Doin` it for the Lulz : a contemporary analysis of internet humor

Honors Theses
Sociology
Fall 2011
Doin' it for the Lulz : a contemporary analysis of
internet humor
Nigel J. Ramoz-Leslie
Penrose Library, Whitman College
Permanent URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10349/1039
This thesis has been deposited to Arminda @ Whitman College by the author(s) as part of their
degree program. All rights are retained by the author(s) and they are responsible for the content.
DOIN‟ IT FOR THE LULZ: A CONTEMPORARY ANALYSIS OF INTERNET
HUMOR
by
Nigel J. Ramoz-Leslie
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for graduation with Honors in Sociology
Whitman College
2011
Certificate of Approval
This is to certify that the accompanying thesis by Nigel J. Ramoz-Leslie has been
accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in
Sociology
________________________
Professor William Bogard
Whitman College
May 10, 2011
1
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 1: Historical and Psychological Approaches ............................................................... 7
Wit and Parody: Theoretical perspectives: .............................................................................. 7
What makes us laugh: .................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 2: Sociological Perspectives ............................................................................................ 17
Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework............................................................................................... 23
Chapter 4: What’s in a meme?......................................................................................................... 31
Image-based memes ...................................................................................................................... 32
Viral Videos: ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 5: Fools, Fools, Trolls ......................................................................................................... 58
4chan .................................................................................................................................................... 58
YTMND ................................................................................................................................................ 64
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 72
References .............................................................................................................................................. 75
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 82
2
Introduction
“The Internet is composed of a series of tubes.”
-Ted Stevens
How many times does one laugh in a day? From practical jokes to the newest
episode of “Two and a half men,” humor is an integral part of the human experience. This
thesis is an attempt to understand how humor has evolved in the contemporary world,
with specific attention towards how digital media have reinforced and reshaped what
societies find funny. What constitutes a sense of humor? Why do we laugh? The answers
to these questions rely upon a deeper understanding of the intersection between historical,
psychological, and sociological forces acting on subjective bodies. When is it
appropriate to laugh? What types of humor currently exist in contemporary society? How
do individuals determine what content they will pass on to others? Has the development
of modern information technology affected the dispersal of humorous content? What
about the content itself? While these are certainly expansive questions, my research will
help shed light on what has been a topic largely ignored by current academic research.
My study revolves around how the Internet has rapidly increased the rate at which
individuals communicate with one another. The development of social networking
technologies coupled with electronic information transmission (e-mail, chat websites,
etc.) has made it easier for people to share a wide range of content with one another.
What sort of content is viewed over these channels? How have new forms of media
increased both participation and style of the distributed information? My thesis will focus
specifically on how humor-based content is shared throughout these digital channels.
Information sharing via the Internet has increased the rate at which humor is distributed
so that sharing content is now easier than ever. Individuals can send humorous images to
3
everyone connected within their social network (friends on facebook, family over e-mail,
even to discussion boards where the identity of users is anonymous) in a matter of
seconds. Contemporary Internet sensations achieve celebrity status by going „viral‟ and
gain massive popularity within short timeframes. These personalities and events are then
codified within Internet history as „memes,‟ or fads, based upon the original Internet
reference. Some of the most interesting Internet phenomena are those that evoke
humorous sentiments and are memorable because they are analogous to a good joke.
In order to gain a deeper understanding of how societies transmit humor
electronically, I will examine both where content was produced as well as the content
itself. Web boards, specifically the sites 4chan.com and ytmnd.com, are places where
groups create and share developing Internet fads. These collectives often act
synonymously in Internet-wide pranks to create humor that is noticed by society more
generally. These websites are also the birthplace for memes that become popularly
accepted throughout the Web. In addition to looking at meme creation, I also will spend
significant time examining memes that have already gained mainstream popularity,
paying particular attention to those that are perceived as „well-known.‟ In many
instances, meme culture is one of reproduction and replication. Internet jokes are often
repeated with slight variations of image, text, and video in an attempt to creatively
redefine the original joke. These imitations often develop so rapidly that it is difficult to
track where the meme began and what was originally humorous about it. The relative
ease of content creation, specifically via digital editing tools, has made replication of
memes available to most users. Users are encouraged to contribute to Internet
communities in the attempt to continually derive humor from the original meme.
4
The fundamental question of my thesis is thus determining whether or not this
humor is different from that which preceded it. How has the development of Internet
participation affected the rate at which humor develops? How much of this humor is
accessible to the public? How do we determine which memes are popular? Finally, does
the constant production of these materials remove their humorous elements? Are Internet
users actually creating new forms of humor or merely beating a dead horse? Do we still
laugh at things designed to be humorous? Using the theoretical approach of Jean
Baudrillard, I will show that the Internet is an arena of extensive simulation and
reproduction. The effect of these imitations not only detracts from the humorous
message, but also creates an environment where jokes are immersed in both humorous
and non-humorous content. Users are so mired in information that it becomes difficult to
determine what the original intention or humor of the joke is. They are thus encouraged
to find new memes; this week‟s Charlie Sheen is exhausted and replaced with
tomorrow‟s Rebecca Black in the attempt to continually produce new Internet crazes.
I begin my study with a historical and psychological examination of how societies
and individuals perceive various forms of humor. Individuals utilize humorous tools like
parody and wit to generate responses from audiences. I will then explain some of the
sociological background related to humor more generally, while providing a
methodology for how I gathered and interpreted the content within my study. This is
followed by a discussion of the semiotic and theoretical frameworks used in analyzing
the information I gathered. As noted before, I will then conduct my study in two sections.
The first section will examine popular content used on the Web, paying close attention to
the development of popular memes. The second section will look at the productive
5
processes associated with constructing memes, specifically focusing on two major hubs
of Internet communities where humor is produced. This study will invariably leave many
of the questions asked unanswered. However, I believe that my exploration of burgeoning
Internet humor will help elucidate the reader on material that has remained relatively
untouched by modern academia.
6
Chapter 1: Historical and Psychological Approaches
-A tourist from Czechoslovakia was killed in an auto accident in the United States. His
remains were cremated and sent home via parcel post. His immediate family was wired
the message: “The Czech is in the mail.”
-A young man with a squeaking shoe decided to become a songwriter since he had music
in his sole.
In order to more fully understand the processes through which humor is
constructed, I will first begin by exploring some of the historical and psychological
processes associated with humor. How do people make each other laugh? Psychologists
have attempted to explain this phenomenon tracing the subjective and cognitive processes
of interpreting humor. While there is no definitive consensus on why humans laugh or
express humor, each theoretical explanation provides a basis for some of the styles of
jokes that are common across societies. The beginning of this chapter provides some
definitional understandings of two basic forms of humor: wit and parody. Each of these
tools has formed an important part of constructing humor historically and has continued
into modern methods of conveying jokes.
Wit and Parody: Theoretical perspectives:
As societies have progressed, the methods through which humor is communicated
has consistently evolved. Graeco-Roman playwrights often attempted to incorporate
comedy as a part of their works to “show that moderate humor” was a tool of the “social
elite” (Bremmer and Rodenburg 1997: 6). While the usage of comedy and humor was a
component of social life, it was not clearly acknowledged or categorized in any definitive
fashion. A distinctly modern term, humor was defined earliest by Lord Shaftesbry as
7
“facetiousness” and expressing outward “comicality” (Bremmer and Rodenburg 1997: 1).
As discussions regarding the various subsets of humor grew, the ways in which humor
manifested itself expanded into different stylistic types. Humor is now demonstrated in
“verbal, visual and physical formats” and includes the usage of a variety of comedic tools
to “stimulate laughter” (Fatt 1998: 12). I will explain how parody and wit function as
specific subsets of humor as they both are commonly used tools of Internet-based humor.
Wit serves as a specific expression of humor that is contingent upon both a
subject‟s social position and ability to draw connections between various ideas. Freud
defines wit as “the subjective side of the comic” and the “ability to discover similarities
in dissimilarities” (1979: 7-8). Literature of the late 19th and early 20th centuries initially
used wit as “the comedy of the intellectual” because humor was derived from astute
observations of how society impacts individual‟s lives (Martin 1974: 17). Wit is
representative of the ability for individuals to make commentary on contemporary social
trends in relation to their own lived experiences. In this manner, contemporary
individuals can achieve humorous value in the telling of jokes that reflect humor at a
personal level.
Wit encourages individuals to make observations about oneself and his/her
surroundings in a way that deliberately denigrates other people, objects, and ideas for the
purpose of amusement. Oftentimes, wit relies upon the “modification of familiar phrases
or quotations” and replaces the “banal elements” with “more pretentious, highfalutin
means of expression” (Freud 1979: 205). Witty individuals are able to generate humor
from their ability to construct juxtapositions of mundane elements within society;
subjective observations, particularly intelligent ones, can be used to redefine conventions
8
humorously. This process is connected to the creation of „puns‟ or a “double meaning
with allusion” (Freud 1979: 63). Puns rely on the use of “words with two or more
meanings” (The woman wished her husband would give her a „ring‟) or the combination
of “two words of different meanings and spellings which sound alike.” (The right to
bear/bare arms) (Gruner 1997:131). In each instance, the linguistic play of words serves
as a demonstration of individual cleverness and ability to invert common understandings
of terms. Wit is also tied to the timing of a joke; “brevity” serves as the “soul of wit”
(Freud 1979: 19). Effective delivery of wit is tied to whether or not a joke is both timely
and concise. One-liners (jokes that usually are told in a sentence) employ a quality of
pithiness that demonstrates intellectual sophistication.
While these observations are often subjectively made, their connection to the
innate capacity of intelligence closely associates the humor with elitism. Wit-based
humor relies upon “tendency wit” which is “common humor directed at making fun of
someone or some institution” (Gruner 1997: 11). Oftentimes, this style of humor comes
at the expense of others in the immediate vicinity of the subject. Wit thus has the
potential to “victimize not only prominent wielders of power,” while also making “the
weak and unknown into laughingstocks” (Speier 1998: 1353). The intellectual elements
of wit make everyone a potential target for humiliation while also discouraging inclusion
of those who do not „get‟ this style of humor. In this way, wit becomes a method of
asserting superiority over those who lack intellectual sharpness (for more on this, see
section 2 of this chapter)
Parody, as opposed to wit, relies less on purely subjective experiences, but instead
inverts material and objective content to produce humorous effects. Parody‟s usage of
9
external social realities and its humor is “dependent upon the object of its criticism for its
own reception” (Rose 1993: 51). As a comedic and dramatic tool, the origins of parody
date back to the “classical literature and poetics of the Greeks” that used it to “invert or
change around the words of songs” sung by choruses (Rose 1993:9). Critical scholarship
has increasingly used parody as an important academic tool because it enables individuals
to embrace postmodern ideas of “indeterminacy and absurdity” (Rose 1993: 213).
Individuals using parody are capable of deconstructing conventional forms of knowledge,
truth, and power because it operates using “the fusion of forms” as well as a general
“confusion of realms” (Rose 1993: 209). Parody is humorous through its mocking,
inversion and play with existing forms of art, literature, or other related mediums. An
example of parody is the faux newspaper The Onion, which mocks contemporary news
stories by replacing conventional elements with absurd and hyperbolic claims („Drugs
win Drug War‟).
Individuals are able to use parody in a way that is both more accessible and
creative than pure wit. Parody generally seeks to act as the “comic refunctioning of
preformed linguistic or artistic material” (Rose 1993: 52). Individuals “unmask and
deflate” the content they are parodying by using their works “ironically as a temporary
„mask‟” for themselves (Rose 1993: 51). This is often done through the use of
„intertexuality‟, which is the “dense web of allusion out of which all texts have their
being” (Dentith 2000: 5). In this way, parody is similar to wit because it derives its humor
from collective understanding to a joke or text. The expression of intertexuality is
different, however, in that it uses textual models and written words to express the
allusions within a variety of texts. Parody, as applied to Internet modes of
10
communication, enables users to utilize images, text, and video to effectively invert
existing social objects.
As parody has become increasingly more sophisticated, the methodology of
parodying cultural content as evolved. „Pastiche,‟ as a specific type of parody, uses
“imitation rather than direct transformation” and enables individuals to recreate existing
cultural forms in a playful fashion (Dentith 2000: 11). Postmodern forms of parody
follow the model of pastiche because “authors, architects and writers” are now “endlessly
allud[ing] to other styles in an interminable recycling which mirrors the unending
commodity circulation of an absolutely extensive capitalism” (Dentith 2000: 155).
Postmodern artists deconstruct the force of production through overproduction; by
constantly replicating each form with an underlying playfulness, parodists demonstrate
the futility of capitalist functioning. Recording artists like Weird Al Yankovic establish
careers based upon imitating and subtly mocking other popular musicians. While parody
thus accesses a disruption of what is known as true, it also creates confusion over what is
and is not intended to be humorous (For more, see Theoretical Background).
Humor in the postmodern age weaves together a variety of situational
understandings; the subject‟s expression of humorous events in unconventional terms is
contingent upon shared understandings of larger social structures. Parody can create
confusion over meaning, but it also can serve to “mark the intersection of creation and recreation, of invention and critique” (Hutcheon 2000: 101). An individual using parody
can remain reflexive and critical of the institutions that guide social life in a uniquely
creative manner. New technologies of parody can effectively incorporate “visual collages
assembled from phrases and pictures taken from popular media” and alter the
11
conventional method in which jokes are told (Kuipers 2002: 453). Purely textual jokes
are accompanied with pictures and video to enhance the overall efficacy of the message
being conveyed. Parody can also exercise “creative freedom to introduce extreme images
and powerful language” related to larger social events like tragedy or disaster (O‟Rourke
and Rodrigues 2004: 8). Parody is thus unique because it sees humor in everything.
Everyday actions, whether they are macro or microscopic, have the capacity for
reinvention and inversion in a way that makes others laugh.
What makes us laugh:
While humor is often constituted as a dynamic process, what are the
psychological processes associated with laughter? Why do we laugh at jokes or find
content funny? Contemporary scholars have generally used three models for describing
cognitive processes associated with humor: superiority, relief, and incongruity. The
superiority theory states that “we laugh from feelings of superiority over other people,”
the relief theory explains laughter as the “release of pent-up energy,” and the incongruity
theory says “humor is produced by the experience of incongruity between what we know
or expect…and what actually takes place in a joke” (Critchley 2002: 2-3). While these
theories are not comprehensive of all existing theories regarding humor, they provide an
accurate understanding of the subjective processes associated with the construction and
reception of humor. In this section, I will explain each theory in depth, as well as how
each applies to specific types of humor.
The superiority theory is one of the earliest recorded theories regarding humor
and associates laughter with human desires to dominate and denigrate that which is
12
perceived as inferior. Superiority theory, first described by the English philosopher
Thomas Hobbes, asserts that humans “relish events that show ourselves to be winning”
and that laughing is derived from individual “perceptions of superiority” (Morreall 2009:
6). Jokes are funniest when they insult or poke fun at other people and so individuals are
encouraged to laugh at the misfortune of other people. This is probably best demonstrated
in contemporary culture with things like error or accident videos where audiences are
comically amused by mistakes that others make. Superiority theory equates comedy as
similar to the “relationship between children and adults” because there are “few things
that give children greater pleasure than if a grown-up gets down to their level” (Freud
1979: 219). In this fashion, humor is closely associated with a mentality of domination.
By humorously mocking and belittling other people, individuals can satiate their personal
desires to achieve power and dominance.
While superiority theory provides information regarding why we are willing to
laugh at the expense of others, it does not provide a complete explanation of why humor
exists. “Feelings of superiority are not necessary for amusement” as individuals often
find themselves laughing at “odd metaphors or similies” or other events not contingent
upon external actors (Morreall 2009: 9). Additionally, it is possible to “have feelings of
superiority towards people we pity” without explicitly laughing or being amused by them
(Morreall 2009: 9). The superiority complex does explain why we find certain types of
humor funny, but it is not an all-encompassing theory for laughter. Indeed, if superiority
theory were taken on face, “laughter would have no place in a well-ordered society”
because it would “undermine co-operation, tolerance and self-control” (Morreall 2009:
13
8). The focus on egoistic elements of superiority does not entirely account for the
interactional process of humor, nor does it reflect all the ways humor is subjectively used.
The relief theory explicates humorous sentiment as expressive and that laughter
serves as a method of relieving pressure for unconscious desires. Under this theory,
laughter and humor “are not anti-social or irrational, but simply a way of discharging
nervous energy found to be unnecessary” (Morreall 2009: 17). Laughter is a both a bodily
function (i.e. a relief of tension and stress) as well as a window into the unconscious
mind. Humor can provide “a sense of relief” by “replacing fear or sadness with laughter”
(Freud 1979: ix). This is demonstrated by various jokes that often downplay the dramatic
effect of traumatic events like death or illness. People construct jokes about crises like
September 11th and natural disasters because it serves as a coping mechanism for the
intense sadness associated with these events. In essence, these jokes are “about sex or
hostility” because those are “the big urges that society forces us to repress” (Morreall
2009:18). Laughter allows individuals to express their unconscious feelings of lust and
anger because it removes pressure that is generated from building up those sentiments.
Even in the wake of crises, laughter represents a conscious suppression of the rage that an
individual might feel towards some objective condition.
The major flaw of relief theory is that not all mechanics of laughter are purely
related to the unconscious. Consider comedy writers who view humor as a “task with
conscious strategies for generating set-ups and punch lines” (Morreall 2009: 21). In these
instances, individuals deliberately construct jokes that they know will appeal to socially
agreed-upon forms of humor. The inducement of a laugh thus becomes calculated and
controlled by those who are familiar with deployment of humor. Additionally, the
14
“packets of psychic energy being summoned to repress thoughts and feelings” are
impossible to quantify and ultimately “unverifiable” (Morreall 2009: 21). To associate all
forms of laughter with repressions of sexuality and rage undermines humor that is
derived from personal agency. Sometimes, individuals laugh because they find humor
consciously and actively humorous.
The incongruity theory follows a completely different model of humor that is not
reliant upon examining egotistic properties of projection. Under the incongruity theory,
humor is derived from “some thing or event” that “violates our normal mental patterns
and normal expectations” (Morreall 2009: 11). Our willingness to laugh at actions or
events is a result of “the mismatch between a concept and a perception of the same thing,
and enjoying the mental jolt that gives us” (Morreall 2009: 12). This is where forms of
parody become more specifically applicable; the humor from parodic reconstructions and
performances of materials is because they invert what people have come to expect. Nonsequiturs and other forms of humor with seemingly random elements utilize incongruities
to generate laughter from audiences.
As was the case in the superiority model of humor, incongruities do not always
generate humor nor are they sure-fire ways to cause individuals to respond. In some
instances, “something incongruous can evoke puzzlement or incredulity” as opposed to
humor (Morreall 2009: 13). Some jokes are lost on audiences or are so random and
tangential in nature that they seem to have no connection to reality. Under the
incongruous interpretation, humor is “nonsense” and to embrace incongruity is
“immature, irrational, masochistic, or all three” (Morreall 2009: 15). These problems
become particularly relevant in the case of parody and imitation of humor because jokes
15
can often be taken to a point where it is no longer possible to determine what is being
inverted. The infinite duplication or even unprovoked usage of a joke has the capacity to
alienate, rather than entertain, the audience to which it is projected. I will explore this
concept more fully in the “Theoretical Perspectives” section (chapter 3).
16
Chapter 2: Sociological Perspectives
The preceding chapter attempted to examine humor from both an historical and
psychological perspective. In this section, I will explain how humor and some of my
methods are sociological. The sociology of humor, while a relatively new and somewhat
obscure field, consists of understanding a variety of different methodological approaches
to determining how societies construct humor. While “the sociology of humor is certainly
not burgeoning at major research universities in America,” it has the potential to expand
both creatively and academically (Davis 1997: 2). The development of new types of
humor, specifically those constructed via the Internet, increase the complexity of the
field. Humor is important in that it “can play with social meanings” and effectively
“disrupt our definition of reality” which affects the lived experiences of social subjects
(Paolucci and Richardson 2006: 3). Sociology allows us to meaningfully examine both
how and why subjects construct humor as well as how this content reshapes institutions
that are critiqued, mocked, and parodied.
The inclusion of the Internet as a location for conducting research has expanded
the potential for exploration in this sub-discipline. Incorporation of “mixed media” in
Internet sites has effectively “highlighted the role of interactivity […] to empower users
to become dynamically involved with the media” (Weare and Lin 2000: 254). Individuals
are encouraged to share content in a manner that exposes networks of interaction. Points
of distribution, particularly via content sharing sites, are shaped by the processes in which
users are forced to communicate with one another. While research in the field is
academically fertile, many scholars perceive “computer-based communication [as] not
rich enough as a mode of interaction to sustain meaningful social interactions” (Beaulieu
17
2004: 143). The difficulty in determining genuine identity (i.e. users claiming to be who
they say they are) coupled with the ability for users to disengage from interaction at any
point muddies some of the results gleaned from Internet-based studies. For this reason,
my scholastic focus will be on objective materials, rather than social interactions, so that I
can generate an understanding of the residual effects of these processes.
Methodology
In order to effectively examine how Internet humor is conveyed, I plan on using a
content analysis of existing images, video clips, and websites that are commonly
understood as humorous. When I use the term “content analysis,” I mean a very loose
interpretation of the term and plan on generating my own interpretation and methodology
that is not based upon conventional understandings of this style of research. My research
shares the basic sociological understanding of content analysis in that it is “a method of
data collection in which some form of communication is studied systematically” (Adler
and Clark 2003: 379). Beyond this fundamental similarity, I expect that a great number of
deviations exist between „traditional‟ content analysis and my subjectively crafted
approach to understanding Internet humor.
I would like to begin this section by describing which elements of conventional
content analysis I will not be including in my study. Typical content analysis begins with
a “measurable unit” which is used to construct “the frame of the standard unit” (Berger
1998: 25). This is usually done to “variables of nominal scale” that attempt to determine
“how many” of a certain type of variables exist in a piece of content (Adler and Clark
2003: 389). An example of this (as applied to my subject matter) would be counting the
number of times the phrase “LOL” (laugh out loud) appears in a given image or on a
18
certain website. While this method is certainly useful in the compiling of quantitative
data as well as for the purposes of coding, I will not be using this approach. Variables are
difficult to pin on humorous Internet content because the variety of materials used is
incredibly diverse. The lack of consistency in determining how a joke is made or what
qualifies material as recognized as humorous makes it difficult to document these trends
conventionally. The one exception I make to this is my evaluation of the general
popularity of certain content. I am interested in determining how many times content has
been viewed as a measure of its distribution across the Internet as well as its
demonstration of whether or not it has been picked up as a significant fad. While I will
not provide a general scale or measurement of how many views constitute something as
popular, I instead analyze this „variable‟ in relation to general visibility by mainstream
media and Internet distribution channels.
One of the underlying assumptions related to content analysis is the dichotomy
between latent and manifest content of materials. Manifest content is typically “the
visible, surface content” of an examined item while latent content constitutes the
“underlying meaning of communication” (Babbie 2007: 325). Sociologists effectively use
“both methods” in order to ensure that “definitions and standards remain constant”
throughout the research process (Babbie 2007: 325). The value of measuring both sides
of materials is that it helps provide multiple facets to the coding process, while also
establishing a basis for how variables can be measured (Babbie 2007: 325). In the
instance of Internet humor, it is often incredibly difficult to make delineation between
what exists on face and what the underlying message of this content is. In many cases,
users do not have an intended second-level of meaning to the content that they create. If
19
there is a secondary level of humor, it is difficult to know the origin of that latent
material. This is particularly true given the “inside” nature of the Internet; many of the
jokes constructed are based upon references to knowledge that is outside the scope of
understanding of most users on the Internet. The almost secretive intentions of these users
coupled with their relative anonymity make it relatively difficult to determine the
differentiation between „manifest‟ and „latent‟ information.
The primary component of my version of content analysis is my subjective
engagement with the materials that I examine. Borrowing from feminist methods of
content analysis, I am more apt to see the meaning of the cultural products as “mediated”
so that I will “examine both the text and processes of its production” (Reinharz 1992:
145). In examining Internet materials, it is not my intention to impose categories or
variables upon what I am observing but to “allow analytic categories to emerge from the
artifacts themselves” (Reinharz 1992: 161). My research recognizes the importance of my
own “interests, beliefs and personality” because they have “play[ed] a role in determining
what [I] choose to investigate” (Berger 1998: 27). I have been profoundly affected by the
materials that I have chosen to study; I find them subjectively hilarious and have a desire
to uncover a deeper understanding of the potential meaning implicit within these cultural
objects. For this reason, my content analysis will be both exploratory and interpretive,
while also combining components of my subjective interaction with Internet content.
In addition to analyzing content, I will also examine the locations where humor is
produced. I already have background familiarity with the sites I explored (4chan and
ytmnd) as I am an active user, producer, and consumer of content that each site offers.
My ability to effectively navigate and utilize the available tools of these locations
20
provides me with insight on how humor is constructed among other users. These Internet
sites are also densely populated, with thousands of viewers adding and modifying content
each day, suggesting that they are fertile ground for research. While my prior exposure to
these sites might potentially create bias within the materials I am observing, I will
synthesize subjective experience with reports from major media sources. Using the
perspectives of outsiders coupled with my working knowledge of the sites, I hope to
examine both prominent and underground materials within these forums so that my
analysis is as comprehensive as possible. This perspective also comes with the added
benefit of limiting the scope of total sources I can access so that while my study might
not be generalizable for the entire Internet, it retains focus on important materials.
My analysis of content involves the gathering of sources that I have found
personally relevant in the development of innovative forms of humor. I first began
compiling images and clips based upon the interaction that I have had with commonly
known Internet jokes and content. I gathered materials that were both temporally
grounded (images and clips that were several years old and that I was thus familiar with)
as well as those that were relatively recent Internet crazes. In both cases, I was searching
for content that was popularly viewed (e.g. a video clip that had been seen several million
times) and also distributed across a variety of networking channels (material popular on
the aforementioned information sharing sites). Most importantly, I sought materials that I
found personally humorous. Why was this content humorous? How does it make me
laugh? Is this material that I would share with family members or peers? My exploration
of content that I was already familiar with led me to new, unseen territory. The layout of
the Internet makes it possible to constantly view „related content‟ so that I consistently
21
learned about new fads and jokes of the Internet. All of this information is effectively
supplemented with content that is presented to me in everyday life. Friends who send me
links of content that they find humorous provide me with outside perspectives of what
might be „objectively‟ perceived as humorous. The sum of these sources of information
have provided me with extensive materials that make it possible to conduct a rich
analysis of what humor on the Internet looks like. While it certainly is not allencompassing (after all, it would be impossible to view every humorous thing on the
Internet), my collection of content demonstrates an exploration of the various styles and
ways in which humor is portrayed digitally.
22
Chapter 3: Simulation FTW: A Theoretical Framework
The evolution of Internet-based communication has created limitless potential for
how information is both represented and distributed. While textual messages still attempt
to portray meaning via conventional linguistic understandings (words are assigned
meaning), the ability to play with these forms has expanded how individuals
communicate with one another. This is particularly true with the instance of humor;
humorous symbols are connected to how societies convey what is collectively viewed as
funny. Humor, via the Internet, becomes diffuse and lost (or at the very least, diluted)
among the infinite modes of both reproduction and distribution of „original‟ material and
content. It becomes impossible to determine what the original joke is and why it is funny
because its meaning has been supplanted by cascading degrees of simulation.
The primary use of symbols is conducted through the use of language, specifically
the interaction between signifier and signified. All terms that are used in language are
composed of the substantive, material elements of what is described (signified) and the
representational methods used to communicate that material element (signifier).
Language uses a series of signs (linguistic symbols) that are composed of “the union of a
form which signifies (signifier) and an idea signified (signified)”(Culler 1959: 33). As a
demonstration of this concept, Saussure (1959) uses an example of a tree:
I call the combination of a concept and a sound-image a sign, but in current usage
the term generally designates only a sound image, a word, for example. One tends
to forget that arbor is called a sign only because it carries the concept „tree,‟ with
the result that the idea of the sensory part implies the idea of a whole (67).
Language is composed of interactions that occur between these two poles of the sign;
humans associate the material concepts of the world with discursive representations. It is
23
through this process that language becomes meaningful because people exercise shared
understandings of the world.
While discursive tools are useful in their ability to bridge communication between
individuals, signs are arbitrary. “The bond between signifier and signified is arbitrary”
because the tools used to construct signifiers are composed of rules that are historically
and socially specific (Saussure 1959: 68). The ability for humans to say that a „dog‟ is
any different from a „cat‟ is not that the two words are intrinsically opposed, but that
people represent them using different linguistic tools (i.e. different letters of the alphabet
make up each word described above). While this view poses a unique view on the nature
of human interaction (modes of communication might have limited connection to one
another), it also ignores that “the symbol is never wholly arbitrary” because of the
“rudiment of a natural bond between signifier and signified”(Saussure 1959: 68).
Symbols take on socially collective meanings and thus represent values that people have
assigned to them. Under this framework, humorous value is assigned to Internet content
by socially constructed and shared understandings of what is funny. Internet signifiers are
those that represent an underlying connection to some joke or content that is humorous,
often in the form of non-textual mediums like images or video clips.
The signifier becomes the sole representation of the sign so that it must
simultaneously coexist with other competing understandingd of the sign in question. Jean
Baudrillard (1995) describes the transformations of signifiers into representations, and
ultimately simulations, that supersede reality in the following trajectory:
In the first case, the image is a good appearance: the representation is of the order
of the sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance: of the order of malefice.
In the third, it plays at being an appearance: it is of the order of sorcery. In the
fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation (6).
24
This description categorizes signifiers as evolving to a point where they are no longer
recognizable in relation to other signifiers that attempt to mimic the original. The
distinction between original Internet humor (the first inside joke or Internet fad) and how
individuals have come to simulate it is not only arbitrary, but one that individuals are no
longer capable of tracing. This process of transformation is a conglomeration of a variety
of different structural factors at play; the ability to replicate, commodify, and play with
these images has enabled an explosion of interpretations to replace any „genuine‟
understandings of the Internet joke. What results is mere simulation of the same joke;
humor is continually replicated in an attempt to recreate and mimic the components that
individuals found humorous in the first place.
As these images become more saturated across societies, they are dispersed as
copies that are hyperreal (i.e. more real) than the original image. The various
manifestations and simulations of the humorous representation “correspond to a short
circuit of reality and its reduplication by signs” (Baudrillard 1995:20). The truth of the
image is inconsequential because society has effectively reshaped an infinite number of
meanings that can be attached to it. These symbolic constructions are “no longer a
question of imitation,” but are “substituting signs of the real for the real itself” to create
“perfect descriptive machine[s] which provide all the signs of the real and short-circuit its
vicissitudes” (Baudrillard 1995: 4). Original humor no longer has any major delineation
between the first telling of a joke or any of its subsequent re-tellings. Instead, the retellings become the original; humor is reconstructed in a manner that continually makes it
25
funny. People laugh at the copies of Internet content because the duplicate constructions
simulate the conditions that caused them to laugh in the first place.
Baurdillard explicitly references both wit and irony as inherent conditions of the
simulation as they reflect the need and desire to reproduce forms of humor. The concept
of wit is a demonstration of a fatal strategy in that “the same sign over[sees] the
crystallization and solution of a life” (Baudrillard 2001: 207). Wit allows the strategy of
the object to take place; it is inherently unpredictable. The desire to calculate and control
the unpredictable process of signification drives humans to produce humorous content. In
this way, “redoubling and outbidding are always in a spiritual form of denouement”
(Baudrillard 2001: 207). The process of constructing humor is akin to a poker game; each
player successfully raises the stakes by producing new modifications on old constructions
of humor. The power of simulation makes the process of creating new content one of
internalized surprise. The willingness for Web users to create humor that is potentially
edgy or offensive is done with the implicit desire to displace and control expectations
through increasingly risky behavior. This “ironic” process is one seen across a variety of
institutions; “it is through the death of the social that socialism emerges-as it is through
the death of God that religions emerge” (Baudrillard 1995: 19). The final value of
simulated humor is that it successfully kills the ability to laugh at jokes. Humor is lost
among a sea of diffuse copies and it is here that the ultimate joke is produced; hyperreal
humor is the instance of consistent reduplication of that which was never hilarious in the
first place.
Cultural artifacts, specifically that which is considered „art,‟ are produced forever
as objects of uselessness. In the quest for artistic perfection “art reaches to a nihilistic
26
stage” in which it effectively strives “for non-sense, insignificance, banality, minimalism,
even up to the point of disappearance and absence” (Baudrillard 2004). In the attempt to
remain avant-garde, Internet humor has utilized many of the same techniques as art.
There is a constant push to discover the obscure while simultaneously producing infinite
duplicates of that underground content. The faceless form of production destroys the
original creative potential of the humorous object by reducing it to “a clone of itself, a
factual stereoscopy, and hyperrealistic transfer-a virtual ready made” (Baudrillard 2004).
It is here that humor reaches a new critical apex; a point where the intensive
democraticization of the Internet enables individuals to produce their own surrealistic
forms of content. They are then encouraged within online forums to share that production
as both a means of gratification as well as a demonstration of the „creativity‟ of that
construction. At this point, humor is “recognized and over-valued” so that people cannot
determine what is humorous, but only “persevere in the current destruction” of that
content (Baudrillard 2004). New images destroy old ones with the hopes of both
displacing and redefining what humor is. The signifiers have thus effectively declared
war on one another in a battle to stay both relevant and productive.
Humor, most notably parody, becomes incoherent to those who do not understand
the joke. Baudrillard‟s examination of postmodern artwork claims that it is “nonintentional and blind” and that “parody hovers over everything” (Baudrillard 1983: 150).
It is impossible to determine what meaning artists convey to viewers because parody
envelops all interpretations of reality. Art parodies itself which confounds individuals
who try to interpret its meaning. In this instance, reality is “entirely impregnated by an
aesthetic which is inseparable from its own structure” so that it is “confused with its own
27
image” (Baudrillard 1983: 151). The simulation thus confuses individuals; it creates
incoherence because nobody knows what the meaning or intention of a signifier is.
Humor is everywhere and nowhere; people who interpret parody as humorous are no
longer certain why the image is funny or whether or not it is actually designed to be
funny. This will become particularly relevant in my discussion of „inside‟ jokes on the
Internet; users have no capacity to understand jokes that are simulations of each other.
Baudrillard also suggests that with the development of advanced technologies,
individuals are more apt to surrender their subjectivities to processes of simulation. In the
“virtual secluded world, there is no alterity at all, no dual relation,” but instead a process
of infinite identical copies (Baudrillard 2002). The Internet uses the illusion of “vastness
and limitlessness” as a means of concealing that the data inherent within the digital
environment is “spaceless and limited” (Nunes 1995: 316). All attempts to discover the
newness of the Internet are merely a process of “uncovering” what is already there
because “the territory has already been comprehensively mapped” (Nunes 1995: 321).
The reproduction of identities is especially apparent in how the content is distributed;
because humor is often submitted anonymously, it is impossible to know the precise
origin of the content. Instead, people are confronted with massive data-streams, each
seemingly „different‟ than others when in actuality, all are part of the same processing
code.
Internet communication, specifically humor, becomes vacuous and meaning is
replaced with noise. “Information and meaning are inversely proportional” so that the
massive gluts of information on the Internet “spells the drowning of meaningful
experiences in a sea of random noise” (Teranova 2004: 14). Reproduction and simulation
28
is conducted with relative ease; templates for jokes (specifically „memes‟) and fusion of
multimedia content have increased accessibility of making „amateur‟ parodies. This has
lowered the threshold on total information produced on the Internet so that the
“proliferation of signs” within these sites has “no reference, only statistic patterns of
frequency, redundancy, and resonance” (Ternanova 2004: 14). Individuals create and
produce humor on the Internet for their own sake, even if the content itself is not funny.
Much of the humor becomes personalized and tailored to entertaining select groups of
people so that people often do not know why they are laughing. Instead, they simulate the
joke further, attempting to inscribe meaning to something that they did not understand in
the first place. Content on major information sharing websites is characterized as having
“obsessive frequency and redundancy” because users are “incessantly bombarded” with
information (Teranova 2004: 14). The prolonged exposure to fads and jokes that reached
their peak remove the humorous elements of these materials. Instead, immersion
displaces meaning and replaces it with noise.
Internet humor is approaching a mechanism of simulation. While jokes can still
be traced to original referents, the rapid production and duplication of content is quickly
immersing Web environments in excessive information. In many instances, it is difficult
to determine where simulation and originality differ because so many copies of the same
joke have been constructed. The expansive nature of Internet humor is making it harder
to understand the humorous content of a joke. Users might view a remix or altered copy
of an Internet image or video clip without realizing that it is acting as a parody of some
other pre-existing content. This is particular true given the subjective attitudes of
producers of Internet content; as Chapter 6 will demonstrate, deception underpins the
29
transmission of humor so that intention and meaning are highly suspect. Simulations are
quickly becoming the primary mode of communication at such a rapid pace that users are
far more likely now than ever to encounter an environment of pure noise.
30
Chapter 4: What do cats, a rapper, and Bill O’Reilly have in
common? Analyzing Memes
“F***ing Trolls Invented the Internet!”
-Charlie Sheen
One of the most innovative creations of Internet users has been the construction of
humor that is replicated upon one original model or joke known as a „meme.‟ Memes are
often simple “snippets of conversation” that reflect a general “phrase or idea that gets
loose and works its way into many discourses” (Ludlow 1996: 448). The term was
borrowed from biology to describe a “unit of cultural transmission or imitation” that was
tied to evolutionary biology (Dawkins 1989: 192). The Internet, when viewed as an
organism, explains its developmental processes in a fashion analogous to living things.
„Viral‟ content is akin to a virus in that it spreads very quickly and exponentially between
users. Oftentimes, Internet memes are viral because they are imitated and transmitted at a
rapid pace throughout the Web. Memes typically begin with references to an event or
some cultural product, with various ranges of relative obscurity. A meme can reflect a
common catchphrase (“Don‟t tase me, bro!”), a popular movie or television show
(“Previously on Lost”), or an isolated action that takes place in either real or virtual
reality (“Leeeeroy Jenkins!”). In each of these instances, the meme is characterized as “a
faddish joke or practice that becomes widely imitated” (Burgess 2008: 1). Memes were
originally conveyed as images, propagated through the use of e-mail and content sharing
sites. With the development of advanced Internet communication, the ability to create
memes spilled into other multimedia formats including audio, video, animation, and
similar computer-based technologies. Creation of a meme can be simultaneously simple
and unpredictable. It is difficult to know how to „make‟ a successful meme; content is
31
often adopted because it is generally perceived as humorous, entertaining, or fascinating
to audiences.
