalism been more responsible than hyper capitalism, neoliberalism, and the right-wing media are for the mess we are in?

  5. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    That's what I mean by not connecting the dots.

    On the one hand you say that chaos and epistemic diversity is destroying us. Yet at the same time you are upset that we didn't get even more liberalism!

    You are not recognizing that it's liberalism that got us here, not conservatism.

    The conservatives lost the culture war for 80 years but you don't even see it!

    Liberals don't see the problems liberalism creates, and always assume that the solution to any problem is more liberalism.

    Conservatives, right-wing libertarians, and Republicans are the ones who haven't wanted any regulations on free speech for decades. Reagan and Republicans were the ones who got rid of the fairness doctrine.

    Liberals, progressives, moderates, and Independents actually want reasonable regulations on freedom speech in order to prevent such misinformation, to have real meaningful discourse on policies, find common ground, and have a more effective governance.

    Btw, why 80 years?

  7. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    That's not a real solution. You would lose a lot of important epistemic diversity.

    In a sense, today's epistemic chaos has been created by 80 years of liberalism.

    Conservatives warned us that liberalism would kill us all. Now we understand what they meant. But liberals never connect the dots.

    Well, this media environment is clearly not working for us. It's caused too much chaos and division in our society.

    Besides, we can't keep letting the conservatives win the messaging war.

    We already had conservatism dominate US politics since the election of Reagan in the 80s. The election of Obama in 2008 or the emergence of the progressive movement since 2016 were supposed to usher in a new era of liberal/progressive politics like in the early 1900s progressive era or like during the mid 1900s.

  9. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Campaign finance reform has been a mainstream issue for decades, with various efforts and proposals aimed at addressing the influence of money in politics. 

    Yet, I don't see any real progress having been made on this issue at all, even after Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement began to rise to prominence in 2016.

    Also, what happened to Wolf-PAC? 

     

  10. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    Hey, what do you guys think about the idea of having the fairness doctrine reinstated?

    Positive effects:

    • Increased diversity of perspectives: Media outlets would need to present balanced coverage, exposing audiences to a wider range of viewpoints.
    • Reduced polarization: By presenting contrasting views, media could help bridge the ideological divide and foster more nuanced discussions.
    • Improved critical thinking: Audiences would be encouraged to engage critically with different perspectives, promoting media literacy and informed decision-making.
    • Enhanced credibility: Media outlets might regain credibility by demonstrating a commitment to balanced reporting and diverse perspectives.

    Challenges and potential drawbacks:

    • Regulatory complexities: Reinstating the doctrine would require significant regulatory updates and enforcement mechanisms.
    • First Amendment concerns: Some argue that the doctrine could infringe upon freedom of speech and press, as it might compel media outlets to present views they disagree with.
    • Practical challenges: Implementing the doctrine could be difficult, especially in today's digital media landscape with numerous outlets and platforms.
    • Potential for tokenism: Media outlets might fulfill the doctrine's requirements by presenting token opposing views, rather than genuinely engaging with diverse perspectives.
    • Impact on opinion-driven content: The doctrine might affect the viability of opinion-driven shows, podcasts, or commentary, potentially limiting their ability to express a clear viewpoint.

    Unintended consequences:

    • Over-regulation: Excessive regulation could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, driving controversial or innovative content underground.
    • Media homogenization: The doctrine might inadvertently encourage media outlets to adopt a "safe" middle ground, suppressing unique perspectives and innovative content.
    • Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would require careful consideration of these factors to ensure that it promotes balanced coverage and diverse perspectives without infringing upon freedom of expression or stifling innovation.

  11. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    No I shouldn't.

    Criticizing a centrist moderate for not being radical like you want is peak cringe.

    Even though moderates are always a necessary part a society, I a lot times get very worried about centrists becoming easily swayed by the radical right or doing too “both sideism.” 
     

