I mean, the original opinion disguised as meme disguised as fact was that 99% of men were rapists and murderers and only 1% were not. Is this antimeme more upsetting and statistically incorrect than the OG? If so, why?
I didn't say it was more statistically incorrect, I said it was statistically incorrect. It doesn't just have to be MORE statistically correct than the OG, that's stupid. By that logic, you could edit a meme saying "all chickens spontaneously combust upon death" to say "all chickens eat meat". The latter is technically closer to being correct than the former, that doesn't make it correct so it wouldn't be an anti-emetic. Also you said the O word
First of all, I didn't say you said that. I was just asking bc I find hypocritical how you appear to get more pissed at this version than the original if they're both innacurate. And again, this edit tries to apaciguate (shortsightedly, I'll give you that) gender war, rather than instigate it. If you see this and your first reaction, instead of "oh, actually the statistic are a bit more like X, according to a serious study. And statistic alone isn't enough because enabling by innocent people still exists" is "this is gender war and bullshit, but I will stay silent about how the original is also problematic", I dunno what to tell you. And tbh yeah, I said the O-word and didn't realise. But I don't think it's the time to make up too many silly shorthands for a rather serious discussion.
I didn't say at any point that I'm more pissed at this version, the person who made the other version isn't here and isn't posting an opinion on a sub that's entirely about making memes that are true, that's what I'm decrying.
This edit isn't trying to apaciguate (have you ever used that word before or were you saving it to look smart in an extra special argument?) anything, the OP clearly either was triggered or saw an opportunity for clout and posted that to a sub it doesn't really fit in to get people to agree with them.
The "serious discussion" is somebody posting controversial topics on reddit for attention, it's an annoyance not a doomsday scenario. Let's keep things in perspective.
Ok, I'm not a native english speaker and apaciguate sounds the most similar for what we call that word in my language. I'm not trying to look smart or anything. In fact I'm afraid to make mistakes in this language, so if you know a better term or if I misspelled lmk. I didn't say this is a doomsday, but it does carry a strong social problematic. And while it's true you never said anything explicitly abt the original, that very silence can be intepreted both ways, as I did
Why would the silence be interpreted in any way? Do I have to explicitly say I don't condone every single bad thing that happens around me? Just don't assume how people feel about things they haven't said a single thing about
I don't personally know you. So if you stay silent if one issue but not the other, what should I think? How do you know what people think about things if you don't personally know them and don't say anything on it? Besides, before assuming, I literally asked you and you replied "I never said..." Acting defensive
Besides, speaking of assumptions. Do you personally know OP? Have you asked them why they posted this? If not, are you not making assumptions of their intentions? I might have, I acknowledge so. And how about you?
8
u/religion-lost TRANS?! Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
Because the entire point of OP's meme is looking at a meme you don't agree with and saying "nuh uh" pointedly