Sunday, December 6, 2009

Comic 671: Randall and Me

who is stephen
Holy crap, two 1980s movie comics in a row! That is crazy. Last time was Spinal Tap, this time it's Michael Moore's debut film, Roger and Me. But instead of visiting the head of GM, as that film does, Mr. Beret visits the head of Volvo. And he does it for stupid petty reasons, because Randall Munroe thinks that if he gets one of his characters to say a Dirty Word then people will laugh at his comic. Which they might, because at this point the comic is basically targeted at pretentious fourteen year olds with too much time to spend online.

Now, I hate Mr. Beret. He is the least consistent character ever created, ever, bar none. Why is he now a political/economic activist-turned-immature-preteen? that's not anything he's ever done before. And the stuff he did before - think things were bakeries, think his mom was alive and fat, love staplers - has absolutely no relation to what he is doing now. I hate him so much.

What is that box labeled "VOLVO CARS" in panel 1? Is that the box...that cars come out of?

I would be remiss if I did not link to Way Walkers glorious re-editing of this comic, so click here.

Also, does anyone know why this comic is called "Stephen and Me" ? Wikipedia tells me that the CEO of Volvo is Leif Johansson, not Stephen anything. Also, wikipedia tells me that Leif Johansson plays the ukelele. So...yeah.


update: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the new comic freaks me the fuck out. agghghghhhhhh gross creepy ahhhhh

114 comments:

  1. Panel 3: What is that thing on his desk that disappears suddenly in panel 4? Also, he's got one of those chairs (so common in xkcd) that allow you to hover. Combine this with the title that I don't understand, and the "Volvo Cars" box, and the superfluous dialog after the punchline, and you get a comic that does not even manage to be mediocre. It just sucks.

    And by "sucks," I meant "is almost infinitely better than today's comic."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm pretty sure I don't get 672. If I do get 672--"Facebook gives suggestions to people. What if it gave. . .creepy sexual suggestions?"--then it's horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The thing in panel 1 is a sign, I think, although it was completely unnecessary.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AB Volvo and Volvo Cars are different companies, with different CEOs. The CEO of Volvo Cars is Stephen O'Dell.

    Now, knowing this doesn't really make the comic any better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The sign is only necessary because there's nothing else indicating where all this is taking place. Side ffect of Randall being too lazy to draw a background..

    Also, awesome re-edit. The journey gives the punch line its punch.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obviously the sign is necessary because a couple of people here didn't know that the Volvo in question is Volvo cars

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dammit how hard is it to have a stick figure's head be connected to its fucking body? It is disconnected in THREE panels of 672. And it's not even close in the first two.

    What's REALLY odd is that for me at least, 671 is still the one showing on the main page, and 672 only appears in the archive. Even clicking the Next button on the main page doesn't go to 672.

    Maybe he realizes how awful it is and he's trying to hide it or something. Doubtful though.

    Also why do I keep going to the forums? I told myself "Seriously, nobody can say GOOMH to this. There's no way." Then wouldn't you know it the first poster says it. I'm going to go slam my head in a car door for a while until the pain of seeing that goes away.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Also the PPD is really bad in this one, since it consists of nothing but the character explaining (what I assume to be) the joke: That the Facebook suggestions are getting creepier.

    It would be like if, in 671, Steve had responded with "So, you think it's clever that Volvo sounds a bit like vulva?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, I'm generally a fan of xkcd, but I think your site is rather funny/clever and so I wanted to tell you: collegehumor made the same joke as tonight's xkcd earlier this week.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The joke is more about Michael Moore's documentaries. It's a parody making fun of the way Michael Moore 'stirs up controversy' about something people already know.

    Trouble is, this joke would have been more relevant several years ago, and could have done without the "vulva" gag.

    As for the current one, that's again old news, and very creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Latest comic was kind of funny but in that ah ha ha ha slowly backing away sort of funny where you are really really uncomfortable about the whole thing, so if that was the intent then XKCD hit it right on. I am not sure whether that was the intent.

    Also, I don't use Facebook so I don't really get the reference.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Randy must have just watched the episode of Arrested Development which makes the same joke:
    Lindsay: We're super rich again, Mikey! And I'm going to buy a car. A Volvo!
    Michael: Lindsay, you're not going to start spending money again.
    [she hands him a picture]
    Michael: And this is not a Volvo...
    Lindsay: Oh, that's from sitting on the copier.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Again with the dialog after the punchline. On both comics in fact :<

    captcha: bustiou... you certainly do owe me some busts

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Also the PPD is really bad in this one, since it consists of nothing but the character explaining (what I assume to be) the joke: That the Facebook suggestions are getting creepier."

    Just removing it wouldn't help much, though. Without it, it would be impossible to tell what the stick figure is thinking. That would also make for a very sucky comic. However, I think another panel showing him either disabling the feature or shutting down his Facebook account would be a small improvement. It would still suck, just less so.

    Also, was I the only one who read the alt-text and pictured someone with only one nipple? :(

    ReplyDelete
  15. Without it, it would be impossible to tell what the stick figure is thinking

    As far as I can tell, "what the stick figure is thinking" is not actually remotely relevant to the joke. Maybe Randall should have come up with a funny thing for the stick figure to be thinking, rather than just having the stick figure be a cipher for his audience.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I personally can't wait until someone comes and calls us a bunch of prudes for not wanting mental images of Randall licking nipples. Anyone want to start a pool on how long it takes?

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://xkcd.com/275/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Here is the link to the College Humor article Anon 10:07 mentioned. Notice how it tells relatively the same joke as comic 672, but in a much funnier and much less disturbing way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. interestingly enough, not too long after 672 came up I got like 10 notifications on Facebook saying who of my friends took the "top 5 facebook stalkers quiz" and all I could think was "this has got 672 written all over it, except apparently Facebook is now the stalker"

    ReplyDelete
  20. You guys are all just scared of sex probably. What's wrong. Can't handle the thought of licking nipples? Mmmmm, nipples.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I like licking nipples, but I don't like when Randy is involved.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Abstruse Goose had something similar a while back. It also describes how I felt after 672. After reading the college humor version, it feels like xkcd is the guy who took it too far.

    Abstruse Goose: Don't you think some of those things on Facebook seem vaguely dirty? I feel like I should need a cigarette after "poking" someone.

    College Humor: Yeah, and those friend suggestions! I feel like they're staring at me, making me feel guilty for not friending everyone I meet on the street.

    xkcd: Did you ever find Bugs Bunny attractive when he put on a dress and played a girl bunny?

    I felt a little guilty offering suggestions on bettering the last one because it wasn't all that bad (but thanks for to those who liked mine). This one, on the other hand is just creepy.

    Less creepy
    Alt-text: "Relationship suggestion: It's complicated"

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anyone going to comment on the little pic in the third panel?

    Wait, nevermind, forget I brought it up...

    ReplyDelete
  24. What is he doing with his hands in panel 4?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Okay, this webcomic is getting creepier and creepier.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I was actually liking 672 myself, for the majority of three panels. Then that extra "yeah, we'll just have a talk part" made me shake my head, then the character talking in the fourth panel made it worse (I personally think him sitting there speechless would have been a vast improvement), and then the alt-text completely ruined it, because Randall just can't help himself from ruining a decent idea. Also, the college humor thing is very funny, and makes him look even worse.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think I'm getting so desensitised to xkcd that the latest comic just made me think "Oh, Randall, now you're just fucking with us". And then I *JUST* realised how wrong that phrase sounds when it comes to Randall, so I just want to wash my brain with disinfectant and caustic soda.

    I'm even afraid of getting into the comic thread, but I just wonder how absurd it is that Randall makes a joke about how the Facebook feature is "getting creepier and creepier". He should take a look at his own webcomic. I mean: a joke about that Facebook suggestion thing (I have only a slight idea of what it is about) is pretty relevant, in a "why the hell is a computer program giving hints on human relations" sense, but Randall has to RUIN it by being completely childish, immature and sex-obsessed. It ruins the point, it weakens the joke, since it seems like the author can't think like a grown-up. And no, Randall, talking about sex does NOT make you look like a grown-up; it makes you look like a teenager. People have sex, everybody knows that, there's nothing special about that. GROW THE FUCK UP.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Also, regarding the Volvo comic strip, why does the strip target Volvo Cars instead of the actual Volvo? It seems like Randall doesn't even know there's a much older company called just "Volvo". Even *I* know that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Regarding today's strip, I laughed at the second panel when it put it's foot into the waters of ridiculousity, but the punchline and the alt were both weak in my mind.

    I do like the myspace-angle stick figure post of her 'profile pic' though.

    The thing that makes the least sense is that the last panel implies they are sleeping together, but if that is the case then why is he at his computer still?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why does everybody imagine Randall acting it out for every sexual reference in xkcd? Now THATS creepy.

