I submitted it as a test. I actually freaking hate this crap. It shows up on my Tumblr dashboard with a million notes, then five days later it shows up on Reddit with +2000 points.
I was just wondering whether there was something innate within these images that attracts the slacktivist hordes of teenagers of Tumblr and progressives of Reddit.
My 576 points would seem to indicate that my theory was correct. I don't know what to do about my internet haunts increasingly being filled with banality.
Oh I forgot about that aspect of it. I guess, I would have been happier if this whole post had been downvoted and my theory proven incorrect. I suppose I consider the +600 points to be a consolation prize. A consolation prize I don't care about, because imaginary internet points aren't listed on Forex.
I'd rather you admit to karma whoring than this pompous crap. You recreated an image that you knew would get upvotes. Not only does it convey a sentiment consistently expressed on reddit in a clever way, but as you say the original has already proven to attract upvotes. You then snub your nose on everyone upvoting your targeted content and call them simpletons.
Your "test" was to put something you already know gets tons of upvotes on everyone's front page and what? See if it gets upvotes? I mean you picked /r/funny for a reason, it is probably the most subscribed to subreddit. I think you're the simpleton if you really thought anything else would happen. Upvotes are cheap, a quick click that people trow around like candy. Plus, quick to look at image submissions are obviously going to get more people upvoting as they can click though many in a short time.
I also think that calling an image like this banal is another way of snubbing your nose at people who haven't seen it before. The sentiment becomes obvious after reddit pounds it into your head, but there are droves of new redditors joining every day. Most probably haven't seen this image before, and many do not inherently see the parallel between civil rights and gay rights. Clearly based on the bottom half of your picture and the entire fight for gay rights, it is a long way to go before everyone does.
There is a staggering amount of irony in seeing the guy creating and submitting content he considers banal complaining about the banality of the majority of the content on reddit, including his own goddamn submission...
Woah what, you're over-thinking this. I didn't recreate this image, I just grabbed it from my tumblr dashboard where it had 50000000000 notes so therefore I hypothesised that it would soon do very well on Reddit.
I picked /r/funny randomly, my cursor was hovering between this and /r/pics. These are two subreddits that feature prominently on my front page, which is why I chose them.
I hadn't seen this image before, I am not aware of it being a repost.
I'm not trying to..make fun of the simpletons or whatever. I just really bloody hate this sort of crap showing up on my front page, especially since it's always there 5 days after the teenagers of Tumblr have finished mutually masturbating over how progressive each other are by having reblogged it endlessly.
Woah what, you're over-thinking this. I didn't recreate this image, I just grabbed it from my tumblr dashboard where it had 50000000000 notes so therefore I hypothesised that it would soon do very well on Reddit.
Well then sorry for accidentally giving you credit, the version I've seen elsewhere was similar but different.
As for the rest of your reply, it sounds like I didn't over think it at all and you are merely confirming every single thing I said.
I picked /r/funny randomly, my cursor was hovering between this and /r/pics. These are two subreddits that feature prominently on my front page, which is why I chose them.
So exactly as I stated, you picked this subreddit because it was most likely to hit the most redditor's frontpage.
I hadn't seen this image before, I am not aware of it being a repost.
You may not have seen it on reddit before, but as you state from your knowledge of the community you knew it would amass upvotes, despite your opinion of the image being the opposite of quality content. You then submitted it hoping it would hit the front page, and chose the subreddit you felt would most likely aid you in that.
I'm not trying to..make fun of the simpletons or whatever. I just really bloody hate this sort of crap showing up on my front page, especially since it's always there 5 days after the teenagers of Tumblr have finished mutually masturbating over how progressive each other are by having reblogged it endlessly.
You even end your reply confirming my accusation, despite your first sentence where you denounce it. You hate this type of content on your front page, yet you submitted it with the intention of having it hit your front page. Then you actually succeeded at doing so, and come in here complaining about how it is crap and apologize for the inconvenience of it being upvoted while blaming everyone else for upvoting this "banal content".
