Lumidaub comments on the Woman with no face

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago (7 children)

True. Alrighty, I'll accept that in the very original Dawkinsian sense, this can be considered a meme, if you squint. I still think it goes against the spirit of the community because the context is the internet in which the word means something else.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (6 children)

While I sympathize with your frustration, this is the same question we were asking at the fin de ciecle over Duchamp's Fontaine over "is this art?" - and has been repeated in "what is theatre/fiction?" "Is borat fiction?" "Is an advertisement a movie?" "Are documentaries neccessarily non fiction?" which leads you all the way back to epistemology, the Socratic method, and a state of aporia.

The only reasonable conclusion is "if anyone says it's a meme it's a meme"

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

I don't think I agree. I'd define an "internet meme" as an inside joke (in the very broadest of senses) shared on the internet. There needs to be a certain number of people who agree that it's funny and worth repeating and propagating for it to qualify. Like the original ~~idea~~ definition of a "meme", really, where an idea only becomes a cultural unit once it leaps from one mind to another. Also, Milhouse is not a meme.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

I mean per my previous comment: define "inside" "joke" "shared" "internet" "certain number" "agree" "one mind" "another mind"...

I could email myself the letter "e" and then say "this is funny" to myself and it would meet this definition

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

There's still only one mind involved in your scenario.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 days ago* (2 children)

Myself at two different points in time could be considered "two minds": my mind now, my mind at the point of sending the email, especially if the time period involved is a long time and I forgot about it.

Failing that I could email it to anyone - they don't even need to recieve the email as the qualia of receiving the communication wasn't specified in the definition.

Reminder my original point was that eventually this conversation will lead to aporia.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 point 3 days ago* (1 child)

The mind in your past has ceased to exist. The content of that email remains in one mind, it just a different one, by your definition.

They do need to receive it and read since it has to at the very least enter their minds and ideally they have to think it's funny/interesting/worth sharing/etc.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 days ago

one mind... just a different one

My point exactly. But ignoring that?

they have to receive it

Define recieve, is inbox OK? Is a glance ok? Do they have to understand it? (Is an Italian meme a meme if I don't speak italian?)

You were saying the OP wasn't a meme, but it was recieved by at least you and me, and unknowably countless others.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent