LOL at Democracy? How Memes Normalize Authoritarianism

The Dangers of Trivializing Fascism: How Memes Shape Our Politics

In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the often overlooked impact of political memes on our digital and real-world environments. While memes may seem harmless or even humorous on the surface, they can trivialize serious issues such as authoritarianism and fascism, thereby dulling societal urgency and fracturing crucial coalitions. Leslie digs into the psychology and neuroscience behind these digital behaviors, discussing how repeated exposure to meme content can desensitize us to real threats, influence political engagement, and even rewire our brain's reward systems. The episode emphasizes the significance of understanding algorithmic literacy and the need for more intentional and strategic use of digital platforms for effective resistance. Instead of resorting to memes that mock and ridicule, Leslie encourages the use of online tools to inform, organize, and galvanize people toward meaningful action. The episode concludes with practical tips on how to use social media more responsibly and effectively in the fight against fascism.

00:00 Introduction to the Power of Memes in Politics
00:53 The Hidden Dangers of Political Memes
02:05 Psychological and Neurological Impact of Memes
04:54 The Role of Social Media Algorithms
07:30 Political Branding and Online Behavior
12:35 Effective Digital Activism Strategies
19:37 Conclusion: Intentional Digital Resistance

Episode topic inspired by Imani Barbarin in these two videos: Video 1, Video 2
For more of Imani's communications insights, follow her on TikTok or Twitter, sign up for her Patreon, or view her website.

Research

Bail, C. A. (2021). Breaking the social media prism: How to make our platforms less polarizing. Princeton University Press.

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313-7318.

Chadwick, A. (2017). The hybrid media system: Politics and power (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Freelon, D., McIlwain, C. D., & Clark, M. D. (2018). Beyond the hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. Center for Media & Social Impact.
Hagen, S. & de Zeeuw, D. (2023) Based and confused: Tracing the political connotations of a memetic phrase across the web. Big Data & Society, 10(1).
Hagen, S., & Venturini, T. (2024). Memecry: tracing the repetition-with-variation of formulas on 4chan/pol. Information, Communication & Society, 27(3), 466-497.

Haidt, J., & Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019). The dark psychology of social networks. The Atlantic, 324(5), 56-65.

Heiss, R., Schmuck, D., & Matthes, J. (2019). What drives interaction in political actors' Facebook posts? Profile and content predictors of user engagement and political actors' reactions. Information, Communication & Society, 22(10), 1497-1513.
Kiela, D., Firooz, H., Mohan, A., Goswami, V., Singh, A., Ringshia, P., & Testuggine, D. (2020). The hateful memes challenge: Detecting hate speech in multimodal memes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 2611-2624.

Kligler-Vilenchik, N., & Thorson, K. (2016). Good citizenship as a frame contest: Kony2012, memes, and critiques of the networked citizen. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1993-2011.
Martinez Pandiani, D., Sang, E. T. K., & Ceolin, D. (2024). Toxic Memes: A Survey of Computational Perspectives on the Detection and Explanation of Meme Toxicities. arXiv e-prints, arXiv-2406.

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2020). 'El Negro de WhatsApp' meme, digital blackface, and racism on social media. First Monday, 25(12).

Phillips, W., & Milner, R. M. (2020). You are here: A field guide for navigating polarized speech, conspiracy theories, and our polluted media landscape. MIT Press.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390-395.

