Again, nobody said that. You keep just making shit up.

And nobody denied that. The statement was “racism was normal in those days”, and not “the n-word wasn’t racist in those days”.

So the wiki screenshot displays a description of a meme. It is not a meme itself. I would not type a description of a meme into a .txt file, screenshot it and upload that screenshot into c/memes, because it’s not a meme.

Well, it’s not what I expect when I see “memes” in the community name, I guess.

That is one part. The other part is that Dawkin’s definition was flawed from the beginning, especially in regards to internet memes. Because memes do not actually behave like genes, there is no random mutation, there is no selection pressure, there is no survival of the fittest-kind of fight for lasting, sustained existence.
There is human intent behind every forwarding and sharing action, to every change, there are statements and meaning and a dadaistic approach every time a meme is created and altered.

The best summary of what a meme of modern understanding is I came across was “a recontextualising reproduction of a phenomenon (like pieces of media, certain motions, sounds, statements, etc…), usually with a certain intent (often humouristic and/or satirical).” Though that is just a rough summary, not a precise and conclusive definition.
There are, after all, still meme researchers trying to find an exact definition writing scientific articles on this topic. And they often are an interesting read.
However, none of these researchers and their attempts at defining a meme would say a simple screenshot of a Wikipedia passage or of a witty microblog post would suffice as a meme by itself.

How is an unaltered Wikipedia screenshot a meme exactly?

Where meme though?

I don’t know, I’m not really firm with quantum physics.

Isn’t every parent a trans parent then? You are not assigned parent at birth, you only transition into parenthood by reproducing (a process that also involves multiple hormonal changes).

Well, the Tankies ran similar campaigns in South Korea leading to economic and political consequences.

I am not familiar with that development, can you provide sources for me to read up on it?

I remind you that Tankies promoted MAGA in the USA and AfD in Germany.

Because they have common goals towards Russia, not because Tankies want to continue the marginalisation of women.

Another potential explanation is religious extremist(s) pushing anti-women sentiment.

Could be, could be not. I tend to go with the answer with the least necessary assumptions until further evidence.

The Man or Bear scenario a. is not a narrative, it is a thought experiment and b. does not “paint all men with a broad brush”. It points out how normalised violence against women is in our society. It does not say “all men are violent against women”, that’s just what people who did not (often did not want to) understand the construct read into it.

It does not matter much how you conditionalise your statement when you use a metaphor that is about systemic issues you are implying a similar systemic issue. By choosing the bear you imply she did it because of gendered violence, not racist violence.

I don’t know her motivation. I do not assume. I just know that two men brutally murdered a child for racist motives and you are trying to make that into women being a systemic problem (because that is what the bear discussion is about. Systemic, socially normalised violence). Wrong turn.

Another edit after your edit: nobody says all men were the same though. You are just trying to imply I would.

The violence still came from men. They killed a 14 year old boy. Do you think that’s excusable or what?

I do think it’s all the same person (or maybe two or three).

I simply can’t see a tankie motivation in this behaviour. It does not relate to their ideology (which doesn’t mean tankies cannot be misogynist neckbeards, but at least it is not rooted in their political ideology).

Two grown men according to your article. Encouraged by the Jim Crow-Era social conduct.

Do not try to stir up some misogynist bullshit here. Do not try to relativize racism here. That shit won’t fly here.

No, I think it’s just some Nice Guys™ discovering a new platform.

Trying to twist a racist lynch murderof a 14 year old boy into “muh, women bad” is a choice. A disgusting, despicable choice, but a choice.

You refuse to educate yourself? How unexpected.

That is so reductionist, it isn’t just simplified anymore but flat out false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Scroll down to “academic studies and criticism”.

What is hard to understand about this?

Losing the Plot has nothing to do with competition or loosing or winning?

https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/28244815

Here they tell you “losing the plot” has nothing to do with winning or losing an argument. No reaction from your side. Then I told you, several minutes later, you immediately responded and apologised to them referencing my comment.

Why did you not show the same reaction to them telling you?