memes.cjtrowbridge.com

Meme Categories:

Category: Anti-Anti-Experts

This meme is a screenshot of a Facebook post. The text reads: "The 'college is a scam' crowd is going to love this: A new study finds that 1 in 5 engineers don't know how to do basic math." The post is followed by a quote from a Twitter user that says, "The 'college is a scam' crowd is going to love this: A new study finds that 1 in 5 engineers don't know how to do basic math."

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2024-03-28T02:02:25.929356+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, let's break down this social media post through the lenses you've requested. Note that some of these frameworks might feel like a bit of a stretch given the brevity of the content, but we'll do our best to offer interpretations. **Visual Description** The image is a screenshot of a social media post, presumably from X (formerly Twitter). The post is by a user named "Diamond Moore". It consists of text: "The 'college is a scam' crowd on here arguing with engineers about bridges." Beneath the text are the standard social media buttons for "Like", "Comment", "Send", and "Share". Below that, there's a line indicating that "Torrielle Pilot and 69 others" reacted with an emoji. The background is a dark, neutral color, suggesting a dark mode interface. The image is highly text-based with minimal visual elements. --- **Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This post can be examined through Foucault’s lens by exploring the power dynamics embedded within the *discourse* surrounding college education and expertise. The post points to a conflict between two groups, framing them in opposition to each other: those who claim college is a "scam," and those who are "engineers." * **Discourses and Knowledge/Power:** The "college is a scam" argument is a *discourse* that challenges the established authority of higher education as a source of legitimate knowledge. Engineers, by profession, represent a form of technical expertise and institutionalized knowledge. The argument happening highlights an opposition, and therefore a power struggle, between these two discourses. The statement implicates that knowledge is constructed – the college “scam” crowd *believes* that college isn’t worth the money. * **Genealogy:** A genealogical analysis would trace the historical development of these discourses. How did the critique of higher education (the "college is a scam" sentiment) emerge? What historical factors (rising tuition costs, student debt, perceptions of job market mismatch) contributed to its formation? Similarly, how did the professionalization of engineering and the establishment of its expertise develop? * **Power Relations:** The conflict on display hints at a challenge to the power of institutions and certified expertise. Those arguing against college are attempting to de-legitimize a system that confers authority and status. --- **Critical Theory** This post can be read through a critical theory lens as an example of how dominant ideologies are questioned and contested. * **Ideology:** The established system of higher education and the engineering profession represent dominant ideologies – sets of beliefs that justify existing power structures. The "college is a scam" argument represents a counter-ideology, a critique of these systems. * **Reason/Emancipation:** Critical theory emphasizes the role of reason in challenging oppressive structures. The fact that a debate is happening (even if only implied in the post) suggests an attempt to critically examine the value and function of education and expertise. * **Critique of Instrumental Reason:** The argument over “bridges” (a tangible, practical outcome of engineering) versus the abstract concept of a college education could be interpreted as a critique of "instrumental reason" – the emphasis on efficiency and technical expertise at the expense of broader social and critical thinking. --- **Marxist Conflict Theory** A Marxist reading sees the conflict as a manifestation of class struggle or, in this case, struggles over the means of production and knowledge. * **Class & Education:** The post taps into broader anxieties about the economic value of education. The “college is a scam” argument often stems from the idea that college doesn’t provide a return on investment (ROI) – that the cost of education doesn’t justify the resulting job opportunities and income. * **Capital & Expertise:** Engineering, as a profession, is tied to the production and maintenance of infrastructure (like bridges), which are essential for capitalist production. The argument could be framed as a tension between those who have access to specialized knowledge (engineers) and those who feel exploited by the system (those questioning the value of college). * **False Consciousness:** One could argue that the "college is a scam" argument, while expressing legitimate concerns, might be a form of “false consciousness” – a belief that obscures the systemic factors contributing to economic inequality. --- **Postmodernism** A postmodern reading would emphasize the deconstruction of grand narratives and the questioning of objective truth. * **Deconstruction of Expertise:** The post highlights a challenge to the idea that expertise (in engineering) is inherently superior or more valid than other forms of knowledge. It suggests a distrust of authority and a questioning of traditional sources of information. * **Relativism:** The very act of arguing over the value of college and engineering suggests a rejection of the idea that there is a single, objective standard for evaluating knowledge or success. * **Simulacra and Simulation:** The debate could be viewed through the lens of "simulacra" – copies that have become detached from reality. The “college degree” may be seen as a symbol disconnected from its supposed value of career preparation. **Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This framework is the hardest to apply, given the limited information, but we can explore it: * **Power Dynamics:** If we assume the "college is a scam" crowd includes people from marginalized groups (e.g., those burdened with student debt, those facing discrimination in the job market), the argument could be seen as a resistance to systems of power that disproportionately affect them. * **Intersectional Issues:** The post does not explicitly address gender, sexuality, or race. However, the debate over the value of education is often intertwined with these issues. Access to education, student debt, and career opportunities are all shaped by intersectional identities. * **Challenging the "Standard":** The challenge to the traditional value of a college degree could be interpreted as a rejection of a “standard” way of achieving success that is often biased towards certain groups. **Important Note:** These interpretations are based on a single social media post and rely on extrapolating broader theoretical frameworks. There is much ambiguity, and other interpretations are possible.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a screenshot of a Facebook post. The text reads: "The 'college is a scam' crowd is going to love this: A new study finds that 1 in 5 engineers don't know how to do basic math." The post is followed by a quote from a Twitter user that says, "The 'college is a scam' crowd is going to love this: A new study finds that 1 in 5 engineers don't know how to do basic math."

