memes.cjtrowbridge.com

Meme Categories:

Category: Anti-Anti-Woke

This meme features a cartoon emoji with a neutral expression, often referred to as the "thinking face" or "confused face." The text surrounding the emoji reads: "did i trigger you? are you triggered? i didn't mean to, i'm sorry" and "i didn't mean to, i'm sorry i'm not sorry." The meme is a lighthearted and humorous way to poke fun at the idea of being "triggered" or being overly sensitive.

Anti-Anti-Woke

First Seen:

2023-08-08T04:21:08+00:00

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, let's break down this image/meme through the lenses you've provided. It's a complex piece of digital communication, so we'll need to delve into several theoretical frameworks. **Visual Description** The image is a simple yellow circle emoji, resembling a face with two black dots for eyes and a straight line for a mouth. The emoji appears to have a slight grimace or neutral expression. The image is overlaid with text in all lowercase letters. Four statements are arranged around the emoji: "did i trigger you?", "are you triggered?", "please react", and "i dont get a lot of positive attention and i lash out against strangers online so i can feel less alone." The overall aesthetic is minimalistic and ironic, leveraging the visual shorthand of digital communication. --- **Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This meme operates within a discourse around "triggering" and reactive emotional displays online. Foucault would be interested in how the very *concept* of being “triggered” has a history – a genealogy – that isn’t natural or inherent. The term originally referred to traumatic responses in PTSD therapy. It’s been appropriated and re-contextualized by internet culture, often with ironic or provocative intent. * **Power/Knowledge:** The meme reveals a power dynamic. The individual posting implicitly positions themselves as a ‘provocateur,’ attempting to elicit a reaction from others. Knowledge about triggering (even a superficial one) is used as a tool to gain a reaction. The act of *asking* if someone is triggered asserts a certain power over the potential response. * **Disciplinary Techniques:** The persistent questioning (“did I trigger you?” “are you triggered?”) can be seen as a subtle disciplinary tactic. It aims to control the narrative, to define the emotional state of another, and to potentially shame or silence the response. The meme pre-emptively frames any negative reaction as "being triggered" which can function as a way to invalidate the emotion. * **The Subject and Discourse:** The confession "i dont get a lot of positive attention and i lash out against strangers online so i can feel less alone" reveals how the individual is shaped by discourse around attention and recognition, and how that lack is being addressed by provocative online interaction. --- **Critical Theory** From a critical theory perspective, the meme highlights the alienation and manufactured outrage prevalent in late capitalist societies. * **Culture Industry & Spectacle:** The meme is a micro-example of the "spectacle" (Debord). It's a performance of emotionality, designed to generate engagement. The individual isn’t necessarily *feeling* genuine emotional distress; they are *performing* it for an audience. The meme participates in the commodification of outrage, where emotional reactions are exchanged for attention. * **Domination & Control:** The aggressive questioning and provocative framing can be seen as a manifestation of power dynamics and an attempt to control the other’s emotional response. The poster is essentially demanding validation through negative attention. * **False Consciousness:** The poster's admission of lashing out for validation suggests a lack of self-awareness and an internalized need for external validation. They are unaware of the real sources of their unhappiness and are seeking temporary relief through online interaction. --- **Postmodernism** The meme is inherently postmodern in its use of irony, self-referentiality, and blurring of boundaries. * **Simulation & Hyperreality:** The emoji itself is a simulation of an emotion. The meme layers upon this simulation with text that questions the authenticity of emotional responses. This creates a hyperreality where it becomes increasingly difficult to discern genuine emotion from performance. * **Deconstruction of Meaning:** The meme actively deconstructs the concept of “triggering.” It takes a term with a specific meaning in therapeutic contexts and flattens it into a general provocation, stripping it of its original weight. The repeated questioning ("did I trigger you?") mocks the idea of a sensitive response. * **The Death of the Subject:** The poster's confession ("i dont get a lot of positive attention...") reveals a fragmented and unstable subject, defined by a lack of intrinsic value and a desperate need for external affirmation. The subject is no longer seen as a unified and autonomous entity, but as a collection of desires and anxieties shaped by social forces. --- **Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This is the most complex lens to apply, as the meme doesn’t explicitly address issues of gender, sexuality, or intersectionality. However, some interpretations are possible: * **Emotional Labor & Vulnerability:** The meme can be seen as a distorted performance of vulnerability. Within a patriarchal system, women and marginalized genders are often expected to perform emotional labor and manage the emotions of others. This meme subverts that expectation by aggressively *demanding* an emotional response, effectively shifting the burden of emotional labor onto the viewer. * **Online Harassment & "Trigger Warnings":** The ironic use of "trigger" speaks to the history of online harassment, especially targeting marginalized groups. The term "trigger warning" was developed to create safe spaces and protect vulnerable individuals. The meme's appropriation of this term can be read as a form of backlash or a deliberate attempt to undermine efforts to create safer online environments. * **Internalized Oppression and Seeking Validation:** The poster's confession about lacking positive attention suggests internalized oppression and a desire for validation. In patriarchal societies, marginalized genders are often denied recognition and agency. The poster's desperate need for attention can be seen as a manifestation of this systemic oppression. **Important Note:** Applying queer feminist intersectional analysis to this meme is complex. It relies on reading *between the lines* and drawing connections to broader social issues. It's important to acknowledge that this analysis is speculative and open to interpretation. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate on any of these points!

