this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2026
975 points (93.5% liked)

memes

23068 readers
1896 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think littering and contributing more plastic waste into the environment can definitely be considered part of a person's carbon footprint. More indirectly than burning gasoline, but it reduces recycling and requires more manufacturing and natural resources than if the plastic wasn't wasted/littered.

In any case, it's a pretty big stretch to label this content as "Anti-EU", at worst they used poor word choice to make their point.

If they had said "to protect the environment" instead of "to reduce my carbon footprint" it's the exact same comic. Tesla/capitalism is the butt of the joke here

[โ€“] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Considering littering part of someones carbon footprint is not entirely wrong but it is quite a stretch. The aim really is the littering, not the carbon footprint caused by the littering, at least that's what the legislator communicated as goal.

It is not so much that the comic is "anti-EU" indeed, it is that it uses an anti-EU narrative. The tethered caps have been parts of a number of clearly anti-EU memes, usually from the right, some of them from the tech-bros.

No it would not be exactly the same comic. There is a reason they used "carbon footprint". It strengthened the message of hypocrisy. I do not claim that Tesla/capitalism isn't the butt of the joke here. If they had written "to protect the environment" I probably would have no issue with the comic. Then the tethered caps would not be presented in a way that people who don't know about it would be mislead about the intention behind the tethered caps.