Two words I am completely against are "we" and "should", which come up quite often in discourse about what can be done about the current societal problems.
"We" means identifying as some collective entity, which will almost inevitably become part of the narrative war, where sustaining itself becomes more important than providing value for people. This is how subversive movements which correctly identify problems become co-opted by the system: not through some overt mechanism, but simply through the pressure of collectives needing to maintain themselves in a society dominated by unconsciousness and coercion. Speaking of which:
"Should" means coercion: the coercion of the individual to the system, or small versions of the system, such as the state or companies, which is found in the coercion of regular people to teachers, parents, rulers, the wealthy, and many other more subtle ones, such as the coercion of the body to the unregulated mind. The point being that you can never solve an inherently coercive environment, such as society, with another flavor of coercion.
So what should "we" "do"? Nothing. Large collectives don't do anything, they merely react. They do the thing that is easiest for them to maintain their survival in the short term within the ambient collective environment, such as companies maximizing for profits, or activists shaming people to join their cause, or academia using dogma to establish its legitimacy, etc. Those collectives do not make conscious decisions because there is no center that is conscious. Individuals on the other hand, and very small groups too, can act from a conscious 'I'. But it does not come from a place of should, it comes from an understanding—not merely intellectual but also embodied—of the current situation. When you catch yourself talking too much, you simply stop, no need to "should" or make plans.6