3 ms·
> "Without the man in the photo, the photo of this man wouldn’t exist." I get what it means in the context of the article, and it's a good point, but still I c
by jamesgreenleaf 4y ago
> "Without the man in the photo, the photo of this man wouldn’t exist."
I get what it means in the context of the article, and it's a good point, but still I can't help noticing... that's true of all men in all photos.
- hackernewds 4y ago[flagged]
- dag11 4y agoBecause they're making commentary on the sentence in the form the sentence took. Gender is unrelated.
- aussieshibe 4y agoGP didn't say "only" men.
- pyinstallwoes 4y agoBlessed self-reference, oh curse of recursion, pray my stack doesn't run too deep.
- mondocat 4y agoIndeed. Suffers the same superficial depth as Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon. Should have been "Without the man in this photo, the photo of a man wouldn't exist."
- FrontierPsych 4y agoI thought photography started in the mid 1800s. Maybe it should have been, "Without the man in this photo, digital photos of a man wouldn't exist." Or am I not understanding?