Reed, L., & Boyd, D. (2016). Who controls the public sphere in an era of algorithms? Questions and assumptions. Data & Society.
Sharma, S., Alam, F., Akhtar, M. S., Dimitrov, D., Da San Martino, G., Firooz, H., ... & Chakraborty, T. (2022). Detecting a

Episode Transcript

Leslie Poston (00:12):
Welcome to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. Today, we'retalking about something that
seems harmless on the surface,memes in reaction to politics
and political figures. Butunderneath that snarky image or
clever retort is something thatcan sometimes become far more

dangerous (00:30):
the trivialization of authoritarianism. Today, Alan
Pakwe miming fascism, even whenit meant to mock it, can
actually reinforce it, dull oursense of urgency, and fracture
coalitions needed for realdemocratic resistance.
Stick around. This week mightchange some of your social media

(00:51):
habits. Let me paint a picturefor you. You're scrolling
through your feed, and there itis, another meme comparing a
modern political figure to ahistorical tyrant or turning a
dangerous policy into arelatable SpongeBob image. You
might chuckle, hit share, andmove on.
But what if I told you that thisseemingly innocuous act is part

(01:13):
of a complex psychological andneurological dance that might be
undermining the very democraticvalues you're trying to defend?
I'm going to dig into thescience behind these digital
behaviors. We'll explore howthey shape our collective
understanding of threats,influence our political
engagement, and even rewire ourbrains' reward systems. This

(01:35):
isn't just about social mediaetiquette. It's about how we
navigate the thin line betweenresistance and inadvertent
compliance in our increasinglydigital political landscape.
Just to avoid any contextcollapse or, as TikTok calls it,
bean soup, before I continue,let me say that this is not
about morale boosting signs atreal life protests or anything

(01:58):
like that. This week is strictlyfocused on the online world.
First, let's explore whathappens when we reduce serious
threats to meme content. Memescompress complex issues into
bite sized, emotionally loadedcontent. When it comes to
authoritarianism or fascistpolicies, that compression often

(02:21):
removes nuance and, with it, thegravity.
Research in cognitive loadtheory explains why this
happens. Our brains naturallyseek simplified versions of
complex information to reducemental effort. A meme mocking a
fascist politician caninadvertently make them seem
like a clown rather than athreat, reinforcing a sense of

(02:43):
cultural dominance orinevitability instead of
resistance. Repetition mattershere, and the science is
fascinating. In psychology, theillusory truth effect tells us
that the more we see a statementor a visual, the more likely we
are to believe it or at least tobecome desensitized to it.
This isn't just aboutconsciously believing what we

(03:05):
see, it's about how our brainscreate cognitive shortcuts.
Neuroimaging studies have shownthat repeated exposure to
information reduces the brain'seffort in processing it, leading
to the mere exposure effect orincreased acceptance, even when
the information is negative orwe're trying to mock it. There's

(03:25):
also the phenomenon ofnormalization through satire.
Research in moral psychologydemonstrates that when we joke
about something repeatedly, wedecrease its perceived threat
level. Shows like The Daily Showor SNL have walked this
tightrope for decades and do itpretty well.
But in the Wild West of socialmedia, there's no editorial

(03:47):
oversight to help maintain thatbalance. The psychological
process called habituation kicksin. Our emotional response to a
stimulus decreases with repeatedexposure. What starts as outrage
becomes bemusement and thenindifference. This kind of humor
can lead to what we calldiscursive defanging.

(04:07):
It pulls the teeth out of whatshould be a call to action.
Linguistic framing theory tellsus that how we frame issues
dramatically affects how peoplerespond to them. Instead of this
is horrifying and must bestopped, it becomes, l o l,
could you believe this guy? Thattonal shift can fundamentally
alter public will, especiallyamong those with lower levels of

(04:29):
political engagement orknowledge. Some might argue this
approach makes politics moreaccessible or helps people cope
with our difficult reality.
And, sure, there's some truth tothat. Humor can be a powerful
coping mechanism. But whencoping replaces confronting or
when laughter becomes asubstitute for action, we're

(04:50):
crossing into dangerousterritory. Let's talk a little
brain science. When you postsomething snarky online, your
brain rewards you with a littlebit of dopamine, the I did
something chemical.
That post can trick you intofeeling like you've contributed
to a cause, but in reality,you've just scratched a

