Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Comic 685: G-Stop

G-STOP. STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.

Dang - I put this post up early because I figured that people would want to complain about it. And then most people said they liked it! COME ON.

There are, though, a lot of things to like about this comic:
-Most importantly, the punchline comes at the end. This is unusual for xkcd (see: the previous comic) and as you will notice, it makes the comic funnier.
-The punchline is conveyed in as few words as possible.
-Rather than tell you that this researcher is having sexytime troubles, he lets you figure out, at least a part of it, for yourself. Panel 3 interrupts the question (panel 2) and the answer (panel 5) making it a little more complicated.

Anyway, I still feel really gross about the comic - if it hadn't been for all those other do-me-without-a-condom style gross comics it might not be so bad, but as it is I can't help but not the subject. It's like Randall gets a certain amount of "explicit sex" credits and he's used them all up long ago on much worse comics.

But hey, let's try to be positive: Whatever you think of the joke, it was well executed, a rare trait for xkcd, and heck, even yesterday's comic was closer to being well executed than most. WHO KNOWS how great friday's comic will be?

update: I forgot all about this, but you should check out last Friday's first installment of Penny Arcade's Blamimations, made by Kris Straub and Scott Kurtz. I didn't really know what to expect, given that I don't read Mr. Kurtz's comic and I read the less-popular of Mr. Straub's comics (though I do enjoy it). I think it shows a lot of promise - the stories are the sort of absurdist looks at pop culture that I enjoy in Chainsawsuit, and the voices are done well, in a way that adds a lot to the humor (see especially the phone conversation at the beginning of animation #1). The big complaint I have is that the "animation" is too often just a still image - there's rarely any movement. It makes it harder to see as a movie and more just like a series of comics, with someone narrating the dialog. If that were changed (I would say the amount of animation needs to at least triple) I think this could turn out to be something quite excellent indeed. but enough about what I think. What do you think?

178 comments:

  1. Really odd you would post this before you write a review.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Femalethoth (Mal for xkcdsucks0January 5, 2010 at 11:04 PM

    [something antagonistic towards Landon]

    ReplyDelete
  3. I admit it. I laughed at this one, and so did my wife -- who usually doesn't like XKCD at all.

    The pacing just seemed right, this time.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I liked this one. Maybe I'm stupid, but I didn't see it coming. It's topical, he beat panels make sense, the punchline is quick and concise and the joke is fresh and original. I hate to say it, but this is a good comic on any level. Hell, he even got the little stuff like the guy's head drifting downward in realization and despair.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This one works quite well. The silly 'where's the G-spot' thing is actually in the news so I'm all for Randy making fun of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw the joke coming from a mile away, but I didn't hate it for it. Not brilliant, but honestly not really objectionable. If this was 400 comics earlier in the xkcd archive, I would have a hard time saying it was anything worse than a tad unoriginal, what with it being a comic entirely referencing a news article. Honestly, to whine about it being a reference to an ironically funny news article is to totally ignore the internet itself. It's a web comic built to entertain the average internet slime, and that is what the average internet is all about.

    My only serious complaint is that the alt-text shouldn't exist, which is something I think is true more often than it isn't these days.

    ReplyDelete
  7. im really surprised people liked this one.

    no i'm not "disgusted" by it.

    but really. a g-spot joke that just says "where is it?"

    THAT HASNT BEEN DONE A MILLION FUCKING TIMES.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think this one is okay, for a repeat of a common sex joke. But I think I'd have laughed out loud if we cut off after the third panel leaving us looking for a punchline, and then "but...yes" had been the alt-text.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Man... I take too long... posted my comments in the entry for 684. What's with the placeholder?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I liked it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. THE MALE PENIS IS A MYTH!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yeah now I feel dumb for putting my comments about this comic in the 684 post. Anyway the comic is stupid, the alt-text shows how childish and immature Randall is, and it's hypocritical given that Randall is the same guy who did comic 194.

    "ironically funny news article"

    Anon 11:30, it's apparent you have absolutely no clue what the word "irony" means. How was the news article ironic, and for that matter, how was it funny? "Scientists have discovered that a cluster of nerves may not exist." HA HA HA! The pinnacle of hilarity!

    Now THAT was irony.

    ReplyDelete
  13. just posting before we have a 100-comment thread on what constitutes irony

    isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Guess who else is excited about G-spots:

    http://www.cad-comic.com/sillies/20100104/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dammit, once I saw that BBC article, I *should* have realised that Randall wouldn't miss the opportunity to stick his yucky, stinky nose on that matter. I just imagine his glee going "WHEEE, I'm gonna make a comic about the G-spot!". No, I don't imagine it; it's too horrible.

    If this trend goes on, the next time there is a large-scale airplane accident, we'll have a comic about airline food on the next xkcd strip.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh, Timofei, thank you for linking to that strip. Now my week is ruined.

    I'm amazed to see the commotion that people started with an article that basically says "scientists find out that one particular thing that nobody has ever seen and that only some people *believe* exists, and yet puts a heavy strain on many people's lives, may in fact not exist at all". It shows that the G-spot is sort of like God.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Scientists should do less experiments and get laid more often.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I, I really wanted to dislike this comic

    But I can't.

    I'd go so far to say this is the ONLY sex-based xkcd I've ever found funny.

    There's just something about the layering of the journalists not being able to find the conference about not finding the g-spot, and the ensuing dead-pan dialouge.

    Also, NO PPD and NO CARTOON VAGINA!

    I'm not saying this is the funniest comic I've read recently, just that it's the first xkcd I've found funny in a while, which for me, is remarkable

    ReplyDelete
  19. This one is actually decent I think, we've become a bit icky when it comes to sex in XKCD at this point in time, but it is clever in my opinion. I love how the journalists are unable to find correct press conference, as of course a direct reference to the subject. The last panel is a rare example of how Randall is able to use his simplistic style. However, I think it would've worked better with the final "but.. Yes" having been an alt-text instead, the current alt-text is completely stupid. And besides that, the G-spot thing is just idiotic in the first place. Ah, scientist found out something which has long been regarded a mythical thing, doesn't exist? Though sadly most people will accept the fact, the people who previously reverred this anatomical feature will say it's wrong, an incorrect conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I think Randall just admitted that he doesn't know where the G-Spot is.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Really disappointing. I honestly thought Munroe was getting over his obsession.

    And, as has been said before, he's recycling a joke that's been done a million times before. And to me, it wasn't funny the first time, either.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Guess Buckley doesn't know where arms are either.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I liked this one. Best recent comic, definitely.