This meme is a humorous comparison between the dramatic decline in infant mortality rates in the United States, as depicted in a graph, and the perceived efficacy of antibiotics. The text at the top reads, "For people who think oregano and onions work as an antibiotic..." and the graph shows a steep decline in infant mortality rates from the early 20th century to the late 20th century. The caption below the graph says, "In 1900, 1 in 7 babies died in the first year of life. Now, it's less than 1 in 100."

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2024-02-04T02:03:28.469509+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the image, broken down into sections addressing the requested theoretical frameworks. It's important to note that the image is inherently argumentative and intended to make a point, which shapes how these analyses can be applied. I'll indicate when a section isn't really relevant to the image. **1. Visual Description** The image is a line graph titled “Maternal Mortality Rate (United States per 100,000 live births).” The x-axis represents years ranging from 1900 to 1990. The y-axis represents the rate of maternal mortality, from 0 to 1000. A blue line charts the maternal mortality rate over time. The line starts high in 1900 (around 800) and slowly declines until approximately 1935-1940. There's a dramatic *steep* decrease in mortality starting around 1940-1950, reaching near-zero levels by 1970. A black arrow points to this steep decline, labeled “Antibiotics discovered.” The image also has text above the graph reading, “For people who think oregano and onions work as an antibiotic…” suggesting a critical stance towards alternative medicine claims. The implication is that the significant drop in mortality *corresponds* with the discovery and widespread use of antibiotics, rather than, for example, natural remedies like oregano and onions. **2. Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This image is a perfect example for a Foucauldian analysis. * **Discourse and Power/Knowledge:** The image participates in a *discourse* about health, medicine, and knowledge production. It constructs a specific narrative: that modern medicine (represented by antibiotics) is responsible for drastically reducing maternal mortality. It positions those who believe in alternative remedies (oregano and onions) as being outside of (or resistant to) this "truth" established by scientific discourse. * **Genealogy & Historical Construction:** The graph *constructs* a history. It isn’t simply presenting "facts"; it's *presenting* a selective history that privileges the role of antibiotics. A genealogical approach would ask: *How* did this particular understanding of maternal mortality become dominant? What other factors (improved sanitation, prenatal care, hospital births, nutrition) might have contributed but are *not* highlighted by the graph? * **Normalization & Discipline:** The graph, by showing a decline *after* the advent of antibiotics, subtly *normalizes* the idea that scientific medicine is the primary, and perhaps only, legitimate way to reduce mortality rates. This contributes to a “discipline” of health, where alternative approaches are seen as less effective or even dangerous. * **Power/Knowledge Relation:** The image demonstrates the power of scientific discourse to *define* what constitutes legitimate knowledge about health. The graph is presented as objective “proof” of the efficacy of antibiotics, implicitly delegitimizing other forms of knowledge. **3. Critical Theory** A critical theory analysis would examine the image as part of a broader social context: * **Ideology:** The image functions ideologically. It reinforces the idea that scientific advancements are the primary drivers of progress and well-being. It implicitly promotes a faith in technological solutions to social problems. * **Hegemony:** The image helps to maintain the hegemony of biomedicine—its dominance as the primary system of healthcare. By presenting a simplified narrative, it discourages critical examination of other potential factors influencing maternal mortality. * **Commodification of Health:** While not directly visible, the image reinforces the idea that health is something to be *bought* through medical interventions (antibiotics, hospital care, etc.), rather than something that can be achieved through preventative measures or holistic approaches. * **Reason & Enlightenment:** The graph exemplifies the Enlightenment belief in the power of reason and science to improve the human condition. However, a critical perspective would question whether this reliance on reason has come at the