Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Comic 798: Fucking as Shit

DUMB AS SHIT? DID THAT ONE OCCUR TO YOU?
[Alt: 'Fucking ineffable' sounds like someone remembering how to do self-censorship halfway through a phrase.]

This Tuftean bullshit has got to stop. There was that stuff about which numbers turn up most in google searches, that stuff about which games people get naked to, and which memes have apparently existed, and google proving that you need to kiss more people. I don't know who finds google search results interesting or funny, but it's certainly not me.

Apparently more obscure adjectives are combined with obscene intensifiers less regularly than more common adjectives. This is not particularly exciting; the sorts of people who use the word "evanescent" are probably a bit more of a careful, erudite (erudite as shit) lot, and less prone to vulgarity.

I guess part of the point of this comic is that some words turn up with certain foul-languaged descriptions more often than with others. I don't know. The visual display is actually pretty damn crappy (it's pretty fucking pretty darn crappy) so I can't tell just by looking. The horizontal axis is a measure of frequency of "fuck" or "shit" occurrences relative to non-fuck-shit occurrences, but since it's the natural log of the ratio I can't intuitively see whether some of these patters are meaningful or not.

All the other problems with this graph are generally the same as the ones linked to above (and linked to here as well).

=========

Take a look at comic 5, panel 3 in today's Kate Beaton. Then take a look at today's Kris Straub. What's up with that? I guess it's a coincidence? Or perhaps there is some greater cultural reference that I do not understand.

76 comments:

  1. Honestly, the set-up and execution for this comic are both really overdone and generally bad, but I still giggled at "piquant as SHIT." It might be (fucking) puerile, but I actually thought it was funny in the sense that the imagined context of using the less common combinations would be worth a laugh.

    I wouldn't call it a good comic though, if only because the parts I found funny weren't really put out by the comic, just... facilitated by it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I kinda snorted in humor 799. The alt-text worked for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This kind of sounds like one of those "angry rants". Anyway, I did think it was pretty funny, if not an actually very good comic. 799 is just stupid though. I think he's jealous.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At first I was like "this post is SO lame, Carl, so lame" and then I realized you'd used up all your angry rants in relation to graph "comics" in the previous posts.

    I guess there's a point where you can't get angry anymore, you just have to shake your head and sigh

    ReplyDelete
  5. This isn't a funny comic, it's a Cool Thing I Found. Randall needs to make his picto-blag already.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The best thing about 799 is that the script in newspaper header makes it look like it says "The Titties" instead of "The Times."

    ReplyDelete
  7. The problem with 799, much like many of Munroe's recent musings, is that it's completely devoid of humor. It's just that simple, little much else can be said about it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You are terrible because you are terribleSeptember 28, 2010 at 10:16 PM

    That isn't a problem. Well, it is, but it's not the problem with the comic, it's a consequence of whatever problems there might be.

    That would be like me saying the problem with your face is that it is not a good face.

    ReplyDelete
  9. it is a picto-blag post, but a pretty good one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I actually kind of liked 799. It made me chuckle.

    Captcha: Rinocome. A statement often heard when trying to tame one's pet rhinoceros.

    ReplyDelete
  11. the 'come back in like an hour thing' is probably some sort of meta-go-code, like what happens in that new tv show rubicon with the crossword puzzles. so there are probably some webcomic readers out there who've just taken that as the cue to top themselves. that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I liked 799, not only did Randall not fuck it up with extraneous dialogue for once but the alt-text was genuinely amusing (and better suited to an alt-text than as part of the comic! Will wonders never cease?)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Didn't anyone notice that this is basically xkcd 75 except not quite as profane? The joke in both is that you're mixing two completely different levels of formality. It's the same basic joke but with 100% more Google.

    Also, it's been done better.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Speaking of Kris Straub and doing things better than xkcd, today's Chainsawsuit sort of reminds me of xkcd 631, except not horribly shocking and with an actual joke.