    ReplyDelete
  24. rolled my eyes in the first panel, tried to read on unbiased, rolled my eyes in the last panel

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Fernie: wtf

    People are causing a "commotion" because their own experiences directly contradict the findings of the study. And what the hell, we "believe" it exists? Ok, sex is psychological as much as physiological, yes, but if I said dudes only BELIEVE it feels good when someone pays attention to their penises because that's what magazines have told them is normal, you'd call me crazy - and rightfully so.

    Why do people insist that women's genitals are some big mysterious thing? Woah, Nessie...

    P.S. With the number of women out there who have been taught from a young age that their bodies are "dirty," is it even a surprise that a lot of women would self-identify as g-spot-less?

    P.P.S. Comic was meh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I enjoyed it. Didn't break any new comic ground, but didn't horrify me or feel me with disgust.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I liked this one, especially in comparison to the majority of the last 100 or so. No condescension, no bad dialog, no graphic creepy pictures, and it actually pokes fun at researchers (who are usually depicted as holy in xkcd because they do science).

    ReplyDelete
  28. xkcd was amusing, cad sillies was LOL

    ReplyDelete
  29. this comic proves it to me. there've been a bunch of xkcd's that my reaction to was "man what a hack angle to take on that setup".
    but for the first time my reaction today was "man what a hack randall is".

    the line has been crossed. the many sand grains have become a single heap. the jug has overflown.

    now i see the truth: randall is not a nerdy comedian with occasional hack jokes.
    he is a hack comedian with occasional nerd jokes.


    sad.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To the extent 685 was funny at all, it was funny because the journalists went to the wrong press conference. All the stuff about "HURR HURR G-SPOT HURR HURR SEX HURR HURR AWKWARD SCIENTISTS" is retarded, not fresh or original.

    This comic isn't good by any standards, it's good by the standards of "Phew, Randall mentioned sex without drawing giant cartoon vaginas."

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm actually looking forward to Friday. This comic is a perfect setup to continue.

    Imagine, we see the depressed scientist have a few drinks then get an idea (symbolized by a CFL light bulb. that would be hilarious). Go home and "do science" OMG RanDULL GOOMH because I was going to "do science" this weekend too.

    Finally the payoff. Some sort of device that blends solar cells with the g-spot. With a new conference with Megan at TGIFridays (on a Friday no less. LMFAO. GOOMH RanDULL because I once ate at a TGIFridays).

    I lied. I'm dreading Friday's comic.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Due to a series of events that I'm not even sure I could replicate, I though I was reading the xkcd archives when I read this comic. My first reaction was. "Wow, I don't remember that comic, how long ago did he write it?" The fact that this could have stood in with past comics easily doesn't make it good, but it does make it better.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Randall is now the Jeff Dunham of the internet.

    Except Jeff Dunham worked harder to get where he is and has some level of creativity, at least enough to make his own puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "People are causing a "commotion" because their own experiences directly contradict the findings of the study."

    Ok, but I'm also thinking of the people who get pressured into thinking they're "missing out" and "not doing it right" because they can't find some elusive, badly determined "spot" that might not even exist in the first place.

    "And what the hell, we "believe" it exists? Ok, sex is psychological as much as physiological, yes, but if I said dudes only BELIEVE it feels good when someone pays attention to their penises because that's what magazines have told them is normal, you'd call me crazy - and rightfully so."

    It's not a speculation that stimulation of the penis and of the clitoris causes arousal; it's fallacious to compare that to the G-spot. Now, different people have all sort of different and even bizarre ways of getting aroused, different fetishes and whatnot. Those things don't work for every person, they vary wildly, and nobody would raise a hellish fuss if you said that. Ah, but you'd sell many more cheap magazines and books by talking about how a woman's body is something "mysterious", "magical", all full of, like, crazy things and, like, difficult things, like.

    ReplyDelete
  35. note people that the study simply asked women if they thought they had a G-spot. not a very definitive or thorough study, I'm thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I generally like all of the xkcd comics I read but I thought this one was obvious, dumb, and unfunny, though reasonably well executed. I am surprised to see that so many people here like it and also that this comic made it to digg's front page.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Don't all xkcd's end up on Digg's front page?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Every women I met had a G-spot. However, every women is different, and the G is just one of many erogenous zones. Some women have not a very sensitive G. Others have a sensitive G but are not really into this kind of stimulations, and trying to G them is like giving food to someone who is thirsty.

    Now that is what I call an experiment. Or better : an experience.

    ReplyDelete
  39. eat shit sexhavers

    ReplyDelete
  40. Oh wow, G-spot jokes. Didn't Sex and the City do a lot of those?

    Xkcd - the webcomic for sexually frustrated middle-aged women.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hmmm... it seems that if the reviewer doesn't post a scathing "review" of the comic, audience reaction tends to be positive overall.

    Here's my experience with this site: I generally like XKCD's strips, but as soon as you people point out all their flaws, I lose all the enjoyment of reading them. It's the same with movies. The more bad reviews I read of movies I like, the more I start to agree with the reviews. The lesson here: if you want to enjoy an often quite funny webcomic, don't visit a site that consistently shits all over them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Or you know, everyone is bound to have different opinions of everything, and carl has posted a lukewarm review to a comic, only to have it hated in the comments, and vice versa.
    captcha: Wheardow, god Randall's sex comics prove him to be quite the wheardow

    ReplyDelete
  43. Also Carl usually posts his reviews two days after the comics are posted.

    ReplyDelete
  44. It's the sort of joke I'd stop myself from making on a forum or in an instant message conversation because it's too hackneyed and unfulfilling. How can it be acceptable to publish it in a critically acclaimed comic?

    So much reference to current events. I'm sure this has nothing to do with profiting from Digg.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The alt text kills the whole comic for me.

    I don't know why, it's just the way it comes off just kind of annoys me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. DISREGARD THAT I SUCK G-SPOT

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wow, the alt text...seriously. Immaturity at its finest. It's like Randall is obsessed with sex.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "It's like Randall is obsessed with sex."

    It's not like that. That's how it is.

    "How can it be acceptable to publish it in a critically acclaimed comic?"

    Critically acclaimed? How do you figure?

    WV: epico
    this topico is epico

    ReplyDelete
  49. But this comic isn't about how Randell is obsessed with sex. If he posted a random 'G spot G spot whose got the G spot?' comic a few months back then yes it would be his obsession with sex, but this G spot thing is showing up in magazines (not just sex ones) like the week, he's just commenting on how silly he finds the study.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Am I the only one disappointed by the comic's complete lack of a punchline?

    ReplyDelete
  51. genericegeek: Let's not confuse the symptom with the disease. Randall is still obsessed with sex.

    http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/03/guys-i-have-learned-about-most-insane.html

    ReplyDelete
  52. The fact that Randall apparently can't even read the word "erogenous" without tittering like a schoolgirl is proof that he is obsessed with sex to an unhealthy degree.

    @balsafresh:

    "it seems that if the reviewer doesn't post a scathing "review" of the comic, audience reaction tends to be positive overall."

    Wrong! I can remember one example since I've started coming here where Carl said "Hey I kind of liked this comic" and people still trashed it in the comments (that would be comic 666).

    Probably what is happening is that this site has become known to xkcd fans again through some method and they're coming here to flood our comments. Notice how almost all the positive responses are from anonymous posters.

    Besides the reviews usually don't get posted until two days after a comic goes up (usually), meaning people usually discuss the newest comic in the post about the previous one...and if you look at those, the responses are usually pretty negative (because xkcd sucks) two whole days before the scathing review goes up.

    Your logic is flawed.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I liked it. Yes, the joke is as old as the hills, but given it's topical and Mssr. R. Munroe has given it a slightly different twist I think it works.

    Rather than this being a flood of xkcdfangeeks posting positive, maybe (just maybe) the criticism is encouraging Randal to try a bit harder... meaning that those of us that liked the comic but came here in our disillusioned droves as it plumbed the depths of despair are finding a glimmer of that old xkcd in this material? /qyf

    ReplyDelete
  54. How did he put a slightly different twist on it?

    DOES G-SPOT EXIST?
    LETS ASK A NERD.
    NERD KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT SEX.

    That is the joke as far as the g-spot material goes. That's it. Where is the twist? Please explain it to me.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Re alt text of this post:
    What's not funny about 'ball-peen hammer'?

    ReplyDelete
  56. There is a shift of perspective and the professor loses dignity as a result of his revelation :O

    ReplyDelete
  57. Chech the latest Ctrl+Alt+Delete Silly for a much better handling of this exact same story.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I'm honestly surprised that anyone found this comic at all amusing or appropriate. I put up with Randall's giant cartoon vagina with little more than a shake of the head. But this one? This was just downright obnoxious. I've managed to stick with xkcd through the recent downturn of funniness (I remember the old days, when they actually were funny most of the time), but this one comic is the one that's making me take xkcd off my bookmarks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I made an edit using recently released "photoshop kit" for Unwinder's Tall Comics (which is an amazing and under-appreciated comic btw), here's the result.

    http://imgur.com/e65ep.jpg

    This character's running joke is basically that he's a scientist who gets in awkward situations, so, well you get the idea. It made me think that xkcd would be much better if it had more recognizable characters.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Chech the latest Ctrl+Alt+Delete Silly for a much better handling of this exact same story."

    Wait, do you, actually like CAD or something???

    ReplyDelete
  61. To people who say Randy should have stuck the "...but yes" line in the alt-text, I'd give 10-to-1 odds that half the community here would be sneering at Randall for pushing the joke to the alt-text and having nothing funny in the comic itself. I've seen the complaint often enough before to know the pattern. What he's got there ain't great, but, well, he's committed to doing alt text and I'm not quite sure what the alternative is, other than Dr. McNinja-style meta-jokes (and since half of those are about drawing, well...).

    Captcha: Exciati. People who are snobs about their excitement.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Math Mage:

    Well yes, that's because this is a site where a lot of people criticize the comic, so there will probably be people who criticize it even if it were different. I still think "...but yes" should be in the alt text. *I* wouldn't be one of those sneering at such a thing.

    I don't take any responsibility for the comments of those who disagree with me, and especially not for the hypothetical comments of people who might have disagreed with me. I'm not particularly trying to come up with a comic idea that is xkcdsucks-proof.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I agree with Mathy Magey poo. The joke has to be complete without the alt-text. A comic shouldn't need alt-text to make it complete or to understand it, it's meant as a kind of post-punchline.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The joke comes in the 3rd panel, the rest is exactly alt-text material: you even have that 4th panel pause when you're waiting for it to pop up.

    Is there a word for it on urban dictionary?
    and how come a Go player is interested in chess?
    Captcha: basic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This joke would work better if Randy drew things.

    ReplyDelete
  66. God forbid him trying to draw G-spot though...

    Captcha: rhytork - xtreme kool way of writing "rhetoric"

    ReplyDelete
  67. Randy, you fail. It's "lede." gg journalism fail.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Math_Mage: I'm sure people would still complain, but I'd disagree that putting, "But yes," in the alt-text would leave nothing funny in the comic itself. The joke becomes that they're at the wrong press conference. This joke is based on subverting the expected joke, but is itself subverted in the, "But yes," of the alt-text.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Way Walker Actually, with the pause switched like that, I think that is pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I think the fact that they're at the wrong press conference is a pretty weak joke by itself. Maybe it could be salvaged by different (more witty) wording. Perhaps some pun with G-spot/sun-spot. Just a little extra kick to raise it above the level of newspaper-comic-like mediocrity.

    ReplyDelete
  71. A sex-related comic? We haven't had one of those in almost a week.

    ReplyDelete
  72. A comic about male sexual inadequacy. Might as well be any even-numbered SMBC.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Pretty good comic. I was expecting something lame like the scientists doing all sorts of whacky scientist things to find it, but the solution is so simple all along!

    ReplyDelete
  74. (this signifies the point where I actually wrote the text of the blog post, and not just a placeholder)

    ReplyDelete
  75. The latest one would have been slightly more affecting if it wasn't for that awful pun.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Well, I don't watch Ghost in the Shell, and I don't know what a zshell is, so I have no idea what this update is even about. Is the fact that it appears to have no title text significant?

    ReplyDelete
  77. No, wait, there is a title text. I don't really get it, either.

    Good for Randall, I guess, going back to stuff at least some people might not have heard of?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I'm not familiar with zshell specifically, but 'shell' is a term used to refer to things like bash (Bourne Again SHell), different ways of interacting with a computer on a command line.

    Yes, today's comic requires a bit of familiarity with UNIX or Unix-like systems, and some basic CLI terminology. It's nothing extraordinarily geeky though; plenty of OS X users are probably familiar with everything you need to know just from using their computers, as are most Linux users.

    The structure is basically "dramatic build up to a lame pun", so your mileage will vary in terms of humor. Personally I enjoyed it at first, thought the title text was juvenile, and that's about it.

    ReplyDelete
  79. The latest looks like another homage to A Softer World. I don't think it's horrible. I thought he made this comic in memory of someone, but alt-text kind of rules off that possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Randall is crowdsourcing jokes from #xkcd again
    There was a user called morner that died from cancer
    There was a conversation about that recently, though it happened years ago

    ReplyDelete
  81. xkcd needs more DYING ALONE SNAKES.

    ReplyDelete
  82. I liked the g-spot comic,

    I don't like the new comic, it feels like over-technological nonsense, with no real meaning- and then builds up to a shitty pun.

    It's not like the comic even has anything of anything to do with ghost in the shell, it's just a homonym pun.

    Not big, and not clever randall.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @WAT

    Sure it does... the last remaining spirit of the dead person is on their server.

    ReplyDelete
  84. People who don't like xkcd are just not smart enough to get the jokes.

    QUOD. ERAT. DEMONSTRATUM.
    BITCHES.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I kinda liked the execution, but the use of yet another sex joke ruined it for me.


    Today's just isn't funny.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Today's comic (686) is terrible, and if you like it you're terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I reread the g-spot comic and I honestly don't see why the love for it. The entire joke is: you're a scientist so you're bad at sex. Really?! How many times has that been done over the last 3 decades? A billion? A centillion? A googleplex?

    Has the quality of XKCD sunk so low that y'all honestly feel this is passable as humor?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Most recent comic: not funny.
    I had absolutly no clue what it even was till I asked my engineer bro to explain it. I did get the pun with GIAS, but it wasn't funny cause I didn't understand that mumbo-jumbo in the previous panels. :-/
    But hey, at least its about death and not sex.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anon 3:24

    As a big-time animé nerd- what are you talking about?

    Ghost in the shell is about our last shreds of (moral) humanity as we increasingly embrace technology.

    The comic has nothing to do about humanity as a concept or moral or ethical standpoint, and ghost in the shell isn't about dead people.

    ReplyDelete
  90. the ghost in the shell pun thing is just the pun the entire strip builds up to. I think you may be trying to attach too much value to it due to your "big time animé nerd"-ness.

    It's a mediocre pun. No more, no less.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Carl's comments made me think that I could definitely see the comic going like this:
    http://www.tehposse.org/brandon/images/other/685.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  92. Anon 7:54: You may want to reread his post, then.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "Ghost in the shell is about our last shreds of (moral) humanity as we increasingly embrace technology.

    The comic has nothing to do about humanity as a concept or moral or ethical standpoint, and ghost in the shell isn't about dead people."

    I've never watched that thing. In fact, I didn't even know it was the name of some animé; I thought it was just a common expression (is it?). That only points out that the strip is the typical "OH HAI look guys I found a totally amazing pun! I'm totally going to make a comic about it". Thing is, the strip builds towards something either totally subversive or something inhumanly hilarious -- after all, regarding death in such a solemn way is very jarring for xkcd... and all we get is such a stupid pun, devoid of context or depth. Perhaps one could consider that a form of subversion, but couldn't we get something FUNNY instead?

    ReplyDelete
  94. She sells csh by the sea shore.

    I liked it. I wasn't expecting a pun, so it came as a surprise and made me laugh a bit.

    I've only seen the first Ghost in the Shell film many years ago, so I went to Wikipedia to double check what I remembered. It says of one character, "the body has not even one brain cell as it is completely robotic, yet there are indications that there is a ghost within it." Even if this isn't related to the title (I think it's one of the title's meanings) it's enough of a tie to make a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I pronounce it "zed shell". Randall hates me.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Today's comic seemed rather elitist to me. Kind of just trying to prove that he is still, smarter than you.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Its actually not that complex at all. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the internet should get most of the terminology apart from zshell.

    But it does reek of "LOVE ME NERD CROWD" which the anime crowd fits nicely into. And both those crowds love love love pandering.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ghost in the Shell is a fairly popular film. People who aren't anime nerds have seen it. It was the inspiration for a lot of the stuff in The Matrix, which gave it even more mainstream exposure. I wouldn't really call it pandering. And I appreciate ridiculous puns. AND he used anti-climax, which is another thing I like. I even liked the overlay of the little thought squares over the shell screen.

    This...I thought this was pretty good. Well played, Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I dont know anyone that saw ghost in the shell because of the matrix.

    i also know maybe two people besides myself that have seen gits.

    and the squares over the shell screen is just copying the style of another comic he reads.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @Anonymous:

    "People you know" is not a convincing sample size.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I am pretty much the opposite of an anime person and I have seen Ghost in the Shell.

    Latest comic is Randall trying once again to be ASW. I like ASW a lot. I even liked (and still like) Randy's ASW pastiche (his "parody week" did not really have any parodies so much as loving homages) way back in the day (though turning a critical eye to it it is obvious how he could have made it even better).

    Unfortunately, Randy does this relatively frequently, and apart from that one time, it's usually not very good. The problem is usually that his setup is the same each time: he only uses the ASW-style panels when he wants to pull a reversal in the last panel, except he's bad at reversals so instead he just pulls out a shitty joke.

    See also: here, here. (The latter is less ASW-like than I remembered but I'm including it anyway.)

    His problems with being ASW are pretty easy to spot. The most salient, and the one that affected even the pastiche, is he's too wordy. He could easily cut a large number of the words out, and it would be better for it. (In "Sleet" at least the entire first panel needs to go. That panel is shit. It is shit shit shit shit shit.) When you are trying to be ASW, minimalism is your friend.

    Second, he uses the four-panel layout. One of the things about ASW is that they are always either three or six panels. Never four. The panel layout is always the same. Three panels is ideal for minimalism and for flow, here. While ASW tends to mix up the flow--sometimes using beat panels, etc--for the most part it works nicely: you have two panels of setup, and then a punchline. Then the alt text serves as an invisible fourth panel, something outside which nevertheless in some way informs your reading of the comic.

    Four panels doesn't work very well in minimalism. Three panels and a punchline is generally too much. And then Randy's alt texts tend not to add much to the comic--I think in part because he doesn't treat it as part of the comic, but also because it adds an invisible fifth panel, and the timing is just off.

    His third problem has a lot to do with his style--as noted, it's pretty much always been the same "act like it's going to be serious, then spring a turnaround at the end." This would be fine were it not for two things:

    One, the turnaround is always shitty, never shocking; two, he only ever uses this format. You have no reason to expect anything else out of Randy. So you come to expect a boring pun like "ghost in zshell" out of the punchline. When ASW does the same thing, it is generally not predictable (because they do not only ever make turnaround jokes), and it is generally pretty good at subverting your expectations when it does. The turnaround informs the rest of the joke. This has never really been the case with Randy.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Flipping through the archives, found another one. Three panels this time! Note how this makes the flow a lot better.

    It could still stand some improvement, most notably in the wordiness category. Panel one, he basically repeats himself twice; in panel two, he repeats himself once. Try reading this one with only the top text boxes in panels one and two--it says the same thing, but with a lot fewer words.

    Then there's this one. This isn't ASW-like, but it indicates Randall's problems with pacing (read: he doesn't seem to understand it). See all those blank panels? See how they contribute nothing to the comic?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Uh...if you just read the top text boxes, that ruins the pacing completely...maybe if you cut out one of the boxes below (I'd choose the one stand blah blah part), but cutting out two of them makes it go by way too fast.

