this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
438 points (95.1% liked)

memes

10205 readers
2409 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'd say that's not what "abnormous" means, but I like your implied definition better.

[–] MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I didn't know it was a real word and assumed OP made it as a combination of abnormal and enormous. Just looked it up though and you're right.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I feel like with enough usage, we could force the definition to shift.

I'm going to try and make fetch happen!

[–] Monument@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago

That’s it. I’m invoking the clause.
Prepare yourselves, millennials, we’re not done making quirky headlines yet.

Article IV § 2 of the generational edict asserts that every generation holds the unilateral right whimsically adopt cultural relics and insist without proof that they’ve always done things that way to other generations.

From now on: everything cool is fetch; it’s not a glow-up, someone has ‘become fetch’; ✘ you got that drip, ✔ you’re so fetch.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

I mean that's literally how it works yeah, the dictionary just observes how people use the words, they don't define them themselves

[–] crypticthree@lemmy.world 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

You like it?

It's very generous.

[–] misterundercoat@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago

I just think they're neat

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 39 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] stick2urgunz88@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago

Yes yes, “ah tah.”

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 37 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that the figurines may have been created as self-portraits by women.[12]This theory stems from the correlation of the proportions of the statues to how the proportions of women's bodies would seem if they were looking down at themselves, which would have been the only way to view their bodies during this period. They speculate that the complete lack of facial features could be accounted for by the fact that sculptors did not own mirrors.

[–] DriftinGrifter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, I saw that rebuttal and it seemed pretty strange to me.

They couldn't have been sculpting from their own perspective, because they technically had access to viewing themselves from a third-person perspective?

We technically had access to drawing with linear perspective all along, but somehow until only a few hundred years ago, this is the best we could do:

It just seems like a very modern-biased way of thinking about depiction. Mapping objective reality (rather than subjective perception) into art is a relatively new concept.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Liz@midwest.social 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, that lady's crotch is bigger than her tits, she's not exactly proportional from any perspective. I'm gonna go ahead and say that maybe we have no idea who made it and any argument concerning authorship is pure speculation.

[–] OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that...

[–] Liz@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Speculation and a hypothesis are two very different levels of certainty in a claim. I suppose, though, that this area of research is somewhat forced to use more certain language than other areas would be comfortable with, given the same quality of evidence. Recognize that "we're just guessing here" also applies to the claim in the meme.

[–] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 35 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I've always liked me a big woman, but those ancient boys may have liked too big of a woman. Who am I to judge, though? Probably sign of a real good harvest, and I bet that made everyone horny back then.

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Maybe women used to be more gigantic back them and we're nerfed across time or something. I unno. I am no xenobiologist

[–] Evrala@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

They were most likely made by women, the proportions make sense when you think of a woman looking down at herself. It is just that when the first men to uncover the artifacts looked at them they said "wow, these were obviously made by men and are ancient porn!"

There are ones that have been found at various stages of pregnancy so were likely an educational tool.

[–] istanbullu@lemmy.ml 28 points 7 months ago

Our biological weakness for an ample bosom transcends the ages.

[–] Toneswirly@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Big booba good

[–] davitz@lemmy.ca 18 points 7 months ago
[–] NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm using abnormous from here on out

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 9 points 7 months ago
[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 6 points 7 months ago
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago
[–] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Your turkey appears to be missing it's head

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The carving just looks like a whole chicken with lemons under the breast skin. 🤤

load more comments
view more: next ›