“Building on this literature, I propose a definition of shitposting that embodies four distinct elements: a reliance on absurdity or “meaninglessness,” the critique or disruption of online discourses, the employment of an “internet ugly” aesthetic, and the use of meta-languaging”
Good lord, it took them forever to spit out a coherent definition!
Does this paper itself represent a form of academic shitposting? I mean, the subject is sound but the convoluted and discursive presentation is maddening.
But, yes, shitposting is worthy of significant further study and all grant applications in that area should be automatically approved.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
I hate to take the author to task because this is wonderful, but I must simply disagree with the following analysis.
First of all, the included text ***is*** coherent. “of in” is understood as sounding like “oven” and the text gives an impossible etymology for why it is called an oven, while also poking fun at the hypothetical person implying that the word “oven” has no etymology. The text is hard to parse and is very silly, but it is a coherent thought nonetheless.
Second, to say that the subway sandwich has “nothing” to do with the oven misses the fact that the sandwich is food, and you “of in” the food… It is not much of a relation, but it is there. It’s not like it was a tonka truck or something completely irrelevant.
Speaking of irrelevant, I did not read far enough to the article to find out if the author mentions Jon Arbuckle’s inherently funny pose, but that has to be part of what gives this post humor.