expense of other forms of knowledge or social justice. **4. Marxist Conflict Theory** While less directly applicable, a Marxist lens can be used: * **Class Relations & Access to Healthcare:** Maternal mortality rates are often linked to socioeconomic inequality. Access to healthcare, prenatal care, and even basic nutrition is often determined by class. While the graph doesn't show this directly, it hides the fact that the benefits of antibiotics weren't equally distributed. * **Control of Knowledge:** Pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions have a vested interest in promoting the efficacy of their products. A Marxist analysis would see the image as potentially part of a broader system of control over knowledge designed to maintain profits. * **Commodity Fetishism:** The focus on antibiotics as the sole solution to maternal mortality could be seen as a form of commodity fetishism—attributing magical power to a commodity (antibiotics) while obscuring the social relations of its production and distribution. **5. Postmodernism** Postmodern analysis would deconstruct the image’s claims to objectivity and universality: * **Rejection of Grand Narratives:** The image presents a “grand narrative” of medical progress—a linear story of decline in mortality due to antibiotics. Postmodernism would challenge this narrative, pointing out that history is always contingent and subject to multiple interpretations. * **Deconstruction of Truth:** The image *claims* to present "truth," but a postmodern analysis would argue that "truth" is always constructed through language and discourse. There are other ways to interpret the graph and other factors that could explain the decline in maternal mortality. * **Subjectivity & Perspective:** The image is clearly produced from a particular perspective—one that privileges scientific medicine. A postmodern analysis would emphasize the importance of recognizing the subjective nature of all knowledge claims. **6. Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This framework is the least directly applicable but can offer nuanced insights: * **Intersectionality & Health Disparities:** Maternal mortality rates are disproportionately higher for women of color, particularly Black women. The image *obscures* these disparities by presenting an overall decline in mortality, rather than breaking down the data by race, class, or other relevant factors. * **Medicalization of the Body:** The focus on antibiotics as the solution to maternal mortality can be seen as part of a broader pattern of medicalization—the tendency to define human experiences and problems as medical conditions. This can lead to the pathologizing of pregnancy and childbirth. * **Power Dynamics & Healthcare:** Women, particularly marginalized women, often face power imbalances within the healthcare system. They may be less likely to have their concerns taken seriously or to receive the same quality of care as other patients. The image doesn’t address these dynamics. * **Challenging Dominant Narratives:** A queer feminist analysis would challenge the image’s claim to objectivity and universality. It would emphasize the importance of listening to the lived experiences of women and recognizing the diversity of perspectives on health and healthcare. In summary, this seemingly simple graph is loaded with ideological and political implications. Analyzing it through various theoretical lenses reveals how it constructs a specific narrative about health, progress, and the role of science in society.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a humorous comparison between the dramatic decline in infant mortality rates in the United States, as depicted in a graph, and the perceived efficacy of antibiotics. The text at the top reads, "For people who think oregano and onions work as an antibiotic..." and the graph shows a steep decline in infant mortality rates from the early 20th century to the late 20th century. The caption below the graph says, "In 1900, 1 in 7 babies died in the first year of life. Now, it's less than 1 in 100."

This meme is a humorous take on the stereotype of a "reducer" or "resourcer" (a person who searches for information on the internet) becoming a "resourcer" (a person who finds and provides information). The image features a character from the Simpsons, Bart, sitting at a computer, with the Google search bar displaying the phrase "What I want to be true". The meme is captioned "I'm a resourcer" in a playful nod to the idea of someone being a "resourcer" (a person who finds and provides information) rather than a "reducer" (a person who reduces or minimizes something).