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme features a cartoon emoji with a neutral expression, often referred to as the "thinking face" or "confused face." The text surrounding the emoji reads: "did i trigger you? are you triggered? i didn't mean to, i'm sorry" and "i didn't mean to, i'm sorry i'm not sorry." The meme is a lighthearted and humorous way to poke fun at the idea of being "triggered" or being overly sensitive.

This meme is a humorous exchange between a customer and a service worker at a store. The customer says "As employees wrestle me to the ground so I can't lick the belt sander" and the worker responds with "I have been trained to respond to this situation with 'I have to go ask my manager'". The customer then replies "In 2 minutes the correct answer is 'I have to go ask my manager'".

Anti-Anti-Woke

First Seen:

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

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the provided Twitter post broken down into sections based on your requested theoretical frameworks, with explanations of whether or not each framework truly *applies* and how. It's important to note this is a complex and highly absurd post, so interpretations will be layered and speculative. **1. Visual Description** The image is a screenshot of a tweet. The tweet is displayed on a black background. The username is "soul nate (@MNateShyaman)", and next to it is a small circular profile picture of a man with dark hair and a black suit. Below the username is the body of the tweet, written in white text. At the bottom are the timestamp (4:49 PM, 07 Dec 22) and indication it was sent via “Twitter for iPhone.” The text itself is the core content to be analyzed, depicting a strange, provocative narrative. **2. Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This framework is **highly applicable** to this post, though not in a straightforward way. * **Discourse:** The tweet *constructs* a discourse around power, control, and social norms—specifically, the perceived limitations on a very unusual behavior. It frames the employee intervention not as a safety measure, but as an ideological act. * **Power/Knowledge:** The tweet suggests that Home Depot's action (preventing the 'licking of the belt sander') isn't about health or safety, but about *controlling* bodies and desires. It implies that the action *defines* what is permissible and impermissible behavior, thereby exercising power. The connection between preventing an action and labeling it "woke" is a strategic construction meant to delegitimize the intervention. * **Genealogy:** We could trace the genealogy of the concept of "woke" itself—how it shifted from Black American Vernacular English to a conservative pejorative used to dismiss any action perceived as social justice-oriented. The post participates in *this* genealogy, associating Home Depot with a broad, ill-defined category of progressive politics. The implied act of licking a tool connects to a broader discourse of body autonomy, transgression, and, in a very extreme reading, fetishization. **3. Critical Theory** This framework is **partially applicable**, primarily through the lens of consumer culture and societal control. * **Commodification & Repression:** The post, at a surface level, could be read as a commentary on the commodification of desire. The 'licking of the belt sander' is presented as a subversive impulse that is repressed by the corporate structure (Home Depot). It suggests a loss of autonomy in a capitalist system where even "irrational" desires are policed. * **Ideology:** The accusation of "going woke" is a clear example of ideological framing. It attempts to position Home Depot as aligned with a set of values perceived as threatening by the tweeter. The post is attempting to *unmask* a hidden agenda (the supposed progressive intent behind the intervention). * **Culture Industry:** One could argue this post participates in the creation of spectacle—a bizarre and provocative narrative designed to generate attention and engagement, furthering the cycles of online discussion and consumption of