    In fact, if you look at many points in world history, authoritarians have been able to rise to power by easily manipulating moderates into believing that they are no worse than those on the other side of the issues. Particularly during times of major crises or even when enough people perceive something to be a serious crisis even if there is no real crisis such as “the white replacement theory.”

  12. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

    I agree. Should have pulled funding long ago.

    Mearsheimer says that they can't because otherwise the Israeli lobbying will go after Harris and the Democrats by totally smearing them as traitors to Israel, which could destroy her and her party's chances of winning in 2024. Plus, many Jewish and pro-Israeli voters in America may be very upset by that.

    Money in politics will be the death of us all!

  15. Posted

    13 hours ago, aurum said:

    Well, she probably did feel that way to some degree. It wasn’t like we formed a deep emotional bond.

    But also, the incident I mentioned was already about 15-30mins after I first approached her. We had spent some time chatting where I wasn’t being too pushy or aggressive. I think she saw that I was at least willing to get to know her. 

    I gotcha. 

    So, I gotta make her feel comfortable, form at least a superficial level of an emotional connection with her, and get her excited about me to be interested in having casual sexual with me.

    Thanks.

  17. Posted

    4 minutes ago, aurum said:

    That’s usually helpful, yes. 

    But then of course she’ll probably also have higher expectations for that relationship if you do that. 

    I had a ONS once where the woman deliberately stopped me from getting to know her more. She knew there was no hope of something in the future between us and didn’t want to get attached.

    So, how did you make her feel less objectified or how did she make herself feel like her body wasn't just used as sex object?

  18. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

    Because we want to be honored for more than just sex. It's how you view us. If you want us just for sex, it can signify in our minds that we are mere sex objects to you. To be used and replaced by another girl. How would you like it if I said I like your money not you exactly? Wouldn't you feel like a money bag? It's the same way. We don't want to feel that we're needed or valued or wanted only for sex. We want to be valued for much more like beauty, intellect, sensibility, emotional, vulnerability, etc etc etc. 

    Yeah, but then why you feel like certain women sometimes enjoy having a one night stand or having a fuck buddy without feeling objectified?

  19. Posted

    1 minute ago, aurum said:

    Depends.

    Could be that she’s just in the mood and not looking for something serious. Could be that even though it’s casual, you built enough of a connection that she at least doesn’t feel like she’s just being used. Could also be that she is hoping it will turn into something more serious in the future.

    So, even when it comes to casual sex I have to build enough of an emotional connection with her to not make feel her like I just wanted to use her body as an object for sex.

  21. Posted

    1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

    If you're gonna do that you gotta pull that same night, otherwise she will feel too slutty to go on a date with you later.

    It's important to note that girls operate in two modes: 1) fun party horny mode, and 2) dating boyfriend mode.

    If you're at a nightclub getting frisky, that's mode #1 and you gotta close fast because if she sleeps it off she will be out of that mode and never call you again. And if you're doing mode #2 then don't get too sexual too fast, take her on a date first.

    But how do I know if I am coming off as too desperate when I try doing mode #1?

  24. Posted

    There have been times where I meet a random new girl I've been attracted to at a nightclub or bar and within about the first 5 to 15 minutes of interacting we make out and I rub her breasts and butt. They've never shown any visible signs of discomfort or distress when I get physical with them like that. Sometimes it leads to me getting a phone number from them. Other times, I would continue to make out with them until they leave without seeming upset or uncomfortable with me for whatever reason and then I just never see them again.

    When does making out or getting sexual with a girl with a girl you just met like I have before come off as being desperate?

  25. Posted · Edited by Hardkill

    I think that centrism or moderates in America are stage Orange because the current center of gravity in terms of stage of development in America is Orange (Achievement) and a majority of Americans are moderates.

    Most Americans still prioritize these values which are stage Orange:

    • Focus on individual success, economic growth, and progress
    • Support for policies that promote social mobility, education, and innovation
    • Emphasis on pragmatism, compromise, and finding common ground
    • Valuing expertise, data-driven decision making, and incremental change