1201
Cybertrukkk
(lemmy.world)
Weird. You'd have expected it to veer to the far-right
top 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
You mean "swasticar" FTFY
Cyberdreck
Well at least it has enough torque now to climb a median.
At speed, that was never out of the question
[deleted]
Why are you calling it a crash? The truck just has autism. Besides, here are a bunch of photos of other trucks crashing. photos of parked trucks
Everyone stop laughing. This guy has dissected the post and found it faulty.
It's a good thing we have him to police humor for us. Next time, please make sure all post have their stamp of approval before posting to save ourselves from this embarrassment.
Weirdly judgemental towards a person, because that person was judgemental towards a joke. Feels like you want to police someone, strange.
But it's not a crash. If it were a crash the driver would clearly say "oops, I certainly didn't mean to crash". That's clearly the truck showing love to the barrier. The driver said so.
Love to the Barrier is my next big track dropping on SoundCloud.
A joke doesn't need to work on all 4 levels. Upon seeing this, I immediately caught the joke was an inversion, not a 1:1 comparison.
That is my point. It doesn't work on all 4 levels. And I never said it has to. I am saying it doesn't because of the decisions made. My issue isn't that it isn't a 1:1 comparison, it is the misidentification, given that it is the counterargument of what they try to make fun off. In a way, it agrees with those that it tries to make fun off.
So is your argument is that satire isn't a thing? Because this is rather clearly a satirical meme, and that kind of ridicule by inversion is pretty solidly a feature of satirical works.
Irl it was an obviously intentional act that was claimed to be an accident, and this is an accident that is mockingly taking something that's clearly an accident and describing it like it was intentional but trying to claim it was an accident, to make fun of how utterly unbelievable the original claim is by contrasting it with the same argumentation of something that is very unlikely to be intentional.
I think your mistake is thinking this is a counter argument rather than just mocking their idiocy with some really dry satire.
The joke is satire and the comments to me were satire but the issue is that the satire doesn't quite work when at the core of the issue is that both sides claim "misidentification" on the other side. Someone who believes that Elon didn't do a salute, could make the same joke about you. That is why you see people posting pictures of e.g. AOC waving. They mock the "misidentification" of the salute.
They're not mocking the misidentification of the salute, they're trying to muddy the waters to dilute the accusations, like they have every single time something wants to stick. This is their standard playbook, as is the tone policing that comes with it.
Yes they are. By claiming "misidentification"... Not exclusively as it also works on people who believe that the Nazi were left wing Communist, because they might actually believe that AOC did the salute. But the primary function is to muddy the water by mocking the identification as a misidentification.
The joke is that the car factually crashed. Elon Musk also factually did a Nazi salute.
So someone wrote a comment distorting what factually happened with the car like people do for Elons frantic hand gestures.
if you need to explain your joke in 4 bullet points then maybe it's not a great joke lol
My joke? Their joke.
I think I might understand what you mean. The joke insinuates that what happened with Elon on stage was an accident and not a deliberate nazi salute.
The opposite is probably true with the car. The driver probably did not intend to crash their car.
I think most people, myself included just accepted the joke at face value, but you are right, it's reversed.
Sometimes jokes occur at multiple levels. In this case, the joke is pretending to be those people who claimed to not recognize the obvious.
I find it interesting that some people don't get this. Not because of what it says about their inability to process complex information, that's well known. I am interested in how such people struggle to acknowledge that others can process more complexity than they can byattempting to claim that complex processing is broken.
I find all forms of projection fascinating especially the cases where one comes up with it without prompting.
I am "complaining" on a high level here. I just happen to think that it doesn't work as good as it could due to the inversion. No hate towards the op or towards people who enjoy the joke.
The most important thing about jokes is that they conform to reality. That's why when I was told that when a horse came into a bar and the bartender asked him, "why the long face?" I explained that no one should have to ask why a horse's face is long because they all have long faces and that horses don't walk into bars, but even if they did, that isn't the question bartenders ask humans either.
And don't even get me started with people just saying "knock knock" rather than knocking on a door.
Where did I state it had to conform to reality? Please explain.
I don't think a joke has to conform to reality but let's say for the sake of argument that I did express that this joke has to. What would be a difference between a joke about a horse in a bar and this joke? Oh one is just a joke, one is a joke to propagate a perspective on political events. Would that be a good reason to have a different standard for them? Yes. Especially after we saw the right meme and joke about e.g. feminism and the negative effects. Do I hold that position? Honestly not sure, ATM I would say no, even "political" jokes don't have to conform reality. It is just odd that you made a comparison to an obviously different category of jokes.
Yes, I get it. How dare people find things funny you don't.
Where did I say that?
Okay, well if you aren't saying that jokes should conform to reality and if you aren't complaining that people are finding this funny when you aren't, maybe you shouldn't be making any sort of deal about this and stop being such a killjoy.