    And I have no idea what's going on in the latest comic

    ReplyDelete
  104. It probably only goes by too quickly because you're self-consciously avoiding looking at the bottom half of the comic in order to only read the top half. When you're actually reading a comic, you pause to give each panel full consideration--this is why beat panels work, for instance. You don't just race from word to word like you would if it were pure text.

    I will grant you that you end up with a slightly awkward comic, but it isn't really a pacing issue so much as you're reading sentences which assumed they would have follow-up and weren't intended to stand on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thought I should chime in. The phrase "ghost in the shell" is a very old concept. Very very old. The anime shouldn't be your basis for comparison. That being said, this comic is shit. What he should of done was take real photos of the terminal shell, then apply lomo filters (vignetting, etc). It would have at least looked more like ASW then.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Just commenting on the ones Rob linked to, I actually like 479, I never understood the blank panels in 491 (it would have been much better without them, why the hell were they there?), and I swear 598 is a direct plagiarism of something else...I dunno if it's another comic or a stand-up comedian but it's definitely stolen from somewhere.

    Someone already pointed out earlier this joke doesn't even work in any country other than the United States because we're the only ones who pronounce z as "zee," everyone else says it "zed."

    I wonder if this comic could have been made better by completely removing the fourth panel entirely. That would have made it at least a bit more ASW like. And plus, the xkcd fans always say "The comic isn't always meant to be funny!" so theoretically removing the punchline wouldn't ruin the comic right?

    ReplyDelete
  107. I don't think the zed/zee thing is a problem. Most humor depends at least a little on the culture. It's something like the complaints that the East vs. West comic depends on an American point of view (even worse there because that's the joke).

    And I liked the blank panels in 491. It better replicates the sensation of reading those sorts of signs as you drive down the road which, to me, was part of the humor.

    For ASW-like comics, the first that came to my mind was Insomnia. Compare that one to Rob's criticisms.

    ReplyDelete
  108. 479 is certainly the best among the ones I linked. I remember kind of liking it, but it still suffers from the problem that the joke is entirely expected.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I can't stand 479. It's not actually a joke, it's Smugsy McSmugsalot going on about how smug he is that he is More Erudite Than You. ("Whoa, calm down! It's not a real person!" Yeah, but I don't enjoy reading the thoughts of fake twats any more than I like real twats.)

    The zed/zee thing isn't really a problem, of course; I just wanted to point it out because my culture is obviously superior to most of yours. (ie "most of you"'s, not most of "yous's".)

    ReplyDelete
  110. WW: very good! I had forgotten about that one. I may have not been reading ASW at the time or something.

    I think you can cut out the entire first panel there, and you might be able to get away with cutting out the bit about glowing red numbers, so it will read: "time slows / does time even exist here? // thoughts churning in on themselves / the madness can't be far away // ah, yes / there it is"

    Maybe it would be less clear, but I know I've spent many a night with only my alarm clock and the little lights in my room for illumination. I have even written a sad poem about it. (Ah, 2008.)

    I'm not sure what to think of the comic in question though, apart from those little tweaks. Is it supposed to be funny, or just capture the essence of late night delirium?

    ReplyDelete
  111. rob your criticisms are good but your poetry is not made for sharing.

    internet fuckwad theory; if i was talking to you in personal i would muster half-hearted enthusiasm and praise it in the form of glib advice.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Considering the title text, I think the intent was to capture the essence of late night delirium: "Crap, I have levitation class at 25:131. Better set the alarm to 'cinnamon'."

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yeah it is mostly pretty terrible. I have written maybe two poems that are actually any good, ever. This was part of a failed project in 2008 where I would write a poem every day (this lasted about a month until I got sick in February and lost interest in catching up).

    I mean, I liked it but I am perfectly aware that it is not actually any good.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "Considering the title text, I think the intent was to capture the essence of late night delirium: "Crap, I have levitation class at 25:131. Better set the alarm to 'cinnamon'.""

    See, I can see that as trying to be funny or just trying to make it sound dream-like. Maybe I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  115. That was the least appropriate use of "Maybe I'm wrong" ever, but I guess there could be a third option I'm not considering? Anyway, I think it falls a bit short of the mark in either case, since I can't figure out which one it's supposed to be, but in either case I can see what he's going for, which is sometimes more than he usually does.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @Anonymous 5:51

    I think you're thinking of "ghost in the machine"

    ghost in the shell should conjure up direct links to the anime.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Today's comic: title text should have been the punchline.

    The pun would have made an acceptable middle-panel passing reference, but as a punchline it's less than mediocre.

    ReplyDelete
  118. it seems carl didn't get enough attention during his childhood :(

    well i think many ppl wrote that here before me

    but one should never stop repeating the truth...

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anon 9:30: A word of advice for you. Even actual psychologists who try to psychoanalyze tend to be completely off base without a proper clinical evaluation. Armchair psychologists even more so.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I think PvP is really shitty, and Scott Kurtz seems to be a douche, but the PA guys are cool and some of Kurtz's pals are cool, like Dave Kellett, and of course Kris Straub is fun. I didn't get into Checkerboard Nightmare until after it ended, but I loved it, I'm enjoying Starslip, I'm enjoying Chainsawsuit, and I half wonder if he's going to bring back F Chords. Probably not.

