Talk:Memes and Graphics
How to save alternative versions
Saving alternative versions of a meme can save space on the index. Do it if the meme is simply an alterantive to another, or very close in the theme it covers.
1. Save the primary version of the meme on your computer. Then upload it as an alternative version of the other meme, from the other meme's filepage. Do this any number of times with the alternative versions. You can also "revert"/choose what the primary version will be if it is not your preferred one.
2. To alert viewers that the file is part of a series - put this at the end of the description in the memes list gallery: ([[:File:Fileexample.ext|series inside]])
New home for experimental material
I will link this from the page as well. Post new material there when the editorial limits below are maxxed out, or move it there when it obviously needs some more development. For example, if a theme is too common on the main page, move surplus information to this page.
Due to the growing size of this page, there will be the following editorial limits in place for the first three categories:
Trad Memes: 60 files (at limit, please replace/revise existing concepts!) Troll type Memes: 12 file (5) Infographics/Unironic Memes: 40 files
This means that when the limits are reached, each editor should remove some of their own material to make way for new material. Alternatively, they can work on/improve some of their own material and just replace. This does not place limits on presenting completed material here or on any such personal project page, where various merits and possibility of inclusion in this project may be discussed. We can review these limits after a year if we think there is some new material out there that merits inclusion for example.
Bit of general guidance (from late 2021, lets keep following it)
Right, so now I've gone through the whole thing, we still have a section which is highly biased towards prepubescent children, so this needs addressing. Prepubescent children can be useful when attacking concepts such as innocence, moral hysteria and the trauma myth (in very limited and carefully controlled ways, such as "molesting a toddler's genitals when you clean them/change it's nappy is not traumatic"). However, nothing is to be gained by making unsourced statements/opinions in relation to very young children. No firsthand testimony? No expert opinion to verify consent/disprove trauma? No elongated and elaborate argument (scholarship level critical analysis)? If so, you are just going to lose by repeatedly mentioning prepubescent children as if proving they can consent is your hobbyhorse. Also, by repeating this kind of focus, we do the same kind of thing as the NAMBLA bulletin in the 80s, and just play into this idea of being a pedophile liberation organization. It's a lose-lose.
A lot of this is unnecessary use of "child" where it could refer to a broader group (teens, minors, underage, youth, or kids - although that sounds like "child" to an American). Most Americans think of small children - prepubes when you say "child", so this is easily misunderstood. The material needs to be directed more towards the age groups documented in the accounts and testimonies section, and our research. Our own position on AoC is 12-16, see ethos so why push "child"? "Child" can be used in certain situations, such as referring to innocence or when dealing with mindfuck type scenarios such as the landmine meme I suspended below. Using "child" all the time is just counterproductive.
Explaining "bad touch"
Teacher: Sooo... when you trip over and graze your knee, that's bad touch
Teacher: When the intruder hits you in the head with a baseball bat, that's bad touch
Boy: I know
Teacher: Good. So when Uncle Chester touches you in your swimsuit area, that's ALSO bad touch
Boy: Why, it felt good last time he did it?
Teacher (with shrinking/disappearing text a la leftist meme):
You are unable to give informed consent due to an inherent power imbalance owing to your developmental deficiencies in relation to this individual. This makes the interaction not only morally wrong, but exploitative and in addition to that, an abuse of trust because established social boundaries have been contravened. Further, this action is imcopatible with various codependencies and attachment norms between the two individuals and may only produce long term traumas, thus being perceived as innocuous at the time by the victim. --JohnHolt (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
A man is on a beach, giving a massage to a young teenage girl. Fat Karen is in the background.
Masseur: Oh, wait a minute. [Fat Karen is walking over]
Fat Karen: EXCUSE ME, but can you stop what you are doing please.
Fat Karen: You are triggering my personal memories of childhood sexual abuse, and I find it deeply traumatic!
Masseur: I'm sorry to hear that, but she is a high school track athlete and has a competition tomorrow. This is a physiotherapy treatment.
Fat Karen: BUT I AM A VICTIM OF SEXUAL ABUSE.
Masseur: But this is not sexual abuse, we are minding our own business.
Fat Karen (with disappearing leftist meme speech bubble):
I WILL NOT ACCEPT that you are not sexually abusing this little girl this is VILE and DEGENERATE sexual molestation going on in plain sight and you do not understand the deeply traumatic nature of these acts and should be ashame...
[the girl is pictured running off into the distance without a bikini top, as two men in Fat Karen's group turn their heads appetitively]
A MAP speaker and a LGBT are pictured in different panels speaking before their audience.
LGBT: "Welcome, fellow Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Non Binary, Two-spirit...
MAP: "Greetings, fellow MAPs, Yesmaps and NOMAPS...
Shared speech bubble: "Today is a special day to celebrate our history; our people. Fine people like Oscar Wilde, Alan Turing and Harry Hay... OUR people."
To attack validity sadists - see LGBT Validity Policing.
Scott De Orio's definition of Queer is posed to a young gay man in 1970 and he enthusiastically agrees: "freedom for all!" (use a cat or dog reaction if you can't get a human one).
The same definition is suggested to the same gay man in 2000, and his reaction is like "um... non normative? illegal? No way, we're not with *them*!"