Image-based memes
The website “Know Your Meme” has effectively catalogued and categorized
many of the major and minor memes that have been distributed throughout the Internet.
As the creators and users of the site attempt “to document each meme and trace back to
where it began,” it becomes clear that meme culture has altered how individuals
communicate web-based humor (Lynley 2011: 1). The website has catalogued over 4,000
memes and is continually absorbing information about recently developed fads and
Internet jokes. In addition to cataloging memes, the editors of the website either “confirm
the meme” as legitimate or “invalidate it by putting it in the „Deadpool‟” (2007:
http://knowyourmeme.com/about). The „Deadpool‟ is comprised of memes that were in
their burgeoning states, but did not catch on quickly enough and were subsequently
abandoned. Editors moderate content that they perceive as popular or at least worthy of
documenting in the expansive online database. This is done in order to manage the sheer
number of images, videos, and content that is submitted to the site on a daily basis.
The primary reasoning for this process is related to the large amount of memes
that are already in existence; because individuals are continually attempting to distribute
content that they find personally humorous, it is necessary to sift through materials that
are perceived as not „genuine‟ (popular or viral) memes. Oddly enough, even with memes
that are successful, “the creator of the meme is rarely known” and the meme constitutes
“a cell in the Internet organism” (Ludlow 1996: 448). In many cases, the original meme
is often lost in a sea of copies; imitators of the first joke crowd out the first meme with
32
copies, each attempting “to separate themselves from the masses” in an attempt to “stand
out and be someone” (Ludlow 1996: 448). This method of distribution makes it so that
content has the capacity to become viral (gaining
Figure 1, “I Can Has Cheezburger,”
one of the earliest lolcats.
massive popularity in a relatively short time
frame) and is much more likely to be distributed
to a wider range of audiences.
One of the earliest charted memes is the
Internet phenomenon known as “lolcats” in which
candid pictures of cats are captioned with crude,
misspelled English subtititles. The first major
demonstration of the meme was the iconic “I
CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER” lolcat that featured
an image of a grey housecat with its head cocked looking at a camera with the
aforementioned term written in large text (See Figure 1, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcats). Humor is derived from both the positioning
and image of the cat as well as the unexpected tag associated with the image. The nonsequitur element of the picture (after all, do we expect cats to want cheezburgers?) serves
as a demonstration of how humorous content on the Internet often defies conventional
expectations. The image itself became a huge Internet sensation with millions of views as
well as thousands of “copycat” replications that have attempted to recreate the humor
intrinsic to the original image.
33
The image served as a springboard for the development of the website
Icanhascheezburger.com which features a plethora of other lolcats that humorously use
the model of the original cat. The website has “attracted a record 16 million unique
visitors” and its content is “created by readers who can Photoshop a funny caption onto
an image or remix a popular video” (Wortham 2010: 1). The appeal of the meme-based
humor is in its ability to create new offshoot memes; every day, the website “receives
more than 18,000 submissions from readers” and that “submissions that are funny but
don‟t fit into any of the current blog themes can inspire new blogs” (Wortham 2010: 1).
Individuals continually add and create new lolcats which not
only increases the frequency of distributed images, but also
Figure 2, Caturday incarnated
suggests that the connection to the original lolcat meme is
quickly becoming lost. There is no definitive lolcat that
encapsulates the meme; there are merely a multitude of
diverse copies, each attempting to displace the last in
humorous quality.
This is most accurately depicted with the ways in
which both lolcat-style images and language have proliferated into other images not
purely associated with the original meme. The lolcat titled “Caturday” features an image
of a cat lazily stretched out on a couch with the subtext “Ahhhhh….Caturday” (Figure 2,
2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcats). The humor of this image is derived
from both the pun (Cat and Saturday) coupled with the reference to the lolcats model of
modifying an image of a housecat. The Caturday meme has expanded in hundreds of
different incarnates including lolcats with titles including “Wut‟s dat? It‟z Caturday? Ok I
34
not rly sick” and “Caturday Night Fever” (Figures 3 and 4, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcats). In each of these images, the original
Caturday meme is replicated with the intent of creating a new joke or pun that attempts to
recreate the original humor of the image. In some instances, Caturday is combined with
other popular culture references; one Caturday image features the text
“ummmyeahs…kan yu work on caturday? Thadd be gr8 thnx” which contains an implicit
reference to the movie “Office Space” from where the line is derived (albeit in more
coherent English, Figure 5, 2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcats). It is here
that memes effectively utilize a multitude of combined cultural referents. The ability to
meld memes with other inside jokes or Internet memes makes the original meaning of the
image indeterminate and limitless in potential. In many ways, these manifestations infuse
new elements of humor into the meme. Audiences have no way of predicting what the
next lolcat might say; it might be something even more absurd and ridiculous than the
last. There is additional capacity for wit as well because users are encouraged to
subjectively think of humorous double-entendres or puns for memes. Underlying these
constructions is the process of simulation.
Figure 3, Not actually sick, this lolcat
realizes it’s Caturday!
While people may think of a new method of
punning Caturday, it is still based around
imitating and simulating a joke, which is
already the extension of another meme. „New‟
interpretations are only „original‟ in so far as
35
they produce another manifestation and simulation of something already in existence.
In some instances, lolcats have
Figure 4, Caturday Night Fever
spilled over into conventional forms of
communication, producing new methods
of conveying messages. The development
of “lolspeak” refers to the distinct method
of communication encapsulated within
lolcat images and has proliferated across a
variety of web-based mediums. The
website speaklolspeak.com offers the ability to translate any conventional sentence into
Figure 5, Caturday meets Office Space
lolspeak using “both native and borrowed
key lolspeak terms” (2008:
http://speaklolspeak.com/). This makes it
easier for individuals to craft content that
is modified to the template of lolcats while
also enabling individuals to construct
memes of their own. This is further
demonstrated by the numerous do-it-
yourself websites that only require individuals upload a picture from their computer in
order to make a humorous image. The ease of creating potential new memes has allowed
36
individuals to produce “loldogs, lolbirds, lolhamster, lolmice, and lolrus” with the hope
of gaining new laughs from old templates (Grossman, 2007: 2).
As the distribution and mimicking of lolcat images increases in number, the
humor within this content becomes contingent upon simulation. The lolcat meme relies
upon the use of incongruous elements to achieve humor; individuals do not expect cats to
„speak,‟ nor do they believe that the text within these images represents what cats
actually think. Instead, humor is derived from the capacity to write „zany‟ things in
relation to images. Clever interpretations of candid moments also mean that wit is
involved in the construction of a lolcat. However, the massive number and accessibility
of lolcats has encouraged simulation to a point where individuals no longer know which
image is designed to be humorous. The „mash-up‟ element of lolcats (where users are
encouraged to splice other textual and cultural references into the image) demonstrates
simulation of simulation. People develop lolcats that are based upon other lolcats so that
it is impossible to know which lolcat is the “original.” The incoherence of the text
(specifically the flawed grammar and spellings of lolspeak) makes it difficult to
understand what the image is trying to say. The artificial layering of humor means that
the „joke‟ of a lolcat often relies upon information not available to all users. I might not
understand the obscure reference made to a film or music clip, which would mean that
the humorous effect of the image would be lost on me. This is particularly true given that
the limitless amount of simulations are all attempting to convey themselves as humorous.
There is no disincentive to creating content so there is excessive proliferation of the
meme without consideration for what the meme means.
37
The use of text with images has also spurred individuals to create „thematic‟
memes that all revolve around one central, original joke. The “Advice Dog” meme is one
of the most notable memes in that it provided a springboard for a whole host of copycats
with analogous qualities. The original meme is comprised of “a cute puppy‟s face against
the background of a color wheel” and a set of seemingly unrelated pieces of advice.
(2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/advice-dog). While it is difficult to determine
what message was originally featured, the advice often features text that is random (“Buy
pizza, pay with snakes”), offensive (“Tape over family videos, with soft porn”), punbased (“Incest is wincest”), or references to other Internet memes (“When in doubt, whip
it out”) in an attempt to keep the meme consistently fresh in appeal (Figures 6-9, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/advice-dog).
Figure 6, Buy Pizza
Figure 7, Tape over videos
38
Figure 8 , Incest
Figure 9, When in doubt…
The layout of the meme relies on conventional delivery with the text on bottom serving
as a „punch-line‟ for the actual joke. Similarly to lolcats, much of the humor featured is
derived from both obscure references to popular culture or general non-sequiturs
regarding what is conventionally humorous. The offensive element of the Advice Dog
meme allows users to tap into a greater breadth of potential humor; some of the material
is labeled “not safe for work” as an indication that the image is not suitable for all
audiences. This allows users to transgress what is socially acceptable humor so that
anything can be made into a joke. Old taboos that existed prior to the Internet no longer
apply to users who post anonymously or with pseudonym usernames. This expands the
limits of humor and provides greater access to a wider array of potentially humorous
jokes.
While Advice Dog has served as the original model for this punch-line style of
humor, numerous other memes have developed in its wake that utilize a nearly identical
39
format to convey different thematic jokes. Philosoraptor was created to “challenge the
reader with his deep, existential, Paleolithic questions” and contains seemingly inane
questions regarding humanity generally (2010:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/philosoraptor). Examples of philosophical questions
include “Why do humans park on a driveway…and drive on a parkway?,” “If white
people get tan in the sun, do black people turn pale in the sun?,” and “If I looked up the
dictionary for „life,‟ then would I know the meaning of life?” (See Figures 10-2, 2010:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/philosoraptor).
Figure 10, Parking and the driveway
40
Figure 11, White people vs. black people
Figure 12, The meaning of life
Each of these images utilizes a similar template to Advice Dog (image in the center,
punch line on bottom) with the primary difference being a changed center image and
differing color layout. The humorous value of Philosoraptor is derived from the fact that
each image features a question with a seemingly absurd, obvious, or childish answer. The
rapid production and creation of Philosoraptor memes has made it incredibly difficult to
determine whether it preceded or succeeded the original Advice Dog meme.
Comprehension is further muddied because it is impossible to know which Philosoraptor
was the original or even who was responsible for creating the meme in the first place.
This phenomenon is extended into hundreds of other thematic memes that have
used the exact same formula to produce jokes in literally all capacities of human life.
Socially Awkward Penguin is a meme designed to capture the most uncomfortable
moments of human interaction, Courage Wolf is the attempt to channel inner selfconfidence as a means of asserting control in situations, and Hipster Kitty captures the
41
underground character of contemporary popular culture (See Appendix A, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/advice-dog). Each meme operates with “actual
organic autonomy” to supplant previous memes of a similar quality so that “the
reproduction is entirely nondifferent from the original” (Ludlow 1996: 453). The
determination of which meme came first becomes entirely irrelevant as each new meme
serves as a demonstration of its own originality. There is no distinction between
yesterday‟s Advice Dog and today‟s Philsoraptor, in each instance, the meme is acting as
an expression of the underlying humor intrinsic to the Internet.
The desire to create new memes often undermines the humorous intent within
their construction because there are so many of them. The unrestrained production of
memes has encouraged everyone to actively participate in their vision of what the next
major meme should be. This is especially true in instances where memes are the result of
some alteration of existing content because they are produced via pure simulation.
Advice Dog, while somewhat novel in its construction, relies upon simulative logic;
humor is derived from the eternal copying, distribution, and reproduction of its format.
The millions of other existing memes have crowded out what is and what is not perceived
as funny. Memes are in an excess of production so that it is irrelevant if they are truly
humorous; instead, there is a focus on who can produce at a faster rate and distribute
more of the message. Web boards are flooded with simulations of the original joke that
might have no connection to any reference whatsoever; the incoherence of this imagery
has removed all entertaining elements so that memes become concentrated on production.
42
While certain memes are based upon user creation, some memes have been
developed as responses to popular culture. An example of this is the use of hip-hop artist
Xzibit in the creation of the “Yo Dawg” Internet fad. The meme features an image of
Xzibit with a sentence in the following format: “Yo Dawg, I herd you like X, so I put an
X in your Y so you can VERB while you VERB” (2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg). An example would be “Yo Dawg, I
herd you like cars so we put a car in yo car so you can drive while you drive” (See Figure
13, 2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg).
Figure 13, Pimp my ride creator Xzibit gets a meme makeover
The humor is derived from an explicit parody of Xzibit‟s character in the television show
“Pimp My Ride” in which he repairs broken-down cars and replaces them with vehicles
containing ostentatious, unnecessary items like “hot tubs, fireplaces, and dishwashers”
43
(2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg). The meme utilizes many of
the textual and grammatical elements of lolspeak to demonstrate the oxymoronic quality
of both Xzibit and the principle behind the MTV show. The humor from the meme thus
relies upon a commonly understood cultural referent; as accessibility to information
regarding the television show increased, the number of users who were „in on the joke‟
and capable of creating memes of their own also went up.
