a know Gene... the types of media you keep coming across tells me your circle seems to overlap a lot with 4chan/8chan (aka white supremacists and incels).

Let's take a look at what we have here....
On the right is "Doomer" Doomer is a variant of Wojak intended to indicate despair or nihilism over the end of the world. Doomer comes straight from 4chan. Wojak itself was originated elsewhere, but is very popular in 4chan/8chan and is frequently paired with pepe the frog (pepe the frog has been co-opted by white supremacists and incels)

On the left is "Soy Boy" or "nu-male" Wojak. Just given the name, I'm assuming you are smart enough to realize it's also something that originated with the incels/white supremacists.... (but what do I know... maybe you aren't smart enough to pick that up).

So... you posted another image with origins in the white supremacists/incels groups.

What's funnier about the entire thing is that the image argues that the 2nd amendment protesters aren't actually that concerned about government overstep. They're only concerned about the government overstep when it's something important to them... like haircuts. If it's people of a political alignment which might fight against their guns later, they're willing to watch personal rights disappear to a government with little accountability.

Real conviction there.... real conviction.

Victor on another thread wrote:

Just another meme, but the the so called, "Non-Player Character" face is on the winning side.

Gene363 wrote:

Here's one for you.

Buckwheat wrote:

As I posted elsewhere, that is not the "NPC" face...


Since this dumb "MeMe" has been brought up again, I'd like to point out that unlike how it is described in the idiotic strawman argument in the cartoon, this does not have to be a binary issue.
One does not have to be support the cause of the current protests to see government overstep.

The meme stupidly implies that one should allow the government to abuse the rights of citizens it doesn't agree with, because later they may protest your rights.
Someone who was actually concerned about government tyranny, would simply start a different protest against government tyranny. If that were actually a concern.

The cartoon's simplistic arguing lays bare the simple fact that it never was about protecting our bill of rights from an overbearing government. It was just about having guns.

victor809 wrote:

Simplistic, but not enough for you.

Gene363 wrote:

Given that I actually understand the origins of it, one could say I understand your little cartoon better than you do. As simplistic as it is.

victor809 wrote:

Oh sure a regular genius, making assumptions on two examples and magically extrapolating conclusions. Why you're a regular one man conspiracy sleuth, statistical wizard and clairvoyant.

Gene363 wrote:

Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this… A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”.

victor809 wrote:

Ah yes. When one can't find a problem with the argument, complain about the person presenting it.

"Victor!!! Stop telling me things I don't want to know!"

victor809 wrote:

Ooooh, I knew there was something but I just couldn't get the pieces to fall in place. Vic is really Cliff Clavin. Wow, the light bulb just lit up.

Now I feel stupid for not making the connection.

BuckyB93 wrote:

You could just look at the meme for the message. If you must, imagine the characters as stick figures. The faces, other than their expressions are irrelevant. I aww the nondescript nature of the faces as a way to avoid offending anyone.

Gene363 wrote:

Don't stop. Where would we be without Vikipedia?

BuckyB93 wrote:

What you saw, and what is intended by the artist don't have to match. Additionally, the provenance of any message, while not actually changing the message, can lead to questions about what other beliefs the person bringing the message may hold.

Let's play a pretend game.
1st scenario - You see a cartoon about Soros funding those clintons. You think the message is hilarious. But the depiction of Soros uses the jewish caricatures promoted by white supremacists.

If you re-post that, you are not just posting the message you find hilarious... but also whatever additional messages in the caricature which white supremacists want to promote (ex... big nose, money grubbing, media controlling, whatever).

2nd scenario - someone posts a hot bikini clad girl on cbid. Great photo. You see on the news later that she was Miss Hitler (apparently this is a thing) 2018.

In this scenario, you have to ask yourself what you know about the person who initially posted that photo. Did they know she was miss hitler? Do they frequent a site that promotes things like Miss Hitler? Maybe they don't know... Perhaps you should tell them so other people don't ask the same question when they post it somewhere else.

victor809 wrote: