Weird. You’d have expected it to veer to the far-right
It had to leave some place free on its right for the cops.
That’s the lefts agenda at work.
Build a wall.
There is already a wall, we need a bigger one!
You can see why the left is so dangerous.
You mean “swasticar” FTFY
Cyberdreck
Cyberwreck
Tessla
Well at least it has enough torque now to climb a median.
At speed, that was never out of the question
At speed, it probably just goes through the median
CyberCuck
HyperSuck
What an odd looking clearly not crash.
I’ve seen a wankpanzer on the 605 multiple times. Good to know at least one is off the road for now.
I read “as trash” first…
deleted by creator
It is kinda weird to make that joke with that. I mean that crash was probably accidental.
Edit: based on the reactions, it seems like people don’t understand what I am trying to say.
The joke works on 4 ways/steps and 1 seems poorly thought out.
- It is a comparison. Which functions as a reference, affectively an “Insider” joke, basically how all memes work.
- Inversion. Basically just a stylistic choice to pull attention towards the next point.
- It is what it looks like. It tries to communicate that what looks like an accident is an accident. And as it is an inversion, a Hilter salute is a Hilter salute.
And the last one is odd to me and I tried to point that out. And funnily the responses to my comment just do that…
- Misidentification. That is an odd choice, given that is the Argumentation on people who believe that Elon musk didn’t do a Nazi salute. So 3. And 4. Are in conflict because of 2.
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.
“It’s a good think”
thing*
Don’t be a grammar republican.
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.
It’ll be on the soundtrack of the next cyberpunk movie.
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.
And in their defense they weren’t trying to be as clever as possible they were being topical. So it’s not a 1:1 analogy, it’s still absurd and speaks to the absurdity of elon. We’re taking a piss over here; not doing quantum parody.
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.
if you need to explain your joke in 4 bullet points then maybe it’s not a great joke lol
My joke? Their joke.
ah sorry I thought you were trying to be funny as well
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
