It’s relatable to only a small percentage of people (fraction of people who are interested in relationships with women, subset people who are in relationships with women, subset people whose women partner is phone obsessed, subset people who cannot independently shop for groceries, subset people who while grocery shopping have had their women partner fail to answer her phone, subset people who have this happen routinely or significantly enough to even notice or care). You will see others saying that it’s relatable but that will just be confirmation bias.
And for each person who has experienced this, they only once could have experienced it as the image describes since black holes do not relinquish the matter they absorb. Who even would be in a relationship with somebody who is both on their phone 24/7 and be short distance enough to share groceries? The hyperbole is too literal and becomes nonsensical rather than comedic.
Multiple of your fractional subsets don’t apply. It doesn’t have to be a woman, doesn’t need to be a “relationship” as typically meant by the term, and didn’t hinge on some strange inability to “independently shop for groceries”.
No. You have a very strangely rigid concept of what pieces are actually required for the joke here. A person who is usually on their phone is difficult to contact. The “joke” is the disconnect between a person being apparently on their phone at all times and being unable to contact them yourself when needing to. That’s literally it. Every other detail is just window dressing.
Happens to me all the time. Wife non-stop staring at her phone, unreachable when I call needing something extra from the store. It’s almost uncanny how relatable this is.
Who doesn’t call their SO at the store? “Shit, forgot to ask her to get beer.”
Words have meaning. Grammar has a purpose. The joke-teller is necessarily within the store making a call to an unspecified “her” for unspecified reasons and we know this via the rare skill known as reading. Just because a vocal plurality of people interpret a Rorschach inkblot test or a Jackson Pollock painting as a specific message, that does not make those pieces mean anything, let alone any specific one thing or analogous things.
It’s relatable to only a small percentage of people (fraction of people who are interested in relationships with women, subset people who are in relationships with women, subset people whose women partner is phone obsessed, subset people who cannot independently shop for groceries, subset people who while grocery shopping have had their women partner fail to answer her phone, subset people who have this happen routinely or significantly enough to even notice or care). You will see others saying that it’s relatable but that will just be confirmation bias.
And for each person who has experienced this, they only once could have experienced it as the image describes since black holes do not relinquish the matter they absorb. Who even would be in a relationship with somebody who is both on their phone 24/7 and be short distance enough to share groceries? The hyperbole is too literal and becomes nonsensical rather than comedic.
Multiple of your fractional subsets don’t apply. It doesn’t have to be a woman, doesn’t need to be a “relationship” as typically meant by the term, and didn’t hinge on some strange inability to “independently shop for groceries”.
Ok, then a person who uses “her” as a pronoun rather than exclusively a woman.
All other criteria are essential to meet the apparent meaning of the joke.
No. You have a very strangely rigid concept of what pieces are actually required for the joke here. A person who is usually on their phone is difficult to contact. The “joke” is the disconnect between a person being apparently on their phone at all times and being unable to contact them yourself when needing to. That’s literally it. Every other detail is just window dressing.
I understood that much. Take it up with shneancy@lemmy.world for what their interpretation requires.
The set dressing either should have been communicated clearer to not be confusing or wholly omitted.
In your bubble maybe, but please don’t assume your experiences are indicative of a broader group.
youre reading far to deep into this, this doesnt even happen to me (i dont call people) and i understood it right away
Happens to me all the time. Wife non-stop staring at her phone, unreachable when I call needing something extra from the store. It’s almost uncanny how relatable this is.
Who doesn’t call their SO at the store? “Shit, forgot to ask her to get beer.”
The joke is so poorly phrased that you inverted the roles of who is shopping
Because the joke doesn’t change depending on who is in the store.
It is the exact same joke.
“call” is a transitive verb.
“from” is a preposition.
Words have meaning. Grammar has a purpose. The joke-teller is necessarily within the store making a call to an unspecified “her” for unspecified reasons and we know this via the rare skill known as reading. Just because a vocal plurality of people interpret a Rorschach inkblot test or a Jackson Pollock painting as a specific message, that does not make those pieces mean anything, let alone any specific one thing or analogous things.