“Building on this literature, I propose a definition of shitposting that embodies four distinct elements: a reliance on absurdity or “meaninglessness,” the critique or disruption of online discourses, the employment of an “internet ugly” aesthetic, and the use of meta-languaging”

Good lord, it took them forever to spit out a coherent definition!

Does this paper itself represent a form of academic shitposting? I mean, the subject is sound but the convoluted and discursive presentation is maddening.

But, yes, shitposting is worthy of significant further study and all grant applications in that area should be automatically approved.

Wut

There's a lot to disapprove of about the whole of popular thought, modern norms, science even. Shitposting can be an expression of that disapproval. And no, you can't just frame it as a rational argument. That would be like explaining 3D to a flatlander. All you can do is shit and howl.

Not saying all shitposts are an example of this, but give them the benefit of the doubt.

(Imagine homeless Neo, roaming the sidewalks of a city, yelling at pedestrians, "You're all trapped in The Matrix!")