@Ephera@JoeBidet This is very interesting: my reading contained none of those you listed, and in fact reading them seems very absurd and artificial.
- the image is based on noticing these people’s skin color in the first place, and making a joke out of them;
To me it was a joke about the skin colors, not about the people.
- the analogy with the Rubik’s Cube means that there is something to “solve” there;
I can’t even…
- the last click in the Rubik’s Cube is a “perfect” state.
Yes, matching the patterns. I can’t even see how it isn’t obvious, like looking at a two triangles, cubes and rabbits and seeing matching rabbit-to-rabbit and triangle-to-triangle as “perfect state”.
But maybe the solution is simpler: you don’t understand jokes. 😀
You seem to try to “explain” it and see “hidden content” in it, while it is, simply, a joke. With no such hidden or elusive meanings. Triangle-to-triangle, and recognising that every kind has its pair and it is “almost” “perfectly matched”. That was a joke, and this all debate feels like when I was in school and the literature teacher wanted us to tell him that the poet wanted to say with the poem what he say he wanted. And I never have accepted that, and once I told him absolutely different things, and he got very angry and wanted to give me an “F” (or number 1 here around) and I told him (quite impolitely) that if he does that I will go to the director and request that he PROVE that the poet wanted to say THAT with the poem. I got nothing, was sent back to sit down (and I wasn’t his favourite pupil anyway).
I born to be Politically Incorrect. And I still believe I’m a good person. 😉 Just really really hard to handle. :-]
@Ephera @JoeBidet This is very interesting: my reading contained none of those you listed, and in fact reading them seems very absurd and artificial.
To me it was a joke about the skin colors, not about the people.
I can’t even…
Yes, matching the patterns. I can’t even see how it isn’t obvious, like looking at a two triangles, cubes and rabbits and seeing matching rabbit-to-rabbit and triangle-to-triangle as “perfect state”.
But maybe the solution is simpler: you don’t understand jokes. 😀
You seem to try to “explain” it and see “hidden content” in it, while it is, simply, a joke. With no such hidden or elusive meanings. Triangle-to-triangle, and recognising that every kind has its pair and it is “almost” “perfectly matched”. That was a joke, and this all debate feels like when I was in school and the literature teacher wanted us to tell him that the poet wanted to say with the poem what he say he wanted. And I never have accepted that, and once I told him absolutely different things, and he got very angry and wanted to give me an “F” (or number 1 here around) and I told him (quite impolitely) that if he does that I will go to the director and request that he PROVE that the poet wanted to say THAT with the poem. I got nothing, was sent back to sit down (and I wasn’t his favourite pupil anyway).
I born to be Politically Incorrect. And I still believe I’m a good person. 😉 Just really really hard to handle. :-]