Sunday, March 14, 2010

Comic 713: Space Adventures

sometimes i think about waffles for too longLink

There are a lot of comics that xkcd makes that ask the bold question: What would happen if certain people were replaced by young, sarcastic, smug, leet haxoring people closely modeled on Randall Munroe's ideal view of himself?

For example, there was the time he did it with the princess bride, the theoretical traveling salesman, Faust, etc. There are many others, I am sure you can think of them.

Anyway, today's comic asks, what if this ideal sarcastic nerd figure were in space?? Clearly, the answer to this question is that they would mess around with their internet connection for a while, until they were able to get some advertisement to accidentally say something illogical. Right?

That is the point of the comic - these ads are clearly lying, and if you have an unusual IP address you can make them say silly things like this. What I don't see is how that constitutes "messing with advertisers". I imagine that behind every internet ad is a large greasy man in a small dark room, with piles of money everywhere. This man does not give a shit if some sarcastic 20-something astronaut figures this out. Why would he? The point is to get people to the website. Is this astronaut more or less likely to go to the website because of this? Who knows? Probably it makes no difference. Probably someone who knows these ads are BS is not likely to visit the website anyway.

Anyways, in my imagination, I see the guy from this comic being really proud of himself for the rest of the mission and no one else on earth or near earth giving a fuck ever or even thinking about it again.

=======================
GUYS: Perhaps you have forgotten that my CONTEST is still ongoing? I have decided to keep the contest open for entries for an additional 10 days or so, because I am arbitrary and cruel like that. But also so that I could remember to put in on reddit and hopefully attract some more competitors. so upvote it, you people.

=======================
I think boy wonder Person #1 is going to guest post in a week. Just so you are all aware.
=======================
I love Kate Beaton's comics and frequently remind all of you of that fact, and I love her fat pony comics, as do all reasonable people, and so I was of course excited to hear that I would soon be able to buy one. But if that little dude actually costs $50 as some people are reporting, why, that is just crazy! I do not see how anyone would buy that unless they were really just trying to donate to the site. I know they are hard to make and are made by hand, but that doesn't mean people will want to pay large amounts for them! Well maybe I am wrong, maybe everyone will want to buy them.

ATTENTION MS. BEATON: If you send me a free Fat Pony, I will be more than happy to write a review of your product for this blog. It will get lots of attention and I will link to your store.

107 comments:

  1. Yes, this'd be interesting if he could make other people see those ads, or make the advertisers aware of it somehow. But that isn't the case. No one will see it besides the hacker himself, in which case he might as well just photoshop an image of the ad for all the effect it would have.

    Ok, I guess the hot female astronaut floating next to him will also see it (you can't tell she's hot, but knowning Randall, she's probably supposed to be). She's probably thinking along the lines of "this space station cost a hundred billion dollars to construct, and *this* is how you're using it? That's it, I'm putting you on the next Soyuz flight home." (actually, if that had been the alt-text I might've actually liked the comic).

    ReplyDelete
  2. So... the setup is that he makes the advertisers see his location as space... and the punchline is that the advertisers see his location as space... making this half of a joke at best.

    This one can't even be salvaged with an editor because you'd necessarily need to add something funny to Randy's idea, not just rework what's already there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am now running on a Fat Pony platform.

    If I win, Carl will have his Fat Pony!

    Vote for me!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The big flaw in this joke is the middle panel. The only one the astronaut is 'messing with' is his fellow astronaut and himself. They are the only ones using that IP, and as such, they are the only ones who will see that ad.

    It'd be much better if it was someone on earth who got the ISS's downlink into a GeoIP database to mess with astronauts. Like Carl said: not only do the advertisers not give a shit, they won't even see that someone messed with the ad. The only ones who will ever see this are the astronauts, so they should be the ones the jokes are played on.

    But of course due to Randall's complete inability to construct a joke, he missed out on that fact. His thought process probably halted at "Astronauts are smart people so they will do the hacking."

    Here's how it should have been.

