It’s not being spread around by this post. When something becomes a ‘meme format’, the original message is no longer present, and using the format to make a meme about something unrelated absolutely does not imply any sort of endorsement of the message in the original, nor does it have any impact of the prevalence/awareness of that original message. No one who isn’t already aware of the original message is going to learn it via this new meme.
Another example, the myriad memes made out of that one bit from a Chick Tract where it talks about hating Jesus because he speaks the truth, with the variable being what goes in Jesus’s speech bubble. None of those memes are an endorsement of the religious zealotry of Jack Chick, either explicitly or implicitly.
Yes. Making a bad thing the basis of a good thing undercuts the latter and makes the former seem less problematic.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot lately about how the tendency to only make light of bad things without addressing it does little to diminish it, and in actuality just gives it space to grow and get worse, and this feels like that sort of situation. So I’m addressing the problematic foundation, not letting it fester in obscurity.
Then how do you explain the fact that the particular source material I used as an example is most popular among the non-religious? Does that not directly contradict your assertion?
the tendency to only make light of bad things without addressing it does little to diminish it
But then again, the goal isn’t actually to diminish the original. The message of the original quickly becomes completely irrelevant, once it’s been ‘harvested’ as a meme format. As such I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the people creating/spreading the memes for doing a poor job of opposing the original message–they literally don’t even know what the original message even is nearly 100% of the time and don’t care even more nearly.
I’m not asserting anything or criticizing anyone. You’re taking this much more personally than it’s intended. All I’m doing here is pointing out the problematic origins of the comic. You asked me to explain why that matters and I did. You’re not going to convince me otherwise, and I’m not interested in convincing you either. If anything, it’s something for others to consider. Have a good day.
You clearly criticized the OP for posting this meme, and also clearly asserted that you believed doing so amounted to bolstering of the message in the original image.
You’re taking this much more personally than it’s intended.
What on Earth did I say that made you think I was taking anything you said personally? Can you give me an example?
It really sounds like you’re just making things up now, that’s your first two sentences now that make zero sense.
All I’m doing here is pointing out the problematic origins of the comic.
No, that’s not all you did. You also asserted that because of those origins, that posting an unrelated meme using the same graphic/visual ‘base’ bolsters the message of the original.
You asked me to explain why that matters and I did.
And then I gave a clear example that directly contradicts your assertion, and asked you to address the contradiction. Which led to this comment full of straight-up fabrication that I’m replying to now.
You’re not going to convince me otherwise, and I’m not interested in convincing you either.
“Convincing” is for subjective matters, matters of opinion. You asserted something to be true, I responded with information that contradicts the assertion.
Refusing to acknowledge that information and trying to reframe this as an argument about something subjective, so that you can wave it off as an ‘agree to disagree’ matter that neither of us can be actually correct about, did not go unnoticed, lol.
Just wanna point of that the original of this comic is about “the intolerant left”. Maybe not the best to spread around.
It’s not being spread around by this post. When something becomes a ‘meme format’, the original message is no longer present, and using the format to make a meme about something unrelated absolutely does not imply any sort of endorsement of the message in the original, nor does it have any impact of the prevalence/awareness of that original message. No one who isn’t already aware of the original message is going to learn it via this new meme.
Another example, the myriad memes made out of that one bit from a Chick Tract where it talks about hating Jesus because he speaks the truth, with the variable being what goes in Jesus’s speech bubble. None of those memes are an endorsement of the religious zealotry of Jack Chick, either explicitly or implicitly.
It does imo. Using the original formatting with little to no changes lends credibility to the original message, considering how recognizable it is.
Actually, until you mentioned it, I’d actually completely forgotten what the message in the original said.
So you honestly believe that this is ‘lending credibility’ to the messaging in the original Chick Tract?
https://i.redd.it/se0v7a6ludb11.jpg
Really?
Yes. Making a bad thing the basis of a good thing undercuts the latter and makes the former seem less problematic.
I’ve actually been thinking a lot lately about how the tendency to only make light of bad things without addressing it does little to diminish it, and in actuality just gives it space to grow and get worse, and this feels like that sort of situation. So I’m addressing the problematic foundation, not letting it fester in obscurity.
Then how do you explain the fact that the particular source material I used as an example is most popular among the non-religious? Does that not directly contradict your assertion?
But then again, the goal isn’t actually to diminish the original. The message of the original quickly becomes completely irrelevant, once it’s been ‘harvested’ as a meme format. As such I don’t think it’s fair to criticize the people creating/spreading the memes for doing a poor job of opposing the original message–they literally don’t even know what the original message even is nearly 100% of the time and don’t care even more nearly.
I’m not asserting anything or criticizing anyone. You’re taking this much more personally than it’s intended. All I’m doing here is pointing out the problematic origins of the comic. You asked me to explain why that matters and I did. You’re not going to convince me otherwise, and I’m not interested in convincing you either. If anything, it’s something for others to consider. Have a good day.
You clearly criticized the OP for posting this meme, and also clearly asserted that you believed doing so amounted to bolstering of the message in the original image.
What on Earth did I say that made you think I was taking anything you said personally? Can you give me an example?
It really sounds like you’re just making things up now, that’s your first two sentences now that make zero sense.
No, that’s not all you did. You also asserted that because of those origins, that posting an unrelated meme using the same graphic/visual ‘base’ bolsters the message of the original.
And then I gave a clear example that directly contradicts your assertion, and asked you to address the contradiction. Which led to this comment full of straight-up fabrication that I’m replying to now.
“Convincing” is for subjective matters, matters of opinion. You asserted something to be true, I responded with information that contradicts the assertion.
Refusing to acknowledge that information and trying to reframe this as an argument about something subjective, so that you can wave it off as an ‘agree to disagree’ matter that neither of us can be actually correct about, did not go unnoticed, lol.
Makes sense, as most self-proclaimed “centrists” are almost always right-wingers who don’t want to admit it.