    When you read smbc comics, you dont imagine the author doing everything sexual in there, surely?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Oh man, that re-edit is simply fucking amazing. See, I knew that 671 could be turned into something actually humorous!

    672's pretty much beyond hope, though. Hey, someone else, are the "reconnect" messages in Facebook actually at all creepy? I have mine set to "Pirate," so they're all just, y'know, piratey.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Why does everybody imagine Randall acting it out for every sexual reference in xkcd? Now THATS creepy.

    Because Randall has come out time and time again and stated that xkcd strips often revolve around things that have happened in his life/things he wishes were happening in his life? Hell, even Mr. Hat is a cipher for all the times he's wanted to do something nasty or outrageous. You can't make something with yourself as the main character some of the time and not, you know, expect people to keep putting you there.

    ReplyDelete
  33. What the fuck is with the drawing of the girl in the new strip? Either her arms are coming right out of her neck or she's tied to something, I don't know which option is worse.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 671 was so damn stupid I couldn't even leave a comment on the last post. Really, stupid.

    672: TEH CREEPEH! And Randall did an awesome job spelling out his joke in the last panel! I guess with xkcd you always know the joke will be ruined somehow, eh?

    CAPTCHA: actnets. I'm ACTing on the NETS. =D

    ReplyDelete
  35. New comic already done by collegehumor:

    http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1794382

    And without the hand drawn thing it is much less disctracting

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whether or not a sex joke is creepy is one of those things that really is based on the personality of the author, and how pleasant it is to imagine the person in question doing the sex acts they describe. Randy is a kind of creepy dude. I don't like imagining his tongue. I would prefer living in a world where I never had to think about it existing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. here, I made a visual guide for everyone (SFW:)

    http://i47.tinypic.com/33wquev.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  38. nick (not that one)December 7, 2009 at 8:32 AM

    they really need to lay off the 'get out of my head' crap over there.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why does everybody imagine Randall acting it out for every sexual reference in xkcd? Now THATS creepy.

    When you read smbc comics, you dont imagine the author doing everything sexual in there, surely?


    It definitely makes a difference that Randall has no characters in XKCD. Strictly speaking SMBC doesn't either, but in SMBC the author shows up once in a while and acts noticably differently from all the one-off characters. in XKCD, you've just got a variety of literally faceless interchangeable nobodies. When their role in the comic is nothing but "cipher for the audience", and Randall has explicitly stated that he bases the comics on his real life, it tends to blur the distinction between author and character.

    Consider 631, though I know you wouldn't like to. The alt text implies that Mr. Munroe has spent enough time observing naked photos on Wikipedia and naked photos on amateur porn sites to notice their similarities. It doesn't even imply that a character of Mr. Munroe has done these things, just that the author has.

    ReplyDelete
  40. For what it's worth, I don't think Beret Guy thought he was at a bakery so much as going to the bakery. It's more in keeping with his usual persona of disconnected-from-reality-and-responsibility-and-loving-the-little-things instead of just being stupid. THIS comic takes that persona for a spin though, very out of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Randall, just stop drawing people on chairs. Come on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. On a serious note, here's what I don't get.
    RanDULL expects his reader to be aware of tech-pop culture and leaning towards math/sci nerdom. Basically, if you've ever read Wired Magazine or could understand and appreciate it if you did get one, then your XKCD's audience. But rather than letting us read his strip and work it out for ourselves (and us nerds love to figure things out on our own), he overkills his strip with TMI. I mean, look at the Volvo/Vulva strip. Why TF is the Volvo sign in the first panel when Mr. Beret says they’re at Volvo? RanDULL really needs to look at the comic Brevity. Those guys pride themselves on as little dialog as possible and I have never said, “I don’t get it.”

    So what is it RanDULL (and we know you read this blog)? Is your target audience the uber-savvy sci/math geeks or the sort that need everything explained to them?

    Next week’s question: Is RanDULL writing for people not old enough to buy Penthouse? subtitled: How to jump a shark in TGI Fridays.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comic was amusing. Come on, simply because a dirty word is mentioned does not mean the joke is that dirty word. I mean really? Come on. This is a joke because it's ridiculous to assume that in the 'economic crisis' one would go through all the trouble of busting into the CEO's office just to make fun of the company name. I mean. Really? Better luck with the next one, but I doubt you'll do anything funny with it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Adam, the problem is that the situation you described is not funny. It's retarded. You are retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The "box" is supposed to be one of those stone-blocks situated in front of many companies that are engraved with the company name.