    Of course, it's still not a ha-ha funny joke, but at least it'll still stand up even if you think about it for longer than five seconds.

    ReplyDelete
  5. New comic: is "Porn For Women" a thing people know about? At first I thought he just meant porn for women in general, but then I realised he italicized the entire phrase.

    Oh, and I was distrought to see the lack of nerdiness in this comic, but fortunately he drops a nerd reference in the alt text. Phew!

    ReplyDelete
  6. First time poster, but I'm getting horribly annoyed with xkcd.

    713 was relatively okay. It wasn't great. It only made me smile a little bit because I actually know the ads.

    But 714 just pissed me off. Panel 1 seems to be a far-fetched set up for a hypothetically very funny comment. Panel 2 actually repeats panel 1 for this with an IQ less than their shoe sizes (in US size, mind you!). Panel 3 is a build-up, coming to a climax. Oh, boy, something unexpected is coming here! Something that is going to make my laugh so loud I'm gonna crap in my pants. And then panel 4...
    I nearly had to laugh at how bad the anti-climax can be. Not because there was a joke, but because I can't imagine anyone actually uploading such a comic thinking it might be funny.

    Humor is something unexpected. We start off with something unexpected, and in the end we turn to completely what is normal and expected. Isn't that the complete opposite of humor?

    Congrats to Randall for inventing anti-humor.

    ReplyDelete
  7. that's just sad. you guys didn't even get 713..
    OF COURSE isn't he ACTUALLY messing with the advertisers.. that's the absurd and (slightly) funny part about the whole damn thing.
    there's something called sarcasm. and irony. you should look it up on wikipedia you stupid fucks

    ReplyDelete
  8. (11:48:48 AM) person1: i lol'd
    (11:48:49 AM) person1: because
    (11:48:50 AM) person1: oh man
    (11:48:52 AM) person1: just yesterday
    (11:48:56 AM) person1: i was telling a friend of mine
    (11:49:00 AM) person1: about randy's pseudo feminism
    (11:49:03 AM) person1: and then he comes out with this
    (11:49:10 AM) person1: i can so be like "I TOLD YOU SO MAN" now
    (11:50:14 AM) person1: is that an actual thing? porn for women?
    (11:50:20 AM) person1: if so, randall totally doesn't get the joke
    (11:50:27 AM) person1: if not, then fuck you randall
    (11:50:47 AM) person1: man, why did I google porn for women
    (11:50:52 AM) person1: what made me think this is a good idea
    (11:50:55 AM) person1: incidentally
    (11:51:01 AM) person1: why does randall watch porn for women

    ReplyDelete
  9. "A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean the opposite of what is written literally; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, notably as a form of humor." - Wiktionary

    This is not an irony. Were it an irony, it would focus on the very falseness of the statement. Instead, it focuses on the possible (and completely irrelevant) implications of the statement's introduced "truth".

    ReplyDelete
  10. (Another post of Anonymous 3:18)

    Yes, there is such a thing as "Porn for Women":
    http://www.amazon.com/Women-Cambridge-Womens-Pornography-Cooperative/dp/0811855511/
    But he simply failed to get the joke of the author of the book.

    Still my post holds though, it was an exceptional form of anti-humor. Luckily Randall fails at producing humor as, when it mixes with anti-humor, who knows what would happen?

    It's like saying... "Selling books from Amazon? I buy my books from places, you know, they actually have brick buildings or an Internet connection". Except that "Amazon" isn't a joke but simply a name.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This is not an irony. Were it an irony, it would focus on the very falseness of the statement. Instead, it focuses on the possible (and completely irrelevant) implications of the statement's introduced "truth"."

