bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang
One of my common forms of shitposting appears to be slightly altering something to change its meaning.
This has happened with videogame titles, TV series titles, celebrity names, other people's usernames, and now names of diseases. Equal-opportunity shitposting FTW.
Bonus points if the new form has a new meaning. Extra bonus points if the new meaning can be related in some way to the old one. These are not always possible.
Another common form of shitposting is to take a pattern and mentally apply it to other situations, especially if it doesn't fit. Take a term or title, and break it down into its component parts. Substitute those parts with comparable items. Post the result.
Example: Symphony of the Night = [classical musical form] of the [time of day] => Sonata of the High Noon, Minuet of the One O'Clock, Fugue of the Dawn
Of course, the results aren't always funny. Fugue of the Dawn could be a serious title, and thus isn't very funny.
On the other hand, Minuet of the One O'Clock is funny. So it's worth posting.
...unless you're actually serious about the discussion. Such as when talking politics. "Rethuglican" is old, not creative, and needlessly distracting from the actual arguments at hand. Learn to talk about stuff you don't like with a straight face, please.
> The Japanese brand of weirdness translates surprisingly well, because it’s just as weird to the Japanese audience. Japanese humor circles around a lot of weirdness, particularly because dirty jokes have never really been in vogue.
Well, that sounds somewhat like me. Except I'm less a fan of freak-of-nature weird and more a fan of surrealistic defiance of reality weird. I think the Brits are better at that last one.
I definitely don't have a taste for dirty jokes, though. Unless there's some sort of self-parody going on.
When people are talking about something you are unfamiliar with, you can try to do one of these three things:
1. familiarize yourself with what they're talking about 2. don't say anything 3. attempt to talk about something that you are familiar with
Option 1 can be achieved at little cost in limited cases (if the topic is freely available and easy to understand), or at little cost to a limited extent (such as by asking people about a book/movie/game without seeing it yourself). However, it can be very costly to keep up with the Joneses on everything.
I wish we could personally give approval scores for things. Not just upvote/downvote.
So instead of just saying "I approve of / am satisfied with TV Tropes", I could say "I have a 56-44 approval opinion of TV Tropes", indicating that I am not all that satisfied with it, but I am satisfied enough that I still have a slightly positive opinion of it.
One could extend this method to, say, politicians and other officials.
Now that 100-point scale might be too much to practically wrap one's head around.
Maybe a ten-point scale?
So I have, say, a 6-to-4 approval rating of TV Tropes.
I have a 7-to-3 approval rating of Barack Obama's performance as POTUS.
This principle can be extended to favorability scores (which are reported similarly in the media, like approval ratings) (which are basically the same thing).
I have a 5-5 approval rating (i.e. "so-so") of Google's services that I use, while I have a 4-6 favorability rating (i.e. "slightly unfavorable") of the company as a whole.
Oh, also, one could incorporate familiarity into approval/favorability ratings.
For example, I could say I have a 1-4-5 favorability rating of SomethingAwful: 1 count of favorableness, 4 counts of unfavorableness, and 5 counts of I just don't know much about it.
So I could say that my opinion of Macklemore is 0-0-10, because I have no idea who that is.
Comments
three-meaning puns go go go!.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
ETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
tea time
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0ozNnIZcNY4
no: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0VeVXhvKnZe
ball: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0l45Ffb2rbn
piss: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0qLKmBhopUK
pies: http://vocaroo.com/i/s1BxTDBEiEIo
win: http://vocaroo.com/i/s0VFfdJr9qAs
er?: http://vocaroo.com/i/s1DCxrCkGAJh
http://vocaroo.com/i/s0mnjDGZHiS5
bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang
bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang
bang bang bang CHUMCHUM CHUM CHUMbang bang
(note: i heard this line somewhere and it sounds funny. i have no idea where it's from.)
cup
cup cup cup cup
-> http://vocaroo.com/i/s16eh1FMvxdX
second lean
second lain
second lane
second lard
second lawd
second larp
second lurk
second leer
second like
second lift
second lips
second lisp
second lint
LINT AND FINGERNAILS
http://vocaroo.com/i/s05wqiALh7RE
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1rTSm8mCzkG
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1TVgy2zcW3R
the first phrase of The Entertainer, with a beat
or technically, with many beats
http://vocaroo.com/i/s157kIqIUKjO
This has happened with videogame titles, TV series titles, celebrity names, other people's usernames, and now names of diseases. Equal-opportunity shitposting FTW.
Bonus points if the new form has a new meaning. Extra bonus points if the new meaning can be related in some way to the old one. These are not always possible.
Example:
Symphony of the Night = [classical musical form] of the [time of day]
=> Sonata of the High Noon, Minuet of the One O'Clock, Fugue of the Dawn
Of course, the results aren't always funny. Fugue of the Dawn could be a serious title, and thus isn't very funny.
On the other hand, Minuet of the One O'Clock is funny. So it's worth posting.
Enthalpypuff Women
Entropypuff Men
Gibbs Free Energypuff Toddlers
...unless you're actually serious about the discussion. Such as when talking politics. "Rethuglican" is old, not creative, and needlessly distracting from the actual arguments at hand. Learn to talk about stuff you don't like with a straight face, please.
men haggis ga-larvae
POKÉMON BANK DAY
However, having to retrieve that random piece of information can a meme make.
it’s just as weird to the Japanese audience. Japanese humor circles
around a lot of weirdness, particularly because dirty jokes have never
really been in vogue.
Well, that sounds somewhat like me. Except I'm less a fan of freak-of-nature weird and more a fan of surrealistic defiance of reality weird. I think the Brits are better at that last one.
I definitely don't have a taste for dirty jokes, though. Unless there's some sort of self-parody going on.
1. familiarize yourself with what they're talking about
2. don't say anything
3. attempt to talk about something that you are familiar with
Option 1 can be achieved at little cost in limited cases (if the topic is freely available and easy to understand), or at little cost to a limited extent (such as by asking people about a book/movie/game without seeing it yourself). However, it can be very costly to keep up with the Joneses on everything.
Option 2 doesn't get you anywhere.
I wish we could personally give approval scores for things. Not just upvote/downvote.
So instead of just saying "I approve of / am satisfied with TV Tropes", I could say "I have a 56-44 approval opinion of TV Tropes", indicating that I am not all that satisfied with it, but I am satisfied enough that I still have a slightly positive opinion of it.
One could extend this method to, say, politicians and other officials.
Now that 100-point scale might be too much to practically wrap one's head around.
Maybe a ten-point scale?
So I have, say, a 6-to-4 approval rating of TV Tropes.
I have a 7-to-3 approval rating of Barack Obama's performance as POTUS.
This principle can be extended to favorability scores (which are reported similarly in the media, like approval ratings) (which are basically the same thing).
I have a 5-5 approval rating (i.e. "so-so") of Google's services that I use, while I have a 4-6 favorability rating (i.e. "slightly unfavorable") of the company as a whole.
Oh, also, one could incorporate familiarity into approval/favorability ratings.
For example, I could say I have a 1-4-5 favorability rating of SomethingAwful: 1 count of favorableness, 4 counts of unfavorableness, and 5 counts of I just don't know much about it.
So I could say that my opinion of Macklemore is 0-0-10, because I have no idea who that is.