I hate to take the author to task because this is wonderful, but I must simply disagree with the following analysis.

In Figure 2 , the image on the left exemplifies this notion of meaninglessness since the included text does not represent a coherent thought while the person in the foreground (Jon Arbuckle of the comic Garfield) has no relation to the image in the background (a sandwich from the restaurant Subway).

Figure 2. Two examples of shitposts

First of all, the included text ***is*** coherent. "of in" is understood as sounding like "oven" and the text gives an impossible etymology for why it is called an oven, while also poking fun at the hypothetical person implying that the word "oven" has no etymology. The text is hard to parse and is very silly, but it is a coherent thought nonetheless.

Second, to say that the subway sandwich has "nothing" to do with the oven misses the fact that the sandwich is food, and you "of in" the food... It is not much of a relation, but it is there. It's not like it was a tonka truck or something completely irrelevant.

Speaking of irrelevant, I did not read far enough to the article to find out if the author mentions Jon Arbuckle and his butt's inherently funny pose, but that has to be part of what gives this post humor.

“Building on this literature, I propose a definition of shitposting that embodies four distinct elements: a reliance on absurdity or “meaninglessness,” the critique or disruption of online discourses, the employment of an “internet ugly” aesthetic, and the use of meta-languaging”

Good lord, it took them forever to spit out a coherent definition!

Does this paper itself represent a form of academic shitposting? I mean, the subject is sound but the convoluted and discursive presentation is maddening.

But, yes, shitposting is worthy of significant further study and all grant applications in that area should be automatically approved.

Wut

fossilesque has a Ph.D. in shitposting

There's a lot to disapprove of about the whole of popular thought, modern norms, science even. Shitposting can be an expression of that disapproval. And no, you can't just frame it as a rational argument. That would be like explaining 3D to a flatlander. All you can do is shit and howl.

Not saying all shitposts are an example of this, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

(Imagine homeless Neo, roaming the sidewalks of a city, yelling at pedestrians, "You're all trapped in The Matrix!")

Shitposting is the new Standup Philosopher from the Greek and Roman times.

(Huzzahs! for Mel Brooks!)

pdf:

• direct: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1080/03626784.2023.2272988?hmac=1741212765-2kfp%2FsqxeK2gtfr1xYcZE9y0eLlWEqnHhGuRu9%2B8sW8%3D
• reupload: https://files.catbox.moe/rxgejy.pdf