content. **4. Marxist Conflict Theory** This framework is **weakly applicable**, but a connection can be made. * **Class Conflict (Strained Interpretation):** While not immediately apparent, one could argue that the post implicitly pits the individual's "desires" against the authority of corporate power. The "employee wrestling" could be seen as a manifestation of class struggle—the corporation suppressing individual expression. This is a very tenuous reading. * **Commodification of Labor:** Home Depot's employees, in the narrative, are acting as agents of corporate control, preventing the tweeter from exercising their "freedom." This reinforces the Marxist idea of labor being alienated from its own expression. **5. Postmodernism** This framework is **highly applicable**. * **Hyperreality & Simulation:** The tweet *creates* a reality through language. The absurdity of the scenario blurs the lines between "real" and "constructed." The focus is on the *representation* of events rather than the events themselves. * **Deconstruction of Meaning:** The post actively undermines conventional meaning. "Woke" is used in a sarcastic, ironic way, stripping it of its original context. The act itself defies logical explanation, challenging the viewer to question the foundations of meaning and interpretation. * **Irony & Parody:** The post is deeply ironic. It presents a ridiculous scenario and frames it within a politically charged context, suggesting a critique of (or perhaps a cynical endorsement of) current social and political trends. * **Fragmentation and Loss of Grand Narratives:** The post isn't making a cohesive argument or promoting a comprehensive ideology. It's a fragmented, self-contained statement that contributes to the chaotic landscape of online discourse. **6. Queer Feminist Intersectional Analysis** This framework is potentially **applicable**, but requires a nuanced and careful reading. * **Subversion of Norms:** The described act (licking a tool) is fundamentally transgressive, violating societal norms surrounding acceptable behavior, bodily functions, and public space. It can be read as a disruption of power dynamics and a challenge to conventional expectations. * **Body Autonomy & Control:** The intervention of the employees can be viewed as an act of control over the tweeter's body and desire. This connects to feminist concerns about patriarchal control over female (and all) bodies. The question of *who* gets to dictate what is permissible with one's own body is central. * **Queering of Space:** The act takes place in a public space (Home Depot) and disrupts its intended function. The "queering" of space involves challenging established norms and creating alternative meanings. * **Intersectionality:** The concept of "woke" itself is often associated with intersectional activism. The post's appropriation of the term could be seen as a way to dismiss or ridicule these movements. **Important Note:** The extreme absurdity of the tweet makes applying these frameworks somewhat speculative. It’s possible the tweeter is simply engaging in ironic provocation, with no deeper theoretical intent. However, the post *lends itself* to these analyses, and exploring those connections can reveal interesting insights into the cultural and political forces at play in online discourse.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

This meme is a humorous exchange between a customer and a service worker at a store. The customer says "As employees wrestle me to the ground so I can't lick the belt sander" and the worker responds with "I have been trained to respond to this situation with 'I have to go ask my manager'". The customer then replies "In 2 minutes the correct answer is 'I have to go ask my manager'".

The meme is a screenshot of a tweet by Mike Godwin, a former editor of the Internet in the 90s. The tweet says: "Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99% certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a f***ing idiot." The meme is likely a humorous take on the use of the term "woke" and the stereotype that it's often used by people who are not actually woke.

