Well put. One of the more ridiculous such cases of misunderstanding of online communities' lingo is some sort of an "investigator" who said that "bump" on 4chan refers to cocaine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YIpi8GVbc8
Hopefully they will find something that more clearly identifies the guy's motifs (if there were any coherent motifs at all), or he just explains it himself...
you could just look it up for yourself
There's a comment here with links that say nothing about any of these supposedly co-opted memes/motifs. And besides, what's the point of an "informative" comic if it barely informs and I have to look up the stuff myself anyway?
There are groyper wars playlists on Spotify with the remix of bella ciao that they co-opted.
So they didn't co-opt Bella ciao, but a remix of it, ok. I've found two playlists but only one of them has the song. How that proves that it's a "theme song of the groyper wars" is unclear to me. Seems like an inconclusive connection.
That picture is no proof that OwO is hateful or that it's a whole meme in itself. It's shown as just one of the phrases used by furries and LGBT folk (and they are used indeed, though half-jokingly). The insult is based on representing furries as, you know, fat sweaty neckbeards, and the OwO is just there for contrast to make it more absurd, it's not itself an insult. (Also that pic was made before Trump's first term, it's not groypers' work.)
It all looks dangerously close to "the hacker known as 4chan" style reporting. Experts on right wing discord/4chan memes popping up left and right. Sorry, I'll need something more substantial to buy it, we're in the middle of a storm of online bullshit. Hopefully over the following days things might start to clear up...
The second two panels smell like bullshit. Particularly the claim that OwO is "hateful" and used to "harass furries", wtf is this nonsense?
Zero mention of Bella ciao, Helldivers or furries.
It's been moved to the archive but is linked on top of the talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=1310806574#Including_the_video / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_2#Including_the_video
Looks like they've decided against inclusion. It's also unlikely the video meets "fair use" standards so they'd have to delete it anyway...
They had a whole edit war about whether it should be included and locked the article.
Kirk's killer seems to have used some large calibre weapon which probably made it look so particularly brutal and bloody.
Yeah, you could keep usual moderators as the basis and ultimate arbiters, but it would be, at the very least, interesting to try your approach. E.g., anyone can check the mod queue and be randomly assigned to moderate a recently reported post, and to avoid abuse or mistakes it could require 2 or 3 people agreeing on how to resolve something.
This you?
Already locked due to an edit war over whether to include the recording in the infobox 🙄
Dürer's work on human proportions is called the Four Books on Human Proportion (Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion) of 1528. The first book was mainly composed by 1512/13 and completed by 1523, showing five differently constructed types of both male and female figures, all parts of the body expressed in fractions of the total height. Dürer based these constructions on both Vitruvius and empirical observations of "two to three hundred living persons", in his own words. The second book includes eight further types, broken down not into fractions but an Albertian system, which Dürer probably learned from Francesco di Giorgio's De harmonica mundi totius of 1525. In the third book, Dürer gives principles by which the proportions of the figures can be modified, including the mathematical simulation of convex and concave mirrors; here Dürer also deals with human physiognomy. The fourth book is devoted to the theory of movement.
Even 'labor' is a bit of a giveaway, IMO. Still funny tho