Skip to main content

Bad memes: This meme makes me happy



This Harden/Jordan meme makes me so happy. It is a classic illustration of a meme, and it is a classic illustration of propaganda. Memes are teeny blips in the broader world of propaganda, but they are simple and direct examples of propaganda.


Propaganda is designed to bypass rational thought. It triggers emotional responses before we have a chance to think things through. When our emotional systems have already been pushed in one direction or another, our thinking systems almost always follow in the same direction.


Memes go straight for our emotions. Look at the Harden/Jordan meme. The Jordan picture shows an intricate, difficult task--Jordan with both hands on the ball, and the defenders swarm around him--arms up, eyes up.


The Harden picture is the opposite--two clowns could not do a better job of mocking a basketball moment. The defender leans in awkwardly, hoping to draw a charge. Harden flails, appearing to look straight up in the air as he begins his shot.


It is well-designed to push your emotions in a direction. It suggests that the NBA was once glorious, but is now silly. The meme doesn’t want you to think; it only wants to engage your emotion and then leave before rational thought enters the frame. The old NBA is glorious and the new NBA is comical; now move on before you start to think.


But let’s be rational for just a moment. Someone browsed a thousand pictures of the modern NBA and used the silliest picture they could find. They browsed a thousand pictures of the NBA in the 90’s and used the most noble picture they could find. There are tens of thousands of pictures from each era to choose from.


Someone could very easily create the opposite effect with an awkward picture from the old NBA and an elegant picture from today’s NBA. The rational case for comparing the eras doesn't matter next to the emotional images. Memes go straight for your emotion.


Such is propaganda. It seems obvious to me when I look at the Harden/Jordan meme, and that’s why it makes me happy.





This protest meme is exactly the same thing. Exactly the same thing! The contrast between an old noble protest and a the chaotic looting of a Target hits our limbic system directly.


A determined person could find plenty of pictures of riots during the Civil Rights movement. You can find plenty of noble pictures from the George Floyd protests. But wait--rational thought is not allowed. Meme propaganda is about scoring easy points.


If points are easy to score, they must not have any impact, right? Unfortunately, the points have an impact. There’s a principle called social proof. One of our human default settings is to respect something more if more people are doing it, saying it, or supporting it. If one person in a crowd is staring up, who cares? But if half the people are staring up, there must be something to see.


Meme propaganda serves as social proof to keep members of a group from serious consideration of other viewpoints. They are a constant reminder about whose team you are on.


They are a also subversive. They don’t only remind you not to consider opposing viewpoints. They typically include some form of mockery or disgust that serve to suppress empathy. The clownish picture of James Harden’s bad shot is mockery. The chaotic picture of looters is intended to trigger disgust. Both suggest that there is no rational defense for an opposing viewpoint.


Mockery and disgust suppress empathy. Empathy is the most noble, most Christian of human emotions. Don't leave empathy behind.





***

[Note: Any memes shared actually crossed my Facebook feed. I did not go looking for them. They came looking for me.]


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5) Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt: "In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about American politics and culture."

Welfare for the wealthy

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi