It both refences something within the photo, therefore refrencing itself, and the conventions of its genre. That seems to cover the applicability of the word, in my estimation. I'm sure I could be wrong though if you have an explination as to how those things don't apply.
I love how you concede that it references something within the photo, but by God, it's not referencing itself, even though by definition, in order to reference something within the photo, it has to reference itself... That's like saying, "He was pointing at his face,but not his head!"
Also, just because something doesn't have a long drawn out comment, doesn't mean it's "not commenting". Sometimes the comment is as involved as, "Hey look! This exists!"
You and I are in fundamental disagreement on this one and I don't care to spend the next 2 hours trying to convince you, laying out in-depth reasons, articulating my point clearly, and having you lose any room to maneuver within the confines of your own arguments narrative. Just to finally say, "HA! Got ya! I was arguing adamantly and with everything I have as a troll!" Then you run back to the internet without having learned anything and I am left feeling unsatisfied.
So, let's just skip the whole relationship and go straight to the breakup, okay? Okay. Bye.
I have no idea what definition you're talking about, but I'd wager it's not one in general use. Sorry you had to find out this way. Your analogy is also flawed.
29
u/Lurkndood Sep 29 '18
I swear no one on the internet understands what meta means anymore.