    Also, the newspaper in 799 totally says "The Titties."

    ReplyDelete
  15. What annoyed me with 798, is that half of his illustrated examples ("piquant as shit") doesn't actually appear in the Google results. If it did I guess it would have been funny, but as such ("Look I've thought of a funny phrase to search on Google - well, nobody ever said it before this picto-blog entry, but still !") it's kinda meh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Calamities of Nature seems to rip off xkcd today.

    I don't get the Hawking comic. I thought the latest media frenzy about him was due to a new book that he authored, not just because he said something once.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I liked 799

    and I know why

    It's SHOWN NOT TOLD

    I mean it could SO EASILY have gone like

    "I think maybe we should go see a movie some time"
    "Mister reporter I am so excited Stephen hawking told me to go see some movies"
    "I am also excited, as my expressionless sphereoid betrays no emotion, I shall print this in the local newspaper, called "The Titties""
    "Why does nobody want to go on a date with me I am so alone and also sad"


    799 is miles ahead of standard xkcd fare.
    which makes it sorta mediocre, but still.

    ReplyDelete
  18. haha

    I didn't see the first line of your comment, so I thought you were saying it should have been told not shown. I was going to fly through my computer and kick your ass. Then I saw the first line and now you are my friend.

    Even though I didn't care for 799. At least it wasn't due to being terribly executed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. No, 799 is complete shit. It's a reference to the minor media frenzy from the beginning of the month when Hawking said that God didn't create the universe. Which was stupid, yeah, but

    (a) it happened ALMOST A MONTH AGO, Randall, nobody remembers it because nobody cared; and

    (b) the satire is ludicrously inoffensive. Oh, look, the media overhypes anything someone says! He can't go to the bathroom with someone speculating on what it might mean! Ha ha, and what if it made him sad because he couldn't just hang out with friends because of the media? It'd be bitterly ironic but still humorous, just like Perry Bible Fellowship, right?

    NO. Randall, the quality of your comic has been going down for a while, but I never thought you'd stoop to the nerd equivalent of Mallard fuckin' Fillmore. You should be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Also nothing Stephen Hawking-related and attempting to be humorous will ever top the Futurama segment he was in. So really Randall was just setting himself up for failure, here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 799:
    Randall shows that he does not understand the concept of paralysis.

    It's just another "The media overreacts to what scientists say" comic. Only this one just sucks, because the media never do what this comic says they do.

    Also, once again: characters with hair.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Y'all are either trolling about "The Titties" or Randall has changed it since.

    If it is the latter case, does anyone have a copy of the original? I'm just sooooo curious.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Before posting anything about XKCD, I'd just like to point out I have no fucking idea about what the heck is going on in today's SMBC.

    Say what you will, SMBC has passable art and good jokes most of the time(and Zach does it daily!). But, sincerely, this time I'm baffled.

    Nauq twe dhe da paw,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  24. UndercoverCuddlefishSeptember 29, 2010 at 6:08 AM

    the joke is that attributing altruism to a lower life form like a mollusk might drive a scientist to a homicidal rage (while normal people would likely be baffled by the concept and respond noncommittally)

    also xkcd still sucks in case anybody was wondering

    ReplyDelete
  25. They're trolling. It needs some imagination to think of the M as two Ts and an I. Although it is a strange font.

    798: No Carl why would you join in on that comic's stupid meme. More proof you're really Randall.

    799: Don't know what's referenced here. Yay for some kind of art? Plasma is right, look at the last panel.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I haven't read the entire comment thread of the last post, but it is MANDATORY that someone says here that comic 798 is fucking orwellian.

    And 799 was ok, I enjoyed it, AND it didn't leave any bitter aftertaste.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Professional Mole:

    I had a roommate in college that majored in wildlife biology. He used to rant about how altruism in lower life forms could never truly exist. Actually, he was quite passionate about it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ...Okay. Sincerely, I thought that was the joke, but then I thought "nah, that's stupid". That's still stupid.