The sudden surge of popularity related to the „Yo Dawg‟ meme caused numerous
replications to develop, some of which actually parodied the meme itself. Users
combined the format of „Advice Dog‟ (specifically Courage Wolf) with the „Yo Dawg‟
meme as recognition of the popularity associated with the Xzibit meme (“I put a meme in
yo meme so you can lol while you lol,” See Figure 14-5, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg). This usage demonstrates how
memes effectively cross-over with one another while also portraying the relative
flexibility of creating copies of memes that encompass a multitude of different humorous
elements. There have also been demonstrations of linguistic creativity, most notably in
the image “Yo dawg, I herd yo and yo dawg like yo-yos so we put yo dawg in a yo-yo so
yo can yo-yo yo dawg while yo dawg yo-yos, dawg” which plays upon the dual meaning
of „yo‟ as meaning both „your‟ while also referring to the toy „yo-yo‟ (For clearer
translation, see Figure 16, 2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg).
44
Figure 14, Courage Dawg, a crossover.
Figure 15, Xzibit Advice Dog
Figure 16, A dawg and his yo-yo
45
This particular permutation of the meme is humorous because it plays upon a witty reinterpretation of the image. The usage of dual meaning makes the image a pun. The
addition of visual elements draws out the delineation and makes it apparent to viewers.
A more recently developed tabloid-like meme has been created in the spectacle of
actor Charlie Sheen. Sheen recently became an overnight Internet phenomenon with the
release of several press interviews in which he responded to reporters in a bizarre, erratic
fashion. Interviews featured Sheen as stating that he “was on a drug called Charlie
Sheen” that, if taken, would cause “your face to melt off and your children would weep
over your exploded body” (Canning 2011). He also claimed to be infused with “tiger
blood and Adonis DNA,” have a “10,000 year old brain,” and that he was “bitching” and
a “total fricking rock star from Mars” (Canning 2011). Within a span of hours, Sheen‟s
quotes were seen all across the Internet and the number of people who had viewed his
interviews were in the tens of millions. While the original interviews garnered humorous
value from the oddness of Sheen‟s statements, much greater influence has been derived
from the thousands of “parodies and musical tributes to Sheen‟s ridiculous remarks”
(2011: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/charlie-sheen-rant-tigerblood). The meme has
crossed over with other existing memes, including the development of a Sheen-style
advice dog (“Won Best Picture at 20, wasn‟t even trying”) and lolcats that have utilized
Sheen‟s quotes to generate comedic effect (“I got magic and I got poetry at my
fingertips” See Appendix B, 2011: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/charlie-sheen-ranttigerblood). The development of these individual memes has made it difficult to discern
46
the precise source of each of the quotes; Sheen is now known not as an individual, but as
the entire collection of the statements made to the press. Additionally, the rapid
outcropping of images and YouTube media related to the phenomenon has made it
impossible to interact with the interviews without encountering some parody or remix of
the content. Web browsers searching for Sheen‟s interview are confronted with hundreds
of imitations so that the tone and setting of the original interviews is lost.
In the cases of celebrities, memes rapidly duplicate at a rate that supersedes any
control they might have over content. In response to various memes released about
Xzibit, he created an image with the text “Yo dawg, I herd you been making fun of me on
the Internet, so I cut my braids off, stopped putting things into other things, and decided
never to laugh in a picture again” (See Figure 17, 2009:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg). Rather than consciously account for
Xzibit‟s displeasure with how he was being used, users responded with a new image
parodying his response with: “Sup dawg, I herd that you hate that you‟re a meme so I
made u a meme of u hatin that you‟re a meme so u can hate that u hate hatin that you‟re a
meme is a meme” (See Figure 18, 2009: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yodawg). The willingness of users to ignore the demands of the „original‟ meme suggests
that the only response to confronting meme culture is to create more memes. Rather than
view Xzibit‟s plea as a genuine attempt to reclaim his public image, Internet users have
responded with parody. The response to any action is simulation; regardless of whether
the meme is humorous or not, individuals reflect new iterations of old jokes. This is
where humor is lost; there is no distinction between what is funny or not because we are
mired in a series of responses and reconstructions of the same joke. As these responses
47
become further disconnected and distanced from the „reality‟ of what is being parodied, it
is impossible to determine what the humor of the joke is. The random, unpredictability of
the simulation deprives it of both humor and meaning.
Figure 17, Xzibit responds to his status as a meme
Figure 18,
Users
respond to
Xzibit’s
response
48
Ultimately, meme culture represents the death of humor. Rather than find the new
copies increasingly hilarious or even innovative, audiences become bored with the image
and seamlessly move to the next craze. The sheer number of Internet fads that have
developed in the last few years demonstrates that viewers are searching for new humor to
replace tired old memes that have been done to death. In some cases, memes that were
once funny are now annoying and associated with general clutter of the Internet. In an
article released by the Onion (2011), “it now takes only four minutes for a new cultural
touchstone to transform from an amusing novelty into an intensely annoying thing people
never want to see or hear again” (1). While the article is hyperbolic in its portrayal of the
attention capacity of Internet users and not designed to be taken seriously by readers, it
does explain “the speed with which phenomena shift from eliciting joyous chuckles to
provoking blind, undiluted rage” (The Onion 2011: 1). Memes that lose popularity fade
into the background of the Internet and become part of the static noise associated with
swaths of information. Simulations, rather than creatively reinvent the humorous content
of memes, produce more simulation contributing to the chaotic, unfettered dispersal of all
forms of information. The relentless barrage of these materials desensitizes users so that
they no longer derive humor from these fads. Instead, they become bored with that which
was once entertaining.
Viral Videos:
Though not explicitly labeled as such, video clips, specifically those uploaded to
YouTube, behave in a fashion analogous to the aforementioned memes. The rapid rise of
Internet phenomena derived purely from abstract clips has dubbed these sorts of materials
as “viral.” Typically, viral videos are those that “become highly popular through rapid,
49
user-led distribution via the Internet” and often proliferate in “ways that the original
producers cannot determine and control” (Burgess 2008: 1). The ability for users to create
sensations overnight has revolutionized this specific type of Internet medium; coupled
with other distributive social networking tools like Facebook and Myspace, these memes
are often more visible than their purely image counterparts.
Many of these viral videos become distinctly popular by employing tools of
parody or humor. While all viral videos are not necessarily funny, a large majority
become digital celebrities by invoking some sense of humor. Videos achieve viral status
by being “oriented around absurdist and sometimes cruel frathouse humor,” which
encourages both distribution and reproduction (Burgess 2008: 5). Even in instances
where video creators attempt to provide a serious spin on messages within their videos,
the resulting responses are often “nihilistic and playful forms of creativity” (Burgess
2008: 6). Individual users have the capacity to reconstruct popular videos in ways that
appeal to humor in the hopes that the spin-off will garner some degree of success as the
original. Using technologies of digital reproduction, YouTube serves as a locale for
participation and creation in the development of humorous memes.
The participatory logic of YouTube enables the propagation of copycat videos
that often attempt to subvert originally produced content. YouTube clips are limited in
time length so that “most viral videos are only a few minutes or even seconds long” and
are “generally amateur” in quality (Grossman 2007: 1). The rapid development of
computer and phone-based recording technologies has only made it easier to capture
impromptu moments of humor in everyday settings. The Internet has effectively caused
50
its users to “demand participation” from other users on websites because of “on-demand
access, social connectivity, and the ability to shape and/or influence content” (Hodgson
2010: 3). Users are encouraged to respond to YouTube videos by creating videos of their
own, some of which capture humorous re-interpretations of the material. As modern
media experiences a “reculturalization,” Internet culture is increasingly focused on
“rhetorics of the „small screen‟” while simultaneously “moving toward more
participatory logics” (Hodgson 2010: 4). The Internet has reshaped humor by making it
more interactive while also providing modifying tools not previously available to society
at large. The creation of new video clip technology allows users to tell jokes in a different
way, specifically empowering them to express humor in an unconventional fashion.
One of the most recent viral videos was a YouTube clip titled “Bed Intruder
Interview.” The clip, uploaded July 29, 2010, was an interview of a family in Alabama
who had been victim to an attempted rape (2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzNhaLUT520). The original YouTube clip featured
Antoine Dodson, the brother of the victim, delivering an address to the perpetrator of the
crime that was considered “flamboyant” and “highly entertaining” (Pepper 2010: 1).
Individuals laughed at the original interview because it displayed an unconventional
response to a crisis; rather than act somberly or fearfully, Dodson displays conviction that
the would-be rapist was “really dumb” and that he was already in pursuit of the wrongdoer (Gallagher 2010: 1). While interpreted humorously, some have criticized the
interview saying that it has “stereotyped the black community” by providing a caricatured
response to a serious event (Gallagher 2010: 1). Videos that attract these debates,
specifically over what is and is not humorous, are more prone to become viral because
51
they focus attention on prominent social concerns. In addition to generating significant
viewer attention, the clip was also responsible for a variety of parodies, one of which I
will discuss later.
One of the most popular types of humorous viral videos involves the distribution
of embarrassing or extraordinary statements made by major media figures. Oftentimes,
these comments are taken out of context (in the case of bloopers) or reflect some deeper
tabloid-like observation of the individual in question. A classic example is the “Bill
O‟Reilly Flips Out” video clip which features conservative pundit Bill O‟Reilly
expressing frustration over a technical malfunction. The video, taken as a blooper, has
O‟Reilly exclaiming, “Fuck it! We‟ll do it live!” and “I‟ll write the words, and we‟ll do it
live!,” both of which have become catchphrases of the Internet (2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY). The humor of the clip is derived
from observing O‟Reilly at one of his less-polished moments, specifically in relation to
his incompetence and frustration with being unable to shoot a successful take. Unlike
traditional television bloopers, the footage is unfettered, which enables viewers to
observe the full extent of O‟Reilly‟s emphatic rant. The video is one of the most popular
on YouTube with over 9 million views since its original dispersal in 2008 (2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY). It also demonstrates how users can
laugh at content not previously available to the public. Prior to Internet distribution
channels, dispersal of such compromising material would likely have been suppressed or
at least leaked more slowly.
52
The humor is further developed with the proliferation of countless “remix” videos
that replay the same clip with both minor and major alterations. The most popular of
these, “Bill O‟Reilly Flips Out DANCE REMIX,” takes elements of the original clip and
blends them together using techno music beats to create a „song‟ (2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE). The purpose of this retooling is to
demonstrate that newer elements of video design can add humorous dimensions not
previously accessible to average people. Users can remix clips as “a critical expression of
creative freedom” within a forum that thrives upon sustained and active participation
(Lessig 2008: 56). The remix has become quite popular as well, with a total 3.5 million
views since its creation 3 years ago (2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE). More importantly, the video has
paved the way for numerous other remixes of the same clip using similar sound
technology with the hope of replicating the humor of the original clip. Individuals have
effectively modified different components of the original clip with the intention of
expressing the meme in some new, unprecedented manner.
Remixes serve as a demonstration of the intensive minuteness of simulation.
Individuals are now encouraged to modify and simulate components of content that were
not originally intended to be humorous. Audiences laughed at O‟Reilly‟s errors because it
was demonstrative of his short-comings and weakness behind the scenes. The subsequent
dance remix yielded humorous value from its creativity and expression of an underlying
element of harmony that was unbeknownst in the original clip. The development of many
more imitation remixes has driven attention completely away from what was originally
funny about the clip. Now users compare the musical proficiency and quality of the remix
53
without considering whether or not the clip is actually humorous. Hundreds of new
remixes, some of which are not even musical, but just expressions of sound or distortion,
have supplanted the meaning of the original clip. Instead, users are exposed to the noise
that is the removed simulation of O‟Reilly. The meaning and humor of the video are
eclipsed by an incoherence of staggering noise and repetitive reproduction.
The widespread use of remixing has encouraged the development of “Auto-Tune”
technology, which has become its own original meme. Auto-Tune is a voice-modification
technology “that can take a vocal and instantly nudge it onto the proper note or move it to
correct pitch” (Tyrangiel 2009: 1). As a result, individuals both inside and outside the
music industry have been able to express themselves musically, even if their overall vocal
talent is somewhat limited. As Auto-Tune technology has expanded, the number of users
who can “add Auto-Tune to their voice and put it on the Web” has increased dramatically
(Tyrangiel 2009: 3). The process of creating music with “perfect pitch” has made it
“harder to differentiate [songs] from one another” (Tyrangiel 2009: 3). This form of
harmonization has created hyperreal methods of singing; individual‟s voices can be
modified to create music that is more perfect than even those with „natural‟ talent. The
accessibility of distributive tools has increased the rate at which copies of Auto-Tune
songs are produced so that “people are getting used to hearing things dead on pitch”
(Tyrangiel 2009: 3). Individuals now expect to hear music in a state of perfectibility
where even minor problems in pitch and tune can be repaired using technology.
