“In spite of everything you’ve done for them, eventually they will hate you.”

You can download Artix Linux 2026.04 right now

Why would anybody? It’s actively advertising that it’s using a replacement for X11 created by a MAGA, anti-vaxx dipshit whose claim to ultra-niche fame was making a fucking mess of Xorg by recklessly churning out PRs, accordingly getting barred from contributing, and throwing a bitch fit and spinning his removal into some incoherent Red Hat conspiracy theory.

Here’s the raw level of competence you can expect when you trust XLibre’s developer to reimplement a decades-old mountain of low-level spaghetti. (For anybody who’s never written C/C++, this is something you would – generously – learn in the first half-hour of learning the language. Making a typo is semi-understandable. Being confused when confronted by it and having it directly explained to you is fucking insane given the nature of the project.)

Because it’s a meme and its creator wanted it to for shits and giggles.

You’re literally in a political propaganda community created, solely modded, and near-exclusively posted to by the OP. Memes like this are digital propaganda leaflets designed to be easily digested and distributed, and this one’s entire point rests on the legitimacy of the quote. So no, I don’t give it a pass for “lol meme ecksdee”.

It shouldn’t be controversial to hold people making propaganda to any kind of standard in a world where “just memes lol” carried Donald Trump to power twice.

or any other outlet that is presenting itself as a legitimate source of information, none of those obligations exist.

If this meme isn’t presenting that the quote is real, then why the fuck does it exist? I mean “to be easily created and disseminated propaganda”, obviously, but why should it exist? Sourcing your shit isn’t “catering to the inept”; it’s catering to the people who care about the truth. If sourcing is “catering to the inept”, then why is it done in those contexts you mentioned? When does it stop “catering to the inept”? The answer, obviously, is it doesn’t, because it never was.

If you want to think that an expectation of basic sourcing should be limited to e.g. academic contexts, journalism, etc., to the point that the notion of expecting that from anything else offends you, then whatever I say isn’t going to convince you out of your own laziness and stupidity. You’re part of the problem.

If you take memes seriously as a source of information then you have issues.

I don’t – which should be obvious based on the fact I decided to source the quote. A frightening amount of people do, and that’s not limited to one political side. It’s 2026; we’ve been watching widespread media illiteracy and intellectual laziness destroy society for at least the last decade. You can’t just pretend you’re totally separate from that when you put media out into the world to be consumed by others.

And if you think basic sourcing is limited to “dissertations” or “school reports”, then writing school reports ironically taught you jack shit about why sourcing is important.

me too thanks

“So now” I’m going to? No; I already have been since the first comment.

I’m not going to sit down and explain why doing the bare minimum to source a quote you slap into a shitty, zero-effort meme is important when you’re releasing it out into an ocean of disinformation. That should be obvious, and if you take offense at that basic notion, then I’m just going to wallow in the clownery you started instead of wasting my time.

Are you sure it’s not a school report? I remember seeing plenty of essays in 5th grade misspelling the names of people they’re quoting like this.

How many troops were garrisoned in Barrack Obama when he said this?

Anyway, here’s a source for the quote since memes like this seem allergic to providing one.

Patient zero for cordyceps.

And just because OP feels like being an extra obnoxious little bitch (maybe intentionally inviting the Streisand effect? maybe not clever enough for that and just a dipshit?):

• Adam’s Bluesky

• Adam’s Tumblr

• Adam’s Substack

• Adam’s Patreon

(I’ve intentionally refrained from linking his TikTok, subreddit, Instagram, and Twitter for ethical concerns, but these exist if you can stomach those platforms.)

I’m saying that the logical end point of your idea is to either take this post down or remove Adam’s recognizable art style by running it through an AI. Because this post is an advertisement for anyone like me who recognizes his work.

But then I’m starting™ to think you don’t actually care; you just enjoy being a petty, insufferable bitch and don’t actually think Ellis’ credit at the bottom was harmful in any meaningful way.

It still wouldn’t make it consistent given you’re still advertising Adam in the post body. Anti-advertisement ethics aren’t the problem; your lens for evaluating them clearly is, and I’m not here to bodge together the garbage it’s feeding you.

I’m pointing out that your reductionist, black-and-white attitude is so convoluted and so unhelpful that it’s not even practicable for you to follow while complying with your belief that – to the author and the reader – it’s wrong to erase credit. And I can tell that’s your ethical stance because you re-added credit despite no rule and despite sponging up public ridicule like you practically enjoy it.

Edit: I will tell you just to drive this point even further that your post is an advertisement for Ellis’ work for anyone (like me) who recognizes his distinctive art style. So be sure to take it down or run it through a slop filter to genericize it.

This is an advertisement for Reddit, Inc. that most people won’t even realize they’re being served until they click the link. I’m not contending the link is a big deal in a vacuum; I’m contending you’ve actively substituted a completely benign – even quite helpful – advertisement with a slightly yet definitely worse advertisement and are claiming this is rooted in staunch anti-advertisement ethics.

Giving credit to the original author – which I understand you did in the post body – is advertising only in the most benign sense. It is not intrusive; it is not misleading; it is not manipulative; it is not malicious; it is not meaningfully harmful in any way.

I understand hating watermarks. But this isn’t someone slapping an iFunny or whatever bullshit brand onto an image completely unearned like a barnacle; the artist created a work for you to have for free (as in beer, and given memes, mostly as in freedom too), and the only thing they’re asking is that you preserve this small bit of credit. No, it’s not charity, but – speaking as someone who does volunteer work nobody will ever materially compensate me for – whoooo cares?

In an Internet awash with faceless, generic slop that nobody and everybody created at the same time, an artist’s watermark is one of the few ways people can attach an identity to their work. You definitely realize that removing credit from the image and transferring it to the post body isn’t identical – else you wouldn’t do it. Yet you’re still advertising for them, just in an intentionally kneecapped way that profits a known-malignant, multibillion-dollar corporation. What you’re doing as a substitute is somehow worse – transferring part of the advertisement to RDDT (136.18).

No rational way of looking at this makes sense.

Man, Adam Ellis’ work isn’t, like, mind-blowing to me, but I would’ve never believed how good he actually is if you told me before he escaped from BuzzFeed. This was my only glimmer of hope at the time:

Wow, ACE in SMB1 is already doing some crazy stuff.

Tried in 2021, but the corrupt admin cabal only deleted the observable Universe, undermining the community’s wishes. Their pro-Universe influence has gotten so bad in five years that, in 2026, there’s a discussion trying to get rid of the heat death of the Universe.

Maybe there is a Hell, OP. (Reminded me to wishlist it on GOG, though.)

I can’t tell if this legit or more Trump meddling

Over this piddly shit? Really, you actually can’t tell if this wasn’t Trump meddling? Nintendo got the patent last September under Trump’s acting USPTO director Coke Morgan Stewart. Two months later, the new director John A. Squires ordered it reviewed (bad patents fall through the cracks all the time; IP attorneys have described patent lawsuits as a “minefield” for both parties). Now, in a non-final decision for which Nintendo has two months to respond, it has been revoked. Nintendo didn’t even respond to the patent reexamination. I suggest reading the Games Fray article referenced by the linked content mill article poorly regurgitating it.