But "socialism" is a scary word

[email protected]

Yes, some people will try to twist any type of system to benefit themselves. That's true, and it's also true that capitalism celebrates those evil motherfuckers, whereas some other forms of government don't.

atro_city

So I can reduce anything complex to a misrepresentation, tweet it, and claim "well, you know what I mean right? I don't have enough characters to express my actual belief, so this is fine". Got it.

[email protected]

Memes are not supposed to be funny. Them being funny has just become a side effect if memes.

[email protected]

The most boomer take I've ever heard about memes

[email protected]

This looks more like a prompt to an AI meme generator than am actual meme.

[email protected]

I mean... If you say so. But I guess you've never seen any political memes that dunk on the opposition, or "so relatable" memes, or memes with encouraging themes...

GladiusB

I'm saying it's a consequence of the format. Not the subject. Which I clearly stated. The whole context is that the format limits the interaction and in essence is part of the enshitification.

Socialism is scary and way worse than capitalism in many ways

What you're thinking of is a social democracy

[email protected]

Hot take: I don't think those are memes either

[email protected]

Then your personal take is in conflict with the definition of a meme.

[email protected]

Meme - Media, usually humorous, which is copied and circulated online with slight adaptations, such as basic pictures, video templates, etc.

There are other similar definitions there that are in line with my opinion.

[email protected]

That definition is not in line with your opinion. Textbook fallacy here. XD

Nowhere on the definition you just posted does it say a meme is required to be funny in order to fit the definition of a meme. It says that a meme is usually humorous, and not even as a central element to the main body of the definition.

You're very strongly and deliberately glossing that part over.

But speaking of definitions:

Merian Webster:

an amusing or interesting item (such as a captioned picture or video) or genre of items that is spread widely online especially through social media.
an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture

Cambridge Dictionary:

a cultural feature or a type of behaviour that is passed from one generation to another, without the influence of genes

American Heritage:

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.
A self-propagating unit of cultural evolution having a resemblance to the gene (the unit of genetics).

I can keep going with Britannica, and Wikipedia itself, and Word.com, but these are all the top results of a simple search.

[email protected]

The definitions you provided are associated with the meme definition coined by Richard Dawkins. The only definition that is somewhat inline with the one commonly referenced in internet culture is the 1st one under Merriam Webster.

Memes are often funny, but can also not be funny (i guess the better phrasing is some memes can have a different intention other than being funny) which is why i gave a special pass to "oh-so-relatable" memes. This post isn't a meme because it elicits no real response other than agreement or disagreement with the message. It might be a joke, but not all jokes are memes.

Colloquially speaking however, memes nowadays can be considered anything posted in image format with some text. Which is why, although not funny, wholesome memes are considered memes.

I'm enforcing the literal interpretation of memes.

[email protected]

No you're not, or you would be enforcing Richard Dawkins' definition. So far nothing you've said disproves that definition of memes in relation to how they present themselves in Internet culture.

Do not conflate your personal opinion with enforcing an objective definition.

[email protected]

Clearly we're at a standstill and this argument is going nowhere, so i think this is a good place to stop. Have a good day sir.

[email protected]

I agree on your points as well. We are so limited by human nature and lack of consensus that I don't think we can escape these problems without something extreme like genetically modifying the whole population of the world.

It's been very nice discussing politics with you. Such civil political conversations are rare and noteworthy.

[email protected]

Agreed. Have a good one.

[email protected]

In that case why do we have so many good examples of regulation in capitalist systems, the most effective being the "Scandinavian model" countries which effectively blended large amounts of socialism into a capitalist system and enjoy the best health and happiness rates in the world?

Indeed there is no such thing as an unregulated capitalist economy anywhere in the world. They all have staggering amounts of regulation.

[email protected]

the most effective being the "Scandinavian model" countries which effectively blended large amounts of socialism into a capitalist system

That is absolutely NOT socialism. Like, at all. And if you legitimately think that, I'm genuinely sorry to say that you too have no idea of what socialism is and what you're talking about.

The Nordic countries are absolutely not socialist in any shape or form. They are very much capitalist societies with marginally better welfare systems. Which is not saying a lot considering the average country that leaves every individual to fend off for themselves.

They all have staggering amounts of regulation.

I was being overly simplistic in my original comment I admit. They do have regulations, but know this: "regulations" in a capitalist system are always limited in their scope and are primarily designed to sustain the capitalist system to allow it to perpetrate its profit-first essence. By nature, they are never created with the intent to actually challenge or limit their fundamental exploitative dynamics (think of the 2008 crisis. The banks were bailed out and measures were put in place to stabilize the market. And yet no serious measures were put in place to fundamentally change the market itself or to prevent future exploitations).

I sincerely hope you might use this conversation as an opportunity to read and learn more about Socialist/Marxist theory. I am convinced far more people would agree with it more than they think (especially in these fucked up times) if only they actually read more about it rather than trusting what others told them about it

[email protected]

This is the problem with the term socialism. It's very often applied to social democracy, so it's not an exact term any more. For what you are discussing (seizing the means of production, central distribution of resources and jobs), I prefer the term communism.

But none of that matters much. What matters is that the Scandinavian model of social democracy has been far more successful where applied than communism ever was. Communism has only ever been fully implemented on the back of brutal authoritarianism, and that's because it's in fundamental conflict with human nature.

And as much as I would love for human nature and social dynamics of large groups to be different, we have to deal with the animal we have rather than the one we want.