    Frankly, most of the time I doubt atruism exists even in the human species. But that has nothing to do with XKCD, so let's get back to the subject!

    ...Yea. Comic 798 was never worth an angry rant. It's another graph joke about Google searches. Randall should stop doing those. They're not only uninteresting as shit, they have this odd characteristic of being unverifiable because whatever Randall says becomes meme. Which means whatever phrases he used in his "comic" will be repeated high and low through the internet, making his results invalid.

    Which means, yes, Fernie, it is orwellian. To a sense.

    Baai baai,

    Mole

    CAPTCHA: bases. That's... an oddly usual word.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What, you're angry about a graph comic not being ACCURATE? and you have the gaul to call Randall autistic...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fuck your Wapaneseness, Mole. If you're gonna use a Japanese phrase, use a REAL Japanese phrase, not their idiotic Engrish.

    ReplyDelete
  31. No Evln I just checked and it is clearly not the Times I saw as Titties.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 799 made me laugh. It sure seems to me that Stephen Hawking is the go-to guy in the media for Science Man Genius, and that he's held in much higher regard than other scientists/his actual scientific work deserves.

    So it made me laugh to see the media attention and adulation that he receives made fun of.


    It's not an amazing xkcd, it's not one that'd convert anyone back or kick off a slow clap for Randy. But it's a wee little joke and it's just funny.



    798? Ugh fuck off.

    First off, that google search thing is worn worn out by now and it'd need to be a crazy hilarious idea to deserve doing it ever again, and second, goddammit there's no development. Do something with this research (Ha, "research") Randy! Turn it into something funny. Don't just lay it out and dust your hands.
    Sake.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "...He can't go to the bathroom..."

    what a terrible thing to say

    ReplyDelete
  34. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623#comic

    ReplyDelete
  35. ...that's Cantonese, you dickwad. And I already used the "pure" Chinese phrase Joi gin(or Joi wooi, I'm not sure which one).

    Also, if you'll be a prick, get a fucking name. And I won't fucking stop swearing for shit. Crap.

    Also, 799? Uh... goodish. It is eerily similar to the SMBC pointed by Mr. 7:46, though. Also, wasn't it a few strips ago when reporters decided to turn to Michael Bay instead of a real scientist for advice? That's a bit... contraditory. But just a bit.

    Eh, I'm not even sure.

    Sui unukar an ro,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  36. One quickie: if the graph says people say "fucking piquant" but never "piquant as shit", why is his little illustration clearly doing what people, as demonstrated, never do?

    Randall Munroe, failing self-made graph interpreting since 2005.

    Titotazqueh,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  37. Randall is right, it can be funny to mix curse levels.

    http://xkcd.com/75/

    Oh, wait...he did that already

    ReplyDelete
  38. It seems to me that the point of these "Google Graph" comics is to point out: holy FUCK, people actually say really ridiculous things like "fucking jejune" or "ambivalent as shit"!

    Which is still really stupid, but I guess when I read this I find myself imagining a situation in which one might use such a phrase, and chuckling.

    If Randall had actually put more time into crafting such situations, it might be funnier I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To be fair, Carl, you can see how Randall might get confused when a man whose favourite xkcd was ‘Search History’ later pronounces that he does not find search results ‘interesting or funny’…

    ReplyDelete
  40. Another Ian eh? We Ian's must stick together.

    Not literally of course, that would be awkward.

    ReplyDelete
  41. (oops)

    Hey guys, can you please help me?

    I don't get the newest SMBC.

    ReplyDelete
  42. GRAAAAAAR, I HATE THIS COMMENT BOX, WHY DID IT HAVE TO BE A STUPID IFRAME INSTEAD OF A SIMPLE FORM, GRAAAAAAHG!

    Okay, back to my usual self.

    @Defiant: Read aboie, I had the same problem. To my dismay, it was solved.

