Wow, how funny. You added ‘Our,’ to a word.
Wow. How funny, you added the word our to a word.
How funny. How compelling.
Have you read Capital? Have you read anything remotely socialist? Do you know what dialectical materialism is? Do you know anything about commodities, the relation of the worker and the capitalist, etc?
Adding “our” to a word and presenting it as ‘wOw Am CoMmIe’ humour is a brilliant, clever, Einstien-level joke. This is so far from the truth. In reality, using this technique is not only unfunny, but it’s also a lazy attempt at humour that relies on tired cliches and stereotypes. First of all, the very THOUGHT that putting “our” in front of a usual, everyday word automatically makes it socialist is a misunderstanding, a curse, a level of stupidity I cannot comprehend; are you, by any chance, an einzeller?Communism is such a complicated socio-economic theory that CANNOT be reduced to a simple ‘our,’ to reduce it to such a simple, low-iq linguistic trick. Using ‘our’ as a prefix is one of the worst attempts at humour I can imagine. Shame on you, shame. Secondly, the use of this technique is often associated with lazy humour that relies on stereotypes and cliches. This type of humour is not only unfunny, but it’s also hurtful and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
Shame on you, ya filthy bumhole.
From: r/marxistculture
deleted by creator
We added ‘Our’ to a word, comrade.
Our toothbrush
*Shame on us, we filthy bumholes
Ackchyually, we did not add “our” to a word, because this was not an agglutination, as English is largely analytic. You fool. You absolute buffoon.
Taking this seriously… even if this is an April 1st joke
On the other hand, yes, it’s a bit tiring
On the other hand, I feel indirectly attacked by yer post…
wOw, HoW fUnNy. YoU aDdEd ‘OuR,’ tO a WoRd.
WoW. hOw FuNnY. yOu AdDeD tHe WoRd OuR tO a WoRd.
HoW fUnNy. HoW cOmPeLlInG.
HaVe yOu rEaD CaPiTaL? hAvE YoU ReAd aNyThInG ReMoTeLy sOcIaLiSt? Do yOu kNoW WhAt dIaLeCtIcAl mAtErIaLiSm iS? dO YoU KnOw aNyThInG AbOuT CoMmOdItIeS, tHe rElAtIoN Of tHe wOrKeR AnD ThE CaPiTaLiSt, EtC?
AdDiNg “OuR” tO A WoRd aNd pReSeNtInG It aS ‘wOw aM CoMmIe’ HuMoUr iS A BrIlLiAnT, cLeVeR, eInStIeN-LeVeL JoKe. ThIs iS So fAr fRoM ThE TrUtH. iN ReAlItY, uSiNg tHiS TeChNiQuE Is nOt oNlY UnFuNnY, bUt iT’S AlSo a lAzY AtTeMpT At hUmOuR ThAt rElIeS On tIrEd cLiChEs aNd sTeReOtYpEs. FiRsT Of aLl, ThE VeRy tHoUgHt tHaT PuTtInG “oUr” In fRoNt oF A UsUaL, eVeRyDaY WoRd aUtOmAtIcAlLy mAkEs iT SoCiAlIsT Is a mIsUnDeRsTaNdInG, a cUrSe, A LeVeL Of sTuPiDiTy i cAnNoT CoMpReHeNd; ArE YoU, bY AnY ChAnCe, An eInZeLlEr?cOmMuNiSm iS SuCh a cOmPlIcAtEd sOcIo-eCoNoMiC ThEoRy tHaT CaNnOt bE ReDuCeD To a sImPlE ‘oUr,’ tO ReDuCe iT To sUcH A SiMpLe, LoW-Iq lInGuIsTiC TrIcK. uSiNg ‘OuR’ aS A PrEfIx iS OnE Of tHe wOrSt aTtEmPtS At hUmOuR I CaN ImAgInE. sHaMe oN YoU, sHaMe. SeCoNdLy, ThE UsE Of tHiS TeChNiQuE Is oFtEn aSsOcIaTeD WiTh lAzY HuMoUr tHaT ReLiEs oN StErEoTyPeS AnD ClIcHeS. tHiS TyPe oF HuMoUr iS NoT OnLy uNfUnNy, BuT It’s aLsO HuRtFuL AnD PeRpEtUaTeS HaRmFuL StErEoTyPeS.
ShAmE On yOu, Ya fIlThY BuMhOlE.
Yeah, we shouldn’t be making brilliant, clever, Einstein-level jokes. Obviously, we should be making Vegapunk level jokes.
Wow, how funny. You added ‘Ouw,’ to a wowd.
Wow. How funny, you added the wowd ouw to a wowd.
How funny. How compewwing.
Have you wead Capitaw? Have you wead anything wemotely sociawist? Do you know what diawecticaw matewiawism is? Do you know anything about commodities, the wewation of the worker and the capitawist, etc?
Adding “ouw” to a wowd and pwesenting it as ‘wOw Am CoMmIe’ humour is a bwiwwiant, cwevew, Einstien-wevew joke. This is so faw from the truth. In weality, using this technique is not onwy unfunny, but it’s awso a wazy attempt at humour that wewies on tiwed cwiches and steweotypes. First of aww, the vewy THOUGHT that putting “ouw” in front of a usuaw, everyday wowd automaticawwy makes it sociawist is a misundewstanding, a cuwse, a wevew of stupidity I cannot compwehend; are you, by any chance, an einzellew?Communism is such a compwicated socio-economic theowy that CANNOT be reduced to a simple ‘ouw,’ to weduce it to such a simpwe, wow-iq winguistic twick. Using ‘ouw’ as a pwefix is one of the wowst attempts at humouw I can imagine. Shame on you, shame. Secondwy, the use of this technique is often associated with wazy humouw that wewies on steweotypes and cwiches. This type of humouw is not onwy unfunny, but it’s also huwtfuw and pewpetuates harmfuw steweotypes.
Shame on you, ya fiwthy bumhowe.
