this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
806 points (100.0% liked)
196
16509 readers
2480 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A meme is greater than the sum of its parts. If we don't like the delivery mechanism the meme provides then I don't see why we would pick and choose parts of the meme. If we remove the hypothetical big red circle, the meme is a different greater whole. Possibly a different flavor of the same meme, but possibly a different meme entirely.
For me personally, the meme seems to be evoking the image of a family Christmas dinner, whose awkward silence is broken by your Uncle. It's an interesting delivery mechanism for the image of Hannity with the caption. As I already said, I'm not sure all of this scene building really does anything to add to an already absurd image. If anything I was inclined to believe that it was purely a parody, instead of a thing he actually said, until I read a comment that explained they googled it and he did actually say it.
I wouldn't say removing the big red circle breaks the image, but I would say that if you're going to the trouble of removing the big red circle why not grab the even larger clown hair why you're at it. edit: typos
edit: Looks like it was a fake according to Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N2PC1WI/
Almost never.
Which is why the high-minded gestalt theory faff about this JPEG is really missing the point.
Then what would removing one part of the meme accomplish? Better to just post the image, saves time and doesn't bring any unnecessary imagery along with it. What is the remaining part of the meme getting us if we leave your Uncle in?
No, I think it gets exactly at the point. The real question is does the meme as a whole succeed as a delivery mechanism for content, since the "nobody" part does have meaning.
'Why'd you stick an ugly spoiler on your car?'
'Well otherwise it's just be the wheels.'
It really doesn't.
It adds almost nothing.
That's how useless it is, basically all of the time.
It's a frustratingly overused bit of fluff, as distinct from the highly specific context that always comes after it.
This is the same shit the internet went through when all image macros apparently had to be demotivational posters, or advice animals, or rage comics. Like we couldn't imagine a punchline without repeating the same setup. Some people just thought that's what images are. It comes in a rectangle, it appears on your screen, and it begins with "le me."
It does the same kind of scene building as your Uncle.
How does this reasoning not apply to the your Uncle portion of the meme? That wasn't a rhetorical question by the way.
Shitposts are meme plus content. Without content, the shitpost is a meme template. Without a meme, the content isn't necessarily as funny as it could have been. In this case the content is already a screenshot with a fake quote. It didn't need the extra dressing before it that the meme provided. The best shitposts blend content and meme together, so they can't really be separated. The image already does this so posting the image by itself would have stood on its own two legs in this case. I think I would have still come to the same conclusion, that it was fake, barring misleading comments of course.
I think we largely agree on this. But were we seem to differ is where to cut the line so to speak. I think your argument is suggesting the nobody portion, because its ineffectiveness at delivering content, I want to remove the entire meme because of its ineffectiveness at delivering content and only post the content. edit: typo
Incorrect. Because:
One is specific and the other is so goddamn generic you could add it to anything. And people have.
How specific or generic something is has no bearing on whether something has meaning. All being generic gets you is that it can have different meaning based on the context. A meme template can be incredibly generic and thus be used everywhere because of how any content will work with it. The specific and generic parts of this meme are the one two punch of its delivery.
The format:
x:
y: content
Or more generally:
x:, y:, ..., n-1:, n: content
Is fun, but doesn't deliver content better than:
content
Because any content that was worth delivering already was fun enough to share on its own. Again, why stop at removing the first part of a setup we don't need, when we don't need the setup at all. Stop with the drum rolls, and 'needs no introductions' statements, when the content can be put directly on display. edit: typo
One of these lines adds context and the other does not.
It is that simple.
They both add context when put together. The meme would be different without either line. If we take away the first line, your Uncle is alone, talking to himself.
Both of these lines are superfluous. The meme's format is to move from a generic statement to a specific one. How each line builds the scene is different, but they are both building the same scene.
The more important question is what does all of this context get us? As we both seem to agree, not a lot.
It would be markedly different without one line. It would be negligibly different without the other.
The difference is notable removing either line. But removing them all is just as negligible as removing one in terms of impact to the delivery of the meme.
No on both counts.
This is a weird thing to be in denial about.
It's a different meme if either line is removed. This is self evident by covering either line on the screen by hand. The parts of the meme each have meaning, but that meaning isn't consequential to the delivery of the content. It's all fluff that can be removed.
What do we lose by removing the line about your Uncle that helps with the delivery of the content?
Neither of these three options improve on the existing content:
Nobody: Your Uncle: content
Nobody: content
Your Uncle: content
They all functionally work and could act as mechanisms for delivering content. Your Uncle is certainly the more specific out of the two lines. But it doesn't do anything better than this option:
content
If something is fun, by all means leave it in. I'm sure that's what people would say 'nobody:' does for them. But it's not for a lack of meaning that the statement is superfluous. It's the lack of effectiveness in assisting the delivery of content that all of these lines share. Pick and choose which ones are fun if that matters, but if we only care about utility then removing all forms of fluff should be the goal.
My guy, 'the generic line adds much less than the specific one' is not some kind of contradiction.
And that generic line gets slapped on anything, as if it's just... how images do. It's objectionable specifically because it's essentially useless.Unlike the other line, which would simply not make sense in most other contexts.
This is not worth the wall of text. It's really not complicated.
How much it's adding is really a subjective judgment and not relevant to the discussion. The fact is both lines add something in terms of context. However this context has no value for the purpose of delivering content.
Right, the line is more specific. Why is it worth appending a specific line of text before content? Isn't that also just a case of 'how images do'?
Right so let's remove all of the text before the content. I'm glad we agree. This is not some gacha argument. I am legitimately saying we do not need this meme as a delivery mechanism for content. Just the image on its own is sufficient. edit: typo
'No no no and here's why.'
'I'm glad we agree.'
Fuck off already.
I don't get it. Your argument says we don't need a wall of text. What else could that mean? It does seem like we agree.
As far as the 'nobody:' line, generic doesn't mean it has no meaning. It means it can have different meaning based on the context.
More broadly, if you like the meme, because it's fun, put it in front of content. If you don't, remove it. Or pick and choose what you want. Subjective fun seems like a reasonable argument on why to keep parts of a meme.
I don't see why a selectively applied utilitarian argument would be compelling. Seems like we would want to remove all fluff.
Have a good one. =)
Your wall of text. Your long-ass litigation of two sentence fragments, one of which is as functional as a watermark. Its meaning is negligible. Not zero - but close.
And for all your dogged insistence on understanding, you struggle to grasp why someone would want specific details without generic fluff, unless they wanted absolutely nothing added. Like you can't conceive of a value between all and none.
And you can't stop hassling me about it like it's my fault.
Yeah, I thought about it some more, and that's what I realized you were talking about. My bad.
No I cannot. Which is why I asked multiple times. If there is such as reason, please share it with me. What is so great about specific details? As far as I can tell, it seems like a personal preference.
Ok, my bad. I don't want you to feel hassled. Sorry it came off that way.