    Same Cuddlefish here. My apologies, there are other situations in which a statement might be considered an irony. However, this joke is not one such situation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's kinda funny if you read it as Megan being an angry feminist writing a screed against Porn for Women after hearing about it second-hand and then after being informed it's a joke going "well it's still not funny that's not something you joke about because women are still being oppressed and yadda yadda yadda" to cover up the fact that she was dumb and didn't get the joke.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Same Cuddlefish here again. My apologies, actually, it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 4:19
    it doesn't fit, though. He's clearly trying to be witty by emphatizing that women enjoy regular porn as well. This could be funny if the source material was serious (i.e. maybe an actual porno in household setting)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I get most of the criticism that this blog makes, and it makes some pretty good points, but why do you insist on making tenous links between "sarcastic, smug, leet haxoring people closely modeled on Randall Munroe's ideal view of himself?", as if Randall has some kind of superiority complex? Why do it? It discredits your argument, quite frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I feel like Randall might be making a joke like the feminist light bulb one:

    Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
    A: I'VE HEARD THAT JOKE AND ITS NOT FUNNY.

    Which would make the comics a bit more amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Today I noticed a strange lack of xkcd on my RSS reader... then I remembered I canceled the subscription. Ahh...

    Anyway: "Porn for Women" actually exists and it's pretty obvious it's a joke book. So, is Randall doing a joke on a joke? Is the joke that Megan didn't get the joke? Or the biggest joke is that Randall didn't get the joke? Is there any joke at all?

    Also: seriously, why is he spelling out the joke's subject? If the reader knows what the book is, the first panel is useless and boring. If the reader doesn't... this comic is regarded as the apex of nerddom; Google exists for a reason, gottdamnit!

    And now, for something completely different... the heads are connected! I'm actually surprised.

    That's all for now. Mole out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. my biggest complaint is that (I doubt randall didn't understand it - maybe he SAW IT AND DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FUNNY (thanks 6:04, that made me lol)) it's not criticizing fembitches because, look at it. Look at the wording, he really believes in this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. assumption, your honor.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I like to think Randall made 713, read the comments thread debating about sexism and saw a moment to shine his trusty ol' white armor.

    So he picked up some feminism-related topic, in this case Porn For Women-book, completely misunderstood its purpose and made a terrible soapbox observation. No joke, no humor, no feminism points.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Funny: the comic is a complaint about that "Porno for Women", and the way it is done is pretty much exactly what could be called "Porno for Feminists". Do women and feminists in general really need that kind of inane, obvious, hamfisted and heavyhanded crap?

    Randall, I don't know how your fanbase is, but the average man around these parts would NOT take a woman to bed with that kind of cheap White Knighting attitude; so, please, stop trying.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Everybody keeps saying it, but let us make this perfectly clear, lest the Cuddlefish try to muddy the water:

    1. the book "porn for women" is a joke book

    2. randy wrote a joke based entirely on the premise that this joke book is actually a real thing and wow how absurd it is it's crazy

    therefore:

    3. there is no way in which this comic is funny.

    corollary:

    4. anyone who says this comic is funny is an idiot. not just the usual "firefly? maths? vaginas? THAT'S HILARIOUS" type of idiot, no, we're talking about randicksucking of a profound level as of yet unrecognized by modern dicksucking science

    ReplyDelete
  23. anon 8:09, submit that to the contest and win

    ReplyDelete
  24. 713: Terrible.

    Agreed, it doesn't make sense to call this "messing with advertisers" because no one is going to see that. Now cuddlefish might reply, "But people read the comic!". Oh yeah, but that's no reason for the characters to do something. It's horribly contrived.

    I'm sick of "your mom" and "that's what she said" type jokes. I don't care whether it's in the comic or only the alt-text. It's stupid either way. I hate any such "internet cultures" that consider such phrases as inexhaustible sources of humor.

    714: Terrible. Either the joke is just the terrible joke I think it is, or it's so terribly written that you can't tell what it makes fun of.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 8:09 wins every competition on the face of the planet. Good job.

    I love, by the way, that this is exactly what a lot of Cuddlefish are saying we're doing over here. But hey, now Randall does it and it needs to be defended to the core.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "modern dicksucking science"

    -your mom oughta know!