(05:11):
cognitive itch, not moved theneedle politically. The
neurochemistry gets even moreinteresting when we look at the
whole picture. Your brain'sreward system doesn't just
release dopamine, it alsoactivates neural pathways
associated with social bondingand self expression. FMRI
studies have shown that postinggotcha content or zingers on

(05:33):
social media activates the samereward centers as eating
chocolate or receiving money.The brain literally experiences
a chemical cascade, dopamine forthe initial post, serotonin from
social validation, and oxytocinfrom feeling connected to like
minded individuals.
This is part of a broaderchallenge in what some media

(05:56):
psychologists call effectiveactivism, where people satisfy
their moral outrage throughperformance and not
participation. This concept ofslacktivism isn't just a clever
portmanteau, It's a documentedpsychological phenomenon.
Research in social psychologyhas identified several key
factors. The illusion ofcontribution, the substitution

(06:19):
effect, which is where digitalaction replaces physical action,
and what's called moralcredentialing, the tendency to
feel we've earned the right todisengage after performing a
symbolic action. Neuraladaptation comes into play here
as well.
Just like drugs or food, ourbrains can become tolerant to
the dopamine hits from socialmedia engagement, requiring

(06:41):
increasingly sensational orcontroversial content to achieve
the same emotional response.This escalation can push
political discourse towardsextremes while simultaneously
decreasing actual politicalparticipation. The cognitive
cost here is not just wastedenergy. It's distraction from
real world organizing, boating,mutual aid, or pressure

(07:04):
campaigns. It's a closing of thepolitical imagination.
Cognitive resource theory tellsus we have limited mental
bandwidth for any given day. Sowhen we spend that bandwidth on
crafting the perfect clapbackinstead of understanding policy
nuance or organizing orparticipating in community
action, we're making a specificallocation choice that has real

(07:27):
world consequences. Whether welike it or not, online behavior
becomes part of the public'simpression of the ideologies we
affiliate with. When Democratsbully hesitant voters, earning
the nickname Blue MAGA or postsmug Fillory's emails, though,
comments, or just endlessly tonebullies online, it fuels a bland

(07:50):
perception problem for theDemocrats, and this isn't to
single out the Democrats. Thesame thing happens to
perceptions of conservativesafter the negative online
behavior of many of their moreextreme constituents.
The field of political brandinghas evolved significantly, and
research shows that individualonline behavior directly impacts
party participation and partyperception. Studies in political

(08:14):
communication have found thatnegative brand associations
spread faster than positive onesand that sarcasm or
condescension from partysupporters can decrease
independent voter engagement byup to 30% in some cases.
Politics is perception, andDemocrats already struggle with
the image of being joyless, selfrighteous, or obsessed with

(08:36):
scolding rather than solutions.These memes and snide comments
often reinforce that, especiallyto undecided or apolitical
observers watching from thesidelines. Social identity
theory explains why.
People use cues from groupmembers to determine whether
they want to belong to thatgroup. If those cues signal

(08:56):
exclusivity or condescension,potential allies are driven
away. This matters becausepolitical affiliation today
functions as a kind of consumeridentity. Last year, Imani
Barbarin, a communicationsprofessional, said it best when
she said the regular peopleposting about their political
party or cause are the face ofthat cause or party online. They

(09:18):
are the campaign, and theirbehavior has impact.
People are buying into amovement or ideology, and
branding matters. Marketresearch techniques applied to
political movements show thatemotional resonance and
perceived inclusivity are majorfactors of attracting new
supporters. If your onlinepresence feels like nagging,

(09:39):
gatekeeping, or smugness, you'renot growing your movement.
You're marketing exclusion. Thisis especially true when the left
uses memes to punch sideways atmoderates or undecideds or even
fellow Democrats instead ofpunching upwards at systems of
power.
It creates intergroup animosityand fractures coalitions,

(10:00):
especially in high stakeselection years. Coalition
building research demonstratesthat internal conflict weakens
external effectiveness. Everytime we mock potential allies
instead of educating them orhelping them, we're literally
making fascism's job easier bydividing opposition forces.
Let's shift gears. There'sanother side to this coin, the