    I should check out Blamimations.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I'm actually wondering, now, if the comic would be improved if the fourth panel were cut off completely, and the pun were put in the title text. I'm not terribly sure about that, but there seems to be something interesting in making the strip entirely solemn and dark, and relegating the subversive, anti-climactic pun to the title text. I think Randall has done similar things before.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I think I've grasped that the main purpose of this all is entertainment so I will proceed with that in mind. In addition I do not claim to be correct in my conclusions; I am merely acting on observations. I myself enjoy xkcd, and for various reasons feel some allegiance to it. I don’t think defending it would serve any true purpose however, especially not in this medium. You see I am a nihilist and nothing really has any greater meaning to me but that doesn’t change the fact that we’re all here and that we all feel. So I live hedonistically. I say this to ensure you that I do this, like you, for entertainment. I am not the enemy ethically speaking. This “debate” is more like a video game, played out with no real lives at risk. That being said let's have fun. I will now attempt to dissuade at least some xkcd criticism. First I’ll touch on the self fulfilling prophecy of bias. I think you’ve admitted to this one somewhere. You are looking for faults so you find them, it’s quite that simple. Isn’t that counter-productive? Couldn’t you think instead that xkcd is a loveable and funny comic and create a reverse of that prophesy? I mean wouldn’t that be more productive? It opens up one more thing for you to like in life and presents the world as a less mediocre place. Though I theorize that you might actually derive more pleasure from hate or perhaps debates and the following sense of superiority you get after criticizing xkcd and its fans. By the way you demerit that same sense when it’s “exhibited” in Randall. I’m not going to say hypocrisy is bad I just got the sense that you didn’t like hypocrites and thought I’d let you know when I thought you were one. I also put “exhibited” in quotes because I’m not sure that those are his motives. Though they very well could be, the motives of other individuals can only be speculated at by outside parties. I think he’s only trying to express what he feels and thinks, as is the case with most art and literature. Any creator must work what they know, if that’s what he knows, if that’s his world, do you expect him to express parts of existence that are contrary to his norms? He knows his subject and seeks to express it so that he may attain feedback from peers, it’s not really about getting the most laughs at that point. At this point it’s about getting that one laugh from a like minded individual to affirm or reaffirm his view points. I don’t know, I guess I also find it kind of queer to break apart and dissect comedy, or music or any other art. I think when you do you skew your outlook on such issues. You start assessing genres based on text book definitions on the matter instead of actually liking it. To me it’s like trying to turn love into a science. I realize that I may just be clinging to dying virtues of how humans work, the likes of which could be compared to the growing evidence that humans are more a product of chemical reactions than any notion of free will, but hey, call me a dreamer. I understand that there are those who plain and simple don’t like xkcd, in that case I’d like to point out that Randall is not trying to hurt you with his comics, quite the contrary, so if you don’t like his comments don’t treat them like attacks. Criticizing a person simply because you don’t like them seems illogical to me. All in all I compare this situation to the logic that it’s better to have an ally then an enemy. If you criticize xkcd because you want to criticize it not because you don’t like it I encourage you to try your hand at something else.

    ReplyDelete
  123. A few notes that seem valid but not quite relevant: I see that people don’t like easy or old jokes. True you may have heard it before…. But does that stop it from being funny? Maybe it’s not original but can’t you still appreciate the joke itself? It also appears that you bash xkcd for its use of memes. First off, what’s wrong with that? Second, it also seems you trash it when it uses specific references for being too “not heard of.” Perhaps Randal has legitimately used both extremes but I think that witch hunt of criticism is to blame. I accept that this is a xkcd-sucks site and there are multiple view points and thus different criteria for what is good and what is bad so this argument may be invalid, although by accepting others who consequently don’t share your viewpoints but share your end feelings couldn’t you too accept others who have different viewpoints and different end feelings? Basically what does it matter if someone else likes xkcd? Sure they don’t agree with you but technically neither do others who don’t like xkcd for different reasons. Oh and too… Aren’t we all obsessed with sex? Any ways, have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  124. "I am a nihilist and nothing has any greater meaning to me"

    "we're all here and we all feel. So I live hedonistically."

    "ethically speaking"

    "wouldn't that be more productive? It [...] presents the world as a less mediocre place."

    "I may just be clinging to dying virtues, but hey, call me a dreamer."

    "It's better to have an ally than an enemy."


    wow you are the shittiest nihilist ever.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I don't have much time so I'll have to be brief:

    1. I would rather examine things than blindly accept that they're good.
    2. Mocking things is fun. And?
    3. I'm having more fun on this blog than I used to have reading xkcd.
    4. Analysing things builds skill, and you know what not to do.
    5. Not many people here actually hate Randall, just his more outspokenly zealous fans.
    6. xkcd is ubiquitous, terrible and loved unconditionally by many. Many of the people here (including Carl and Rob) used to be fans. Also, xkcd worship annoys me.
    7. Some xkcd jokes seem suspiciously similar to others, posted on digg or on comics that we know he reads, sometimes simply days before his comic went up. He even admitted (if I remember correctly) in his IRC conversation with Person #1 that he had subconsciously plagiarised a Penny Arcade comic.
    8. Personally, I see most meme jokes as lazy substitutes for humour.
    9. Usually criticising obscurity is when Randall's made a joke on an abstruse subject with little actual humour, seeming like he just did it to make the people who get it experience GOOHM. Pandering.
    Most of the criticism actually comes from Randall's dumbing down of his comics to appeal to more people, yet still have them think that his comic is intended for middle-aged physics/mathematics professors.

    Hope I'm being clear here
    Oh, and thanks for being reasonable and coherent!

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anonymouse Neeheeliste, does being unbrearably pretentious and overwrought prevent you from pressing the return key?

    Or is it that you'd prefer not to assault it with buttonpresses so you have an ally instead of an enemy to the right hand side of your keyboard?

    fufuufufufufufufu~~

    ReplyDelete
  127. As someone already mentioned, the blank panels in 491 actually do serve a purpose, in that they more closely replicate the sense one would get if they were driving and saw the original Burma Shave signs. The comic, IMO, doesn't work without them, because then it's just a rhyming phrase that ends in the ad - it loses what humor it has in minimalising it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. I was slightly surprised at first that instead of arguing against points some chose to attack me. I guess I could have been clearer on such matters. It was said that I’m the shittiest nihilist ever. One of the lines Keep attacked was the very line I tried to explain my position. I know nihilists see no purpose to anything, and I think most would view that stance as some emo kid angsting against the world because they don’t like it. I do not claim to accept nihilism for this reason, the only reason I do is because I asked the question “why” and then thought of what would come if it were answered. Suppose we’re put here to serve a god… then why is that god here? Perhaps that god is to serve humans. If that be the case I can’t see this as a “purpose.” The same is true for an “infinite purpose” like god is here to serve another god and that one to serve another and so on to infinity. This is why I claim to be a nihilist, because I can see no purpose to be a legitimate one. However seeing this does not change anything. As I tried to express before simply “knowing” that what we do is futile does not mean we don’t exist. “We’re here” and in addition to our existence we must exist in some state: the human condition, “we feel.” So long as I’m here I am subject to emotions. Besides, the only reason I labeled myself in such a way is to say I was in this for mere entertainment. So far as being pretentious, I was only trying to be clear, I did not intend to air egotism. And about the returns: I’m lazy… selectively so.
    I enjoyed R’s comment and must ask what he defines as funny. I’ve seen elsewhere that comedy has been broken into a science for analyzing. I must ask you how you know your analysis is correct. You might liken your figuring’s to “laws” of science. A law is a mutually agreed upon and rigorously tested theory. Sure they can explain why it is that way, or at least they can to a satisfying extent, but what happens when you question why that explanation is. An example is the law of gravity. Why is there gravity? I'm pretty sure they’ve found “reasons” for it but have they found reasons for those reasons and so forth? The fact is we will never know everything, there will only be more questions and the only way to function is to accept norms as truths, as science has done. Now I’ve said this to ask why then do you say xkcd is not funny when you also say the majority thinks it is? Humor I believe is largely ambiguous and the only way to label something as funny is to observe the normal reactions of peers. A “crazy” person may in fact think an everyday occurrence is funny; it’s all in the eye of the beholder. So if the norm is that xkcd is funny perhaps you should rethink what is text book funny.
    I ask too why a joke that is old or reused is not funny by your definition. Being a humor critic you should see the “funniness” of the joke in relation to situational norms, rather than the norm occurrence of the joke. Is a joke not still funny in principle even if you already know the punch line? You still call it a joke rite?
    The mocking bit is troubling. It to me expresses a certain degree of callousness. Some people identify with xkcd and take it personally when it’s attacked, though I don’t think this should be it is, and knowing this, that you are in fact hurting people, how can you say “mocking is fun. and?” Yeah a nihilist shouldn’t care so go ahead and attack me on that even if I’ve explained that. Basically even if you don’t care about other people you shouldn’t attack them. What goes around comes around and if a person feels that they’ve been attacked they are likely to retaliate, this notion could be related to psychological egoism.
    Thanks for the entertainment, have fun!