    ReplyDelete
  27. xkcd explained shit all over 713 and Randall. I almost hope one day Randall will say "gotcha" and we can all laugh together at everyone who so relentlessly defends this shitpile known as xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Whaaaaat!? COMIC 713 IS LIKE A FEW OTHER COMICS IN A COMPLETELY UNIQUE SITUATION!?

    Were you ALSO aware that dinosaur comic uses the same images every comic!? I just realized! Thank you for opening my eyes!

    What? it doesn't have any impact on the humor? Oh...

    Well I guess realizing that and telling other people is a big fucking waste of time then.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's my impression of this blog:

    "Psh...to imply that a chicken would cross the road for any specific purpose is absurd. More than likely a chicken wouldn't have any concept of the existence of a road. Chickens tend to wander randomly in search of only food. If a chicken were to cross a road, it would more than likely be the result of mere coincidence, as opposed to the reason outlined by you. Your joke is obviously not funny because it relies on things happening that wouldn't actually happen in real life. Now, in response, I'd like to present my own joke: I don't like your sense of humor. Haha! I slay me!"

    ReplyDelete
  30. So anon 9:34, that must mean you hate comic 714, right?

    ReplyDelete
  31. It's interesting that Anon 9:34's defense of xkcd places it on the same intellectual level as a joke told to entertain very young children.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Obviously, if something is meant to be a joke then that's all there is to it and no one should comment further on it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ..which is exactly why I LOVE it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dave (the first one, obviously)March 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM

    Well, I certainly seem to have struck a nerve. You're not fooling anyone, Anon 9:34. You made a shitty argument. Just accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @anon 9:34 - The 'chicken crossing the road' joke should not be used as an example of a simple joke everyone knows, because it's a fairly tricky meta-joke that depends on a sizeable amount of understanding of the structure of humour and general joke-literacy.
    The analysis appropriate for a simple straight-up Joke is not appropriate for the 'chicken crossing the road' joke.

    So nice hoisting mate.

    ReplyDelete
  36. To "Dave (the first one, obviously)":
    Stop that shit you little punk! I'm the real Dave and I like xkcd.

    Don't let that worthless piece of shit deceive you into thinking that I'm a fucking prick. He certainly is. I'm not.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dave (the first one, obviously)March 15, 2010 at 10:24 AM

    Okay, I'm fake! So what?!
    It's not like you could do anything about it, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  38. //Everyone named Dave is a fucking douchebag.//

    Kinda Randall-esque, don't you think?
    -> http://media.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/218923/80943416.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  39. hehehee the commenters on the forums are just as in the dark as Randull is.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "It's not like you could do anything about it, Dave."

    I can't let you do that, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  41. and neither can I !

    ReplyDelete
  42. I browse reddit and I can say with confidence that it is a terrible place to advertise the xkcdsucks contest. One of the site's flaws is that a majority of its members are xkcd fans.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Getting back to today's strip -- the problem is its need to ennoble the geek, instead of highlighting the innate humor. There *is* a joke here. In fact, there's two potential jokes here.

    1) The computer user browses a questionable website. Advertisements come up. He is credulous, and says he needs to take an unplanned EVA. The reason? The website claims there are hot chicks in Low Earth Orbit waiting to meet him! Ba-dum ching.

    2) The computer user browses a questionable website. His hot chick fellow astronaut says something dismissive. He sees an advertisement claiming hot chicks in Low Earth Orbit want to meet him. The picture is in fact the other astronaut. "Hotfloat544?" he asks. "Crap. Always, someone from work figures your ad out" she thinks. Ba-dum ching.

    Are these great jokes? No. But they're better than what we got. But then, one requires the nerd be credulous, and the other requires the ad to be accurate instead of a scam. And neither of those, as I said before, make the nerd out to be superior.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Is 714's punchline meant to be "haha, girls are stupid"?

    It reads that way, which probably messes up his usual intention to say "see, hot nerd girls, I totally get you".