The Auto-Tune tool has been appropriated by YouTube users to create videos that
utilize it to produce humorous effects. The Gregory Brothers are a set of YouTube users
54
who are responsible for creating a meme known as “Auto-Tune the News” which features
“original tunes performed” by the group spliced “into round-table debates and split
screens between various politicians and journalists” whose voices have been tweaked
using Auto-Tune technology (Westhoff 2009: 1). The result is a humorous re-tooling of
somewhat serious political debates using content that effectively parodies the whole
event. The most notable Auto-Tune remix is the video titled “Bed Intruder Song” which
transforms the aforementioned Antoine Dodson‟s “impassioned speech into a catchy,
well-produced pop song” (Gallagher 2010: 1). The success of the original interview as a
viral video provided the Gregory Brothers the basis for the production of a song that
remixed some of Dodson‟s comments with AutoTune and a techno beat. The result was a
viral phenomenon that has garnered over 75 million views and “hit the top 25 songs on
iTunes singles charts” (Pepper 2010: 1). The video demonstrates creative parody of the
original interview by including musical elements so that viewers are focused less on the
message being portrayed and more on how it is being communicated. The remix is
humorous because it creatively reinterprets the meaning of the video while also inverting
what viewers would expect to see from this interview.
As noted before, many of the elements, specifically Auto-Tune, within these viral
videos contain hyperreal elements that demonstrate their connection to simulation. The
development of remix technologies has proven that there are methods of perfecting
content; technologies can be used to craft a more perfect vision of the musical and
technical components of a video. The ability to create remixes has encouraged
individuals to simulate viral videos in an attempt to gain popularity for themselves.
Videos that are viral spin-offs of the original thus demonstrate how simulation is
55
dispersed via YouTube. The culture of parody surrounding viral videos, specifically how
individuals attempt to play with the intent and meanings of original clips, serves to
deconstruct the intrinsic content of what is being simulated. These parodies often pop up
rapidly and displace access to the original clip; when searching for “Bed Intruder Song,”
one is confronted with hundreds of parodies, analysis on what the clip means, or even
clips that have no real connection to the song at all. Rather than find amusement at each
of these clips, it becomes impossible to process and view the extensive amounts of
information related to the joke. Humor is lost in a sea of simulation; there is no capacity
to identify which clips are genuinely funny because so much of the space is filled with
noise and distraction.
Meme culture is in a state of constant creation and upheaval. There are no
boundaries for the construction or dispersal of this content. Individuals are encouraged to
produce memes of their own in an attempt to gain recognition through humor. The
development of interactive image and video technologies has increased the scope and
method in which humor is presented to audiences. This chapter focused primarily on
some of the most prominent memes that have been produced, paying particular attention
to what elements made them humorous. While much of this content demonstrates some
of the creative aspects of Internet content creation, the sheer number of existing memes
has drowned out much of the inherent message within these materials. It is impossible to
determine the origin or even humor of many memes because users no longer control the
trajectory of that which has been produced. There is no delineation between when a
meme is humorous or not because so much of the content is static or noise. In the
following chapter, I will explore some of the locations where memes are produced,
56
paying particular attention to some of the interactive processes associated with these web
forums.
57
Chapter 5: How does it work? Inside a meme factory
“Reading /b/ will melt your brain.”
In the preceding chapter, I examined content that has become mainstream (i.e.
known by large segments of the populace), but where does that content come from?
While it is often difficult to determine the origin of specific memes, it is possible to study
the location in which similar jokes are produced. In this chapter, I will examine two
websites where memes are produced, paying particular attention to how jokes are
perceived as popular as well as how information is both transmitted and distributed
within these communities. 4chan.com is one of the largest English image boards on the
Internet and has been the birthplace of many popular Internet memes. In addition to
creating content, users also participate in collective activity designed to attract the
attention of mainstream media sources. The group-based actions are often done to
generate humorous responses and involve both minor and major disruptions of daily Web
communications. Ytmnd.com is a site that uses multimedia to achieve the same effect as
4chan. While slightly less popular than 4chan, ytmnd contains content that synthesizes
sound, video and images to produce memes that also become popular. While similar sites
exist, I specifically chose these two because they are the most widely known, they have
both generated external media attention and I have deeper familiarity with both the
dynamics and content on these sites.
4chan
4chan.com has gained significant media coverage as being one of the largest
image board websites on the Internet. The website was created in 2003 and was modeled
after 2channel.com (a popular Japanese content sharing site) as a place to “post pictures,
58
snapshots, found images, original artwork, [and] altered or defaced photos” in categories
ranging from video games to food (Grossman 2008: 2). Since its creation, “visitors have
put up 145 million posts” in addition to getting “8.5 million page views a day and 3.3
million visitors a month” (Grossman 2008: 1). The majority of posted material is done
anonymously so that “nobody can see anybody, and everybody can claim to speak from
the center” (Schwartz 2008: 1). The forum has generated considerable media focus for a
range of controversial actions and is estimated by some to be the “fourth largest bulletin
board on the Internet.” (Grossman 2008: 3). Due to the anonymous nature of posts, it is
difficult to determine how many „active‟ users are regularly posting to the site.
Regardless of numbers, the site has had a profound effect on both defining and creating
Internet culture.
Though there are numerous boards covering a variety of potential interests (40+
subheadings), 4chan users primarily use the „random‟ board, simply known as /b/. This
board is usually reserved for miscellaneous content and is the most popular component of
the site “accounting for 30%” of total traffic (Fimocolous 2011). The relatively loose
organization coupled with the easy accessibility (anyone can post) has made the site a
place where “people try to shock, entertain, and coax free porn from each other.”
(Fimoculous 2011). More than anything, /b/ is designed to generate humorous reactions
with the intention of bringing others “face-to-face with the ridiculous” (Smith 2008: 1).
4chan users have embraced „lulz,‟ (“a corruption of laugh out loud”) which is the distinct
“joy of disrupting another‟s emotional equilibrium” (Schwartz 2008: 2). As one
anonymous (as expected) user said:
You exploit insecurities to get an insane amount of drama, laughs and lulz. Rules
[are] simple: 1. Do whatever it takes to get lulz. 2. Make sure the lulz is widely
59
distributed. This will allow for more lulz to be made. 3. The game is never over
until all the lulz have been had (Schwartz 2008: 2).
/b/ users are encouraged to engage in activities that are both subjectively and collectively
hilarious. As other people imitate the behavior of one another, it becomes more apparent
what trends users are willing to adopt as well as what is generally agreed as humorous.
The desire for users to continually engage in behavior and actions that produce ‟lulz‟ also
suggests that /b/ is a hub for humor.
In the previous chapter, I provided several examples of Internet memes that had
attracted widespread popularity. The creation of various fads, including some if the
earliest distribution of lolcats, can be traced to
Figure 19, Pedobear
4chan‟ “parade of silliness” (Smith 2008: 2).
Considered a “hothouse for memes,” 4chan
users utilize the image boards to create and
refine Internet fads that “can escape and run
amuck through the culture at large” (Grossman
2008: 3). One of the most popular memes
produced by the site is Pedobear, commonly
represented as a cartoon bear (See Figure 19,
2011: 4chan.com). Pedobear is primarily used
when responding to either “real-world
sexualization of presexual kids” or “being
inappropriately attracted to a child” (Douglas
2009: 1). Users constantly attach Pedobear to images of overtly sexualized teenagers in
60
an attempt to mock individuals who engage in what is perceived as morally reprehensible
behavior. “The freedom to joke about” even offensive acts like pedophilia suggests that
users derive humor from the expression of “absolute free speech, liberty from censorship,
and intentional bad behavior” (Douglas 2009: 1). It also serves as a demonstration of how
far these individuals are willing to go to engage in humorous behavior; each successive
act of humor has to surpass the last in its scope so that others don‟t become „bored.‟
The /b/ image board is constantly being updated and modified as a means of
clearing out what is perceived as „junk.‟ The magnitude of available content on the site is
so large that “threads expire…at a relatively high rate,” most boards are “limited to
eleven pages,” and “content is usually available for only a few days before it is removed”
(2011: http://www.4chan.org/faq). Additionally, “archives are not available” and users
are discouraged from “reposting material that [has] been deleted by the staff” so that once
an image is removed from a board, it is unlikely to resurge (2011:
http://www.4chan.org/faq). Memes are thus sustained by users both responding to images
on the site as well as through the dispersal of those images to other Internet locations.
The primary mechanism through which the site operate is via contribution (“the
submission of substantial, helpful, friendly, and humorous posts to the boards”) which is
used to “drive the website” and make it “more unique, interesting, and enjoyable to use”
(2011: http://www.4chan.org/faq). Humor on this site is user driven; individuals have the
capacity to construct and define what they find humorous. The open qualities of this site
have given people the tools to continually reshape Internet trends in ways that they
perceive as subjectively meaningful.
61
The continued production of content encourages users to simulate memes in a
way that robs them of humorous value. 4chan users are immersed in so much content that
it is difficult to comprehend the totality of the information they have been exposed to. In
addition to viewing humorous content, the image boards are littered with non-humorous
materials; pornography, violent images, and nonsensical text. The overdose of this
information makes it impossible for individuals to sift through the humorous and nonhumorous material; from the perspective of a 4chan user, it is all information, some of
which might be humorous. Jokes like pedobear have been utilized and exhausted so
thoroughly that users no longer perceive it as humorous. The offensiveness of pedophilia
is no longer shocking because users have desensitized themselves to the image. The
inversion and distortion of information that generally creates a humorous response has
become second nature. People expect to be surprised and predict that incongruities will
exist within their modes of communication. Humorous content no longer inspires
laughter because it is interpreted and viewed in the same manner as non-humorous
material (as „normal‟ or mundane).
In addition to crafting memes, various members of the 4chan community have
committed pranks that have garnered substantive media attention. In July 2010, the
popular music artist Justin Bieber asked fans via the social networking site Twitter “to
vote on which country he should tour next, without restriction on which countries could
be included in the vote” (Jardin 2011). Within a span of two days, „voters‟ from North
Korea “moved from 24th place to 1st” accruing several hundred thousand votes (Jardin
2011). 4chan users were widely believed to be behind the prank because “all almost all
citizens of North Korea are denied Internet access” and because the incident was widely
62
posted across 4chan image boards (Buskirk 2010: 1). This action was supplemented with
a variety of comments on YouTube videos featuring Bieber claiming that he “has passed
away as well as redirecting to pornographic videos and superimposing “Fail” and other
messages over his videos” (Buskirk 2010: 1). It was later revealed that these messages
were all a concerted effort by site users to gain notoriety for their behavior while
simultaneously expressing their contempt for the singer. The actions were considered
humorous because they derived pleasure from the potential misfortune of a figure with
extensive media focus. The pranks were also consistent with the aforementioned usage of
antagonism; users deliberately conducted actions in order to garner emotional responses.
4chan users find the ability to aggravate others, specifically those with ties to the media,
humorous.
These actions, if fully manifested, would create an Internet landscape where the
line between genuine and disingenuous interactions disappears. Humor justifies this
antagonism because “if you don‟t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it” (Schwartz 2008:
2). This encourages all individuals within Web forums to engage in behavior that
attempts to lure others into reacting emotionally to actions. In this world, “no one knows
the rules of the game” and when users attempt to pin down strategies of engagement, the
rules “may change all of a sudden” (Baudrillard 2001: 206). Internet antagonization is
done to “seek a blind response that will disrupt our projects” (Baudrillard 2001: 206).
The humor that was a component of these interactions is lost because there is no longer
any delineation between real and fake responses. Individuals laugh at the futility of
actions, without actually believing any of it to be true. 4chan users, while not the
predominate majority of the Internet, are crafting methods of engagement that co-opt and
63
supplant humor. Interactions are predicated upon deception so that the line between
incongruity and normality dissolves. All interactions are potentially humorous so that
when someone does act in an ironic or unexpected fashion, it is seen as a simulation of
antagonism. Nobody laughs at the user who is purely motivated by „lulz.‟ It is the
simulation and replication of humorous acts like the Bieber prank that thus strip the
action of its humorous qualities. Users expect that they are constantly involved in
situations where they are being antagonized so they respond with equal amounts of
antagonism. The end result is that communication breaks down; rather than interacting
with one another, individuals simulate each other‟s behaviors and mannerisms.
YTMND
You‟re the man now dog.com (ytmnd) is a similar content sharing website that
offers individuals the ability to construct, distribute, rate and comment on a variety of
electronic materials. Ytmnd.com began in 2003 with the creation of a “tiled picture of
Sean Connery, large, zooming text and a sound file playing the immortal line „You're the
man now, dog!‟” from the film
Figure 20, Screenshot of the first ytmnd
Finding Forrester (See Figure 20,
2001:http://yourethemannowdog.ytmn
d.com/). The format of the image was
unique in that it combined images with
looped sound clips to create
animations, a practice which was still
in its primitive stages. The original
64
ytmnd (term used to refer to each site) became an Internet meme and encouraged various
imitations of the format which spurred Max Goldberg (the creator of the first ytmnd clip)
to found the website ytmnd.com. The website was intended to “explore and promote
issues relating to free speech” as Goldberg has had to handle numerous lawsuits related to
copyright infringement in the early stages of constructing ytmnd.com, including
“skirmishes with organizations such as the Church of Scientology, Gary Larson, Sega,
Harry Potter and Pez” (2011: http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about). The turbulent
development of the site has impacted how users create content; while there are vague
stipulations on what is not allowed,1 users frequently transgress these regulations and
make the content anyways.