Anti-Anti-Woke

First Seen:

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

Gemma-3-27b's Take:

Okay, here's an analysis of the provided tweet, broken down by the requested theoretical frameworks. I'll omit sections that don't apply significantly. --- **Visual Description** The image is a screenshot of a tweet from Mike Godwin (@sfmnemonic). It features Godwin’s profile picture, a black and white photograph, next to a text-based tweet. The tweet declares, with a veneer of scientific rigor, that anyone using “woke” as a pejorative is 99% likely to be a “fuckhead.” The tweet ends by deflecting responsibility by framing the observation as “just science.” The tone is aggressively assertive and dismissive. --- **Foucauldian Genealogical Discourse Analysis** This tweet is *highly* amenable to Foucauldian analysis. Several key concepts are at play: * **Discourse and Power:** The tweet isn't about "woke" in its original meaning (being alert to social injustices). It's about the *current discourse* around the term, specifically its appropriation as a derogatory label. Godwin is establishing a relationship between this linguistic usage and a particular character judgment ("fuckhead"). He's essentially creating a power dynamic where a certain *way of speaking* becomes associated with a perceived moral failing. * **Genealogy:** The term "woke" has a long history, evolving from Black American Vernacular English to a broader term for social awareness. The tweet completely ignores this historical trajectory. It focuses solely on the *present* usage as a slur, presenting it as a fixed signifier of a certain kind of person. This is a deliberate *forgetting* of the term’s origins, which is a key genealogical move. * **Disciplinary Power:** The assertion of "99-percent certainty" functions as a disciplinary mechanism. It attempts to *regulate* speech by attaching a negative judgment to a specific utterance. It subtly discourages the use of "woke" as a pejorative through the threat of being labeled a “fuckhead.” * **Truth Regime:** Godwin attempts to cloak his assertion in the authority of "science" (Bayesian inference) to establish a truth regime. This suggests a self-declared authority to define who and what is "good" or "bad" based on linguistic markers. --- **Critical Theory** The tweet aligns with aspects of Critical Theory, particularly around the concept of ideology and the critique of power dynamics. * **Ideology Critique:** Godwin’s tweet can be read as a critique of the *ideological function* of the term “woke” *when used as a pejorative*. He seems to suggest it’s a linguistic marker of individuals who hold problematic beliefs or character flaws. The tweet implicitly accuses those using the term negatively of harboring specific ideologies. * **Domination and Resistance:** Though not explicitly framed in terms of domination, the tweet implies that those using “woke” negatively are part of a problematic power structure. The tweet could be seen as a form of (admittedly harsh) resistance against this perceived power dynamic. * **Reason as Instrument of Domination:** The invocation of "Bayesian inference" and “science” serves as a masking effect. Godwin's attempt to legitimize a subjective moral judgment through pseudoscientific rhetoric aligns with the critical theory critique of reason being used to rationalize power. --- **Postmodernism** The tweet exhibits characteristics typical of postmodern thought: * **Deconstruction of Meaning:** The tweet fundamentally alters the meaning of “woke.” It disregards the term’s origins in Black activism and focuses solely on its contemporary, often weaponized, usage. * **Rejection of Grand Narratives:** The claim of "99 percent certainty" is a grand claim presented as scientific fact, a claim that postmodern thought would typically deconstruct as being overly confident and inherently biased. * **Simulacra and Simulation:** The invocation of Bayesian inference can be seen as a simulation of scientific rigor, a surface-level attempt to appear objective while masking a subjective moral judgment. The "science" itself is arguably a simulacrum of genuine scientific inquiry. --- **Important Notes:** * **Context Matters:** The analysis is based solely on the tweet's content. Understanding the broader online context (Godwin's history, the specific debates surrounding "woke," etc.) would provide a richer interpretation. * **Multiple Interpretations:** These frameworks offer different lenses through which to analyze the tweet. There's no single "correct" interpretation. I hope this breakdown is helpful! Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any particular aspect or theoretical framework.

Llama-3.2-11b's Take:

The meme is a screenshot of a tweet by Mike Godwin, a former editor of the Internet in the 90s. The tweet says: "Drawing Bayesian inferences after extensive sampling, I've determined that it's 99% certain that anyone who uses "woke" as pejorative will turn out to be a f***ing idiot." The meme is likely a humorous take on the use of the term "woke" and the stereotype that it's often used by people who are not actually woke.