With the time you took to comment you could have looked it up yourself, and then with a bit more time you could have posted the sources here.
You’re consciously choosing to not be informed, and to do nothing yourself and expect random people to do work for you.
Two fundamental characteristics of internet memes are creative reproduction and intertextuality. Creative reproduction refers to the adaptation and transformation of a meme through imitation or parody, either by reproducing the meme in a new context (“mimicry”) or by remixing the original material (“remix”). In mimicry, the meme is recreated in a different setting, as seen when different individuals replicate the viral video “Charlie Bit My Finger.” Remix, on the other hand, involves technological manipulation, such as altering an image with Photoshop, while retaining elements of the original meme.
Intertextuality in memes involves the blending of different cultural references or contexts. An example of this is the combination of U.S. politician Mitt Romney’s phrase “binders full of women” from the 2012 U.S. presidential debate with a scene from the Korean pop song “Gangnam Style.” In this case, the phrase “my binders full of women exploded” is superimposed on a frame from Psy’s music video, creating a new meaning by merging political and cultural references from distinct contexts.
I agree with you about sources, but instead of asking and waiting you can search for them as well. I did a quick search for some of the information in the image and I got some results about 200 rounds of talks since 2014. Not ones I recognize so I can’t say if they’re legit or not but it only took a few seconds to get that at least that far.
I’m not OP, though. Not everyone will do the googling themselves and if you’re posting stuff like that, I think it’s a responsibility of the OP to supply the sources.
Otherwise, that’s the exact same strategy misinformation peddlers like LibsofTiktok use.
LibsOfTiktok, on the right, was effective. They are, apparently, much better at motivating people than you are.
Also, let’s not pretend you don’t just disagree with what is being said. Nobody asks for sources until it’s an issue somebody might pick up a sign over.
I’d still like to get the sources. Otherwise, content like this is like disinformation spreads. Meme community or not.
With the time you took to comment you could have looked it up yourself, and then with a bit more time you could have posted the sources here. You’re consciously choosing to not be informed, and to do nothing yourself and expect random people to do work for you.
It’s OP’s responsibility to give sources on the issue. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Not in a meme community, that’s not the point of the community
You’re not a messenger, you’re whining because you couldn’t bother to Google something yourself
If you insist on the “meme” aspect, how is this post even a meme??
Learn what a meme is before commenting on the topic next time
Wikipedia
This has no element of reproduction, nor intertextuality, or am I missing some key element here?
I agree with you about sources, but instead of asking and waiting you can search for them as well. I did a quick search for some of the information in the image and I got some results about 200 rounds of talks since 2014. Not ones I recognize so I can’t say if they’re legit or not but it only took a few seconds to get that at least that far.
I’m not OP, though. Not everyone will do the googling themselves and if you’re posting stuff like that, I think it’s a responsibility of the OP to supply the sources.
Otherwise, that’s the exact same strategy misinformation peddlers like LibsofTiktok use.
LibsOfTiktok, on the right, was effective. They are, apparently, much better at motivating people than you are.
Also, let’s not pretend you don’t just disagree with what is being said. Nobody asks for sources until it’s an issue somebody might pick up a sign over.
I don’t get why you’re comparing me to libs of tiktok. Do I look like I’m trying to be an influencer to you? O.o
I think it’s naive to take anything someone as biased as Selensky is saying at face value.
Lol, first day on the internet, I assume? xD /j
You’re arguing with one. What do you think OP is doing?
Ah, so you’re not impartial. Funny how easy it was to figure that out.
How is stating that Selensky has a horse in this race a sign of not being impartial, exactly? O.o