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2023-06-22T18:44:49+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, let's break down this meme through several theoretical lenses. It's a rich image for analysis, despite its seeming simplicity. ## Visual Description The image is a cartoon-style depiction of Ralph Wiggum from *The Simpsons* at a vintage computer. The computer is a beige Coleco Adam, identifiable by its design. Ralph is depicted with a determined, but somewhat vacant, expression while typing on the keyboard. On the screen is the Google search bar with the query "What I want to be true." Below the image, in bold red letters, is the caption "I'm a resurcher." The image also includes the watermark "CP platitudes" in the bottom-right corner. The overall aesthetic is intentionally ironic, juxtaposing a dated technology with the ubiquitous Google search engine. Ralph's character, known for his naiveté and illogical statements, adds to the humorous and satirical quality of the meme. --- ## Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis This meme offers a fertile ground for a Foucauldian analysis. The "research" being performed isn't about discovering *truth* in a traditional sense. Instead, it's about *constructing* truth through the deliberate manipulation of search queries. The query "What I want to be true" isn't about seeking objective knowledge, but rather *producing* a narrative that aligns with desire. * **Power/Knowledge:** Google, as a dominant search engine, holds considerable power in shaping what is considered "knowledge." Ralph, as a "resurcher," is engaging with this power structure, but in a profoundly uncritical way. He's not analyzing the algorithms or biases embedded in the search results; he's simply using them as a tool to confirm his pre-existing beliefs or desires. * **Discourse:** The meme demonstrates a shift in how “research” is understood. Traditionally, research was about objectivity, methodology, and critical inquiry. Here, it's reduced to a subjective, confirmation-bias-driven search for validation. It illustrates how the discourse surrounding knowledge is becoming increasingly individualized and less concerned with rigorous methodology. * **Genealogy:** A genealogical approach would trace the historical shift in the concept of "research." From its roots in academic pursuit, it has been increasingly democratized (and potentially degraded) through the accessibility of the internet. The meme showcases the extreme end of this process—research reduced to a personalized echo chamber. --- ## Critical Theory From a Critical Theory perspective (drawing from the Frankfurt School), this meme highlights the dangers of instrumental reason and the "culture industry." * **Instrumental Reason:** Ralph's approach to "research" epitomizes instrumental reason—using technology not for enlightenment or critical thinking, but solely as a means to an end (confirming his desires). The focus is on *how* to get the desired result, not on *why* that result is meaningful or true. * **Culture Industry:** Google itself can be seen as part of the culture industry, mass-producing information (and misinformation) and shaping public opinion. Ralph's uncritical consumption of this information demonstrates how individuals can be passively molded by these forces. * **Loss of Autonomy:** The meme implies a loss of individual autonomy. Ralph is not thinking for himself; he is outsourcing his "research" to an algorithm. This reinforces the concern that modern technology can stifle critical thinking and creativity. --- ## Marxist Conflict Theory From a Marxist lens, the meme speaks to the ideological control exerted by those who control the means of information production. * **Hegemony:** Google, as a dominant platform, exercises cultural hegemony by shaping what information is readily available and how it is presented. Ralph's "research" is framed within this hegemonic structure. He's not challenging the prevailing ideology; he's reinforcing it through his biased search. * **False Consciousness:** Ralph’s blind acceptance of whatever confirms his desires could be interpreted as a form of false consciousness – a lack of awareness of his own exploitation or the systemic biases at play. * **Commodity Fetishism:** While not immediately apparent, one could extend the analysis to suggest that information itself has become a commodity, and Ralph is consuming this commodity in a passive, uncritical manner, divorced from its social context. --- ## Postmodernism The meme strongly resonates with postmodern themes. * **Deconstruction of Truth:** The very notion of "research" is deconstructed. It's no longer about objective truth but about constructing narratives that serve individual desires. This aligns with the postmodern rejection of grand narratives and universal truths. * **Simulation & Hyperreality:** The search results produced by Google can be seen as a simulation of reality, a hyperreal construct that is increasingly divorced from any grounding in objective truth. Ralph is living within this simulation, accepting it as reality. * **Irony & Parody:** The meme itself is deeply ironic and parodic, playfully mocking the idea of genuine research. This self-awareness and playful skepticism are hallmarks of postmodern thought. --- ## Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis While subtle, a queer feminist intersectional reading can be applied. * **Power Dynamics & Algorithms:** Algorithms are not neutral. They are created by humans, embedding biases. A queer feminist lens would ask *who* designs these algorithms and *whose* perspectives are privileged. Ralph's uncritical engagement perpetuates these embedded biases. * **Subjective Experience & "Truth":** The meme prioritizes subjective desire ("What I want to be true") over objective truth. A queer feminist perspective might highlight how traditionally marginalized voices have often been excluded from dominant narratives of “truth,” and how challenging those narratives is vital. * **Critique of Rationality:** The meme's emphasis on desire and subjective experience challenges the traditional Western emphasis on rationality and objectivity, which have historically been used to marginalize and oppress queer and feminist voices. Let me know if you would like any of these analyses expanded upon!