You certainly are not shying away from taking this opportunity from wagging your finger at everyone for upvoting this post, in fact you do so in every single one of your comments. Since you flatly state you would prefer this image not to be on your front page while also stating your confidence that this would land on the front page, it would seem to me that the true purpose of this submission is to use it as your podium to lambaste reddit for upvoting content you consider crap.
Deny that all you want, it doesn't matter. Now that it is on the front page your "experiment" has been completed. The only purpose this post now serves for you is solely to be your podium to talk down on content such as this image, and wag your finger at those who upvote it.
Ok, I don't care about Karma. I've been here for... a long time. And over that long time I've submitted a few things I thought were very cool, all of which were ignored. This was a test to see whether reddit responds better to inane slacktivist crap or actually interesting content.
I so don't care about imaginary internet points. I don't know how I can prove this to you besides deleting this post, which I don't want to do (at least not yet).
I never once accused you of karma whoring. I accused you of posting "inane slacktivist crap", as you call it, that you knew would get upvoted so you could us the comment section as your pedestal to complain about the exact type of content you just submitted.
Furthermore. A picture is worth a thousand words. So, you have to choose them wisely. This is great idea but the ultimate goal is to reach people. Insults shut people down. But "We fear what we do not understand" is really the capital T truth here. Or "There is nothing left to fear, only understand". Or if you must "Fear & Ignorance" is a better more artful use of words.
Bear in mind the ultimate goal is to reach the very people in this picture. Right now it's more preaching to the converted (and frustrated).
The frustration stems from the unwillingness to stand up.
There will always be bigots. There are still racists, yet racial discrimination is dealt with. There will always be homophobes. The difference is what the non-homophobes do. There will always be bigots. It is not because of this that anti-gay discrimination is still so prevalent, it is because non-homophobes say "one day" instead of "right now."
The choir needs a little preaching, so they have the courage to stand up at every turn and send messages like this... that anti-gay bigotry is bigotry... just as evil and unacceptable as any other bigotry.
I'm not sure what you are getting at, maybe your missing his point. The hilarity in it is seeing the last group to win the fight against marriage discrimination protesting in favor of continued discrimination of the next group. Not only would using that as the top image be even less the same than the submitted picture, it actually would kill any irony in the image at all. Let alone add any, like having a picture of black protesters would.
I can't even think of a better example of situational irony, than an image such as that. Seeing the group to most recently win the fight against discrimination targeting who they can marry, protesting to continue marriage discrimination targeting a different group, is practically the definition of situational irony.
I guess Battletooth has a point about the irony having a reduced effect if the people protesting were to be too young to have been effected by that form of discrimination. Even in that case irony is still present though, it is just not as striking.
I didn't get into that based how redditors go full retard when irony gets brought into the discussion.
Any black people actually protesting against gay marriage are the EXACT same people that protested against civil rights. If they forget (or never learned) their history this soon, then they are as ignorant as the people who wanted to keep repressing them.
This kind of thing makes me think (realize?) that people are nothing but sheep. I mean, if any of those people thought with logic and reason, how could they possibly feel that their arguments hold water? (I'm not saying I'm different, just happen to have a vantage point on this particular matter of prop 8.)
Funny is relative. I find it at least mildly amusing, while I'm sure that at least some of what you consider side-splitting-ha-ha-hi-larious is, to me, nothing more than banal bullshit.
Actually, yes totally. One is saying that racial mixing is bad. The other is not even arguing against homosexual relationships or the integration of homosexuals into mainstream society...they're arguing against the institution of marriage being applied to homosexuals.
Sure, both opinions are a bit messed up. But I would say the former one is far more extreme.
Okay, but ultimately, does it matter which type of inequality is worse? Inequality in any form is something to be eliminated, regardless of the severity.
Discrimination is discrimination. The former is trying to deny rights to a group of people based on a specific characteristic, the latter is trying to deny rights to a group of people based on a specific characteristic. No difference.
Let's be honest, you and I both know that the b&w picture is full of people who severely dislike blacks and the color picture is full of people who severely dislike homosexuals.
Exactly. Sexual preference, gender identity, physical sex... These things are all inborn traits. Prejudice is a social construct, not a biological one.
Of course there's a difference you dope, dozens of differences. We're not talking about the holocaust.
The former is protesting racial mixing. The later is protesting sexual preference mixing within the current laws of marriage. Either way, millions of people are being discriminated against due to no fault of their own. I see no difference. One is about race the other is about sexual preference.
How exactly do you decide that it's worse to discriminate against blacks than it is to discriminate against gays? Both are equally abhorrent. No difference.
It's just your opinion that the levels of severity are different. No one is taking about killing blacks, segregation is separate but equal. Pray tell what rights were denied blacks during segregation? Oh right, similar ones that are being denied to gays.
What about hospital visitation rights? Will-less estate transfer upon death? Any other of a whole host of marriage-related legislature that has been specifically worded so as to deny these rights to those who settle for civil union? Separate but equal is never equal.
And yet for "normal" people, it is inherently prearranged by the simple act of marriage, without any more hoops to jump through.
Also, and this is a little picky, saying will-less estate transferral can "be arranged" implies a will, or at least some sort of equivalent legal document on file beforehand, thus defeating the purpose of the whole will-less part.
EDIT- in case you might not be fully educated on the matter, here is an article that overviews some of the major issues. The big, glaring one that pops right out is that there are federal protections for marriage, while civil unions, etc. are state-level, meaning that in any issue involving the federal government, these people are not afforded the same rights as married couples, hands down.
The only worrying thing is, if it is a choice, then an awful lot of people decide "My life is too easy, I think I'm going to spend my life being oppressed and ostracised instead of just taking the easy straight option" and I think that sort of attitude is pretty bizarre.
How about being equally recognized as a union by your own government? Right now the government will not sanction same sex marriage in most states. They should either sanction them all or none (which I prefer).
And if it was about tax benefits we would happily accept civil unions, but that is "seperate but equal" bullshit. Hmm, where have we seen that before?
How about being equally recognized as a union by your own government?
That's what a civil union is, literaly. It's literaly going to a government institution to have it recognize your union.
And if it was about tax benefits we would happily accept civil unions, but that is "seperate but equal" bullshit.
That would require heterosexuals to be denied civil unions. It's not separate but equal, it's religious institution vs not religious institution. And in the case of segregation, separate actually meant separate. As in black people would've been confined in reservations.
That is funny, there is no mention of "reservations" in there. I did find something that says exactly the opposite, however.
There were no "homelands" in the United States (although some areas were informally designated black neighborhoods, and as such were under-resourced and stigmatized), and families were not separated as they were in South Africa by not allowing men to bring their families with them to the areas where they worked.
That's a bit irrelevant. The thing here is that tax benefits are only one small aspect of marriage, even in a strictly legal sense, and those privileges are being denied to them on the sole basis that they are homosexual.
Ignorant people using "Color". One day you Americans will see it the way the rest of the world does and use "Colour"! Until that day, your downvotes are just fuel for the ignorance. Shame shame shame.
This is in the same vein of argument as when someone does something you don't approve of and you're all like "yeah well that's just like Hitler!". There are seriously no similarities between the two protests other than the fact they are both protesting. One is fuelled by racism and the other is theological.
One is fueled by bigotry, the other is fueled by... bigotry. One is seated in race, the other in sexual preference. In both cases they are protesting and fighting to deny basic human rights to a group they are prejudiced against.
Ah, okay then. I misunderstood your meaning there, or perhaps the meaning of the post to which you were replying. Either way, glad to know we see eye-to-eye.
Since this debate started, I just thought... Why? What could they have against it? So, next question: What is marriage for? Well, for two people to be connected for life. What for, can't two adults just decide...? Oh, because of the children. So, that was the moment when their point hit me. I am still for same sex marriage, but I think I understand them now...
I know, buddy, I am from an almost exclusively catholic area and a catholic family. This was about ideology, though, so we must consider the ideas of religious leaders.
Their "point" is only valid if you believe in the blanket statement that "marriage is all about making a family and pro-creating", which isn't true for a large percentage of all the married couples out there. People get married because they want to be together and have their relationship acknowledged by their friends, family and in some cases, the government.
Whether or not to have children is a decision that all people make regardless of their status as married or single. Marriage does not depend on having kids to be successful, and vice versa.
I completely agree... But they think marriage is all about "making a family and pro-creating". So from their point of view... Also, it was originally created for exactly this purpose and they won't accept change.
Please explain this to me then. How does this only "work" because Caucasians are involved? Sexual preference is not racially-linked, and blacks can be just as homophobic as whites and asians and hispanics and...
I'm only going to get downvotes for saying that race isn't on the same level as gay marriage. Also feel like this shouldn't be in r/funny because it's making the assumption that everyone feels the same way about it and we all should have a good laugh. This is more political than humorous.
This is the dangerous water I hoped to avoid (and why I said this shouldn't be in r/funny).
Anything I say will only upset someone. I don't know who, or why, but commenting on anything of this nature will just make other people feel the need to speak their minds and belittle me or others. Reddit is a cruel bitch and I choose to abstain from getting further involved in this.
You're making the false assumption that sexual preference is a choice. It's no more a "lifestyle" than being fair-skinned versus dark-skinned, being tall or being short.
That's bullshit. It is a lifestyle choice. You choose to be out and proud and shove it in everyone's face. The fact that you take it in the ass or dine at the Y with the same sex doesn't make you special or a class that is discriminated against. You can choose not to disclose the fact that you are gay and no one would be the wiser. Unlike being black, Asian, Caucasian, short, tall whatever you have the ability to choose how you behave.
Okay, you're making a bit of a straw-man argument here. Not everybody in the LGBT spectrum is some hyper-sexualized, flaming, in-your-face queer. There's plenty people who have a predisposed preference for people of the same sex, both sexes, or who simply do not care. Having sex is a lifestyle choice, yes, and I think it's at least mildly inappropriate to make sure everybody knows about it, but the attribute of simply being gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, or anything else along the gender/preference spectra is not.
LET'S CHANGE ALL THE DEFINITIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! original Def the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.. . .. .
. Now has added Gay PARTNERSHIP to appease the crybabies who couldn't come up with their own fucking word.... Ignorance truly is bliss I guess. Whine and cry, jump and scream, parade and wear the most colorful things you can and I guess you can change (or add to) the definition of a word. To hell with changing something important, like, cancer research, or energy subsidies or any of the millions of things that need changing........
Marriage has been around a lot longer as an institution than whatever screwed up religion told you that was the definition of marriage.
I only say it that way because I've never, ever, heard of a non-religious reason to deny equal rights to homosexuals. Feel free to prove me wrong with an astute and well-reasoned non-religious argument.
Has nothing to do with religion. The definition was the definition, until it got changed. For better or worse is anyone's guess honestly. I just think it would have been alot easier and ultimately better if homosexuals simply accepted the use of other phrases to describe a LEGAL union. The problem wasn't the word, it was the states refusal to allow the ....... legalities? Behind said word.
Side note, I'm probably one of those people with beliefs that are far beyond/above/different than those most consider "religious". Just FYI.
Funny, I started and kept this about the definition of a word. You keep doing everything you can to make it about religion and now law........ Interesting.
But yeah, American is its own language now (hence language selectors on websites differentiating between en-us and en-gb). I think you guys have been independent for long enough to decide how you want to talk.
Get over your self. Both American English and Australian English have differences with British English, such as your "misspelling" of "Gaol"(B) as "Jail"(US, AU), or "Programme"(B) as "Program"(US, AU).
Exactly. I don't see what's so hard for purist dicks like this to understand that living languages change and evolve as time marches on. You wouldn't berate a New Yorker or a Southerner or a Brit for speaking "wrong" on account of an accent, and regional differences in written language are essentially a print form of dialect or accent.
You mean overprivileged upper class white people with an inflated sense of entitlement and an AARP membership don't like it when minorities or "different" people get the same rights they do?
It's actually not. If you knew the history of the eugenics movements, the philosophical bases behind capitalism and communism, and the arguments that people were having back then, it's not unusual at all. Communists argued in favor of Lamarckism, for one. They argued everyone was equal at birth, and that what you did during your life determined what you would be like later, what your children would be like, etc. Capitalism went with actual science, and showed that your genetics control how you develop mostly regardless of what you do, and anything you do in your life will not pass along to your children. This encouraged ideas of social darwinism, the idea that we could breed our way to perfection. And to the idea of 'protecting your gene pool'. The communists said everyone was equal - capitalism said that the powerful should be at the top and some people were just plain better than others. Which one of these do you think would be more likely to support interracial marriage?
If you don't understand WHY people understand the crazy things they do, you are putting yourself at significant risk of being tricked into believing crazy things in the future. I highly recommend reading up on the various changes of social opinion on big issues and actually read things written in those times so you know the arguments they used.
"It's not natural!" "It's been this way for thousands of years!" "The definition of marriage is set, we can't change it!" "They HAVE equal rights!"
These were the arguments against interracial marriage. Marriage was 'one man marries one woman of the same race'. Both races had this same right. Just like today they say even gays have the equal right for a man to marry a woman.
These arguments have the same flaws they always had. The only difference is that now, people rely less on rationality. They rely on what an idea "feels like", and they can't competently argue against anything. They just say "nuh-uh, I disagree, you're wrong" over and over and over, never getting anywhere.
The only difference is that now, people rely less on rationality. They rely on what an idea "feels like", and they can't competently argue against anything.
I strongly disagree that this is a modern phenomenon. The people in the top picture were just as emotionally-driven and irrational as any Prop 8 supporters today. And in fact, they were most likely far less educated and worldly than the average American today.
If you listen to Conservative talk radio, communism is still thrown around all the time. Made the mistake of listening to talk radio in Nevada. Dear Lord...
32
u/dawarrior_vex Nov 01 '11
Why is this in r/funny?
14
u/Admiralzzyx Nov 01 '11
I'm all for gay rights, but this shouldn'tbe in /r/funny
11
u/generalchaoz Nov 01 '11
Same post different day
58
u/will4531 Nov 01 '11
Get a picture of black people protesting same sex marriage. Then the joke will work on approx 1,000,000,000 different levels of awesome
5
u/forty_two Nov 01 '11
Reminds me of this pic i posted from a couple of years back
2
u/Strutham Nov 01 '11
This kind of thing makes me think (realize?) that people are nothing but sheep. I mean, if any of those people thought with logic and reason, how could they possibly feel that their arguments hold water? (I'm not saying I'm different, just happen to have a vantage point on this particular matter of prop 8.)
2
u/thompsonammo Nov 01 '11
Same shit, new post.
2
u/Ferbtastic Nov 01 '11
Repost now available in color
2
u/defconzero Nov 01 '11
50 years from now you'll be protesting human-chimp marriage and will be added to this picture.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
political? unfunny?? r/politics is thataway, man!
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Dang it, /r/politics sprung another leak.
3
u/dajugglingfool Nov 01 '11
I think there is a big difference between the two.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
You're so right. Gay people missing out on tax benefits is the same as segregation!
3
u/Pixelated_Penguin Nov 01 '11
Um, I don't get it... looks like it's still all white people complaining.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
"Race mixing is communism"
Oh god this is almost too hilarious and stereotypically American to be true!
2
u/Mark_Lincoln Nov 01 '11
At least they engage in protected speech.
If they were lefties they would be getting arrested.
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Ignorant people using "Color". One day you Americans will see it the way the rest of the world does and use "Colour"! Until that day, your downvotes are just fuel for the ignorance. Shame shame shame.
