You're absolutely right to draw the distinction between criticizing systems of power and recognizing the ways those systems shape and limit ordinary people. The U.S. government, as it exists, is undeniably an imperial and extractive entity, and its global reach is felt through violence, finance, media, and tech alike. But that same system also crushes many of the people within its own borders—economically, intellectually, and spiritually.

The analogy to rabies is powerful but tricky. Yes, propaganda can infect people with hate, fear, and delusion. But if we begin to see our neighbors only as rabid dogs, we risk becoming cynical and cruel ourselves. A QAnon believer isn’t the same as a policymaker at the Fed or a war planner at the Pentagon. One is sickened by ideology; the other wields it with intent.

I fully agree that material conditions can break the spell—and that crises can clarify things. But that clarity won’t lead to solidarity unless we create the groundwork now. The far-right is already doing this—they’re building networks, feeding people, offering meaning. If we wait for collapse to act, we’re just ceding more ground.

The real task isn’t just to oppose the empire—it’s to build a counter-power that can replace it. That starts by reaching out to the people closest to us, even the ones we’re tempted to write off, and giving them something stronger than fear and conspiracy: a vision, a purpose, a role in something bigger.

We need to organize not just against, but for—for community, for care, for justice. And yeah, maybe even for a future where nobody needs to grow up inside a machine that trains them to be obedient or cruel. That’s a future worth fighting for

If the goal is to simply build towards protests and riots then that is a foolish goal because protests and riots are insufficient

If the goal is to build something larger than that, then different methods are required

The U.S. government is one thing. The people who live here are another.

We should never judge someone just because they were born in a certain country. Blaming people for where they come from is prejudice, plain and simple.

Yes, Americans can be frustrating. Many seem unaware of what their country does beyond its borders. Many have failed to demand change. But instead of writing them off, we should ask why that is.

The truth is, they’ve grown up inside one of the most powerful propaganda systems in history. From the moment they’re born, they’re fed myths about freedom, greatness, and endless growth—while being isolated, overworked, and misled. Their ignorance isn’t always a choice. Often, it’s something that’s been done to them.

So instead of condemning them, let’s choose compassion. Let’s challenge the system that raised them this way—and reach out to those willing to see through the lies.

Real change means building solidarity, not more division. Speak the truth. Share knowledge. Offer empathy. That’s how we turn a misled population into a powerful force for transformation.

When people rise up without a clear plan or shared vision, they often end up reinforcing the very system they’re trying to challenge. That’s because the people in power already control the tools that shape our thinking—like the media, schools, and pop culture.

If we want real change, we need more than just passion. We need a shared understanding of what kind of world we’re trying to build. Otherwise, we risk repeating the same mistakes and rebuilding the same broken system in a different costume.

Capitalist ideas have had centuries to take root and evolve. They’ve got a head start and powerful platforms to keep spreading—TV, textbooks, social media, movies, everything. To challenge that, we need a complete shift in how we think about power, community, and freedom.

So here’s the big question: Is this shift happening? Can we see it in the protests, mutual aid networks, labor strikes, and grassroots organizing across the country?

If we believe it’s possible, then now’s the time to act—together, intentionally, and with clarity. Let’s build a new vision of society—one not handed down by the powerful, but created by us. Start by asking: What do you really want the future to look like? And who’s with you in building it?

An entirely spontaneous movement will end up reproducing the dominant ideology in a given society, because the dominant class has the means at its disposal to propagate and reproduce the dominant ideology.

So a revolutionary movement must know in advance what its revolutionary theory is; it must be united around a particular vision of society, a particular theory of revolutionary change, or it will simply reproduce the society that it is acting against.

Ideas that support capitalism have been around much longer than alternative ones, are more refined, and have way more tools to spread themselves—like the media, schools, and culture. A drastic change in structural thought is necessary.

Where is the evidence that this change in structural thought is actually occurring in the United States? How is this present in the dissent that has manifested thus far?

Yes, but an entirely spontaneous movement will end up reproducing the dominant ideology in a given society, because the dominant class has the means at its disposal to propagate and reproduce the dominant ideology.

So a revolutionary movement must know in advance what its revolutionary theory is; it must be united around a particular vision of society, a particular theory of revolutionary change, or it will simply reproduce the society that it is acting against.

There is no evidence that this is what is occurring in the United States. Replacing the bad king with a good king will not solve our problems; our problem is that we are ruled by kings in the first place

If the conclusion is that a revolution is necessary then protests and riots are obviously insufficient. Which means that posting is not the correct path, particularly because it seems to be very lacking in building irl community, though it is effective at convincing posters that their engagement is "doing something". It isn't, aside from enriching tech oligarchs through their attentional engagement

So calling Trump a regard is acceptable then?

That's not a gotcha - tbh the "left", to the extent there is such a thing in the US, would be more likable if it used the language of the actually existing working class to communicate its criticisms of capital. Tone policing is not an effective way to organize the proletariat or to spread class consciousness

Agreed that it's insider trading.

But how will this contribute to monopolization of the corporate sector and harm small/medium businesses? Why would all of this increase their corporate control of other large corporations?