(10:25):
fear of discomfort.
People like your newlypolitically active but socially
cautious friend often experiencethe intensity of political memes
and discourse as deeplythreatening, even when they
agree with the message. Thisfear is not neutral.
Psychological research onemotional regulation shows that
when people ask others to benicer, to be more civil, or to

(10:48):
keep the tone down, they'reoften engaging in what's called
emotional labor outsourcing,trying to regulate their own
anxiety by controlling others'expressions. But that anxiety
then gets marketed as moralauthority, and that has a
chilling effect on activism.That's why Doctor.
Martin Luther King Jr. Criticismof the white moderate still

(11:09):
resonates. Research in socialmovement theory confirms his
observation. The person whovalues decorum over justice
likely doesn't intend harm, butthe result is the same delay,
dilution, and deescalization ofurgency. Studies of successful
movements consistently show thatpeople prioritizing civility

(11:30):
over effectiveness tend tomaintain the status quo rather
than create change.
Even the language of got makingme uncomfortable is a form of
marketing. It tells the groupwhat's acceptable and what
isn't. It shifts the Overtonwindow of political speech away
from truth and urgency and backtoward palatable silence.

(11:50):
Discourse analysis reveals howthese seemingly innocent
requests for civility actuallyfunction as power maintenance
tools, preserving existinghierarchies under the guise of
propriety. I did an episodecalled The Politeness Protocol
that you can go back and listento where you can learn more
about how that workspsychologically.
The psychology of comfort zonesplays an important role here.

(12:14):
When people feel their worldviewthreatened, they experience what
researchers call systemjustification, a psychological
tendency to defend the existingorder, even when it works
against their interests. Sowe've established every post is
an ad. Every comment is acampaign. Most people don't

(12:35):
realize this, but social mediafunctions as a marketing
platform for ideas, and you arethe unpaid brand manager of your
beliefs.
The field of memetic theory,which studies how ideas spread
like genes, offers necessaryinsight here. Your online
behavior doesn't just reflectyour politics. It actively
constructs them in the publicsphere. Marketing psychology

(12:58):
demonstrates that repetition,emotional resonance, and visual
impact determine messageretention, precisely what memes
excel at delivering. Thatdoesn't mean you can't be
authentic.
It means authenticity isstrategic. The way you engage
with ideas, with tone, memes,jokes, arguments shapes how

(13:19):
others understand those ideas.It tells the algorithm and the
audience what your values are.Computational linguistics
research shows that languagepatterns and emotional tone have
measurable effects on audiencereception and behavioral change.
That's why memes matter so much.
A political meme isn't just alaugh. It's a framing tool. It

(13:41):
determines what's in focus andwhat's marginalized, what's
ridiculous and what's righteous,and framing determines public
will. Agenda setting theory inmedia studies confirms that how
issues are presented directlyinfluences public priority
setting and policy support. Soif we want to resist fascism,

(14:02):
really resist, we must becomemore intentional.
We need to know when we'repunching up and when we're
punching sideways. We need torecognize when we're performing
and when we're persuading, andwe need to treat memes not as
throwaway jokes but as microstrategies in a long, hard
fight. The concept of digitalcapital becomes relevant here.

(14:23):
Just as financial capitaldetermines economic power,
digital capital, your onlineinfluence, network and messaging
skill, determines your politicalimpact. For every meme you share
is an investment decision inthis economy of attention and
influence.
One reason memeing fascism is soeffective and so dangerous is

(14:46):
that social platforms reward it.Algorithms are built to maximize
engagement, not truth. The moreemotionally charged or
polarizing a meme is, the morelikely it is to go viral,
regardless of whether itchallenges or reinforces fascist
ideas. Machine learning researchreveals the mechanics of this
amplification. Social mediaalgorithm use engagement signals