    @Ian Janes: There's a good deal of difference between a comic about search history(a comic that I myself don't hold as my favorite by far) and a graph based on search resuts that are as interesting and funny as the searches that resulted on them(that is, not an inkling of neither).

    Also, Randall is averse to criticism and, of course, xkcdsucks. That is, assuming Carl and Randall aren't the same person(which they totall are).

    Lukim iufala,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't believe it! He actually did modify the script in "The Times" so it looks less like "The Titties" now! The middle stem in the "m" was longer, and I think the rightmost stem was closer to the "e." Damn, I wish I had saved the original.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So apparently there was a media kerfuffle over something Hawking said, but it must not have been that much of a kerfuffle since I missed it completely. OK, so the media pays more attention to Hawking than any other scientist, but I really don't hear people complaining to much about the media hanging on every word uttered by a scientist.

    I've seen a comic (can't remember which) making a joke about inordinate media attention being paid to Alan Greenspan's shopping list. This is funny because Greenspan actually did have the media (well, mostly the WSJ) hanging on his every word. Scientists/Hawking not so much.

    A better comic might compare the media attention paid to Anna Nicole Smith re: vaccines vs. attention paid to scientists. Or Norman Borlaug's death vs. Michael Jackson's. Or celebrity diet tips vs. scientific findings about nutrition. While scientific reports about foods newly discovered to be "good" or "bad" probably attract more media attention than just about any other scientific finding, I still don't think anybody is complaining about the media focusing on scientists too much.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sepia: I think the joke is "Stephen Hawking gets inordinate attention", not "The media lavishes attention on stupid things".

    I interpreted those two people beside him as hangers-on, groupie-type characters. Not media.

    It's a joke about celebrity, and within the nerdy little world that xkcd observes and uses for its humour Hawking's your go-to celebrity.

    If it was a sports comic strip, it'd be Tiger Woods in his place. If it was a music comic strip, it'd be Bono.


    And now that I've made my argument for why it's not a bad joke, I kinda feel huh it's a bit of a generic one.


    Decent joke, mildly generic. Final verdict from me.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nobody in particularSeptember 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM

    Hawking making a comment about there not being a need for God creating the universe, a claim that has huge implications for human belief systems coming from a man highly regarded in his field for perfectly sensible positions.

    Hawking saying that a movie sounds good to his "friends" (They can't be much of friends if they treat him like that).

    Randall believes that these two things are the same.


    Also: How hypocritical is this comic anyways? Seriously Randall, you have people change the wikipedia pages of everything you write about. Talk about projection.

    ReplyDelete
  47. 799: it is good. And that's all I have to say about that.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Thanks. And yes, to my dismay, it still sucks. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I actually got a slight laugh out of this one. I agree with Keep that it's about the inordinate amount of attention Hawking gets whenever he talks about something completely outside of his specialty.

    @Nobody in particular: What Hawking said has absolutely no impact on any believers anywhere. He made a statement that should make first year philo students laugh, but was taken very seriously by several media outlets (such as the NY Times). Kind of like the kerfluffle a few years back when he spouted off about how we need to leave the planet asap before we all die.

    Guy's a great physicist, but he knows jack shit all about anything else, yet the media likes to hang all over his words anyways, and Randall is pointing that out. I thought it was at least a lot more clever than any of his other recent strips.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Also @Nobody in particular: that unnecessary god thing is a claim that hundreds of millions of people, thousands of which have been pretty famous, have said, including dozens who actually knew that they were definitely correct in saying so over the past few decades.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Going by the note count, the Hawking comic was a major win for xkcdexplained.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ 11:07-

    He's a physacyst so he knows about stuff like the physical nature of the universe? and I guess how current theory can explain quite neatly how the universe can come from nothing without requiring any kind of creator?

    I GUESS that's a little different than saying "There is no need to fill the gaps in our knowledge with god"

    since he's saying "This knowledge fills the gaps with people previously filled with god"

    BUT YOU KNOW WHAT DOES A PHYSICYST KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE HUH?

