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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.