i mean how long will we have the chance? how long will the internet still be around? the internet is neuland after all, we don’t have any experience with it to estimate an expiration date.
i have always thought that “puter” sounds a whole lot like “pute” which is the name for a delicious bird in german language :p
I was in your mom’s puter last night lol
Fight me
no you weren’t
Yeah that was me
no it wasn’t
Were you there too? There were a few of us
no there weren’t
But you weren’t there so…
Hey, fuck you don’t tell me what to do.
yeah well fuck you dont tell me what not to do
buddy, fuck not you tell me don’t that do
I mean considering the last 10 years, memes can have pretty serious consequences
Dear OP, I find the premise of not having a “puter” when I die to be very speculative, and not particulatly reflective of the world we live in. Individuals carrying smartphones in their pockets is very commonplace, and I find it very probable that I will indeed have one on my person when I die. If not, it’s likely that I’m at home, where I possess several computers.
Perhaps you meant this to be more of a “you cannot use a computer after you’ve already died” situation, but I have to interpret based on the information I’ve been given. A few words in a title is all I have to go by, so I am required by Internet law to debate those words as-is. I will await your rebuttal, as is custom in the “facts and logic” forum.
Whilst I do not disagree with your argument entirely, I must play devil’s advocate and highlight that the title lacks sufficient context to draw any conclusions regarding the intended meaning of the word “have”. As you yourself said, you might well have a phone on [your] person when you die, but this phrase is more than merely “hav[ing] a puter” because of the addition of “on [your] person”. From the title of the post, I now assume you concluded that an item that belong(ed) to you as a living person being near you after death is sufficient to fulfil the requirement of “hav[ing] a puter”.
Going my the definition in Merriam Webster’s dictionary, your interpretation of “have” aligns with definition 1c: “to hold, include, or contain as a part or whole”, or definition 3: “to stand in a certain relationship to”. However, the same dictionary offers a range of other meanings of the word, such as definition 1b: “to hold in one’s use, service, regard, or at one’s disposal”. Definition 1b implies, to my understanding, a level of agency of the subject that has an object; a corpse cannot actively use an object or have it at their disposal since they lack agency. Similary, definition 1a defines “have” as holding something as a “possession, privilege, entitlement, or responsibility”. While corpses are, to an extent, protected by law and therefore allowed certain privileges, such as protection from desecration, the presence of “responsibility” in particular implies once again an active role of the subject that has an object, which is a role a corpse cannot assume.
I do not wish do disregard your argument entirely, but it could certainly be improved by paying closer attention to the intricacies of language. We must be careful with how we use terms that we assume are commonly understood because such nuances can alter the meaning of not just sentences but entire paragraphs.
The title will be edited.
I advocate rules I refuse to live by lol
Exactly. I gotta get into as many Internet Stranger Fights over memes as i can before I croak because I’ll never get another chance to again after that!
WE MUST CREATE A DIALOGUE OF DISCOURSE AND FROM OUR DISAGREEMENTS SYNTHESIZE A CONSENSUS IN LIEU OF TRUTH NOT EXISTING IN THE REALM OF STUPID POINTLESS OPINIONS THAT DON’T MEAN ANYTHING!!!
plus its fun sometimes~ ;3
I bet your father smells of elderberries. >:(
And I bet their mother is a hamster! >:0
HMPH. We should fart in their general direction! That’ll show 'em!
(i want to issue s catchy rejoinder but this was so delightful to see in my inbox that I’m too appreciative to think of something-- OH! I KNOW!)
DON’T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS! SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE REALLY MAKES ME PUKE, YOU PERVERT!
WAIT–What am I doing?! We came in here for an argument! But that’s just abuse…
Hmm :\
… Such is all too often the case on the Internet.
how unruly
I’m going out pharaoh style, buried with things I will use in my afterlife. So I reject your claim I won’t have one after I die.
What if you get graverobbed for your RAMs?
Taking memes seriously and arguing about them on the internet is inherently problematic.
Allow me to elaborate.
I love taking memes seriously and arguing about them on the internet. Of all the myriad topics available for argument, art is my favorite, especially trivial art. The lower the stakes of the topic at hand, the easier it is to wax into the soaring heights of rhetoric for rhetoric’s sake, and memes are the lowest-possible stakes art in the modern era. Untethered from the stakes of real life, meme arguments become less like a real fight and more a sparring match.
Like a martial art divorced from its original purpose of life-and-death struggle and fitted into a ceremonial safety harness, argument in the cocoon of low-stakes banter becomes increasingly stylized. Performances are evaluated not by the merits of the old way, but by the customs and traditions of the new way. Correctness in the primary qualia of the form gradually gives way, and is in time completely subsumed by, correctness in the self-referential and ever-increasing secondary qualia of the form’s now-sanitized version, and soon even those secondary qualia are indistinguishable in the flood of tertiary and n-ary qualia. In-group references proliferate and metastasize into subgenres and become the bases by which future arguments are judged in their turn. Conversation becomes an impenetrable wall of tangled device and argument, each new argument a new body accreted into the mass of metadiscourse that slowly, but inexorably, drives meaningful information exchange asymptotically to zero.
Into this chaos steps the neophyte, the next generation, the young human learning something about the world for the first time. They don’t know the devices, the references, the tools and style of this esoteric mode of argument. And why should they? Look into the deepest recesses of the deepest niches of the internet and tell me truly that you understand them at a glance. I think no mortal can. Where, then, can the neophyte find purchase, a single foothold in the cliff face of hubris before them? Must they slowly, arduously, with great pain and error, unravel each literal Gordian knot themselves? Must every human peel every onion, one layer at a time, with tears and suffering?
We must not heed the siren song of trivial argument. Each joke, each metameme, each niche reference is a caltrop in the path of future generations. And when an argument is impossible to understand, it is impossible to learn its significance. In other words, they start to take you seriously because they don’t understand you, and taking nonsense seriously makes you dumber. Arguing about memes on the internet makes us dumber.
Is this really the world we want?
Or, because I can’t decide which thunderous closer I like better,
Won’t somebody think of the children?
I though it was Azumanga Daioh for a second.
