It seems like something from a science fiction novel, a parasite infecting and effectively controlling the mind and behaviors of others. The video illustrates the ant’s absolute loss of control over its body, even sacrificing itself in order to serve a foreign purpose that was implanted into its mind (to ensure the reproduction of more of the lancet flukes). The concept of mind controlling can definitely cause people to feel uneasy but some might dismiss this case since it occurs in species other than humans, however, a disguised perpetrator exists within our society where it is actually welcomed…
Before actually reading through my paper, it might be best to view a TED talk by Daniel Dennett and his discussion on memes (as my quotes through the paper dealing with memes comes from this talk):
Comments
Ingroup/Outgroup
ib4walrus--
You do a nice job here of answering your title question: the "point" of hatred arises from the fact that the creation of any ingroup creates thereby an outgroup; that what can be seen as defense on the inside looks like stigma from the outside; that memes can be understood as preserving one group @ the cost of hurting another. As you say, "these 'toxic' and 'dangerous' memes were not meant to be harmful in nature, but just as a means to protect and defend a community’s sacred, traditional memes from outside influences."
You might find it of help to read some of the essays written by your classmates on this topic: Hope's Another Picture of Memes re-defines them much more specifically, and biologically, than you do, as "actual patterns of neurological wirings, which specifically code for conscious thoughts"--I think that makes the concept more manageable ("pacifism," for example, seems to me WAY too complicated to be a meme!). And AnnaP's Using Memes for Social Change offers a counter to the stories of hatred you re-count--though you'll see that I had as much trouble w/ her lingo as I'm having w/ yours. For example: what distinguishes a "toxic" meme from one that is "benign"? Is it that the first one doesn't expresses your values, while the second one does? I'd say that if a meme can't be "selfish," it probably also can't be "virtuous"; that the "toxicity" or "virtue" is in the human crafters, rather than in the contagious information patterns we craft. (Along these lines, you might also want to check out the on-going blog on Seeing Stigma, which is being kept by a student doing independent work w/ me this semester in disability studies).
I appreciate your incorporating videos in your project this time, though I was not able to activate the game (want to check that out again?). I would also have appreciated a little more setting up and getting out of the "quotes" that are these videos--more guidance, in other words, into their function in your project. They need further explanation.
What also interests is the distinction you make in closing between "one part of me" (that understands the use of extreme measures to protect what is sacred), and "another part of me" (that can't defend such actions). What are these two parts of your self? Is one conscious, one unconscious? Is one more meme-resistant than the other? Or are both meme-infested?