The format of ytmnd has stimulated interest from thousands of users who have
created numerous clips that are received both internally and external to the site. Since the
creation of the site, “over 950,00 YTMNDs” have been produced and “320,000” users
have registered (2011: http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about). Additionally “site
sponsorships and donations” from various users within the community have generated
“enough income to cover massive hosting costs” (2011:
http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about). The increasing popularity of the website suggests
that individuals are interested in creating content that synthesizes multimedia elements
not available on other web boards like 4chan. There is no basis for what materials can be
1
“Clips may not include: “extreme racism, hardcore pornography, anything illegal (animal torture,
anything that could be remotely described as child porn, etc), pictures of your friends or enemies,
someone's personal information (sush as addresses, phone numbers, full names), inside jokes that the
majority of the members of YTMND won't understand, any of the following words in the title or text of the
site: OMG, LOL, ROFL, WTF, PWNED, O RLY, OWNED, OMFG, etc., blatant copyright infringement
complete lack of creativity, such as straight rips from family guy, the simpsons or any other tv show, anime
(please, just go to 4chan and get it over with), finding random images on the internet and putting them to
dumb random songs.” (2011: http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about)
65
created as content “ranges from the political to the nonsensical” in an attempt to “display
an unending reserve of creativity and occasionally, humor” (2011:
http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about).
The ability for users to share, rate, and view each other‟s content has established
interaction between major community members. The main pages features 6 subheadings:
„sponsorships‟ (displays clips that have received donations from users), „recently created‟
(sites most recently made), „up and coming‟ (sites that are popular and have received
approval by community users within the last 48 hours), „top rated this week‟ (sites that
have received praise from users throughout the past seven days), „top viewed today‟
(implicit) and „all time ytmnd hits‟ (sites with the highest views, not contingent upon
timeframe). In addition to viewing content, users can „rate‟ material on a scale from 1 to
5 (5 being the highest rating a video can receive), which establishes thresholds for which
sites are featured on the main page. Users can also comment on sites and interact with
each other via private message so that users consistently communicate with one another.
Sites that are highly rated employ the use of complex forms of humor that are “often
comical but frequently inexplicable” (Shirky 2006: 1). Much of the content is so
incoherent to outsiders vitsiting the website that ytmnd has been dubbed “the ultimate
inside joke” (Shirky 2006: 2). While content is occasionally popular within mainstream
Internet channels, many of the memes within the website remain obscure and only
understood by those with extensive working knowledge of the site.
One of the earliest ytmnd sites “The Picard Song” helped draw attention to the
site in its burgeoning state while also becoming a minor Internet sensation. The site
features an image of “Patrick Stewart, playing „Star Trek‟ Capt. Jean-Luc Picard,” which
66
Figure 21, Screenshot of The Picard Song
is “set to dance music” (See
Figure 21, Ahrens 2006: 2).
The clip is one of the most
highly viewed and rated
sites with over a million
views and nearly 13,000
user votes. (2004:
http://picard.ytmnd.com)
The site has also been
distributed to other content sharing sites including stumpleupon, reddit, and urlesque,
which have increased the general popularity of the fad (ytmnd.com). The humor of the
site is based in its creative and unconventional usage of a popular cultural icon (Star
Trek) in conjunction with electronic tools. Many other sites access parodic
reinterpretations of content as “the raw material from YTMNDs is a mix of pop culture
elements dating back to the 1980s blended with current events” (Rutkoff 2005: 2).
References to mainstream culture often turn content that is “strictly underground” into “a
formal fad” (Ahrens 2006: 1). The most successful ytmnds achieve meme level status
when they are accessible to users who might not be involved with the website. These
jokes are not contingent upon a working knowledge of the intricacies of the site, but are
more generally humorous.
The appeal of various ytmnds is that they also access more basic elements of
humor in their construction. The site titled “YTDNM” features an inversion of the
67
original Sean Connery ytmnd, by replacing Sean Connery‟s face with that of a dog and
switching the audio and textual placing of the word „dog‟ and „man.‟ (2006:
http://yourthedog.ytmnd.com) This ytmnd utilizes elements of parody by altering the
placement of two words serving as a demonstration of the effects of intertexuality. The
site is humorous because it relies on a clever re-interpretation of a theme that is familiar
to all users. Another widely popular ytmnd titled “Breakup Letter, Dramatic Reading”
features an individual reading a poorly spelled and grammatically incorrect letter in a
sinister voice (2007: http://youmakemetouchyourhandsforstupidreasons.ytmnd.com). The
reader intentionally mocks the poorly constructed letter, even breaking character by
laughing at the misspelled “bastert” (bastard), “tol” (told), and “jelouse” (jealous) in the
letter (2007: http://youmakemetouchyourhandsforstupidreasons.ytmnd.com). The humor
of the site is derived from laughing at the gaping flaws within the letter coupled with
what a „serious‟ interpretation of the poorly constructed letter would look like. In both
cases, the unique stylistic layout of the site enable users to incorporate textual, visual, and
auditory components of the content to enhance humorous appeal.
The majority of ytmnds produced, while still retaining similar elements of
previous examples, utilize materials and references not available to those who are not a
part of the community. The “Billy V. Koen” meme was one of the first demonstrations of
the „inside joke‟ component of the site and has spawned over 250 imitation sites as well
as the minor fad KOENTMND (2004: ytmnd.com). The original KOENTMND features
an individual saying, “Can you believe it? You‟ve already finished C. You think you can
do Matlab?” accompanied by the text “Dr. Billy V. Koen poses a question!” and techno
music (2006: http://koentmnd.ytmnd.com). The format follows a „traditional‟ ytmnd, but
68
there is no explanation for who the individual is, what is being referenced, and why the
user decided to create the site. Searching for the term „Billy V. Koen‟ outside of
ytmnd.com provides a link to the faculty page of Dr. Billy V. Koen, professor of
Mechanical Engineering, at the University of Texas at Austin (Koen 2011). The terms
„C‟ and „Matlab‟ both refer to technical computing terms that are used in mechanical
engineering (Koen 2011). There is no explicit reference to this information within the site
itself and the joke is intended to only be understood by those who have had exposure to
the professor. Despite these limitations, users have created various spin-offs of the
original site, including splicing Dr. Koen‟s image and voice into Lady Gaga music
videos, various film clips, and popular television shows (2004: ytmnd.com). The
multimedia elements of the site have provided users with the tools to create an infinite
series of KOENTMNDs; any cultural referent can be combined with the original site to
create something wholly original.
The inside-joke nature of ytmnd thus serves as a demonstration of how humor can
be simulated without any clear reference point. Most users have likely not had exposure
to Dr. Koen and are likely unfamiliar with the intentions of the original ytmnd. Instead,
the production of the fad is tied to a model of simulation; individuals are encouraged to
produce new variations of the old joke without ever knowing what the „original‟ means.
As individuals become immersed in KOENTMNDs, the humorous value becomes
irrelevant. Users create so that others can observe and judge the process of their
production without ever knowing what might be humorous in the first place. These trends
become simultaneously tied to the speed of production as well; as the distribution and
inclusion of the simulation becomes more widespread, static and noise envelop the
69
website and stifle any coherent understanding of what is being communicated.
KOENTMND represents just one instance of this process; thousands of other inside jokes
within the site exist, each portraying a demonstration of how simulation masks the humor
that was never there.
Ytmnd.com, while intended to serve as a point of creativity and humor, has
become a vacuum of noise and meaninglessness. LOUDTMND is a specific trait applied
to already existing ytmnds that amplifies the sound component of the clip (2004:
ytmnd.com). The first LOUDTMND modified the original YTMND and redid the sound
so that Connery‟s voice is now abrasive and several degrees louder (2006:
http://loudtmnd.ytmnd.com). This process of sound modification has transferred into
other popular fads on the site (including the Picard song) that has encouraged widespread
imitation of the LOUDTMND fad (2004: ytmnd.com). This simulative tactic embodies
how humor is stripped away from sites once considered funny; it is difficult to listen to
the sound for extended periods of time and in many cases, impossible to know what
message is being conveyed because sound drowns out the message. The popularity and
replication of these stylistic traits demonstrates that it is irrelevant whether or not humor
or even coherence is a part of content. Simulation and reproduction are done for their
own sake so that appealing to humor no longer matters. It is here that the joke is no
longer funny, but merely a repetition. Even sites that attempt to attach humorous meaning
to content are “hypnotic and grating” and are perceived as “almost aggressively
pointless” (Rutkoff 2006: 2). Goldberg, when originally designing the site, believed that
ytmnd.com would serve “no discernible purpose other than the satisfaction of [the] vague
impulse to create it” (Rutkoff 2006: 1). Users are more than willing to produce sites
70
completely devoid of humor; the simulation of sites is done as a whim so that the attempt
to create humor is drowned out by numerous other imitations. The end result is that there
is no delineation between what is humorous and what is not because it is all noise.
The increasing prevalence of websites like 4chan.com and ytmnd.com
demonstrates that content creation and development of memes are becoming available to
a greater number of people. Individuals can express humorous thoughts without fear of
backlash because posting is generally anonymous. This, coupled with the use of image
and sound technology, has meant that these sites are birthplaces for the next popular
meme. Underneath the surface, these sites display a dynamic of incoherence. Users are
trained to frustrate one another while simultaneously producing content that would only
make sense to very few individuals. In response, others have begun simulating both
behavior and content. Individuals are no longer aware of why they engage in action that
they have internalized as humorous; instead, they are motivated to produce and consume
simulations regardless of content.
71
Conclusion
Modern media has reshaped the way societies convey messages to one another.
As information has become increasingly streamlined, it is easier to access and distribute
information across digital channels. This study examined some of the various methods in
which humorous content has become propagated throughout the Internet. New
technologies have increased the creative capacity of humor by providing tools not
previously available to users. These tools include AutoTune, image modification, and the
addition of video-based elements, all of which have changed the way humor is
communicated. In many cases, the humor of Internet jokes is not entirely new; much of
the content relies on inverting expectations or preying upon the weaknesses of other
users. The major difference in Internet versus conventional types of humor is that there is
greater distribution and access to multimedia materials on the Web. More individuals can
participate in humorous activity and are encouraged to contribute their subjective takes
on whatever is currently relevant. In addition, there are no limitations on what can be said
which makes it easier for that content to be both controversial and offensive. Internet
humor plays upon emotional attachment in a way that would be incredibly difficult and
looked down upon if done in „real‟ life.
Internet memes are like fads, they have trends in popularity, but in most cases
wane rather quickly. Most fads, while popular for a time, tend to fade from social
consciousness because they are no longer viewed as the „it‟ thing (after all, do you still
remember to walk your pet rock or buy the latest beanie baby?). The Internet has
effectively sped up the process of fads while simultaneously combining old fads with
new ones to create reiterations of both jokes. The rate at which memes become popular
72
on the Internet is shocking; funny videos can be shared instantaneously and around the
world. These memes have spurred the development of phenomena that actually pop up
overnight and occupy major communication channels on the Internet. The rate at which
these memes occur is unprecedented and demonstrates the human desire to constantly
consume new forms of information. It has also increased the likelihood that what people
perceive on the Internet is no longer defined, but composed of excess information. Rather
than access older Internet memes, individuals are mired in a swamp of imitation. It is
impossible to know what the „real‟ or „original‟ meme is in many cases because it has
been supplanted by the latest „dance remix‟ or „Lady Gaga mash-up.‟ Humor and
meaning of the content become diffuse so that people are never entirely sure what they
should find humorous or why it was funny in the first place. This has become particularly
true in the context of combinations of memes; the fusion of already „inside‟ jokes with
other Internet fads makes the new creation incoherent to outsiders.
What might this mean for the future of humor? Are we doomed to a state of
overproduction that saps content of any humorous value? Can there be laughter on the
Internet? There is not a definitive „yes‟ or „no‟ answer to any of these questions.
However, it is possible to speculate that modes of interaction as well as what is socially
valued will change over time. A sense of humor might be defined differently in the digital
age; those who have access to the most underground material, who are in on all of the
Web‟s inside jokes, could represent the new Internet jesters. As we come to value (or at
least normalize) deviant and antagonistic behavior on Web forums, social expectations
will change. Humor could become entirely electronic. Rather than going to a comedy
club to see the latest „Rodney Dangerfield‟ or „Mitch Hedburg,‟ it might be easier to
73
absorb this content from the comfort of a personal computer via YouTube. Humor would
be simultaneously social and isolated; individuals would be connected via Internet
networks without ever having to engage anyone interpersonally.