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a humorous take on the stereotype of a "reducer" or "resourcer" (a person who searches for information on the internet) becoming a "resourcer" (a person who finds and provides information). The image features a character from the Simpsons, Bart, sitting at a computer, with the Google search bar displaying the phrase "What I want to be true". The meme is captioned "I'm a resourcer" in a playful nod to the idea of someone being a "resourcer" (a person who finds and provides information) rather than a "reducer" (a person who reduces or minimizes something).

This meme depicts a handshake between two people, with the text "In a world..." written above them. The text below the handshake reads "where everyone is a little bit of everything". The meme is a play on the phrase "in a world where..." often used to set up a hypothetical or fantastical scenario, but in this case, it's used to poke fun at the idea that people are often pigeon-holed into specific groups or ideologies. The text is a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the absurdity of modern politics and the tendency to categorize people into "left" or "right" ideologies.

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2023-06-19T06:33:45+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the image, broken down into the requested theoretical frameworks. Note that some frameworks are more applicable than others, and I'll explain the rationale. I’ll also be cautious about making definitive statements as the image itself is an argumentative claim. **1. Visual Description** The image features three arms meeting in a "high-five" or palm-to-palm contact. The arms represent different groups: “Far-Right Conservatives” and “New Age Hippies”. The area of contact/overlap has the words "Anti-Science Propaganda" prominently displayed. The background is a green, grassy field. The color palette is natural and relatively muted. The image's composition suggests a deliberate attempt to visually equate these two seemingly opposing groups by showing a shared point of contact. There’s a logo in the bottom right corner. The lighting appears natural and outdoor. **2. Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This image is a strong candidate for analysis through a Foucauldian lens. Foucault was interested in how power operates through *discourse*, and how seemingly neutral categories or concepts are actually constructed through historical power relations. * **Power/Knowledge:** The image implies a power/knowledge dynamic. The very act of labeling “Far-Right Conservatives” and “New Age Hippies” as sharing "Anti-Science Propaganda" constructs them *through* discourse. This construction suggests that truth is not objective but is produced within specific systems of power. * **Genealogy:** A genealogical approach would investigate the historical origins of the link between these groups and anti-science sentiment. It might ask: How has the discourse of "science" been used historically to marginalize or delegitimize viewpoints of both far-right and New Age ideologies? What historical events or trends have contributed to the present alignment (or perceived alignment) between these groups on issues related to science? * **Discursive Formation:** The image *creates* a discursive formation, a system of thought that defines and regulates knowledge. It suggests that by linking these two groups, one can understand and categorize a specific set of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. This formation operates as a means of control, by simplifying complex differences. **3. Critical Theory** Critical Theory, particularly the Frankfurt School tradition, focuses on the critique of power structures and the ways in which ideology functions to maintain them. * **Ideology Critique:** The image represents a form of ideology critique, claiming that both groups are driven by forces that reject or distort scientific truth. It aims to reveal the underlying, perhaps unconscious, motivations driving their behavior. * **Hegemony:** The image attempts to challenge a dominant hegemony— the assumption that science is universally accepted. It attempts to show that even groups that appear vastly different can unite in opposing established scientific knowledge. * **Domination/Resistance:** The image presents both groups as *resistant* to the "dominant" order of scientific authority. It’s attempting to reveal a hidden link in their opposition. **4. Marxist Conflict Theory** While not the *most* prominent framework for this image, some Marxist elements are present. * **False Consciousness:** The image suggests that both “Far-Right Conservatives” and “New Age Hippies” are operating under a kind of "false consciousness," meaning that their beliefs are shaped by material conditions and power dynamics, and they are not fully aware of the true nature of their own beliefs. * **Class Struggle (Indirectly):** One could argue that the rejection of science is linked to a broader rejection of modernity, industrialization, and the systems that create class inequalities. The "anti-science" stance, in this view, is a symptom of deeper class-based conflicts. * **Ideology as Tool of Dominance:** The framing of both groups as “anti-science” could be interpreted as a tactic to discredit them and maintain the dominance of existing power structures. **5. Postmodernism** Postmodernism emphasizes the instability of meaning, the rejection of grand narratives, and the fragmentation of truth. * **Deconstruction of Binaries:** The image deconstructs the expected binary opposition between “Far-Right Conservatives” and “New Age Hippies.” By linking them, it challenges the neat categorization of political ideologies. * **Relativism:** The image implies a form of relativism, suggesting that "truth" (in this case, scientific truth) is not absolute but is constructed through discourse and shaped by subjective perspectives. * **Simulation and Hyperreality:** The image can be read as a simulation, a representation of reality that obscures the complex factors underlying the alignment (or perceived alignment) of these two groups. **6. Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This framework is the least directly applicable, but some connections can be drawn. * **Power and Marginalization:** This theory highlights how power operates across multiple axes of identity (gender, race, class, sexuality). It would ask: How does the rejection of science impact marginalized communities? Are there specific scientific advancements (or the lack thereof) that disproportionately affect these groups? * **Epistemic Violence:** The image could be interpreted as contributing to “epistemic violence,” the silencing or devaluing of knowledge produced by marginalized groups. If both groups are portrayed as “anti-science,” it could reinforce existing biases and further marginalize their perspectives. **Important Considerations:** * **Bias:** This image is inherently biased. It presents a specific argument, and the frameworks applied here help to unpack the underlying assumptions and power dynamics at play. * **Oversimplification:** The image oversimplifies the complex beliefs and attitudes of both “Far-Right Conservatives” and “New Age Hippies.” * **Context:** The meaning of the image can vary depending on the context in which it is presented. Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any of these analyses or explore other theoretical frameworks!

