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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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