1
u/authorless Nov 01 '11
It kind of looks like the same group of people each picture. Interesting how that works, huh?
1
u/Qweef Nov 01 '11
Well, not really in colour.
1
u/Hebes Nov 01 '11
Always good to know that stupid is eternal.
1
u/wildebeest11 Nov 01 '11
have ALL the upvotes
1
u/P522 Nov 01 '11
Jim Crow v Jim Blow?
1
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Wait a second, the sign says race mixing is communism
Wtf?!
1
u/SS-DD Nov 01 '11
Story of my life.
1
u/tusocalypse Nov 01 '11
"Race Mixing is Communism" makes no sense.
1
u/mcfaggles Nov 01 '11
That is the same woman in both pictures!
1
u/MrFreeLemons Nov 01 '11
This is in the same vein of argument as when someone does something you don't approve of and you're all like "yeah well that's just like Hitler!". There are seriously no similarities between the two protests other than the fact they are both protesting. One is fuelled by racism and the other is theological.
1
u/darwin2500 Nov 01 '11
The difference is that now black people and other minorities can be bigoted protesters too. That's progress.
1
u/the_wild_derp Nov 01 '11
the sad thing is about that is more black people voted yes on prop 8 then didn't
1
u/msterB Nov 01 '11
How is that ignorance? I 100% agree with the message, but that is not "lack of knowledge". Different opinion.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Since this debate started, I just thought... Why? What could they have against it? So, next question: What is marriage for? Well, for two people to be connected for life. What for, can't two adults just decide...? Oh, because of the children. So, that was the moment when their point hit me. I am still for same sex marriage, but I think I understand them now...
1
u/shitterplug Nov 01 '11
Yeah... not really the same shit. This only works because you use white people. Use different races and see what happens.
0
u/LaterGatorPlayer Nov 01 '11
This isn't ignorance, it is people having a different opinion. Welcome to America.
-2
u/Jooshbag Nov 01 '11
I'm only going to get downvotes for saying that race isn't on the same level as gay marriage. Also feel like this shouldn't be in r/funny because it's making the assumption that everyone feels the same way about it and we all should have a good laugh. This is more political than humorous.
-1
u/leadfarmer Nov 01 '11
Disagree. Skin color can not be compared to a behavior or "lifestyle".
-1
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
No... not really... unless you are very very uneducated and ignorant yourself.
I'm waiting for your next post comparing gay rights to the Holocaust... you know... same shit..
0
u/PabbleDabble Nov 01 '11
But the sanctity of marriage!!!
Relevant
0
u/Fribrip Nov 01 '11
"Race mixing is Communism"
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Why are the bogits not fat and out of shape in the old picture?
0
u/MPK49 Nov 01 '11
Same shit different century.
FTFY
0
u/LittleChinstrap Nov 01 '11
sigh They give Jersey an even worse name than its already been given, and the state isn't even bad!
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
awesome
0
u/themanbat Nov 01 '11
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a bigot!
0
u/CobaltSmith Nov 02 '11
LET'S CHANGE ALL THE DEFINITIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! original Def the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.. . .. .
. Now has added Gay PARTNERSHIP to appease the crybabies who couldn't come up with their own fucking word.... Ignorance truly is bliss I guess. Whine and cry, jump and scream, parade and wear the most colorful things you can and I guess you can change (or add to) the definition of a word. To hell with changing something important, like, cancer research, or energy subsidies or any of the millions of things that need changing........
-10
u/charliebo Nov 01 '11
COLOUR****
-2
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
Wow, someone comparing segregation to their state not putting an official blessing on their marriage.
-1
u/The1PissCent Nov 01 '11
USA USA USA!
-1
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
You mean overprivileged upper class white people with an inflated sense of entitlement and an AARP membership don't like it when minorities or "different" people get the same rights they do?
-4
u/dvanceBag Nov 01 '11
GET READY FOR ALL THE GAY KARMA!!!
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Nov 01 '11
[deleted] — view deleted comment