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme depicts a handshake between two people, with the text "In a world..." written above them. The text below the handshake reads "where everyone is a little bit of everything". The meme is a play on the phrase "in a world where..." often used to set up a hypothetical or fantastical scenario, but in this case, it's used to poke fun at the idea that people are often pigeon-holed into specific groups or ideologies. The text is a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the absurdity of modern politics and the tendency to categorize people into "left" or "right" ideologies.

This meme is a humorous image of a math teacher explaining the Pythagorean theorem, but the students' responses are absurd and humorous. The text in the image includes a teacher explaining the theorem, followed by a series of ridiculous student responses, such as "It's a right angle conspiracy" and "It's only a theorem, not a theorem-ian."

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2023-06-15T00:28:48+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the comic, broken down into sections as requested, focusing on relevant theoretical lenses. Note that some lenses won't apply strongly, and I'll indicate that. **Visual Description** The comic is a black and white cartoon depicting a classroom setting. A male teacher, dressed in a formal suit and tie, stands at a chalkboard presenting the Pythagorean theorem (c² = a² + b²). He appears to be earnestly explaining it. The students are depicted with various exaggerated expressions of skepticism, defiance, and conspiracy. Each student speaks in a speech bubble expressing a different outlandish claim about the theorem or mathematics in general. These include accusations of "fake numbers," "Big Trig" being a sham, the theorem being a conspiracy, links to Illuminati symbolism, alien involvement, and the assertion of individual truth independent of established knowledge. The students are diverse in appearance, though the artistic style is caricatured and exaggerated. The overall aesthetic is reminiscent of vintage illustrations or old classroom scenes, adding to the satirical effect. --- **Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This comic is *strongly* amenable to a Foucauldian reading. * **Discourse and Power:** The comic highlights the power dynamics inherent in mathematical discourse. The teacher represents the established, authoritative discourse of mathematics, intended to produce "truth." However, the students are actively *resisting* this discourse, rejecting the notion of objective truth and creating their own counter-discourses. They aren’t simply questioning the *content* of the theorem, but the *authority* of mathematics itself. * **Genealogy & Historical Construction:** The comic subtly suggests that mathematical "truth" is not innate but a historically constructed set of ideas. The students' wild theories (aliens, Illuminati) implicitly suggest that the Pythagorean theorem isn't a self-evident truth but a product of specific social, political, and possibly even otherworldly forces. It pushes the idea that even seemingly neutral fields like mathematics have a "genealogy" – a history of power relations that shaped it. * **Subject Formation:** The students demonstrate resistance to being *subjected* to the discipline of mathematics. They refuse to accept the teacher’s attempt to shape their understanding of reality, demonstrating agency (albeit expressed through outlandish theories). Their statements are a refusal of the subjectification that comes with accepting established mathematical knowledge. The comic is a playful illustration of how truth is produced through discourse and how those discourses can be challenged, resisted, and re-written. --- **Critical Theory** The comic resonates with key tenets of Critical Theory, especially those surrounding the *culture industry* and the critique of rationality. * **Critique of Enlightenment Rationality:** The students’ rejection of the theorem and insistence on alternative explanations can be seen as a critique of the Enlightenment’s emphasis on pure reason and objective knowledge. They are effectively saying that “reason” is not neutral but can be used to reinforce power structures and suppress alternative ways of knowing. * **Ideology & False Consciousness:** The teacher's