I'm not saying that isn't their goal, because it clearly is. But I don't see how pump and dumps necessarily help them achieve that. Especially now that everyone with a brain knows this is what they're going to keep doing

You're missing the broader implications of the meme. It's not just about women feeling unsafe around men — that’s a real and valid experience — but this particular meme has been co-opted and amplified in ways that serve deeper political agendas.

It does racialize the threat, whether consciously or not. The ambiguity of “a man in the woods” leaves people to fill in the blanks with their own biases, and statistically, media and social conditioning prime many to imagine a Black or brown man — not a white suburban dad. That’s why this meme feeds into racist and xenophobic narratives, even if unintentionally.

Worse, it also primes men — especially men of color — to feel alienated and demonized. It reinforces the message that they are inherently threatening or unwelcome in public spaces. This isn’t just a feminist meme gone viral — it’s political fodder. Right-wing actors boosted this kind of content ahead of the 2024 elections to create division: stoking male resentment, amplifying racial tensions, and undermining solidarity between groups that might otherwise resist conservative agendas.

So yes, the fear of violence is real. But the weaponization of that fear — through memes like this — deserves serious scrutiny. Just because something resonates emotionally doesn’t mean it’s not being used strategically.

If you asked people to describe the skin color of the "man", i very much doubt most of them were thinking of a white man.

A white male Connecticut suburbanite isn't what is being thought of in their minds eye - it's a "thug" or an "illegal". Because the meme is racist, and anti-male sentiments manifest via violence against black and brown men

The idea that AI art “isn’t art” because it’s a shortcut or because it uses an algorithm misunderstands both what art is and what tools have always been.

Art has never been defined by the medium or method — it’s defined by intent, vision, and expression. A camera didn’t make photography “not art.” Digital tablets didn’t make digital painting illegitimate. And AI doesn’t erase artistic vision — it channels it through a new tool. The artist is still choosing the concepts, crafting the prompts, refining outputs, experimenting with style, tone, and feeling. The AI doesn’t create meaning — the human behind it does.

Calling AI a “shortcut” implies that ease diminishes value. But would you say that a poet using a thesaurus is cheating? Or that a sculptor using power tools is less of an artist than one using only a chisel? Artistic integrity isn’t about how labor-intensive the process is — it’s about what’s communicated, and why.

Also, this notion that AI art “lacks a connection to life” is projecting a fear onto the medium. An AI image born from someone’s grief, curiosity, memory, joy, or political message carries that emotional weight — not because the AI feels anything, but because the human behind it does. That’s no different than paint, marble, pixels, or film. All of those are just lifeless materials until a human gives them meaning.

As for copyright — that’s a legal framework lagging behind the technology, not a moral judgment. Copyright law also initially didn’t know what to do with photography, collage, or digital art. Legal ambiguity doesn’t mean it isn’t art — it means the system hasn’t caught up.

AI is a tool. If someone’s using it to chase trends or mass-produce content, sure — maybe that’s shallow. But if someone’s using it to explore ideas they couldn’t draw or paint by hand, to tell stories, to reflect identity or dreamscapes — then it’s art. Full stop.

The fear that AI replaces artists comes from a zero-sum mindset. In reality, it opens doors for people with vision but without traditional training. And that, ironically, makes art more human — not less.

No it isn't, it's literally what astroturfing is and how public relations campaigns are run. I know people who literally do shit like this for a living

Doesn't mean the original meme was created by an agency necessarily, but it certainly was boosted and amplified by conservatives to spark anger against PoCs/immigrants, and to build intergender resentment amongst men. Which worked wonderfully for Trump, as is evidenced by his strong performance with Gen Z men

The goal was to increase fear of the "other" - which is a classic right wing tactic.

The bear meme was a conservative astroturfed campaign to push people right - which is why it appeared shortly before the 2024 US elections

But being able to mechanically draw well doesn't make you an artist. Imagining the ideas and transposing those ideas into reality makes you an artist. Which AI enables people to do

High technical skill in utilizing writing/drawing/painting implements is not equivalent to art. That's a very STEM view of things which demonstrates a lack of emotional connection with life or art

The goal was to increase fear of the "other" - which is a classic right wing tactic.

The bear meme was a conservative astroturfed campaign to push people right - which is why it appeared shortly before the 2024 US elections

The bear metaphor was obviously thinly veiled racism/xenophobia from the start. Lots of conservative/moderate women who are terrified of anyone who isn't white or who is "illegal"

Creativity isn't the same thing as drawing or painting or whatever. Being mechanically gifted at manipulating an instrument to produce certain output isn't reflective of one's creativity. There are plenty of very creative people who are bad at drawing etc. Ai art empowers those people to transform their ideas into reality

Mechanical skill at manipulating a tool like a brush is not in any way correlated with artistic talent. Creating and imagining the meaningful concepts and transposing them into reality to convey emotional and intellectual meaning is a reflection of artistic quality. Not how good someone is at drawing. If AI can empower person's to transposing their ideas into reality then it should be encouraged and widely adopted

If you aren't artistically talented, whether through lack of ability or through disability, then AI is significantly better at turning an idea into existing art than using a pencil/paintbrush/pen