    The premise is funny, but the joke was really lame. If the reason he'd demanded an audience was "Can I have your number" or any other of trivial things, it would have been better. Making it a dirty joke was just stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Man, I have to admit. It really looks like Randy has just discovered sex for the first time!

    ReplyDelete
  47. XKCD parody:
    http://www.comicspace.com/skorpen/comics.php?action=read&file_id=314340

    ReplyDelete
  48. The parody misspelled "quesadillas" :(

    ReplyDelete
  49. fuck now i want tacos

    you see what you have done? you son of a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I had eaten two orders of quesadillas just before reading the parody, so it enhanced my cravings no further :)

    ReplyDelete
  51. well aren't you so goddamned special

    ReplyDelete
  52. aloria I want you to know that I find your irascibility attractive.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I actually had the option of requesting tacos, and you know what I did? I passed it up.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I wasn't a fan of this (the one Carl's post is about) comic. It would have been funnier from the start if I had gotten the reference (I thought it was a different one). Still, it's a weird time to be referencing documentaries from a long time ago. For all the times I've thought to myself "It's really unfair to say that Randall JUST came upon this knowledge via WIkipedia etc." This one really does come off like that (unless it came out 20 years ago to the date or something).

    That being said, I'm glad that if I ever want truly inane criticisms of xkcd, all I have to do is hit find and type in "F-e-r-n-i-e" and up will pop a criticism of Randall based on something like why he referenced one company named Volvo instead of a different company known as Volvo. Especially when Carl mistook which Volvo Randall was talking about even when Randall specified that it was the car company.

    As for the most recent comic, it was good until he tried to turn it into a joke. Mark this as one for his picto-blog and wipe out the punch line. His medium was the problem on this one and this is one of the few times I think that it has ruined the joke. With a better medium than stick figures he could have just had the person in the last panel not have PPD and instead just look shocked. Lacking that, he had to add PPD and botched it terribly.

    ReplyDelete
  55. To quote some fag from the forums on #672:

    "Great commic."

    It's a FUCKING AWFUL comic, but a great commic.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "That being said, I'm glad that if I ever want truly inane criticisms of xkcd, all I have to do is hit find and type in "F-e-r-n-i-e" and up will pop a criticism of Randall based on something like why he referenced one company named Volvo instead of a different company known as Volvo."

    Basically because I have known since about the age of THREE that there is a company named Volvo, and this strip makes it seem like Randall looked at some car built by "Volvo Cars" last week and went "*WOW*, DUDE, like, there is a company named Volvo Cars! That gave me an idea..." So in the end it kind of annoys me that Randall tries to come across as knowledgeable (in case the millions of references to obscure "geek" items haven't given it away), but actually just pulls out his awkward, inane ideas out of stupid things.

    It's cheap nitpicking, yes, but I thought all the good points had already been made.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "It's a FUCKING AWFUL comic, but a great commic."

    Our Communist comrades love Randall's commic.

    ReplyDelete
  58. oh god i hate the new comic so much. i can't wait to hear your rant. seriously, randall, it's fucking creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Usually I like xkcd, but I have to admit: this comic sucked. It's a waste of Beret-guy, lacks a real joke, and has no real context. Bleh.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I had no idea that there were two separate Volvos.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I had no idea that there were two separate Volvos.

    I would expect you to know better about the female volvo.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "I had no idea that there were two separate Volvos."

    They're not exactly separate companies. My post actually does sound a lot more stupid if you think that's the case, but no, the brand is the same. Volvo Cars licenses the brand from the original company. Same happens with the other manufacturers. So making a big effort to go interview the CEO of Volvo Cars only makes sense to someone who didn't bother to read more than half a paragraph on Wikipedia; and Randall wouldn't do that if he were actually knowledgeable rather than a goddamn wannabe. It's not like *I* would spend days researching before doing something as forgettable as a comic strip, but it IS something I'd consider doing if I wanted to preserve the GODLIKE reputation Randall has got.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Epitome of lulz? Okay no. I just find that this blog is lacking in a dissenting opinion and it makes you all criticize like a bunch of retarded mob members. It's not laugh out loud hilarity, but there is a joke and by criticizing that the joke isn't funny because of a dirty word when the focus isn't really on the dirty word is just such a waste.

    Namely, "And he does it for stupid petty reasons, because Randall Munroe thinks that if he gets one of his characters to say a Dirty Word then people will laugh at his comic. Which they might, because at this point the comic is basically targeted at pretentious fourteen year olds with too much time to spend online."