    Although I think the comic would be more XKCD if it were a woman trying to raise drama through Amazon reviews. If she'd then criticised the authors of a romance novel for using flowery language, thus disguising the fact that women have bodies, the punchline of "people fuck" would contrast the example of "honeyed moss" or whatever. It's an old joke, but at least it's a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  45. There are like three people on the forums that understand that the book Porn for Women is a joke and the others are pretty much dudes saying "Ha ha you tell them, Randall, women can like sex just as much as we do! We're so empowered by feminist ideals and are fighting for their freedoms!"

    Yet somehow these are the same people who laughed at the astronuats looking at an ad degrading women in just the last comic. WAY TO BE CONSISTENT.

    On a side note? The Goatkcd for 714 is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://xkcd.com/318/ is ok but i prefer its goatse version http://goatkcd.com/318

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Is 714's punchline meant to be "haha, girls are stupid"?"

    I don't think so: the way the final panels are presented, that seems much more intended to be a Horatio Sanz-esque "Crowning Moment of Awesome" than a "deuhhhr I don't get jokes" thing. I may be cynical, but I doubt this comic is wittier than it seems at first glance. There's nothing indicating irony here.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow, 714 could have been done in a much better (although not to say good) way. I am not a writer or a very creative person, but here goes:

    The stick figure chick is given the book by a male friend, who would obviously be giving it to her as a hilarious and original joke. Maybe add something about it being a wedding gift, just to make it clear that he's not her significant other, and because I hear lots of people whining that they were given the book as a wedding gift. She is clearly annoyed at the sexism, and in her annoyance, matter-of-factly tells her male friend that in her porn, people fuck. This makes male friend INCREDIBLY UNCOMFORTABLE, because he does not think of her in that way, and only intended the book as a silly, harmless gift. Maybe add a wordless panel, just to drive the point home that the guy is uncomfortable, or in true Randall fashion, include an extra panel just to include the guy saying something like "Awkwaaaaaard" or "Wow, I'm really uncomfortable" or "...I didn't want to know that". Just kidding, don't do that last part.


    Boom, comic that makes more sense, and now has the message that if you were thinking of giving the book as a gift, which apparently lots of people do, you're not being that funny or original, and the recipient of the gift doesn't find you so. It shows that women like sex to the men who treat their sexuality as a joke, and is now directed at men buying the book, instead of the authors of the book. Because the way it's written now, to the authors, doesn't make any sense. They already know that women's porn would include fucking. That's the joke of the book.

    Anyway, this edit still doesn't change the fact that this comic is a dude standing up for women unnecessarily.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The whole misunderstanding of the "Porn for Women" was funnier about a decade ago when The Simpson's Nelson Muntz was disappointed in the movie "Naked Lunch".

    ReplyDelete
  50. I dislike the idea of a guy (i.e. Randy) telling other people what women want.

    Unless a friend of his specifically made the joke and asked him to post it (in which case he should acknowledge her as the actual creator) it just comes across as massively presumptous.

    Randy is uncomfortably close to:
    "I'll have the steak, and the lady'll have a salad"
    "Actually I wanted the lamb?"
    "...No, the salad for you I think. Don't want you getting fat on me harharhar."
    Except he thinks he's being gentlemanly and understanding by standing up for the womenfolk.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Randall is probably getting (or at least able to get) more tail than all of the xkcdsuckers combined..

    ReplyDelete
  52. that seems phenomenally unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  53. don't underestimate the effect of money and being (kinda..) famous on slutty chicks.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm not. it's just that there's a lot of us. you'd have to define xkcdsuckers as a really small group of people in order to make it plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  55. ..or as a group with almost no appeal to women.