Perhaps these claims are all a bit too speculative. They demonstrate how the
Internet has had a profound effect on reshaping one of the most fundamental components
of social interaction. This thesis has attempted to provide some insight (albeit brief and
limited) into why it is that we laugh and whether or not that is changing. The relative
newness of materials like Internet memes has made it difficult to provide conclusive
analysis on this content. This is further exacerbated by the dynamic nature of the Internet;
old sites are removed and replaced with new ones at such a rapid rate that it is difficult to
trace origins of content. However, the general trends and popularity of humorous content
on the Internet provides a window into what is most highly valued in contemporary
society. The willingness and capacity for users to engage contemporary controversies
through the use of parody proves that humor is experiencing a state of turbulence.
Whether or not users maintain current patterns of consumption or rupture those forms
remains to be seen.
74
References
4chan.com. 2011. “4chan Frequently Asked Questions.” 4chan.com. Retrieved April 5,
2011 (http://www.4chan.org/faq).
Adler, Emily S. and Roger Clark. 2003. How It’s Done: An Invitation to Social Research.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Ahrens, Frank. 2006. “A Home for Quick Hits.” The Washington Post, July 30. Retrieved
April 7, 2011
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/07/29/AR20060729
00041.html).
Babbie, Earl. 2007. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson
Learning.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations. Translated by Foss, Paul, Paul Patton, Philip
Beitchman. New York: Semiotext(e).
--------.1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
-------. 2001. Selected Writings. Mark Poster, ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
-------. 2002. “Between Difference and Singularity: An Open Discussion with Jean
Baudrillard.” The European Graduate School. Retrieved April 1, 2011
(http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/between-difference-andsingularity/).
-------. 2004. “Integral Reality.” The European Graduate School. Retrieved April 1, 2011
(http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/integral-reality/).
Beaulieu, Anne. 2004. “Mediating Ethnography: Objectivity and the Making of
Ethnographies of the Internet.” Social Epistemology 18(2): 139-63.
Berger, Arthur A. 1998. Media Research Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bremmer, Jan and Herman Roodenburg. 1997. A Cultural History of Humor. Malden,
MA: Polity Press.
Burgess, Jean. 2008. “All your chocolate rain are belong to us? Viral Video, YouTube
and the dynamics of participatory culture.” Institute of Network Cultures,
Amsterdam: 101-9.
75
Buskirk, Elliot V. 2010. “4chan Succesfully Voted Justin Bieber to North Korea.” Wired
Magazine. July 07. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/7/4chan-successfully-votedjustin-bieber-to-north-korea).
Canning, Andrea. 2011. “Charlie Sheen: ABC News Interview on 20/20 Special Edition.”
ABC News. February 26. Retrieved April 9, 2011
(http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/charlie-sheen-interview-special-edition2020/story?id=13008140).
Carvin, Andy. 2010. “Bed Intruder Meme: A Perfect Storm of Race, Music, Comedy and
Celebrity.” NPR News. August 05. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2010/08/05/129005122/youtube-bedintruder-meme).
Critchley, Simon. 2002. On Humour. London: Routledge Press.
Culler, Jonathan. 1986. Ferdinand de Saussure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Davis, Murray S. 1995. “The Sociology of Humor: A Stillborn Field?” Sociological
Forum 10 (2): 327-39.
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dentith, Simon. 2000. Parody. New York: Routledge Press.
Douglas, Nick. 2009. “A Beginner‟s Gude to Pedobear, the Internet‟s Favorite Pervert.”
Urlesque. November 06. Retrieved April 9, 2011
(http://www.urlesque.com/2009/11/06/pedobear/).
Fatt, James P. T. 1998. “Why do we laugh?” Communication World 15(9): 12-5.
Fimoculous. 2009. “Macroanonymous is the New Microfamous.” Fimoculous.com.
Retrieved April 7, 2011 (http://fimoculous.com/archive/post-5738.cfm).
Freud, Sigmund. 1979. The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. New York:
Penguin Books.
Gallagher, Paul. 2010. “Antoine Dodson: From Local News Item to Internet Sensation.”
The Guardian. August 15. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/antoine-dodson-internetsensation).
Grossman, Lev. 2007. “I Can Has Cheezburger?” Time Magazine. July 23. Retrieved
April 8, 2011 (http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=2acf67d6-d71f-4ff976
b02515f223bcf30f%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3Q
tbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=25773825).
Grossman, Lev. 2008. “The Master of Memes.” Time Magazine. July 09. Retrieved April
8, 2011 (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1821435-2,00.html).
Gruner, Charles. 1997. The Game of Humor: A Comprehensive Theory of Why We
Laugh. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hodgson, Justin. 2010. “Reculturalizations: "Small Screen" Culture, Pedagogy, &
YouTube.” Enculturation 8: 1-21. http://enculturation.gmu.edu/reculturalizations.
Hutcheon, Linda. 2000. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art
Forms. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Jardin, Xeni. 2011. “4chan Prank Means Justin Bieber Must Tour North Korea.”
Boingboing.com. Retrieved April 7, 2011
(http://www.boingboing.net/2010/07/05/4chan-prank-means-ju.html).
Jeffries, Adrianne. 2011. “From the Creator of 4chan Comes the More Mature Canvas.”
The New York Observer. January 31. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/creator-4chan-comes-more-maturecanvas?utm_source=observer&utm_medium=internal_links&utm_campaign=slid
er).
Kelly, Jon and Jude Sheerin. 2010. “The Strange Virtual World of 4chan.” BBC News.
August 03. Retrieved April 6, 2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine10520487).
Know Your Meme. 2007. “Internet Meme Database-Know Your Meme.” Retrieved April
3, 2011 (http://knowyourmeme.com/).
-------. 2007. “About Know Your Meme.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/about).
-------.2009. “LOLcats.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/lolcats).
-------. 2009. “Advice Dog.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/advice-dog).
-------. 2009. “Xzibit Yo Dawg.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg).
77
-------. 2010. “Philosraptor.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/philosoraptor).
-------. 2011. “Charlie Sheen Rant/Tigerblood.” Retrieved April 3, 2011
(http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/charlie-sheen-rant-tigerblood).
Koen, Billy V. 2011. “Dr. Billy V. Koen, Professor, Mechanical Engineering.”
University of Texas Austin. Retrieved April 5, 2011
(http://www.me.utexas.edu/~koen/).
Kuipers, Giselinde. 2002. “Media culture and Internet disaster jokes.” European Journal
of Cultural Studies 4(4): 450-470.
Lessig, Lawrence. 2008. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid
Economy. New York: Penguin Press.
Ludlow, Peter, ed. 1996. High Noon on the Electronic Frontier: Conceptual Issues in
Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lynley, Matthew. 2011. “Got Memes? Cheezburger Network Buys Rocketboom‟s Know
Your Meme.” New York Times. March 28. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://admin.ongo.com/v/642894/-1/8807263590036B2D/got-memescheezburger-network-buys-rocketbooms-know-your-meme).
Michaels, Sean. 2008, “Taking the Rick.” The Guardian. March 19. Retrieved April 8,
2011 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/mar/19/news).
Morreall, John. 2009. Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Nunes, Mark. 1995. “Baudrillard in Cyberspace: Internet, Virtuality, and Postmodernity.”
Style 29(1): 314-27.
O‟Rourke, Daniel J. and Pravin A. Rodrigues. 2004. “The Onion‟s Call for Healing.”
Society 42 (1): 19-27.
Paolucci, Paul and Margaret Richardson. 2006. “Sociology of Humor and a Critical
Dramaturgy.” Symbolic Interaction 29 (3): 331-48.
Pepper, Daile. 2010. “He‟s Snatching YouTube Hits Up.” WA Today. August 19.
Retrieved April 8, 2011 (http://www.watoday.com.au/entertainment/hessnatching-youtube-hits-up-20100819-12jcn.html).
Reinharz, Shulamit. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
78
Rose, Margaret. 1993. Parody: Ancient, Modern, and Post-Modern. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rutkoff, Aaron. 2005. “Sean Connery Delivers a Line that Eventually Sparks and Internet
Fad.” The Wall Street Journal. November 7. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(content.ytmnd.com/assets/pdf/ytmnd_article_wsj.pdf).
Saussure, Ferdinand D. 1959. Course in General Linguistics, ed. Charles Bally and
Albert Sechehaye, trans. Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw Hill.
Scwartz, Mattathias. 2008. “The Trolls Among Us.” New York Times. August 03.
Retrieved April 2, 2011 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trollst.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1).
Shifman, Limor. 2007. “Humor in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Continuity and
Change in Internet-Based Comic Texts.” International Journal of Communication
1: 187-209.
Shirky, Clay. 2006. “Tiny Slice, Big Market.” Wired Magazine. November. Retrieved
April 7, 2011
(http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/meganiche.html?pg=1&topic=megan
iche&topic_set=).
Smith, David. 2008. “The 20-year-old at Heart of Web‟s most Anarchic and Influential
Site.” The Guardian. July 20. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/20/internet.google).
Speak Lolspeak. 2008. “The Definitive Lolcats Glossary- Speak Lol Speak.” Retrieved
April 3, 2011 (http://speaklolspeak.com/).
Speier, Hans. 1998. “Wit and Politics: An Essay on Laughter and Power.” American
Journal of Sociology 103 (5): 1352-1401.
Stryker, Cole. 2010. “4chan Tries to Send Justin Bieber to North Korea.” Urlesque. June
30. Retrieved April 8, 2011 (http://www.urlesque.com/2010/06/30/send-justinbieber-north-korea/).
Terranova, Tiziana. 2004. Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. Ann Arbor,
MI: Pluto Books.
The Onion. 2011. “Time Between Thing Being Amusing, Extremely Irritating Down to 4
Minutes.” March 24. Retrieved April 9, 2011
(http://www.theonion.com/articles/time-between-thing-being-amusing-extremelyirritat,19791/).
79
Tyrangiel, Josh. 2009. “Auto-Tune: Why Pop Music Sounds Perfect.” Time Magazine.
February 05. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1877372-3,00.html).
Tyron, Chuck. 2008. “Pop Politics: Online Parody Videos, Intertexuality, and Political
Participation.” Popular Communication 6 (4): 209-13.
Weare, Christopher and Wan-Ying Lin. 2000. “Content analysis of the World Wide Web
- opportunities and challenges.” Social Science Computer Review 18(3): 272-292.
Westhoff, Ben. 2008. “An Evening with the Brain Trust Behind „Auto-Tune the News.‟”
The Village Voice. July 1. Retrieved April 9, 2011
(http://www.villagevoice.com/2009-07-01/music/an-evening-with-the-brain-trustbehind-auto-tune-the-news/).
Wortham, Jenna. 2010. “Once Just a Site with Funny Cat Pictures, and Now a Web
Empire.” New York Times. June 13. Retrieved April 8, 2011
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/technology/internet/14burger.html).
Youtube.com. 2011. “YouTube-Home.” Youtube.com. Retrieved April 2, 2011
(http://www.youtube.com/).
-------. 2008. “Bill O‟Reilly Flips Out.” Retrieved April 2, 2011
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY).
-------. 2008. “Bill O‟Reilly Flips Out-DANCE REMIX.” Retrieved April 2, 2011
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2YDq6FkVE).
-------. 2011. “Antoine Dodson Warns a PERP on LIVE TV!” Retrieved April 2, 2011
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzNhaLUT520).
-------. 2011. “BED INTRUDER SONG!!!” Retrieved April 2, 2011
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw).
YTMND Inc./Goldberg, Max. 2004. “Ytmnd-You‟re the man now dog!” Retrieved April
5, 2011 (http://ytmnd.com/).
------. 2004. “Picard Song.” Retrieved April 5, 2011 (http://picard.ytmnd.com/). Clip
features Patrick Stewart saying Captain Jean Luc Picard over dance music.
------. 2001. “You‟re the man now, dog.” Retrieved April 5, 2011
(http://yourethemannowdog.ytmnd.com/). The original ytmnd, features clip of
Sean Connery from Finding Forrester.
80
------. 2006. “YTDNM.” Retrieved April 5, 2011. (http://yourthedog.ytmnd.com/). Clip
inverts the above by replacing Connery‟s head with a dog and replacing the word
“dog” with “man” and vice versa.
------. 2007. “Breakup Letter, Dramatic Reading.” Retrieved April 5, 2011
(http://youmakemetouchyourhandsforstupidreasons.ytmnd.com/). Clip features a
humorous reading of a poorly written breakup letter.
------. 2006. “KOENTMND.” Retrieved April 5, 2011 (http://koentmnd.ytmnd.com/).
Clip features Dr. Billy V. Koen asking viewers if they can do mechanical
engineering tasks.
------. 2006. “LOUDTMND.” Retrieved April 5, 2011 (http://loudtmnd.ytmnd.com/).
Clip is an extremely loud, abrasive version of the original Sean Connery ytmnd.
------. 2011. “About ytmnd.” Retrieved April 5, 2011
(http://www.ytmnd.com/info/about). An overview of the site.
81
Appendices
Appendix A, Advice Dog spin-offs
Socially Awkward Penguin:
Courage Wolf:
82
Hipster Kitty:
83
Appendix B: Charlie Sheen Spin-Offs
Charlie Sheen Advice Dog:
84
Charlie Sheen Lolcat:
85