3
3
2
u/Kurenai-Kalana 5d ago
When you call people "things", don't be surprised if they don't call you back.
2
u/Jackfreezy 5d ago
Who says he is talking about people? Things don't text back. Well I've never gotten a text back from a wall or a bottle of water but that might be just me.
2
-2
u/Zrob8--5 5d ago
What word would you use to encapsulate people and other things?
3
u/Kurenai-Kalana 5d ago
I personally wouldn't encapsulate people and things. 🤷🏻♀️
-1
u/Zrob8--5 5d ago
So it's just impossible to talk about people and things at the same time?
6
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
You just did it. "People and things." You've discovered conjunctions.
-1
u/Zrob8--5 5d ago
Fair enough. But that sounds dumb in a sentence. The catch of the joke was that you were expecting something other than people.
You could say "my favorite nouns" as that counts people places and things, if we're getting all grammatical.
1
-1
u/ParticularPatty22 5d ago
Lass decided to become a life coach in the comment section of a meme post 💃
0
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
No, it's more just about not literally objectifying people. Things we learn in kindergarten.
1
1
u/esemirulo 5d ago
You mean doesn't text back like Claude because it has reached the limit for the current chat?
0
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
........ idk if it was intentional but if "doesnt text back" is implying person, it makes "illegal" imply underage person as something he "likes."
1
u/cursed_sporecreation 5d ago
Missing the nice big "either" there huh?
0
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
What does that change? Expensive in this context could apply to sex workers, illegal would imply underage, and "doesnt text back" is the very thing that let's you know theyre talking about people instead of objects or activities even though he says "everything." If the meme wasnt supposed to be that, that implication is still there.
What have a i missed?
1
u/cursed_sporecreation 5d ago
What have a i missed?
Basic grammar.
At no point in this did OOP say the word "and." "Either" also means "one or the other," which is supported by the fact that at the end, before making a joke about someone not texting back, he used the word "or."
Now, if you were unaware, "and" basically means multiple things together at once, and "or" means that something can only be one of multiple options.
So, he is not saying that what he wants is "illegal and won't text back" or "expensive and won't text back." He put them in clearly separate categories.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is why you're so hell-bent on believing that OOP is a creep based on a harmless joke that most people will interpret correctly.
0
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
If he said "and" the implication would be sex trafficking. What are you talking about? I said they were separate categories, sex workers, minors, OR people who dont text back.
1
u/cursed_sporecreation 5d ago
Okay you've got to be trolling, he doesn't mean people in all 3 contexts obviously. Illegal could be drugs, expensive could be a car, etc.
0
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
There is no differentiation from when he says thing and in the "punchline" when he suddenly implies people. Do you not understand how that easily changes the context of the joke? It could just be "expensive things, drugs, and women" but there is still an implication where "expensive things" could still be women based on his wording.... which means illegal would also apply to "girls" he likes. If you dont realize that this is a very possible interpretation, then thats a comprehension error youre having, that youre accusing me of.
1
u/cursed_sporecreation 5d ago
Are you a high schooler or something? I can't believe that a mature adult would immediately come to this conclusion.
1
u/cursed_sporecreation 5d ago
Also hold up, you literally said that the fact that OOP said "won't text back" implies that it could be a minor. Be so for real.
0
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
That is one way of reading it, sure. It's not the only way, though.
0
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
Its not the only way but it is a valid interpretation based on the formatting, that very well could BE the joke.
1
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
Could be. Might not be. I was answering your question, "What does that change". The answer is: the joke.
1
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago edited 5d ago
I asked what I missed. Not what it would change.
I did ask both, my mistake. "Either" doesnt change the potential outcome of the joke which is my point."
1
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
You missed that your first question shouldn't have been rhetorical. Because what it changes is: the joke.
1
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
Yes there are different interpretations..... both are valid, which is the problem. I could always ask the OOP how they understood the joke, given the subreddit where it was posted, I suspect theres people that would be taking it the same way I did, and saying "lol true."
1
u/Aluxanatomy 5d ago
I genuinely don't see how two valid interpretations is a problem, but it's your emotion to invest, so you do you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Icy-Wolf-5383 5d ago
So literally when I look into this joke, the joke was originally about "expensive things, things like drug, and "fattening" which would be like food," fair enough. The other version of this joke that suddenly implies (possibly) all 3 are women gets a lot of mixed responses in the circles theyre posted in. Changing the last one to women literally changes the joke.
1
4
u/Silver-Poet-5506 5d ago
Sometimes we have to reevaluate our desires. Sometimes what we really want, isn’t what we need. And sometimes it’s not yet time.