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

memes

10482 readers
5364 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 [email protected]

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle 52 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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!

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] AreaKode 12 points 7 months ago

You like it?

It's very generous.

[–] misterundercoat 40 points 7 months ago

I just think they're neat

[–] [email protected] 39 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

Yes yes, “ah tah.”

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 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)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Catherine McCoid and LeRoy McDermott hypothesize that...

[–] [email protected] 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 7 months ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

Up until just a few decades ago the hardest thing for people to get was food, not housing as it is (for most of the people on Lemmy) today.

Because of this, being fat was seen in various societies as a sign of wealth or beauty, sometimes both. As late as a hundred years ago the US and Great Britain had "fat man societies". Here's an article on that:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/07/469571114/the-forgotten-history-of-fat-men-s-clubs

We can't really know why the "fertility idol" sculptures look that way, but if you're an early human spending your life going through cycles of feast and famine as you follow prey animals sticking around with the fat person you ran into was a good way to stay alive.

[–] Harbinger01173430 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 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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago

Our biological weakness for an ample bosom transcends the ages.

[–] Toneswirly 26 points 7 months ago

Big booba good

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago

I’d totally watch a documentary on simps throughout history. It would be hilarious!

[–] NoSpiritAnimal 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm using abnormous from here on out

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago
[–] TrickDacy 5 points 7 months ago
[–] boatsnhos931 4 points 7 months ago

Your turkey appears to be missing it's head

load more comments
view more: next ›