    ReplyDelete
  129. Use some fucking paragraph breaks.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Criticize something that matters.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Yeah, you shouldn't criticize an xkcd sucks blog, it is culturally irrelevant. You should focus on things that are ubiquitous in internet culture and utterly unavoidable, like XKCD.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Every thing is irrelevent. I was trying to say that the messege was more "important" than the delivery. Commenting here brings me entertainment, if the same is true for you then I ask you to consider the enjoyment of others, like those who like xkcd. Also, could you not be happier if you liked xkcd?

    ReplyDelete
  133. Could I not be happier if I were a culturally vapid imbecile? I'm sure I could be, but I would rather not be a culturally vapid imbecile.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Again it's all in the eye of the beholder. Society and culture are not truths there is no rite or wrong in the matter and to claim that is unfair. Because I disagree with you doesn't make me an imbecile and because you disagree with me doesn't make you one. I don't think your views should be forced on others but I cannot condemn you for doing so. All in all I think people should stop taking the world so seriously and let people be just that: people and nothing more. Many of the world's conflicts might be solved if every one could see others as such.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "Now I’ve said this to ask why then do you say xkcd is not funny when you also say the majority thinks it is?"

    Why don't we all just eat shit? Twenty million flies can't be wrong.

    "Some people identify with xkcd and take it personally when it’s attacked,"

    This is the internet. Anyone with a connection around the world can reach this site, and any other. Should we censor this blog so no-one anywhere can become offended by its content?
    What about every other site?
    I know you'll think I'm being hypocritical now but there is a VERY easy way not to be offended by this site. Don't look for it! The actual site is extremely easy to avoid. The difference between me and the cuddlefish who say this is that I derive pleasure from mocking xkcd and choose to read it. If they also do, let them.
    There are three types of people who would type "xkcd sucks" into a search engine:
    1. People who hate xkcd
    2. People who are fans of xkcd but are having doubts about its quality
    3. People who are fans of xkcd and want to be offended

    Also, I don't see why your argument is never used on xkcd itself, which mocks series' with large and devoted fanbases frequently.
    Eh, I'm tired.

    ReplyDelete
  136. "Again it's all in the eye of the beholder."

    Aphorisms are not the same as truth. Try again!

    "Society and culture are not truths there is no rite or wrong in the matter and to claim that is unfair."

    First: it's spelled "right." Second: I didn't claim there was right and wrong, only vapidity and intelligence.

    "Because I disagree with you doesn't make me an imbecile and because you disagree with me doesn't make you one."

    Right; you aren't an imbecile for disagreeing with me, you're an imbecile for being incredibly stupid.

    "I don't think your views should be forced on others but I cannot condemn you for doing so."

    And yet here you are doing just that.

    "All in all I think people should stop taking the world so seriously and let people be just that: people and nothing more."

    You might want to take your own advice. I've always been deeply suspicious of people who say things like "stop being so serious" with such deadly seriousness, and say something like "just treat people as people" as if this somehow solves problems.

    Spoiler alert: if you claim to love humanity, you should probably accept that a lot of humanity are dumbasses. People are petty and vindictive and stupid. People are unpleasant and provincial. These are defining characteristics.

    Regarding "why is the majority wrong?" I have a quote to share with you:

    “A lot of the people who read a bestselling novel, for example, do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot. That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read “The Lost Symbol”, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.”

    This is from the Economist.

    ReplyDelete
  137. First I say "touché" to R. about my argument not being used on xkcd.
    Flies eating shit is not the same as people eating cheese burgers: flies are not people. But the metaphor still has some use. No you don't have to like xkcd you are not the same as those who do, I was more referring to the idea that something is funny for a reason and that reason is "x" I don't think it's rite for a person to use such a grading system and then threw it out when the findings change.
    I was going to add that this sight must be actively clicked on to be viewed and that you may not necessarily be offending people out and out. I suppose it's like talking behind someone's back: not offensive unless someone overhears so continue at your own risk. I was trying to bring to question the balance of pros and cons in criticism: I'll get instant gratification but does that outweigh the ramifications?
    I found this site just by searching xkcd; it was on the first page a few links under xkcd itself.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Upon saying I don’t think you should force your views on others did I not also say I cannot condemn you for doing so? By saying that I was letting you know that forcing your views on others was fine, It’s just not something I want to do, after having said that and having put my views in question form not demanding that you accept them I assumed that my comments would be read as such: views not demands. I'm not taking this seriously, as I said, it's for fun. I understand that telling people to treat people as people is counter productive... that's why I didn't do it...
    I think we could clear a few things up if you would explain two things:
    How do you define funny? and
    Why do you think I'm stupid?
    I still think your labeling something as a truth when it's an opinion. I think you believe I'm stupid for liking xkcd (and various other errors that are ultimately irrelevant). If that be the case then my statements are valid. It, as I have explained, is an opinion whether or not xkcd is funny, not fact. You basically claim it is not funny and that you should know because you are so studied on the matter, that you know what is funny and what is not. The fact is what is funny and what is not is an opinion and you cannot go around calling
    people dumb for liking a joke or not liking a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I believe you're stupid not only because your grasp of the English language is incredibly poor and can neither spell nor break things up into appropriate paragraphs, but also because you are a nihilist (all nihilists are stupid by their very nature), making bullshit relativistic arguments, and are apparently incapable of remembering what you said not two posts before.

    You just claimed not to have told anyone to treat people as people. And yet, here is your text. I literally just pasted this from above, unmodified: "All in all I think people should stop taking the world so seriously and let people be just that: people and nothing more. Many of the world's conflicts might be solved if every one could see others as such."

