Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by mwcremer on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @07:17PM
(#25064671)
Au contraire: https://garfieldminusgarfield.net
(Although I suppose a case could be made for it still being "empty.")
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by sp332 on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @09:57PM
(#25065908)
And https://3eanuts.com/ which just removes the last panel from Peanuts strips, making them horribly gloomy.
Thanks for sharing this. TIL Linus has a little brother called Rerun.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by bdowling on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @07:26PM
(#25064750)
I prefer `lasagnacat` for my existential/surreal Garfield riffs.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2AQkHXNVA-w9FA1m9VqO7A
My favorite may be this one, a one-hour single-take monologue about finding the meaning of life in a Garfield strip.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by joshspankit on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @11:11PM
(#25066349)
Did not think I would but I did, infact, watch the entire monologue.
It made a lasting mark.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by devilduck on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @10:41PM
(#25066167)
You're allowed to like both things
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by Cthulhu_ on Thursday November 12, 2020 @04:07AM
(#25067934)
Garfield has gone beyond joy and is now nightmare fuel: (CW: body horror) https://www.reddit.com/r/imsorryjon/
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by klodolph on Thursday November 12, 2020 @02:32AM
(#25067408)
Making fun of Garfield cartoons might as well be a Monty Python reference.
It's a tiresome hold-over of Something Awful culture that's been exported everywhere else.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by npsimons on Thursday November 12, 2020 @10:07AM
(#25070627)
> A lot of nerd/hacker culture falls into this kind of recognition of unique humor and wit, then squeezing every little drop of joy out of it until it's as empty as a Garfield cartoon.
Or maybe they truly enjoy it, and you're also witnessing the lucky 10,000 effect (https://xkcd.com/1053/)? I mean, not to be insulting, but talk about humorless . . .
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by DoctorOW on Thursday November 12, 2020 @01:35PM
(#25073089)
I think the parent was suggesting that if you enjoy something and want to replicate that feeling in others, one won't be able to do it by simply recreating the surface elements without the context of what made it unique. Garfield is a great example. Garfield's initial popularity stemmed from him being a sharp turn from the cat depicted as the "cute, lovable pet". He was fat, judgmental, and sarcastic. Countless movies, TV shows, commercials, etc. have watered Garfield down to just a face that means nothing. Maybe there are still a lucky 10,000 for Garfield but they're not getting that same experience.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by npsimons on Thursday November 12, 2020 @03:41PM
(#25074691)
But he mentioned "Rick and Morty" and Monty Python. I myself didn't even see a single episode of "Rick and Morty" until last December when I binged them all at my brother's place. Yeah, I had heard of it, was vaguely aware of the memes, but paid it little attention. When I did finally watch it without having previously been bathed in the hubbub surrounding it, I found it at times darkly funny and deeply touching.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by nurettin on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @11:46PM
(#25066545)
xkcd is the elephant in the room.
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by foolfoolz on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @07:17PM
(#25064667)
this complaint is effectively “repost!!!”
Re:Why's (Poignant) Guide to Ruby (2004)
by Dylan16807 on Wednesday November 11, 2020 @09:57PM
(#25065905)
...you say on a repost.
No, the problem isn't "reposting".
A lot of nerd/hacker culture falls into this kind of recognition of unique humor and wit, then squeezing every little drop of joy out of it until it's as empty as a Garfield cartoon.