(15:09):
like comments, shares, orreaction time to determine
content visibility.
Controversial or emotionallyprovocative content consistently
outperforms nuanced discussionusing these metrics. This
creates what computer scientistsare calling a feedback loop of
extremification. Memes that mockfascists often use their

(15:30):
likeness, slogans, orcatchphrases often ironically,
but algorithms don't understandirony. They interpret engagement
as popularity, which increasesvisibility. This means even your
mocking repost of a fascistimage can help boost its
cultural salience.
Network science shows how thisplays out at scale. Content that

(15:53):
triggers strong emotionalresponses creates what we call
activation cascades rapidwidespread sharing that can
reach millions within hours.These cascades don't
discriminate between supportiveand critical engagement. They
simply amplify whatevergenerates a reaction. This gets
into a tactic long used byfascist and far right movements,

(16:15):
co opting visibility.
They rely on any mention, evenmockery, to build brand
awareness. Meme culture handsthem that attention wrapped in
humor, and it's free PR.Historical analysis of
propaganda techniques shows thatfascist movements have always
understood the power of ubiquityover accuracy. Today's

(16:35):
algorithms supercharge thisstrategy. The concept of
algorithmic literacy is crucialhere.
Understanding how platformsprioritize content isn't just
technical knowledge. It's a formof political awareness that's
necessary for effective digitalcitizenship in the twenty first
century. It's easy to sit hereand say, don't mean fascism, but

(17:00):
what should you do instead? Theanswer isn't silence. It's
strategy.
Political memes can be powerfulwhen they inform, organize, or
galvanize people toward actionrather than just provoke a
chuckle or vent frustration.Research in digital activism
shows that successful onlinecampaigns share several

characteristics (17:20):
They provide clear action steps They create
emotional resonance withoutmanipulation And they build
toward tangible, offline impact.Think about memes that offer

instructions (17:34):
how to register to vote, how to find mutual aid, or
how to spot disinformation, ormemes that celebrate real wins
and progress, keeping peopleengaged in the long game. These
frame participation as bothurgent and possible. We've seen
a recent excellent example ofthis with the Hands Off protest

(17:55):
on April 5 and 04/19/2025.
Behavioral science offersinsights into effective
mobilization. The theory ofplanned behavior suggests that
people are more likely to actwhen they perceive the action as
achievable, socially supported,and personally relevant. Memes

(18:16):
that incorporate these elementsshowing how individual action
connects to collective impact,prove far more effective than
those that simply mock orcriticize. We can also shift
tone. Instead of shame orsmugness, aim for connection and
clarity.
That doesn't mean softening thetruth. It means communicating

(18:36):
the truth in ways that leavepeople empowered, not alienated.
Communication researchdemonstrates that messages
framed around shared values andcollective benefit generate more
engagement and action than thosebased on shame or fear. Finally,
treat your digital space like ashared organizing space, not

(18:57):
just a diary or a dunk contest.Ask yourself, is this post
building solidarity?
Is it helping someone understandsomething new? Is it moving us
closer to action? If it's not,maybe it's time to log off and
go do something that does orfind a way to do some mutual
aid. The future of digitalresistance is in understanding

(19:18):
these dynamics and using themintentionally. We need tactical
media, strategic use ofcommunication tools to achieve
specific political goals.
This means treating everydigital interaction as an
opportunity for movementbuilding rather than just self
expression. Thanks for listeningto PsyberSpace. This is your

(19:41):
host, Leslie Poston, signingoff. Today, we explored the
danger of trivializing fascismthrough memes and social media
behavior. And remember, onlineactions don't just reflect our
politics, they shape them.
The science is clear. Ourdigital habits have real world
consequences. And as we navigatethis new abnormal, let's be more

(20:02):
intentional about how we engage,more strategic about what we
share, and more thoughtful aboutthe impact of our online
presence. And as always, untilnext time, stay curious. And
don't forget to subscribe soyou'd never miss an episode.