presentation of the theorem can be read as an attempt to instill an ideology – the belief in the objectivity and universality of mathematical truth. The students' resistance can be interpreted as a (albeit quirky) rejection of this ideology, hinting at a distrust of established systems of knowledge. * **Deconstruction of Truth:** The comic challenges the idea of a singular, objective "truth" by presenting multiple, conflicting interpretations. This aligns with the postmodern idea that truth is contingent and constructed, rather than absolute. --- **Marxist Conflict Theory** While not *central* to the comic's message, there are threads of Marxist interpretation to be found. * **Power Dynamics:** The teacher represents the established authority, attempting to impart knowledge (a form of cultural capital) to the students. The students' resistance can be seen as a challenge to this power dynamic. * **Hegemony:** The Pythagorean theorem represents a dominant ideology within the realm of mathematics. The students’ wild theories can be seen as a rejection of this "hegemony," a form of cultural rebellion, though expressed in a rather eccentric way. * **False Consciousness:** From a strict Marxist perspective, the students' embrace of conspiracy theories *could* be seen as a form of "false consciousness," a distraction from the "real" material contradictions of society. However, the comic's satirical nature doesn’t strongly support this reading. --- **Postmodernism** The comic is *heavily* infused with postmodern sensibilities. * **Rejection of Metanarratives:** The comic satirizes the idea of universal, overarching "truths" (metanarratives) like the inherent validity of mathematical proofs. The students actively create alternative narratives, rejecting the idea of a single, objective reality. * **Deconstruction of Meaning:** The comic destabilizes the meaning of the Pythagorean theorem by juxtaposing it with absurd and contradictory interpretations. It suggests that meaning is not inherent in the theorem itself but is constructed by the observer. * **Hyperreality & Simulation:** The sheer absurdity of the students’ theories hints at a world where reality has become blurred with simulation. The boundaries between truth and fiction, reason and irrationality, have become increasingly porous. * **Subjectivity & Perspective:** The comic highlights the subjective nature of knowledge. Each student brings their own perspective and interpretation to the theorem, demonstrating that there is no single, objective truth. --- **Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This is the least applicable lens, but some connections can be made: * **Challenging Authority:** The students’ resistance to the teacher’s authority can be seen as a form of challenging patriarchal structures of knowledge, as traditional academic institutions have historically been dominated by men. Their refusal to passively accept the teacher’s pronouncements can be read as a rejection of hierarchical power dynamics. * **Epistemological Diversity:** The students' embrace of alternative explanations, however outlandish, can be seen as a call for epistemological diversity – a recognition that there are multiple ways of knowing and that marginalized perspectives should be valued. * **Critique of Positivism:** The comic subtly critiques the positivist belief in objective, neutral knowledge. From a queer feminist perspective, positivism has been used to justify oppression and marginalization. However, it's crucial to note that the comic doesn’t explicitly address issues of gender, sexuality, or intersectionality. The connections made here are more implicit than explicit. --- **In summary:** The comic is a rich and multi-layered satire that lends itself particularly well to Foucauldian, Critical Theory, and Postmodern interpretations. It playfully challenges the notion of objective truth, exposes the power dynamics inherent in knowledge production, and celebrates the diversity of perspectives.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a humorous image of a math teacher explaining the Pythagorean theorem, but the students' responses are absurd and humorous. The text in the image includes a teacher explaining the theorem, followed by a series of ridiculous student responses, such as "It's a right angle conspiracy" and "It's only a theorem, not a theorem-ian."

