• pyrflie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yup Racist commentary. Typical AIPAC.

        Family names aren’t a good attack vector in the US as we will hang family with suitable inducement. Gaza isn’t looking good for Israel.

        • grozzle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          whoosh

          Mehta sounds like Meta, Fasbuk sounds like Facebook. it was a joke.

          • pyrflie@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not sure who you are responding too but it isn’t me. You didn’t make a joke and aren’t on facebook. Congrats on getting added to my bot list.

            • grozzle@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I was trying to help you see how you misunderstood, but sure. Beep boop.

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              They were explaining on how the joke flew over your head. If there’s reason to think anyone in this exchange is a bot, it’d be you, because you can’t really understand jokes even when they’re explained to you. Though nowadays, even bots understand jokes, ChatGPT can explain them fairly well.

        • Raxiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          One of Googles biggest competitor’s is the company “Meta” which is phonetically similar to the judges name. The previous commentator made a joke where they appeared to confuse the corporation for the person. A situation that would be absurd if true, and from there the humour arose.
          When a respondent (you) appeared to miss the subtext in the comment, and took it at face value, I made a post where I gave the impression I had made the same mistake , and suggested that the judge had previously had a name phonetically similar to “Facebook” which was the name previously used by the corporation now called “Meta”.

          Such a situation would require a coincidence even more implausible and absurd than the first, and was intended to demonstrate that neither comment should be taken seriously.

          Your comment indicates you either failed to identify the absurdity, possibly due to confirmation bias following your previous response. Or you are attempting to “up the ante” by erroneously taking such absurdity seriously for further humourous effect. Your follow up comments elsewhere suggest the former.

          Regardless, the “joke” has now been thoroughly killed by way of explanation. You can choose to accept the explanation or choose to remain in error.