Looting may be warranted or unwarranted. But, because majority support is not relevant, we shouldn’t evaluate the propriety of looting based on this metric

The point is that majority support is unnecessary for a thing to exist. In fact, it increasingly appears to be an irrelevant metric in general

That link states that no federal reform occurred. Which supports my point.

Of the state level changes, they are all aesthetic and surface level changes - and even those are now being undone.

So I’m not seeing the real change. Which demonstrates that the protests were not effective

Isn’t this just admission to stereotyping which is inherently illogical?

The US is an oligarchy. Any actual threat to that would be suppressed. Because these protests were not suppressed, what conclusion can be drawn?

What I said would be true of Russia. This is because Russia is an oligarchy and this is how oligarchies operate.

The United States is an oligarchy as well.

Therefore what I said applies to the United States.

The goal of law enforcement is to preserve the existing social structure. American social structure is that of oligarchy. Therefore law enforcement exists to preserve oligarchy.

American law enforcement is immensely well funded. These protests did not all encounter law enforcement opposition. Therefore, law enforcement must have determined that these protests did not represent a threat to oligarchy. Therefore the protests were toothless because they did not represent a threat to the existing social structure

These protests, while better than nothing, will not produce real change.

Just as the George Floyd protests did not produce real change (Pelosi kneeling and raising a fist is not “real change”)

UnitedHealth reduced claim denials following the murder. So at least that is some tangible positive result

Law enforcement will only target protests that are a threat to the oligarchy.

If a planned public protest is not targeted by law enforcement then it has been determined to be a toothless protest

Oligarchy is not supported by the majority. Yet it exists nonetheless

The United States was created by the Revolutionary War.

We live in a country that only exists because of violence. We celebrate and honor this violence every year on July 4 (and on Memorial Day and Veterans Day)

Clearly we as a nation deeply believe in the transformative power of violence. It’s literally what it means to be an American.

It’s from the declassified jfk files from last month

Also you can’t spell

It’s a primary source directly from the US government. It’s the best source possible

I’ve never read anything from any scholar (holding a degree in history) that has used those terms in discussing the Hungarian uprising

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/104-10110-10525.pdf

Your point seems to be that everyone must agree with you or else they are an Other.

Your behavior in this thread demonstrates the utilization of the same tactics you supposedly oppose.

Remove the beam from your eye before pointing out the splinter in another’s

Remember the BLACKS RULE guy?

Honestly, no

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