    ReplyDelete
  56. rob is counting him sex with himself, guys, that is why he is saying this.

    also, where is this idea coming from that Randall is super wealthy? I know he makes an income off his comic but that doesn't mean he makes a giant income off it. There are benefits of making a living off comics (more fun, easier schedule, fame) that would make it worth it even if the income was less than, say, NASA engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  57. see, again, that's not plausible. and is ignoring the fact that there are girls on the internet, but that's the sort of assumption basement trolls such as yourself tend to make reflexively.

    let's define "xkcdsuckers" as "everyone who has XKCD Sucks in their Google Reader feed," or 295 people. this is an arbitrarily low number (last I checked we get something like 1700 hits/day). let's further assume that Randall manages to have sex four times per day. this is an arbitrarily high number.

    in order for the "xkcdsuckers" to have more sex than Randall, only four of them (or about 1 percent) would need to have sex once every day, or eight every other day, up to 28, a little less than ten percent, having sex once a week.

    assume for the sake of simplification that our demographics are American and over the age of 18. assume further that the census bureau is accurate in its estimation that 41 percent of Americans over the age of 18 are single and unmarried. assume further that single people never have sex. assume that the "xkcd sucks" demographics are somehow twice as single as the rest of the population--about 82 percent. this leaves 18 percent who are not "single and unmarried," or 53. of this 53 people who are in a relationship, only a little over half of them would have to manage having sex once a week in order to equal Randall's four times daily. only four of them, a little less than ten percent, would have to have sex once per day to equal his numbers.

    alternatively, assume that the Durex survey is accurate in assuming four percent of people have sex daily, and that "xkcdsuckers" are so pathetic that among this demographic that number is reduced to 1/4-- so that only one percent have sex daily. that still equals Randall's numbers. add in the finding that fifty-seven percent report having sex weekly; reduce this number to about 1/6, so that only ten percent are having sex weekly, and this still equals Randall's numbers.

    combine the statistics and even assuming that everyone not either daily or weekly never has sex at all, and the aggregate of "xkcdsuckers" doubles the amount of sex Randall has.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I have had more wangs in me than a Chinese phonebook.

    That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  59. yes also aloria is a huge slut

    ReplyDelete
  60. aloria has had more dongs than a vietnamese bank

    ReplyDelete
  61. A preachy, irony-deficient monologue that completely misses the point of the subject matter, delivered by a sex-obsessed perma-adolescent who hopes that masking his desperate insecurity with condescending reminders that he's a Nice Guy Who Really Understands and Respects Women, Unlike Those Other Jerks will finally earn his way (back?) into Megan's heart and/or vagina.

    Plus gratuitous fan service in the alt-text. Slow clap, Mr. Munroe. Slow clap.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Rob: HAHAHAHAHAA, priceless. You just sounded really really desperate and needy.
    That anon troll obviously struck a nerve.

    ReplyDelete
  63. no, I just dislike when people make obviously false claims.

    though good for you in thinking that doing basic statistics is desperate and needy?

    ReplyDelete
  64. In your case and regarding the way you presented the whole thing? Yes, we all think so.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Actually it seemed pretty matter-of-fact in its presentation of facts, so I dunno why you'd think it's desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm still not sure how basic statistics and simple maths and listing assumptions can be perceived as desperate. desperate is saying "NUH-UH I HAVE TONS OF SEX." and I'm not even sure what "needy" means in this context, since I expressed no desires at all.

    I'm just saying that asserting that one person, especially Randy, having more sex than any given aggregate of 300 people is highly implausible. I'd make the same argument w/r/t the XKCD forumites.

    oh, and a word of advice for trolling in the future? you should probably avoid saying things like "we all think so." it really damages your credibility, especially since the bulk of the commenting community posts anonymously and has no means of communicating. demonstrating an overwhelming consensus among anonymous posters is difficult at best, and impossible when you are the only person who has expressed the opinion.

    it is actually a lot more effective to avoid the temptation to pretend to speak for the community; it masks your intentions, makes you appear more honest and less presumptuous, and keeps people from assuming that the anonymous posts that follow agreeing with you are just sock puppets. it also helps to respond to specific lines and points, so it's clear that you aren't just making your attacks without actually putting any thought into them.

    of course, any attacks on someone's personal life on an internet forum or commenting community are fairly ineffective, since your knowledge of them is limited to their posts on said community, and it very seldom actually rings true, especially when it's as uncreative an attack as "you never get laid" or "you are lonely and desperate." but if you stop pretending you know how a bunch of anonymous people who have not expressed any opinion think you'll at least be slightly more persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Rob, why are you wasting the time with this? Seriously, WHY?

