• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    132 months ago

    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.

    • burgersc12
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 months ago

        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.

        • burgersc12
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Its similar enough, the definition is limited and therefore enables a joke to be made.

            • burgersc12
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 months ago

              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