This meme is a humorous exchange between two Twitter users. The first user says "hey i skimmed your tweet and saw some words i recognize" and the second user responds with a sarcastic and absurd statement, implying that the first user is only able to recognize a few words because they are a "broken" person. The second user's response is "hey i skimmed your tweet and saw some words i recognize. anyway here's my opinion on what i imagine you said"

Anti-Anti-Experts

First Seen:

2023-05-10T21:03:32+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the tweet, broken down into relevant theoretical frameworks as requested. Note that some frameworks are more applicable than others. **Visual Description** The image is a screenshot of a Twitter post. It features a profile picture of a cartoonish avatar of an animal in a lab coat, likely referencing a "mad scientist" or intellectual figure. The username is "@Synapsid" with the display name “Your Broke Professor.” The background is a standard Twitter dark mode black. The tweet text is in white. The tweet has a timestamp of 1:01 PM on June 2, 2022. Visually, it establishes a persona: a self-proclaimed intellectual who is also possibly financially unstable – a potentially ironic or critical positioning. **Postmodernism** This tweet *strongly* resonates with postmodern themes. The core statement, "I skimmed your tweet and saw some words I recognize," immediately deconstructs the notion of deep engagement and genuine understanding. It’s a rejection of comprehensive reading, signaling a preference for surface-level interpretation. This echoes the postmodern skepticism towards meta-narratives and grand theories, asserting instead a fragmented, subjective experience of information. The act of *skimming* suggests a rejection of the author's intended meaning, and prioritizes the interpreter's personal associations with a few key terms. The follow-up “here’s my opinion on what I imagine you said” solidifies this: the focus is on the *construction* of meaning (the 'imagined' content) rather than the inherent truth of the original message. The tweet embraces a relativistic view of truth – meaning is not *found* but *made*. **Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** From a Foucauldian perspective, the tweet can be analyzed as a demonstration of power dynamics inherent in discourse. The “Broke Professor” assumes an authoritative position by offering an interpretation *despite* not fully engaging with the original tweet. This act of ‘interpreting’ asserts a power to define meaning, even from incomplete information. The tweet establishes a discursive practice where the interpreter’s subjective associations ("words I recognize") are prioritized over the original author's intent. It's an example of how knowledge is constructed, not discovered. Genealogy, in this context, would involve examining how the practice of “skim-reading” and offering ungrounded opinions has emerged and normalized within online discourse. The tweet, therefore, *performs* the very power relations it could be critiquing. **Critical Theory** This tweet can be read as a critique of the contemporary information environment. The admission of "skimming" highlights how overwhelming and fragmented online communication has become. It suggests a failure of genuine engagement and a preference for shallow, attention-grabbing content. The tweet critiques the superficiality of online debate, where appearing knowledgeable is often more valued than actual understanding. It could be seen as a commentary on the "attention economy" – where engagement (even negative engagement) is rewarded, and deep thought is discouraged. **Marxist Conflict Theory** While less prominent, a Marxist reading could frame this tweet as an example of the alienation inherent in intellectual labor. The "Broke Professor" may be signaling a disillusionment with the academic system, where expertise is often undervalued and genuine intellectual exchange is replaced by performative displays of knowledge. The act of skimming and offering an ungrounded opinion could be a form of resistance – a rejection of the expectations of rigorous scholarship. It is a statement from someone who may be in competition for limited resources/attention, and therefore offering an opinion without deep engagement could be a way to assert presence. **Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This framework is the least applicable here. While it's possible to analyze the persona of the "Broke Professor" as potentially embodying marginalized identities (and therefore speaking from a position of critique), the tweet itself doesn't inherently engage with themes of gender, sexuality, or intersectional oppression. However, a nuanced reading could suggest that the "Broke Professor" persona is a response to the systemic inequalities within academia, which disproportionately affect marginalized scholars. This would require further context or analysis of the account's broader activity. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these points, or apply different theoretical frameworks.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a humorous exchange between two Twitter users. The first user says "hey i skimmed your tweet and saw some words i recognize" and the second user responds with a sarcastic and absurd statement, implying that the first user is only able to recognize a few words because they are a "broken" person. The second user's response is "hey i skimmed your tweet and saw some words i recognize. anyway here's my opinion on what i imagine you said"