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
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
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"
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