So I can't criticize something, while enjoying it (or some parts of it) but people can't make the difference between criticism and trying to ban it, and/or they can't deal with criticism of a media that they enjoy and therefore it kills their joy. Ok.
As we give each other advices, maybe read what a person is saying instead of what you want them to say, so you can feel like they are forbidden you stuff, to then forbid them stuff. As you can tell, It makes it difficult to engage more deeply with art and that is a killjoy.
I am sorry that I forced you to read my comment with some many down votes. You couldn't have known. You couldn't have avoided it. I am sorry.
Interesting. You're complaining about someone criticizing you by suggesting you're not allowed to be critical. I wonder whether you realize the double-standard or if you're just okay with it?
Incidentally, if you read my comment, I used the word "maybe," meaning I was not telling you what you can and cannot do, which is pretty ironic since you said to me:
As we give each other advices, maybe read what a person is saying
Mhm I somewhat agree. I see your point but it wouldn't be difficult to show you how it isn't a double-standard.
Your usage of "should" suggest an "ought" and given your previous criticism of my behavior, I made the assumption that you would suggest an ought. If I was wrong, I am sorry.
I never said or did anything that suggested that you can't find the joke funny. My comment even highlights the reasons why you would find it funny. And I really don't think anything suggested that it wasn't based in reality and/or that it has to be.
And ultimately, you chose to read a comment with (at the time) +-20 down votes, you chose to engage with that "negative" content to complained about that "negative" content. When I wrote my initial comment, I didn't chose to be bothered by people unable to read what it actually and clearly says. When you engaged with my comment, you chose to have this interaction. You chose to engage in a hostile conversation. And reading something seemingly hostile as hostile, is kinda the point of the joke. So I acted entirety within the framework that the joke that you try to defend, sets up.
I used neither the word ought or the word negative in any post I made to you. I also didn't complain about anything. Again, ironic considering you said, "maybe read what a person is saying."
I called it negative because it has 20 down votes. I never said you said that.
And I am sorry that you don't understand what should means.
I understand what should means. I also understand what maybe means when put with that word as part of a phrase. It does not mean ought, nor has it ever. Also, when you put a word in quotation marks and suggest that is what the person is saying, that means that's what they literally said and you are quoting them. Hence them being called quotation marks. I am sorry you don't know what quotation marks mean.
And I still have no idea what your problem with everyone else enjoying this is. You seem more interested in criticizing me than explaining your killjoy behavior. Which is also killjoy behavior. In a memes community no less.
You realize that you criticized me for thinking that joke had to conform to reality, to which I responded and I didn't thought so, then you criticized me for thinking that other people can't enjoy a joke because I didn't, to which I responded to and I didn't thought so. Why I was a "killjoy", wasn't the topic because you criticized what you thought I think, instead of my reasoning for my behavior. Which is only a killjoy because you want to read it as such.
I have explained my reasoning. I have explained what I dislike about the joke. I have explained why I dislike it. I have explained why I expressed that critic, in fact, specifically to you. If you don't know why I am a "killjoy" when you should have read what I wrote, instead of expressing criticism of opinions that I don't hold.
Quotes doesn't mean that it is a quote. It can mean that the meaning of a word in this context doesn't match the usual meaning. In this case, "negative" wasn't meant to mean that the content is negative, but that the content got a negative reaction, expressed by down votes. Which is why I referenced the Down votes. I thought you would catch on.
You realize this is a meme community and expecting people to respond to you in seriousness is incredibly stupid, right? Is this your first day on the internet? Have you yet to learn what a meme is?
Also, "I don't think this joke is funny" is not an explanation for why you appear to feel the need to ruin everyone else's good time.
Are you new here? Have you looked at how political the memes here are? Have you looked how often people argue in this community about memes? See, not really productive to write. But something that you might actually want to think about.
Lol, you think that was my reasoning? That wasn't my reason. Again I have stated my reason for my actions, which wasn't about ruin everyone else's good time. If you cared you could read what I wrote. But apparently you are still not even asking for it. You just complain about a reasoning that you don't know because you didn't bother to read it while you can't even be bothered to ask for it. And again, you feel that I ruined your fun because you want to read it as such. I dare to criticize a thin section of something and that "ruined" your good time while you specifically decided to read a -20 comment. Lol.
Let me Google for gore pictures and then complain that it killed my vibe.
No, I'm old here. That's why I know that trying to get me and others to take you seriously in a memes community ain't gonna happen.
I'm sure you'll keep trying your hardest though. I won't encourage you to stop, this hissy fit is extremely funny.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I've seen a wankpanzer on the 605 multiple times. Good to know at least one is off the road for now.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1201 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6502 readers
2573 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS