challenge discursive spaces on their own. I

first encountered both images in Figure 2

while scrolling through Twitter. Placed in

conversation with the usual content I see on

that website (people voicing their opinions,

posting about recent accomplishments,

sharing other pieces of media they

appreciated, etc.), both shitposts presented

here forced me to do a double take. After a **quick glance at both memes, I could have **sworn I missed something or that I read them **wrong, trying to understand what reference I **had overlooked in subsequent readings. This

reaction stems from the subtle challenge that

shitposts present to social media discourses,

one that relies on the interpersonal

connections that form within what

Zappavigna (2012) has defined as ambient

affiliation. I tried to understand what the

author was communicating to me and other […]

(emphasis mine lol)

Figure 2. Two examples of shitposts

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2023.2272988#d1e205

via: https://mander.xyz/post/16363071

  • stray@pawb.socialEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    Well now I don’t understand their reaction because those are both just puns and no cultural references outside English fluency are required to understand.

    • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      I mean, the first one alludes to a pun, but just devolves into word salad in the second half. It’s also an intentionally shitty modification of this earlier version of the image:

      And probably some other meme image too, given the subway food in the background and the blacked out impact font text. I’m not familiar with that one though.

      • sem@piefed.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        I think fluency in shitposts helps us read it quickly, but the first time you see one it takes a while to get what is happening.

      • stray@pawb.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 day ago

        I think the edit in the example delivers the joke better and more intelligibly. Why do they call it an “oven”? Because you “of in” the food. Is Jon so high that he doesn’t realize he’s answered his own question? Maybe he means it should be called an “avout” instead, but he doesn’t say that.