I like in-jokes and memes and whatnot, as I’m sure you can tell by the fact that I have a blog on the innernet. So the thing about in-jokes is they’re… in… right? If you’re going to tell an in-joke you’re presumably talking to people that’re in, but how do you know whether the invisible pretend internet people who’ll (perhaps) read your blog someday know what you’re talking about?
I’m not the first person to think of this and one trend is to solve the problem by spelling the in-jokes out in a lexicon. Two minor issues:
1) “It isn’t funny if you have to explain it.”
2) THIS MEANS THEY ARE BY DEFINITION NO LONGER IN-JOKES YOU FUCKWITS*
When I first started reading blogs you solved this problem by hanging out long enough for the blogger-in-question to make a post which made the answer obvious by context; this is how I know what a Friedman unit is, what people are getting at when they talk about lucky duckies and why it’s always OKIYAR. I may be a bit of an e-hardass but I think that’s the proper way to do it– you experience an in-joke by being FUCKING IN. On the other hand, I like things that’re funny and think they’re even funnier when I can share them and discuss how they made me laugh with other life units who hopefully derived enjoyment from them as well, so I recognize that there’s a bit of a gap to bridge here. So:
I propose starting an FP lexicon of a slightly different sort. Rather than spelling out the in-joke for you directly you will be linked to the post (if I can still find it) or at least the blog/site/publication (if not) that the thing I’m laughing about came from. If you choose you can then get in on the joke. If not then I neither have to worry about explaining it nor ditch the reference I wanted to use because one of you fuckers might not get it. Think of it as a free market solution– the invisible hand can lead a horse to… oh my god too many metaphors, you see what I’m getting at.
*this text would also be blinking Geocities-circa 1994 style if I knew how to make that happen. advice welcomed