granted, but the source material says "with text," not "with text and image," even though it's technically the latter, so I pattern-matched as best I could.

[–] 7heo@lemmy.ml 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

In that case, your second and subsequent points should have no text, since the source material has no text for them. And the last point can't arguably have text at all either way. 😉

More seriously, the source material has both texts and images, and it was your choice to only represent half of that. You could have easily written:

meme explanation

Note: Descriptive information is in italics.

text	image
understanding a meme with text	Small brain
understanding a meme without text	Normal brain
understanding a meme without text	Nor image
understanding a meme without meme	❌

Or:

This meme is taking the classical "expanding brain" meme, and removing increasingly more content with each panel, implicitly prompting the reader to interpolate more information at each step, to practically illustrate the concept of the meme itself. The last panel has nothing at all.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Your two column approach, while more descriptive, somehow seems to lack explanatory power to me. I don't think it would clear up confusion in most cases (but that's just my intuition). I wrote the text that's implied, which your explanation doesn't have.

I suppose I didn't explain what the implied image is, but the meme format is well known at this point -- basically anyone can infer the missing images, which are generally the same from meme to meme, but the missing text is the hard part to infer.

Anyway, cheers. I think my pedantry ends here.