• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not sure all of this scene building really does anything to add to already absurd image.

    Almost never.

    Which is why the high-minded gestalt theory faff about this JPEG is really missing the point.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Almost never.

      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?

      Which is why the high-minded gestalt theory faff about this JPEG is really missing the point.

      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.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        ‘Why’d you stick an ugly spoiler on your car?’

        ‘Well otherwise it’s just be the wheels.’

        since the “nobody” part does have meaning.

        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.”

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It really doesn’t.

          It does the same kind of scene building as your Uncle.

          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.”

          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

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It does the same kind of scene building as your Uncle.

            Incorrect. Because:

            How does this reasoning not apply to the your Uncle portion of the meme?

            One is specific and the other is so goddamn generic you could add it to anything. And people have.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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

                • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.