OP didn’t say that memes can’t be textual in nature, OP complains about snappy Twitter, 4Chan, Reddit (idk about this one? Reddit does have memes in some subs) or similarly sourced screenshots of texts.
Such posts, while possibly humorous, and occasionally a bit funny, are not spread rapidly by Internet users, and rarely posted with any variation.
“By many different people” isnt part of either of the above definitions. Also, whats “many?” Whats “different” mean in this context? What is the threshold for a meme to meme? 10 people? 100? 1000?
Richard dawkins coined the term in 1976 and defined it as such:
A meme “conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation”
Seems like a screenshot of text seen by hundred/thousands/millions fits that defention to me.
“Many” may be me editorializing, but “internet people” implies that it’s not just one person posting the same thing in many places around the web and people liking it.
If you go any deeper than the surface-level Google definition (that you are pedantically picking apart), then you will find literally any idea or unit of culture is a meme.
Read the last chapter of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Actually please read the whole book, it’s a masterpiece of science popularization. Or read Susan Blackmore’s The Meme Machine, it explains the concept of memes and how they evolve in further detail.
When everything is a meme, nothing is. That is why often there is a distinction made between the Richarf Dawkins type of meme and the modern internet meme.
Everything is a meme, and they behave exactly like genes. They replicate themselves, perfectly or imperfectly, and are then subject to competition for users’ attention which will affect their future replication.
Another meme is attempting to outcompete the screenshot genus of memes, by using you as a propagation tool: the “screenshots of text are not memes” meme.
Care to summarize what those books say that the surface-level Google definition provided to me by Antagonistic doesn’t?
I’m not going to read entire books just to defend my meme against another meme which defends a class of alleged memes.
Well the definition is correct, it is Antagonistic’s narrow interpretation of that definition that is incorrect.
The key is evolution. For something to evolve, it must have the ability to be transferred, to be changed/mutated, and to be stored. Both genes and memes have these properties.
Literally any idea is a meme. If you can think it, it’s a meme.
If you break a gene in two, the result is two genes. If you break a meme in two, the result is two memes.
The name “Antagonistic” is a meme.
The letter ‘A’ is a meme.
The sound you make when you say ‘A’ is a meme.
The idea of air vibrating to make sound is a meme.
That would mean that everything was a meme. And a definition that encompasses everything is worthless, arguably not even a definition (because nothing is defined).
It is not worthless at all. Studying cultural changes through the lens of evolution is very useful and enlightening. That’s why I referenced the books that go into this in depth.
I would argue your narrow definition of “meme” is worthless because we already have a term for what you are describing - they are called “image macros”.
If any idea is a meme, is any meme an idea, and is there a direct causal relationship or is it a coincidence (or, can there be an idea that is not a meme)?
If so, and if the former, then the definition of “meme” is a synonym of “idea” and that would be that, but I don’t think most people use that definition.
Note that I’m somewhat biased, loosely speaking I don’t consider raw microblog quips to fit a community / subreddit / virtual space called “memes”.
You are asking an interesting philosophical question, I feel a little out of my depth trying to answer.
But yes, I believe every meme is an idea, every idea is a meme, and there is a 1:1 relationship. The word “meme” is just an idea that is viewed through the lens of evolution.
Now as for the second question- should a screenshot of Twitter be allowed on this “meme” sub? - I don’t have a strong opinion, but I lean towards no
I never said I don’t like the screenshot I referenced, I just looked up for “twitter screenshot” on DDG and took a representative link. I find the content of the screenshot mildly amusing.
However, many people (including me) do not consider those to be memes;
if the most widely recognized definition of the word includes them, then I question its usefulness beyond a synonim for “funny quote”.
But you are completely right about what I complain about. A meme often contains text, and sometimes even is purely text (for example a popcultural reference in a text-only medium can be considered a meme), but a single (maybe even witty) tweet or a forum discussion without any further context is maybe funny, but not a meme.
Lol, I always love it when people have to split hairs so finely on definitions that they risk fission.
I made this joke elsewhere, but this is basically the No True Memesmen fallacy. The definition of meme includes these pictures, and trying to narrow the definition to exclude them is laughable.
When everything is a meme, nothing is. Ther is no adaptation, no cultural twist, no recontextualisation or any other relevant criteria in a screenshot of text and nothing else.
Ok, so just make up your own word that has the definition you want, or deal with your definition not being the same as others’. Because the definition of meme isn’t as specific as you want it to be.
I see this as no different than the people who argued that image macros aren’t memes.
The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of a meme you meant to say.
For example, Jana Zündel (german article), a german meme researcher, stated that a meme always includes a recontextualisation. The Wiki page lists key characteristics such as intertextuality and cultural evolution.
There is a screenshot from reddit posted here earlier today, do you think that’s a meme? Can you take it, put it in a new context and have it keep its original context as a reference so that the new post would create a new idea building on the context?
Or is it just a random story, maybe funny to some?
I didn’t make this meme.
Then let me put it this way:
OP didn’t say that memes can’t be textual in nature, OP complains about snappy Twitter, 4Chan, Reddit (idk about this one? Reddit does have memes in some subs) or similarly sourced screenshots of texts.
Such posts, while possibly humorous, and occasionally a bit funny, are not spread rapidly by Internet users, and rarely posted with any variation.
Example 1 - this is a meme:
“Nanomachines, son!”
Example 2 - this is not a meme:
Most of the shit on here hasn’t been shared widely or rapidly. They’re at best aspiring memes.
The community should be renamed non-memes. If not, then that community should be created & every non-meme here cross-posted there.
I mean, if the screenshot has been shared widely enough, it should be considered a meme by definition.
If the screenshot has been shared widely enough by many different people, yes, it should be considered a meme by definition.
