It’s not about taking it seriously. The meme wants to be a technically correct-meme, where a thing fulfills another things definition and thereby could be deemed the other thing - which creates the absurdity the meme lives off of. But in order for that kind of humour, there cannot be obvious holes in the logic of the joke and these obvious holes are very present in this meme.
Well the text in the image of the “definition” of a square is clearly tailored to fit this joke, thats why the logic of what a square actually is doesn’t apply. Its like telling Diogenes that his chicken is not technically a human because it doesn’t have two hands and a nose.
Diogenes plucked that chicken to point out Platon’s definition of a human (being a bipedal, featherless animal) being flawed. This meme leaves out parts of the definition to enforce a joke. Two different situations.
No, it depends on if you have humor. Yes, humor is individual, I know. But people without tend to over analyze and try to pick the joke apart, often missing the point.
A joke doesn’t have to pass every technicality. You thinking it’s bad if it doesn’t, only applies to your humor (or lack there of).
Ooh, watch out, the humor police is here! Everything the deem funny is humor and if you don’t find funny what they do you don’t even have humor! Wee-ooo wee-ooo!
We do understand it’s a meme and a joke. Just not a very good one, because one can easily poke holes into it.
Its supposed to be absurd, taking it seriously makes the already bad joke even worse
It’s not about taking it seriously. The meme wants to be a technically correct-meme, where a thing fulfills another things definition and thereby could be deemed the other thing - which creates the absurdity the meme lives off of. But in order for that kind of humour, there cannot be obvious holes in the logic of the joke and these obvious holes are very present in this meme.
Any maths joke of this type will have obvious holes in it, that’s just how maths works
Well the text in the image of the “definition” of a square is clearly tailored to fit this joke, thats why the logic of what a square actually is doesn’t apply. Its like telling Diogenes that his chicken is not technically a human because it doesn’t have two hands and a nose.
Diogenes plucked that chicken to point out Platon’s definition of a human (being a bipedal, featherless animal) being flawed. This meme leaves out parts of the definition to enforce a joke. Two different situations.
Its similar enough, the definition is limited and therefore enables a joke to be made.
It’s not similar, it’s the exact opposite.
It still demonstrated what I was trying to say, that if you go too literal on these two jokes then you’re missing the point
That’s not how jokes work.
Depends on the joke.
No, it depends on if you have humor. Yes, humor is individual, I know. But people without tend to over analyze and try to pick the joke apart, often missing the point.
A joke doesn’t have to pass every technicality. You thinking it’s bad if it doesn’t, only applies to your humor (or lack there of).
Ooh, watch out, the humor police is here! Everything the deem funny is humor and if you don’t find funny what they do you don’t even have humor! Wee-ooo wee-ooo!
I can be presented with a bad joke without the urge to pick it apart. You couldn’t. Just saying.
And you cannot take criticism. Just saying.
(Also, I’m not picking apart the joke, I’m explaining why some people do.)
What criticism?
The joke being critiziced.