    It's just bland hate speak. It barely even touches on the comic. He should just avoid all the needless inaccurate filler crap if he has nothing to say.

    Hating bad comics is good, critiquing them in amusing ways is even. It seems like the blog has completely forgotten the second part which is a shame. I mean, it's not necessary to be funny but when you mock a comic for not being funny in a way that should be funny yet continually fail at it it becomes like...recursively fail.

    ReplyDelete
  64. see fernie dude, at this point it's ok to not give a fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why? If you had a godlike reputation, would it really be affected by that kind of flaw?

    ReplyDelete
  66. 'I just find that this blog is lacking in a dissenting opinion and it makes you all criticize like a bunch of retarded mob members etc'

    Maybe you should stick around and become that dissenting opinion. We are not dicks to fans unless they are dicks to us. I mean sure, some people are, but that's true of everywhere on the internet.

    Also it's just not true that there's no dissenting voices on this blog. Hardly a day goes by when someone doesn't duck in and try to Show Us Up. It's just that they duck out again just as quickly, because that's all they're interested in, they don't really want to talk.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ummm, Volvo Cars hasn't been a part of Volvo AB for ten years-- it was sold to Ford Motors in 1999. The CEO of Volvo Cars is Stephen O'Dell. Leif Johansson is the CEO of Volvo AB. So Fernie, I officially have no idea what your point is supposed to be.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To be fair, it makes more sense to interview the CEO of the Volvo that makes passenger vehicles (Volvo Cars), i.e. the Volvo of which most people would think when they hear 'Volvo', rather than the one which makes trucks and commercial parts and stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I don't mean to imply nobody disagrees of course. I suppose I got that across poorly. But when it's a site like XKCDsucks then you start to run into alot of people just nodding and agreeing so long as it's negative.

    The re-edit, however, is an excellent example of what can be done right with this blog. That was just hella funny.

    ReplyDelete
  70. It takes more muscles to frown than to smile!!

    :)

    Be nice to everyone!!

    ReplyDelete
  71. /b/, if you're a /b/tard, you're the worst /b/tard ever.

    ReplyDelete
  72. why is the stick figure talking to a randomly generated ad on Facebook which would likely be taking up a very small portion of the screen

    Sure it's a comic, not realistic, etc. but it still bugs me.

    ReplyDelete
  73. If it takes more muscles to frown than to smile it is a better workout to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I think it take fewer muscles to pull a trigger though. Who wants to play Russian Roulette?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oh my bleeding eyes, is the facebook icon in the third panel a small picture of stickperson giving head? I believe it is. Oh my fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  76. HOLY SHIT HE'S RIGHT! And what's more surprising? THE GIRL IS GIVING THE GUY HEAD. Now, I know correlation doesn't imply causation (if I didn't, I could have learned it from xkcd), but we criticized Randall on two points that are extremely easy to change for him. 1) The guy is never right, it's always the girl. 2) The guy is always performing oral on the girl. I'm pretty sure in the recent past (two weeks?) that we've seen a guy spoil a girl's fun, and now a girl blowing some guy. Maybe, just maybe, he does listen?

    ReplyDelete
  77. would you like me to ask him? I would feel stupid doing that though.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Guys, are you sure that's oral sex, and not just the two of them cuddling? I think they might just be cuddling, with her head against his chest/shoulder area.

    ReplyDelete
  79. How can you tell anything in those pics? They're so goddamned tiny.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "I just find that this blog is lacking in a dissenting opinion and it makes you all criticize like a bunch of retarded mob members."

    I was just here to say the same thing. LOL GOOMH, Adam.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I, uh.

    I didn't know the mob was in the criticism business.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Yes, Rob. Guess who is spinning? DJ GO FUCK YOURSELF!

    I can't hear you, I'm at the crobar!

    ReplyDelete
  83. But when it's a site like XKCDsucks then you start to run into alot of people just nodding and agreeing so long as it's negative.

    Which makes it, essentially, the polar opposite of the xkcd forums? Really, that place is filled with the kind of people who, if they found out RM had a wiping problem, would readily volunteer their tongues for his toilet paper.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Today's comic would have been better without the self gratifying line about Susie falling for him. If he just said he likes her, but doesn't want a committed relationship it wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way. I guess the issue is it says Randal cam get any girl anytime he wants. Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "But when it's a site like XKCDsucks then you start to run into alot of people just nodding and agreeing so long as it's negative."

