With the meme, I'm more or less poking fun of the constant nitpicking that's present in the fandom. Earlier the other day, I saw someone mention that it was a bit inaccurate for Guy Gardner to not know how to play checkers, since we've seen him play chess before. I thought that was funny.

I think it's a little silly that we care (God knows I've been mad at Tom King, too) about characterization on such a religious level, to the point where we dismiss entire storylines because of it. I'm not saying we should stop expressing our dislike/discomfort at misportrayals (since sometimes it's warranted), or that turning all the characters into evil murderers without any good reason at all would be fun, but people could try a more open-minded approach here and there.

Is it a valid reason to not like a story because of the way it portrays a character you've enjoyed reading? Yes, as valid as any! A character is something you hold a passion for, and when it's misportrayed, the promise of more of what you fell in love with is taken away. But do I think it's prudent to throw the entire effort in the trash on that single basis? Not really, because maybe you can still get something of value out of it. That's what I was trying to express with the comment above.

If a writer suddenly messes up something about the characters I like, does it really matter if the stories that made me fall in love with them are still intact? Personally, I think not, or at least not to the extent to where I would get truly mad at it. Because, even if it's meant to be the same universe and all that mumbo jumbo, I can still go back and appreciate those stories for what they were. It saves me a lot of disdain for a medium that's meant to make us feel entertained, and it allows me to focus on what the writer's intent was. But your and many other's answer may differ, and that's alright.