Why “Big Fat Fish” Memes Make Me Uncomfortable: The Boundaries of Collective Mockery

1. Framing the Problem

In online communities, group memes built around “cute” or “moe” aesthetics are often widely shared and remixed. At the same time, ironic and mocking forms of “abstract culture” have long existed. When the two collide, some participants feel clear discomfort and may even feel an urge to join a collective “encirclement” or attack. Using “Big Fat Fish”-type memes as an example, this article discusses two questions: where this discomfort comes from, and how it should be understood and managed.

2. Structural Features of Ironic Abstract Culture

Abstract culture usually depends on three elements:

1. Decontextualized symbols: An image or line is removed from its original context and given a new meaning.
2. A two-layer ironic structure: The surface meaning differs from the real intent, and participants need shared tacit knowledge to interpret it.
3. In-group identity: Those who “get it” form an in-group, while those who do not are treated as outsiders.

When irony becomes the primary mode of expression, the core function of this culture often shifts from “sharing emotion” to “drawing identity boundaries.” The target of mockery is usually a selected image, and its value lies in being laughed at. The more fixed the selected target becomes, the clearer the group boundary is, and the stronger the pressure felt by outsiders.

3. Design Logic of Cute Group Memes

The basic design logic of cute content is to lower psychological defenses and elicit favorable feelings. Such content usually features non-aggressive images, and its spread relies on emotional resonance and cuteness. When these images are collectively used as material for mockery, the emotional direction of the content conflicts with the audience’s emotional expectations. The audience expects gentle interaction but encounters an aggressive interpretation.

This mismatch is the first layer of discomfort. It is not about whether a person personally likes a particular image; it is a natural reaction after emotional expectations are broken.

4. Defining the “Will to Dominate”

This article uses the “will to dominate” to describe an internal drive: when an individual watches others being collectively mocked, they feel an urge to join, intensify, or lead the mockery. The concept contains three components:

• Emotional component: Aversion or agitation toward “cute” content turns into a desire to attack.
• Cognitive component: A belief that one can see through the essence of the meme, producing a sense of superiority.
• Behavioral component: A desire to participate in, rewrite, or suppress others’ expression.

It should be noted that the “will to dominate” is a personal descriptive term and does not yet have a widely accepted academic definition. The discussion below concerns its manifestations and mechanisms in online contexts, and does not equate it with a formal psychological term.

5. Mechanisms Behind the Discomfort

5.1 Social Comparison

When people observe others being mocked, they often engage in social comparison. When the target of mockery appears innocent or weak, observers are more likely to feel protective and to oppose those participating in the mockery. If observers have themselves long been in the position of being teased, they are usually more sensitive to this kind of content.

5.2 Positive Feedback in Spread

The spread of group memes has positive-feedback characteristics. Each share and adaptation reinforces the existing frame and gradually fixes the target of irony. When an image is positioned as a punchline over a long period, even if each individual joke is mild, the cumulative effect can exceed the intensity of any single piece of content. This means that judging whether a meme crosses a boundary cannot rely only on a single item; it must also consider its cumulative direction throughout the spread process.

6. Distinguishing Good-Natured Teasing from Collective Humiliation

Whether a meme crosses a boundary can be examined from four dimensions:

1. Target: Is the mockery aimed at behavior, opinions, or works, or at appearance, identity, or other characteristics that cannot be chosen?
2. Role: Is the person being teased participating? Is there room for self-mockery or consent?
3. Scale: Has it formed a sustained collective focus rather than an occasional small-scale joke?
4. Consequences: Has it caused real emotional harm or led to harassment in real life?

When the first two dimensions are satisfied, the content is closer to good-natured teasing. When the latter two appear, caution is warranted even if the creator’s intention is humor.

7. Practical Suggestions at the Individual Level

When encountering content that makes you uncomfortable, you can proceed as follows:

1. Identify the emotion: Acknowledge that the discomfort is real and does not need to be immediately converted into criticism or attack.
2. Delay the response: Wait for a period before commenting, leaving room for rational judgment.
3. Distinguish viewing from participating: You can choose not to share, not to comment, and not to join adaptations.
4. Reflect on the source: Consider whether the aversion is directed at the content itself or related to your own experiences.

These steps can be summarized as a simple self-check logic:

def should_reply(emotion_intensity: float, has_cooled_down: bool, targets_person: bool) -> bool:
    """
    Determine whether to respond immediately to content that makes you uncomfortable.
    emotion_intensity: current emotional intensity (0 to 1)
    has_cooled_down: whether a cooling-off period has passed
    targets_person: whether the content targets a specific person
    """
    if targets_person and emotion_intensity > 0.7 and not has_cooled_down:
        return False  # Pause first when emotion is strong and a person is targeted
    return True

This function only illustrates the judgment logic; the thresholds need to be adjusted according to individual circumstances.

8. Community-Level Considerations

Content creators can consider the feelings of the people being teased and avoid fixing a particular type of image as the only punchline. Community managers can establish clear rules that distinguish meme play from personal attacks and set up reminder mechanisms for sustained collective encirclement. These approaches are general ideas for content governance and do not depend on any specific platform feature.