    Also yeah he didn't say leave the planet he meant colinise other planets or the human race will die out and shit.
    I'll give you that one as obvious though

    ReplyDelete
  53. worst comes to worst, we can always eat each other and wait for the population to drop to a sustainable level.


    dibs on rob.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Faggot Thumper that's not even British spelling what the fuck is wrong with you please get a spellchecker before commenting again tia~~~

    ReplyDelete
  55. Don't be greedy, there's enough Rob for everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Faggot Thumper what the fuck is wrong with you that's not even British spelling please use a spell-checker before commenting again tia~~~~

    ReplyDelete
  57. I don't know, people. I think it's more probable that Rob will be eating everyone.

    A dey see yu lata,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  58. Faggot Thumper you are a moron who needs a spell checker.

    Your spelling is so bad I've submitted this comment THREE TIMES in hopes that you see it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. THIS WILL NOT BE A MEME

    ReplyDelete
  60. I wish I could be as smart as Anon 5:50, he criticises spelling and doesn't retort anything

    That's.. almost a meme

    ReplyDelete
  61. I think Anon 6:52 a very cool guy, he fails at memes and doesn't afraid of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Come one guys, I thought we were better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I think we can all find it in our hearts to unify on what the punchline is about: it's either referencing what Hawking said at the beginning of the month, or the general concept of people who know nothing about him overblowing everything he says because he's today's celebrity scientist and the general public does not understand scyence.

    That being said, if we accept that we can probably say that this is a solid comic. It is, however, just not funny. It lacks humor. It's one of those comics that, if XKCD were still funny, you'd see while flipping through and laughing left and right and then think "oh, that one's okay" and then go onto the next one. Except in this day and age it's more like you're flipping through comics that are so bad you're ragefacing, and then this one's like "eh" but you feel compelled to rage anyway because this is garbage.

    I feel like after a long stint of absolutely terrible comics, Randall is lately making comics that are solid, if perhaps rehashed, but simply devoid of humor. He is simply past his prime.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think 8:21 has the mark here

    INTERNET BLOWJOBS HOR HIM!

    ReplyDelete
  65. I got a kick out of 799 comic, but only because I was sick of all the "HAWING DISPROVES GOD!?" articles on StumbleUpon.

    With that said, I wouldn't expect most people to get much humor out of this unless they had the same levels of free time and similar Stumble interests.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anon@11:07 wrote:
    >> Guy's a great physicist, but he knows jack
    >> shit all about anything else,

    QFT

    ReplyDelete
  67. Seriously, you spend all your time running a hate blog for a _fucking_web-comic_? Didn't it ever occur to you that you could be doing something productive?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anon 7:05, poor trolling attempt, 54/100. Come see me.

    ReplyDelete
  69. no, it didn't occur to me. I - I guess I was under the impression that i HAD to do this? but now that I think about it I don't know where that idea came from. Huh. weird.

    ReplyDelete
  70. wow Carl, now that you've seen the error of your ways, what are you going to do with yourself? I mean, with all the effort you put into this blog you could probably save the world.

    oh wait, this comment thread is not relevant anymore. Crap!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Your approach is overkill. This one sucks because, if the day-traders and Enron fake-hip sociopaths of the 90s and 2000s taught us nothing else, it's that "this shit is fucking FUNGIBLE" was probably the most over-used phrase in the modern era.

    ReplyDelete
  72. It was hilarious. I love words. I love numbers. I am amused and have a fondness for weirdness. I find people funny. I am a nerd. This comic appeals to me. It does not appeal to you, because you are not a nerd and you have no sense of humour.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It was terrible. Words and numbers are not in and of themselves funny. It takes more than "weirdness" to make a good joke. Not everyone is funny. I am not autistic. This comic does not appeal to me. It appeals to you, because you are autistic and have a Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction to graph comics thanks to Xkcd.

    Gee, this is fun!

    ReplyDelete