    In an unrelated note, being a Nice Guy Who Really Understands and Respects Women, Unlike Those Other Jerks won't do Randall any favors in that regard. I know.

    ReplyDelete
  68. boston has been washed away in a flood and I just got home for the first time in three days. I'm bored as fuck.

    and I want to help little Davy out with his trolling. I feel bad for him.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Rob appears attractive. It stands to reason he gets some statistically significant amount of vagina.

    Randy would probably be distracted by drawing a graph of what qualifies as statistically significant for vagina.

    In terms of the sex quota of the group, does man tail count here?

    ReplyDelete
  70. i masturbate fourteen times a day, so even if you only account each masturbation session as one tenth of a sexual encounter i'm doing pretty well

    ReplyDelete
  71. Ken: I have to assume so, since there exist such things as straight girls and queer men.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Sure, but I'm unclear as to what all counts as "tail". It's an ambiguous slang.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "I'm still not sure how basic statistics and simple maths and listing assumptions can be perceived as desperate."

    The collective anonymous aren't able to distinguish feelings within writing.

    Seriously, so many people think you're being dead serious when you aren't saying "LoL" or inputting smiley faces at the end of your sentences. Still others think that a disagreement means you're angry.

    To quite a few people who don't read enough, if writing doesn't have a giveaway (e.g. I am angry, LOL, or expletives), most people consider the writing to be matter-of-fact, devoid of feeling, and the writer completely disengaged from his writing.

    To sum it up, someone arguing with you does not imply desperation. Someone who doesn't say lol or haha isn't always unhappy. Someone who isn't swearing may in fact be very angry. These are basic skills to learn, Cuddlefish. I am disdainful.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Well, Ken, as my brother once said:

    "I have a tail! God put it on the wrong side."

    So I think only men have tails.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ken: according to the American Heritage Dictionary, as a slang term it means "A sexual partner, especially a woman," which means that it usually refers to women but does not exclusively. I've definitely known straight girls and gay men to use the word. I guess I assumed it was being used in a gender-neutral sense, since I don't see any reason to exclude ladies and gay men from your consideration.

    TheMesosade: hmm yes. I assumed it was because our cuddlefish fans start with the assumption that we are lonely, desperate, and repulsive. I think it's kind of a feedback loop starting with "they disagree with me, therefore they are angry, and they spend time talking about it, therefore they are pathetic" and then everything they read further reinforces the hate.

    it's just really hilarious to me when people take a really dry list of statistics and mathematical assumptions and assume that it's "desperate and needy." it's like they've completely divorced themselves from reality at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Well Rob, the way I read it, you were screaming every sentence at the monitor while tears and snot ran down your face. And don't try to tell me you weren't, the subtext was there, clear as day. Also it took you 30 minutes to type because you had to headbutt each key.

    ReplyDelete
  77. actually I hit the keys with my penis because otherwise it doesn't serve any function at all, because every time I look at a woman she shudders in revulsion and, if she has a drink, throws it in my face.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yeah man, headbutt. Which head did you think I meant? Maybe head-prod would've been clearer?

    ReplyDelete
  79. so long as we are on the same page here

    ReplyDelete
  80. He also inserted "fuck" so that his high-school-age audience would find him edgier.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Jesus fuck the xkcd boards are full of idiots. So many "enlightened" individuals and their faux-rage over a "sexist" comic (or book, depending on which retard is arguing).

    It's no wonder they enjoy xkcd so much.

    If I ever become famous I'll make sure to not have a fanbase like them.

    Also what the fuck is with interjecting feminism into every single thing? Look, ladies, we know you think the world revolves around you all but give it a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anon 10:34 posting again: how funny that I make that post after someone points out "fuck."

    fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  83. No one forgot your contest. You seem to forget that you only have a dozen or so visitors on this site. All the entries are in.