    Am I reading right? Maybe I have some sort of problem with text interpretation, but I see PLENTY of people here who are very vocal when they disagree with criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Potentially, Fernie, even WITH the dissenters there are still a lot of people nodding and agreeing as long as it's negative. Of course, I have no idea how he could tell that people agree with Carl solely because he's negative.

    One thing this site is definitely not short on is people who run in, post the boilerplate rant about how this site sucks, defend themselves for one thread, and leave.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I also see a trend of people digging to find the most inconsequential nitpicks about a comic or criticism of a comic.

    Really, sometimes it's okay to just say "I didn't like this comic" or "I liked this comic" and not try to back it up with far-reaching arguments about philosophy or the politics of interpersonal relationships or a long winded anecdote about your childhood or whatever other pseudo-intellectual wankery you're tempted to use.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "...if he gets one of his characters to say a Dirty Word then people will laugh at his..."

    "Vulva" is a dirty word?
    If your word salads are provided for the puerile edification of pretentious fourteen year olds then I reckon it is.
    Beware the omnipotent Vulvanator mind, her clitoris is said to be prehensile - a 'clitacle' as it were.
    Innit?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Likewise, I'm sure.

    "Venal Dross" is another.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Google's chrome-on-Linux page has a strip that says it is inspired by xkcd, but I don't see any detached heads, so I'm not sure I buy it.

    Oh, wait, hover chairs... yeah. Ok.

    ReplyDelete
  91. 'I also see a trend of people digging to find the most inconsequential nitpicks about a comic or criticism of a comic.'

    AHA! The Facebook suggestion text is the wrong color! Facebook text is actually a slightly darker shade of blue!

    You're losing it Randall!

    ReplyDelete
  92. "Really, sometimes it's okay to just say "I didn't like this comic" or "I liked this comic" and not try to back it up with far-reaching arguments about philosophy or the politics of interpersonal relationships or a long winded anecdote about your childhood or whatever other pseudo-intellectual wankery you're tempted to use."

    I think people are actually tempted to do that because of the long standing dogma of the Church of xkcd that the only POSSIBLE reason for one not liking its strips is that you're not a geek (therefore inferior), not part of the target audience (therefore inferior), not knowledgeable about its references (therefore inferior), or just shallow, puerile, dumb and SCARED OF SEX (therefore inferior).

    ReplyDelete
  93. Fernie, the small version of your profile pic appears to be sporting a bowler hat and a very wide moustache. It's a goofy illusion.

    ReplyDelete
  94. The nipple alt text freaks it all. The thing is just meh and creepy but not even just due to the facebook but due to the guy hovering. But at least this is a milestone: The woman is finally giving head. That milestone was going to have to involve a sexkcd, so of course the comic in which Randall redeems will be of lesser taste

    ReplyDelete
  95. The "If only you understood me, you would agree with me" line of argumentation is really common, not just among xkcd defenders.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I am so pumped for the next comic's post. SO PUMPED.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Oh, wait, no, more like a trucker cap than a bowler hat.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Apparently there's already a sequel being developed, involving bursting in on the CEO of Nintendo and informing him that 'Wii' sounds like 'wee'.

    It's gonna be HILARIOUS!!

    ReplyDelete
  99. Part of your problem is assuming that, just because someone is wearing the same hat as another character, they're the same character. That's like assuming all the stick figures without hats are the same characters too. With the exception of the Black Hat guy, they aren't the same. So it's not inconsistent, you're just dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Consider: (a) the stick figures are rarely given distinctive markings, (b) a beret is a fairly distinctive/unusual piece of attire (compared to, say, a generic baseball cap), and (c) the black hat guy shows that Randall has a penchant for using head wear to mark characters. Based on this, it's clear that the simplest explanation is that every figure with the white beret is, in fact, the same character. Moreover, many of the comics featuring Beret Guy only 'work' or at least certainly benefit from some level of established characterisation.

    ReplyDelete
  101. The box is the sign thats on the ground at a dealership. Have you never seen one?

    ReplyDelete
  102. he is not at a dealership, he is at an office building, and the scale of the sign shows that it is about 6 inches tall and not in front of anything but blank space, where the characters are standing.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Jeff Foxworthy made this joke, but a lot funnier, and way back in the 90s.

    You might be a redneck if...you think a volvo is part of a woman's anatomy.
    "You paid $600 for a used WHAT?!"

    ReplyDelete