“By many different people” isnt part of either of the above definitions. Also, whats “many?” Whats “different” mean in this context? What is the threshold for a meme to meme? 10 people? 100? 1000?
Richard dawkins coined the term in 1976 and defined it as such:
Seems like a screenshot of text seen by hundred/thousands/millions fits that defention to me.
“Many” may be me editorializing, but “internet people” implies that it’s not just one person posting the same thing in many places around the web and people liking it.
Why not? A meme is piece of culture that transmits akin to a gene. It just uses media as its medium instead of living tissue.
It may not be a “good meme” if its not propigated by others, but its still a meme.
Example 2 is a meme, no doubt about it.
If you go any deeper than the surface-level Google definition (that you are pedantically picking apart), then you will find literally any idea or unit of culture is a meme.
Read the last chapter of Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Actually please read the whole book, it’s a masterpiece of science popularization. Or read Susan Blackmore’s The Meme Machine, it explains the concept of memes and how they evolve in further detail.
When everything is a meme, nothing is. That is why often there is a distinction made between the Richarf Dawkins type of meme and the modern internet meme.
“When everything is made of genes, nothing is”
This is just an assertion, and a false one too.
Everything is a meme, and they behave exactly like genes. They replicate themselves, perfectly or imperfectly, and are then subject to competition for users’ attention which will affect their future replication.
Another meme is attempting to outcompete the screenshot genus of memes, by using you as a propagation tool: the “screenshots of text are not memes” meme.
Care to summarize what those books say that the surface-level Google definition provided to me by Antagonistic doesn’t?
I’m not going to read entire books just to defend my meme against another meme which defends a class of alleged memes.
Well the definition is correct, it is Antagonistic’s narrow interpretation of that definition that is incorrect.
The key is evolution. For something to evolve, it must have the ability to be transferred, to be changed/mutated, and to be stored. Both genes and memes have these properties.
Literally any idea is a meme. If you can think it, it’s a meme.
If you break a gene in two, the result is two genes. If you break a meme in two, the result is two memes.
The name “Antagonistic” is a meme. The letter ‘A’ is a meme. The sound you make when you say ‘A’ is a meme. The idea of air vibrating to make sound is a meme.
I didn’t interpret anything. I posted a meme. Also, you misspelled my name if were meaning to mention me.
My apologies, I confused you with the other commenter Sonotsugipaa, and I spelled your name wrong. :(
deleted by creator
That would mean that everything was a meme. And a definition that encompasses everything is worthless, arguably not even a definition (because nothing is defined).
It is not worthless at all. Studying cultural changes through the lens of evolution is very useful and enlightening. That’s why I referenced the books that go into this in depth.
I would argue your narrow definition of “meme” is worthless because we already have a term for what you are describing - they are called “image macros”.
If any idea is a meme, is any meme an idea, and is there a direct causal relationship or is it a coincidence (or, can there be an idea that is not a meme)?
If so, and if the former, then the definition of “meme” is a synonym of “idea” and that would be that, but I don’t think most people use that definition.
Note that I’m somewhat biased, loosely speaking I don’t consider raw microblog quips to fit a community / subreddit / virtual space called “memes”.
You are asking an interesting philosophical question, I feel a little out of my depth trying to answer.
But yes, I believe every meme is an idea, every idea is a meme, and there is a 1:1 relationship. The word “meme” is just an idea that is viewed through the lens of evolution.
Now as for the second question- should a screenshot of Twitter be allowed on this “meme” sub? - I don’t have a strong opinion, but I lean towards no
deleted by creator
By your thinking, the letter A on a transparent background is a “meme”
If people post it around, it is.
To be fair,
Hahaha, looks like we’re back to arguing about the old No True Memesmen falacy…
Screenshots of text that you don’t like aren’t memes because of reasons
like definition. words mean things? what nonsense.
I never said I don’t like the screenshot I referenced, I just looked up for “twitter screenshot” on DDG and took a representative link. I find the content of the screenshot mildly amusing.
However, many people (including me) do not consider those to be memes;
if the most widely recognized definition of the word includes them, then I question its usefulness beyond a synonim for “funny quote”.
Haters gonna hate, but you deserve this.
spoiler
Just a recent reference
But you are completely right about what I complain about. A meme often contains text, and sometimes even is purely text (for example a popcultural reference in a text-only medium can be considered a meme), but a single (maybe even witty) tweet or a forum discussion without any further context is maybe funny, but not a meme.
Is that an AI-answer?
It’s the dictionary definition
But then you are missing or leaving something out:
You can parody a piece of text. They literally just did it by overlaying wojack on top of the dictionary description.
Lol, I always love it when people have to split hairs so finely on definitions that they risk fission.
I made this joke elsewhere, but this is basically the No True Memesmen fallacy. The definition of meme includes these pictures, and trying to narrow the definition to exclude them is laughable.
When everything is a meme, nothing is. Ther is no adaptation, no cultural twist, no recontextualisation or any other relevant criteria in a screenshot of text and nothing else.
https://c.tenor.com/8sERkslHbYcAAAAC/tenor.gif
Ok, so just make up your own word that has the definition you want, or deal with your definition not being the same as others’. Because the definition of meme isn’t as specific as you want it to be.
I see this as no different than the people who argued that image macros aren’t memes.
The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of a meme you meant to say.
For example, Jana Zündel (german article), a german meme researcher, stated that a meme always includes a recontextualisation. The Wiki page lists key characteristics such as intertextuality and cultural evolution.
There is a screenshot from reddit posted here earlier today, do you think that’s a meme? Can you take it, put it in a new context and have it keep its original context as a reference so that the new post would create a new idea building on the context? Or is it just a random story, maybe funny to some?
Taking a screenshot of one website, cropping it, and posting it on another website is recontextualization.
Took like 5 minutes