    Are we clear now, Carl/Rob/Crazy Twat/ et.al.

    ReplyDelete
  84. well SOMEONE is coming here and clicking all my ads and making me all that money. And it can't be the same few people or google would notice and refuse to pay me. and now i am a BILLIONARE.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Btw, Rob, now we all wanna know: When was the last time you got laid?

    ReplyDelete
  86. I have adblock because I refuse to support hate-sites

    ReplyDelete
  87. man person1 you're just jealous of all the traffic stormfront gets

    ReplyDelete
  88. if u think stormfront's are so bad person 1 then where is ur anti-semitic conspiracy site? lol no, nyehehehehehehehe, i dont see u doing any better ....

    ReplyDelete
  89. Now I know I'm often too lazy to sign in, but only because I figure I'm too lame for anyone, under any circumstances, to want to impersonate. Thanks, dude 3:22, for ruining my lazy lazy ways, asshole.

    ReplyDelete
  90. i get the feeling there's only like 3 people here but each with some serious personality disorder going on

    ReplyDelete
  91. OH BOY, YET ANOTHER PLEA TO SEND HIM FREE STUFF.
    MAAANNNN Carl, you are such an internet celebrity! We really care about what you think on stuff other than XKCD, because that is really the reason as to why we come to this blog. Quickly, let us all ask that one author of that one other random comic he constantly pimps (that actually sucks ass) to sacrifice some money and send it to him for free.
    You're often late and short with posts as it is, but we can forgive that!

    Also, today's comic was shit in a shitcan. The punchline is that people fuck! What a wacky concept.

    ReplyDelete
  92. i still do not see why people love hark a vagrant so much

    ReplyDelete
  93. That is because you do not understand love, R.

    Captcha: surifiru sounds japanese.

    ReplyDelete
  94. "i get the feeling there's only like 3 people here but each with some serious personality disorder going on"

    Yes, I'm really a figment of aloria's imagination.

    She's also a figment of my imagination.

    PS.: "LOL" for all you cuddlefish who can't do basic text interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  95. R. said...

    "i still do not see why people love hark a vagrant so much"

    I think it's kinda b/c it's sort of a history-dork version of xkcd. The difference being, history>computers or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  96. See, I actually know more about computers than I do history, so it's probably not that. Unless this is some sort of Dan Brown effect, where knowing what Randall's talking about impairs my ability to appreciate his works.

    ReplyDelete
  97. new one is stupid, but I'm not sure if Randall including typical phrases like "I have IQ" and "I have a/an inch penis" is supposed to be poking fun at people who do that on the internet, or if he's trying to get people to laugh at infantile humour as usual.

    Also, as a TNG fan, the "there are four lights" joke is not funny, and putting that joke into a shitty comic putting it on a graph is even worse

    ReplyDelete
  98. Man maybe Randall should use Maple or Excel or something to make his graphs, he's really not very good at them.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Wait...there are four lights is inherently a joke? I thought it was a meme/reference. I thought it only became a joke BY hiding it in a graph (whether it's good is another matter).

    Curious why he did number of boy/girlfriends but only did boyfriends for age + boyfriend.

    Also...the line splits off at grade 8 for the junior/senior thing? I guess I don't understand American school terminology as well as I had thought.

    I agree the graphs are a bit off. I particularly think the IQ graph has a bad trendline. Also, the average in the alt-text doesn't appear to match the graphs, unless he's using the mode average for some reason. Why does 8 glasses of water a day get a mini hump but 18 and never had a boyfriend doesn't?

    I kind of am interested that "I'm a C-cup" doesn't get much play. I guess C-cup women are satisfied? I suppose the 18 year old / no boyfriend is a psychological thing with graduating from high school.

    ReplyDelete
  100. I found the alt text kind of funny due to the grotesqueness of the imagery, until I figured that it was basically a rape joke. ffffff

    ReplyDelete