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.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It would be markedly different without one line. It would be negligibly different without the other.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No on both counts.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

My guy, ‘the generic line adds much less than the specific one’ is not some kind of contradiction.

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.

Unlike the other line, which would simply not make sense in most other contexts.

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'?

This is not worth the wall of text. It’s really not complicated.

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

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

'No no no and here's why.'

'I'm glad we agree.'

Fuck off already.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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. =)

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

Your wall of text.

Yeah, I thought about it some more, and that's what I realized you were talking about. My bad.

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

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.

And you can’t stop hassling me about it like it’s my fault.

Ok, my bad. I don't want you to feel hassled. Sorry it came off that way.