    ReplyDelete
  140. Yeah that is arguably ambiguous, I should not have said "should" but I did say that's what I "think." I did not tell anyone to do so. I only expressed my views I did not give advice or demands.
    And the issue here is not the English language it's the message. What does it matter if I spelled wrong... you understood it didn't you?
    Additionally I'd still like to know your definition of funny, and now why nihilists are stupid and what your purpose in life is. That last question is legitimate and not intended to be insulting.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "What does it matter if I spelled wrong... you understood it didn't you?"

    Everything.

    "Additionally I'd still like to know your definition of funny, and now why nihilists are stupid and what your purpose in life is. That last question is legitimate and not intended to be insulting."

    Because they say shit like this.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Surely you have more to say than that. You must admit that's a weak argument compared to your others. Why can't you answer me? Leaving those questions unanswered only leads me to speculate that you can't answer them, in which case your priorities and arguments are largely meaningless. Why is it not funny and why are nihilists stupid? If you can't answer those questions then your thoughts are opinions and I cannot be demerited for thinking differently.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I can answer them, but that would involve treating nihilists as "people who are worth my time."

    ReplyDelete
  144. Rob Mason: Internet Snob

    ReplyDelete
  145. I am a snob pretty much everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Wow, all this time I thought you were sensible. That you could grasp simple concepts of morality. Now I find that you are the vile self serving type. Do you realize what you did there? You write me off as less than you and in most every book that's wrong. Even if I'm dumb I'm still a person, and should be treated as such. You sir have just disregarded my humanity and used me as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. In most cases such an act warrants punishment. So If I'm dumb you're at least evil. And look he still fails to answer the questions when in doing so he should only be helping his case and damaging me the so called lesser being. So it would seem clear that he cannot answer the questions and attempts to cover his trail.

    ReplyDelete
  147. You really need to work on that evil laugh, Rob. I'm not impressed in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  148. That wasn't an evil laugh it was a 'that is the most hilarious thing I have ever read' laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  149. EVIL laughs have the letter m or b in them somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  150. "if you claim to love humanity, you should probably accept that a lot of humanity are dumbasses".
    nice. that is a very true and often overlooked fact about charity and compassion and etc.

    Mr Nihilist, i don't know what your beef is? you say people shouldn't have an opinion forced on them, you are not one to do that...but...so...what? why did you even say anything?

    and relativism is so last century baby.

    ReplyDelete
  151. man did Mr Nihilist just use Kantian morality to reproach Rob?
    time to re-label your luggage i think.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Relativism is another way of saying "I can't justify my beliefs".

    ReplyDelete
  153. "nice. that is a very true and often overlooked fact about charity and compassion and etc."

    Yeah. Me, I love people. Most of them suck, and are some kind of stupid or another--nihilists arguing Kant, etc--and if you're going to deal with humanity you have to accept that they are by and large pretty intolerable.

    To our shitty nihilist: I am, in fact, treating you as a person--a dumb person who isn't worthy of my time.

    ReplyDelete
  154. I commented for fun, and it is fun. And I know I use a Kantian system but I have twice explained why.
    The way I see it relativism is more like we can't justify our beliefs. Those who are hard Universalists don't see that their "truths" are nothing more than societies’ norms.

    Rob you shouldn't have used the term "not worthy" then. Even if you diidn't your still treating me as your lesser, and I'm sure you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Right--dumb people are not worthy of my time, because they are too dumb to grasp even the simplest things that I have to say.

    Protip: nihilists can't be Kantians.

    ReplyDelete
  156. kantians more like can'tians

    ReplyDelete
  157. Rob what the hell you're reminding me of Howard Roark and I love you and I'm trying very hard to hate The Fountainhead stop that.

    (Maybe I should just stop spending so much time reading it?)

    ReplyDelete
  158. Ok, I've decided I'm dumb, and it's clear that you've decided that as well. So please tell me the right way to live, since you know. Unless you're willing to do that I don't see why you're calling me stupid. Well there could be other reasons but those that I see are purely self serving. So please tell me, the betterment of society depends on it. It seems to me that that is one of your goals, as you seemed to wish to enlighten others to proper comedy. I suppose you might say I'm just too dumb to waist the time on, but if that were true would you not have stopped comments after I labeled myself a nihilist?

    ReplyDelete
  159. It's like tormenting a kitten with string.

    ReplyDelete
  160. As an Epicurean, I think that all people should embrace Jesus as their lord and personal saviour.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Just to let you know, even if the label you give someone includes the word "person" doesn't mean you think of that person as a full person. In fact just giving that label "dumb person" is an act of dehumanization. I'd think you'd know that, and if you say that that's not what you did then you should have known to make it more clear... since you're so smart. If you think it’s ok to treat people poorly, for any uncontrollable issue, then I think there’s more at stake here then whether or not a comic is good or if someone is smart.

    ReplyDelete
  162. So you think most of the world don't qualify as full people? Goodness, I'd hate to be you.

    ReplyDelete
  163. There is no dumb, there is only underprivileged. There is no incompetent, there is only unlucky. The only flaw is the ego, all else is by no fault of the person, and they should in fact be compensated for the inconvenience of not being given as much intelligence as others.
    Intelligence is overrated anyway.
    Am i doin it rite?

    ReplyDelete
  164. How is that what I said? First, have you yet to hear me say that any one is dumb let alone that most the world is dumb? I believe you said that. Besides you have still failed to actually invalidate my points you've merely devised an elaborate way to say I'm wrong without explaining why or how I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  165. It's not elaborate, dude. It consists of me calling you dumb and telling you you are wrong, and you are all like "OMG YOU ARE EVIL" and flailing around with all of these hilarious little "INVALIDATE MY POINTS."

    They invalidate themselves! That's the beauty of nihilists who believe in Kant and think there is morality and that people can be evil. They are self-evidently wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Still didn't do it, you're attacking me not the points.

    ReplyDelete
  167. I really don’t think it is the point. As I have explained, I'm in this world and in order to function in this world I have adopted a method to do so. Yes, ultimately I don’t think people are anything but people, but when I am attacked it's still offensive, so in order to protect myself I use methods appropriate for that. I suppose it's also a "just in case" thing. I have not mentioned this bet I also accept that there could be an illogical purpose, I didn't say so before because I wanted to make it clear that this was only for fun. Logically to me there can be no overall purpose but that's only logically, there could be a purpose that's beyond human comprehension, like infinity. But really it doesn't matter if I'm an idiot; the points made should be considered.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Logically =/= intuitively.
    Attempting to address anything else you said would be redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  169. to me the funny part of this joke is not so much that the guy doesn't know where the g-spot is, but that in the last frame he finally answers the question, in a way that is both accurate and entirely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete