Saturday, February 4, 2012

Comics 1010-1012: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!

1010. Here we have a lame superhero, Etymology Man, giving an etymology in an inappropriate situation! How wacky! As the wave comes crashing in to drown our heroes, he is still giving an etymological lecture, and generally scoring a great victory for pedantry in the process. Too much setup, not enough joke. Though as an aside: I've never encountered someone who whips out their pedantry penis about 'tidal wave' vs 'tsunami.' Is this a thing?

1011. The worst part about this one is I'm terrified this means that Randy is one step closer to bringing his hot porn star daughter fantasies to fruition. More shotgun humor from our intrepid comics auteur. How dull.

1012. Apparently Randy was so thrilled with the joke in 1010, he decided to use it again! "I can make this better," he said to himself. "The people at xkcd sucks always complain when I use too many panels. Well I'll show them! I'll put this wall of text in only one panel!" This joke wasn't particularly interesting the first time. Stop trying to make it happen, Randy.

179 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. no niggers on xkcd yo

      Delete
  2. You're neglecting the fact that etymology man is the first character in like a thousand pages who is actually somewhat consistent!

    Probably next comic he'll be talking about philosophy and like... breaking into bakeries, or something.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You know what would be really wacky guys? A strip in which panel 1 depicts some God-fearing preacher coming out with all the standard lines to make strong (moar like weak as shit amirite?) atheists rage, a depiction of that rage and a call by Stick Randall on SCIENCE MAN in panel 2, some filler in panels 3 to 5, and then... horror of horrors... SOCIAL SCIENCE MAN appearing in panel 6.

    It would be such a jape! SOCIAL SCIENCE MAN, rather than providing the Aspie Reasoning so close to Randall's heart which might DESTROY the HEATHEN in the first panel, would merely calmly explain the position and purpose of religion in society. He would point out that questions of existence and majesty of any deity are not formed in a way hard science can tackle anyway.

    Panel 7 is a beat panel. I don't know much about comic strip critiquing but people often use the phrase "beat panel" so I just wanted to put one in there.

    Panel 8 then has Stick Randall on his knees shaking his fist at the Heavens as Randy comes to the realisation that all his superheroes are in fact post-Nietzschean substitutes for gods.

    The alt text simply says, "I really want to fuck my daughter."

    Randall is found dead the next morning buried in a playpen of balls, clutching the Bible in his right hand and Dawkins in his left.

    [curtain]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The next comic is Randy joking about how, as a typical computer geek, he has over-engineered every aspect of his life. So the last logical step for him is to automate his comic making process. So he writes up a Perl script, with a bunch of "hilarious" programmer jokes that even other programmers are tired of, and finishes off with some half-baked self-referential self-depreciating line.

      Anyway, the irony is, Randy actually does this to his comics, redoing 02:23am Anon's comic over and over with a "Fill in the blanks" with the text and images, forever until the Earth is turned into a scorched ball of nothing. And his fans will STILL buy the automatically produced in-joke and meme t-shirts that no one else in the real world will think is funny.

      Fuck, man, we're getting into some real meta-humour shit here.

      Delete
    2. And you say xkcd sucks?

      Delete
  4. ^I'd pay $10 to watch that film.

    ...actually, no, I'd probably pirate it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can someone make a SMBC sucks blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... Yeah, it makes me sad to admit it, but SMBC is a pathetic shadow of what it used to be.

      Delete
    2. [joke about Rob's shadow]

      Delete
    3. Nah, Zach's still got it. Sure he could be better the past few weeks, but he's not horrible or anything.

      Delete
    4. Well his comics aren't as good as they used to be but he isnt a wanker so who cares? Also i'm certain his comics have gone downhill where as i suspect xkcd has always sucked. He should give up on the update a day thing.

      Delete
  6. These posts get fewer and further between as this website fades into the night... Can't you admit when Randy does a good one? There have been good ones... 1010 is GOOD. It waters down your hate message when you're just kneejerk responding to every comic. It feels FORCED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These posts get fewer and further between as it's the weekend, you spoon.

      Delete
    2. Xkcdsucks will NOT fade into the night. We will go violently, out with a bang. Every single commenter on this blog will return for the apocalyptic circle-jerk. A million cuddlefish will scream, and then suddenly fall silent. Then Randall himself will shed a single tear for the loss of the only group of people who ever truly understood him.

      Delete
    3. Do not go gentle into that good night,
      Old blogs should burn and rage at close of day;
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Though posters at their end know dark is right,
      Because their words had forked no lightning they
      Do not go gentle into that good night.

      Good Carl, the last wave by, crying how bright
      His frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
      Shall rage against the dying of the light.

      Ravenz who caught and sang the sun in flight,
      And learns, too late, she grieved it on its way,
      Does not go gentle into that good night.

      Fat Rob, near death, who sees with blinding sight
      Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
      Shall rage against the dying of the light.

      And you, my Anon, there on the sad height,
      Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
      Do not go gentle into that good night.
      Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

      Delete
    4. See, the problem with that idea is that, while there have been good ones, 1010 isn't GOOD. Or even good. It's just not as bad as the ones surrounding it. I know reading a lot of xkcd kinda lowers your expectations, but you have to fight it.

      Delete
    5. That was beautiful, Anon 10:18. We shall set it to music, and it shall be our anthem.

      Delete
  7. The reason this blog is minor as shit now is Carl's retarded spastic redesign

    That nigger wants us all to migrate to webcomics.me or carl.me or whatever the hell it is

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wasn't Carl, it was Google. Google bolded the text, introduced threaded replies, and gave you an avatar. So stop complaining.

      Delete
  8. I am not a spoon!

    ReplyDelete
  9. If deaf people can't hear each other, why do they all sound the same when they speak?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they read each others' lips, obviously.

      Delete
  10. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think you people even understand. Maybe xkcd just isn't for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. It isn't for us. But some of us are forced to hear about it constantly from our friends. I haven't the heart to tell my friends that they're really into lame, canned geek humor.

      I don't understand why xkcd makes it so hard. Geek humor isn't that difficult to pull off -- Monty Python, The Office, The IT Crowd, etc. XKCD sets the bar low and still fails to deliver.

      Delete
    2. Your life must be difficult. I can't imagine the unbearable pain of being forced to listen to my friends talk about stuff. Especially if I disagree with them. You are a brave soul.

      Delete
  12. I must admit, 1013 got a smile out of me, even if only because I'm tired of the word Sheeple. Does that make me a bad person? Yes, probably, but I'm still not as fat as Rob.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL U KNOW WHAT WD BE FUNNIER?

      If he'd shouted WAKE UP EVERYONE and one or more of:

      (i) the dead arose from their graves and he triggers the zombie apocalypse;
      (ii) we find it's 4am and he's woken up his mother/Megan who replies "OK dear but can you wait until morning?"

      SO HILARIOUS because:

      (i) Asperger Logic interprets everything literally so "everyone" must include the dead;
      (ii) Asperger Logic interprets everything literally so "wake up" brings to mind being fast asleep at night.

      Actually, no, not hilarious. Do you know why not hilarious? Because it's obvious. Randy puts no thought or effort into his jokes. He looks at a phrase and/or some Wikipedia page and thinks, "What are the stupid ways of misintrepreting this?" and picks the one of greatest pander value.

      In this case his man-child audience like superheroes and supervillains so WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY IF THE SHEEPLE WERE SOME SORT OF SATANIC SUPER-VILLIAN? Sheep instead of goat because HAW HAW IT'S TOTALLY TURNING CHRISTIANITY ON ITS HEAD; 10,000 years reference check; man Randall you could make a business of this!

      captcha: nonbe. be/nonbe=Q?

      Delete
    2. That's the stupidest rant I've ever heard.

      Delete
    3. Stupid in the sense that it's made you feel stupid about liking the latest xkcd? Cos 1:27 is kinda right... this latest strip shows how easy Randy's humor is.

      Delete
    4. It is a fucking terrible rant because:

      1) The alternative example given is far worse than the comic.

      2) Tired aspie references.

      3) "Sheep instead of goat because HAW HAW IT'S TOTALLY TURNING CHRISTIANITY ON ITS HEAD". This statement shows a profound lack of understanding or even common sense. Is he suggesting 'sheeple' could be replaced by 'goatle'? Does he even know what 'sheeple' means? Why does he think it is about Christianity?

      4) What the fuck is '10,000 years' referencing?

      Delete
    5. 10:38, I thought you were trolling but I realise now that you're just not very clever.

      1) "That could be interpreted more literally than intended!" is equally stupid in both. The difference is that Randall's example appeals to the developmentally retarded who actually read xkcd while 1:27 mocks those children;

      2) Almost every single xkcd uses aspie reasoning. Perhaps you've recently been self-diagnosed and it's a sore point but Internet Asperger Disease is incurable and the only remedy is to mercilessly attack the carrier;

      3) Fair enough, the problem isn't just that you're stupid - it's also that you're ignorant. Satan has been depicted as some subterranean horny giant with goat-like horns in so much fantasy fiction it's not even particularly frightening any more. In the more sophisticated stories he is awaken from a slumber. What's sufficiently recent and light on the brain that you might have heard of it... Dr Who? South Park? If you want to make some unoriginal variation on this then it's a quadriplegic baby step to turning the massive goat into a massive sheep.

      4) The Internet has lots of search engines. Here's one relevant application of the number which suits your intellectual level.

      Imbecile.

      Is it me or has this site suddenly been filled with Randall's fellatory sycophants? Or is it just one Anon repeatedly posting in defence of xkcd?

      Delete
    6. 1) The original rant claims the humour is obvious and requires no thought or effort, yet his example is a lot worse. Hardly helps his cause, does it?

      2) Referring to everyone vaguely technical as an aspie is rapidly reaching Bieber-joke levels of irritating, and claiming that wilful misinterpretation of something or reaching for absurd conclusions is aspie logic is ludicrous.

      3) Yes, like a huge amount of Anglophone/European culture, the image can be traced back to the Bible. That doesn't mean it is 'turning Christianity on its head', any more than depicting God as an old guy with a beard turns the ancient Greek pantheon on its head.

      4) 10,000 is a nice round number used for lots of things. How the fuck can it be a pandering reference if there isn't a specific reference? Cliche maybe, but not a reference.

      I get the feeling you didn't really read the rant, just interpreted it in a way that pleased you and moved on. I don't blame you - it was a fucking terrible rant.

      Also, I don't like xkcd. I think it's shit. I just think you are worse.

      Captcha: Angstor. Ha!

      Delete
    7. 1) I can't see how 1:27's example is any worse. The main difference seems to be that Randy's version would be appealing to the dork fantasy crowd whereas 1:27 is a deliberate mockery of it and isn't intended to appeal to anyone;

      2) As far as I can tell, most people on this blog are "vaguely technical" and have STEM education or experience. But they also seem to have an appreciation of the subtleties and implications of human interaction and language, so are not aspies. Whereas jokes based almost entirely on a limited understanding of human interaction and language, usually trying to reduce one or both to a set of rules which are as simple as they are wrong, are the hallmark of an aspie.

      What is more, the fact that all you can see is "technical person being called an aspie" and your conclusion is "people are called aspies because they are technical" reinforces my judgment that you are an Internet aspie;

      3) Like an aspie, you once again take too literal an understanding of the OP. I doubt 1:27 believed Randall was actually trying to turn Christianity on his head. But it's obvious Randall was playing on the image of Satan and it's obvious from this and 1000 other strips that Randall thinks he's clever in his antitheism. So Randy almost certainly had the bastardisation of Christian imagery in mind, even if it was incidental rather than central to the comic.

      Now to make a big deal out of some small point if it pushes one of the xkcd buttons is very much in the style of xkcd cuddlefish which I assume 1:27 was actually poking fun at. Sometimes people mock on the Internet by using hyperbole and ALL CAPS. If this still confuses you, consult your nearest neurotypical;

      4) A cliche is an overused reference with watered down meaning.

      I get the feeling with each subsequent post you're going to make yourself sound more stupid but you won't stop responding because you're afraid of losing respect from the only person an aspie understands: himself.

      HTH.

      Delete
    8. "Is it me or has this site suddenly been filled with Randall's fellatory sycophants? Or is it just one Anon repeatedly posting in defence of xkcd?"

      I think they're always here, but they've been here long enough to have some degree of self-awareness so they don't usually post, because they're aware that most of the comics suck. but then Randy shits out a handful of mediocre comics and they're suddenly like "SEE SEE HOW BRILLIANT RANDY IS RANDY IS GOD ALL HAIL RANDY HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY DISLIKE THIS ONE" and it's like "largely because people like you exist, to be honest"

      Delete
    9. 1) You're right, it doesn't appeal to anyone, even as a mockery. It is a shit joke on every possible level, and proves no point.

      2) xkcd relies on references to pointless nerd shit and SCIENCE IS AWESOME GUYS platitudes. They appeal to people desperate to prove their own intellectual superiority, so while there is overlap with self-diagnosed aspies, it doesn't work on aspie logic.

      3) When has Randall ever made a subtle allusion? You read as much bullshit into the comics as his idiotic fanbase do, believing every fucking line and picture to be a reference to something. It isn't, and you're as bad as the cuddlefish morons for thinking so.

      4) No it isn't.

      What irritates me about xkcd is that the fanbase is a horrible circlejerk of smug, self-aggrandising idiots, and when you go cooing over bullshit rants, you are guilty of the same crime.

      Oh, I see you left a little stinger that suggests I lose just by replying to you. How very clever. I am undone.

      Delete
    10. 1) As mockery it appeals to me. It effectively demonstrates how routine and formulaic Randall's jokes are. It doesn't appeal to you because you're the sort of cuddlefish who both finds the original joke funny and who can neither understand parody nor stomach self-deprecation. As Rob says, you see one strip which isn't as fucking awful as all the rest and your binary, aspie little mind has to classify it as GREAT and all criticism as AWFUL;

      2) Read through this forum. What makes xkcd truly unbearable is not that it panders to insecure science fans - every discipline has its cheerleaders too weak to actually join the team - but that it does so with illogical, simplistic nonsense which is overrated by the worst of these fans. Like each of your posts, xkcd demonstrates a failure to properly analyse the full set of relevant issues in any scenario while dismissing things which are not material. Randall doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants: he is a tick embedded in their buttocks.

      3) You're embarrassing yourself. Re-read the point you're replying to:

      Now to make a big deal out of some small point if it pushes one of the xkcd buttons is very much in the style of xkcd cuddlefish which I assume 1:27 was actually poking fun at. Sometimes people mock on the Internet by using hyperbole and ALL CAPS. If this still confuses you, consult your nearest neurotypical;

      I can't make you any wiser, but at least I can make you more informed.

      4) Let's check the Internet's second favourite dictionary (i.e. the one not rewritten by angry aspies with too much time):

      Synonyms: cliché, bromide, commonplace, platitude, truism
      These nouns denote an expression or idea that has lost its originality or force through overuse: a short story weakened by clichés; the old bromide that we are what we eat; uttered the commonplace "welcome aboard"; a eulogy full of platitudes; a once-original thought that has become a truism.


      A cliche is precisely an over-used reference to an old idea which has lost its original force. In a better world we might use "cliche" to describe all memes, though it's certainly safe to apply them to old ones.

      What irritates me about cuddlefish is that, when pushed enough, they'll claim they actually don't like xkcd that much but, "THIS STRIP YOU GUYS THIS ONE STRIP GUYS!!" It's clear that you lack the faculty to understand the arguments presented to you, just as you fell down hopelessly in misinterpreting the OP. It's OK, though. I shall always recall a great friend at school who was severely dyslexic, clumsy and had terrible trouble with any sort of subtle social cue. A lot of specialist help and he's now earned a PhD from one of the best universities this country has to offer. He could do it because he was able to confront his shortcomings. He had humility. Will you do the same?

      Delete
    11. anon@3:59PM, you're getting ploughed into the ground. have some self respect.

      Delete
    12. 1) I simply think that rant is fucking terrible, and you are a fucking idiot for liking it. I think that the comic was not offensively bad, but not great. Your half-arsed pop psychology is getting pretty tiresome.

      2) So would an xkcd that *accurately* panders to insecure science fans be that much better? SMBC already exists, and the only reason it isn't as irritating is because its fans are far less vociferous.

      3) You seem to think that rant was a satire of cuddlefish. It wasn't. It was just such a terrible rant that you have convinced yourself it is.

      4) Your very example includes the phrase 'welcome aboard'. Are you going to claim that as a reference? I had hoped you would understand that when I refer to Randall's referencing, I meant his pandering inclusion of nerd staples. If you want to use the broader definition of reference, then every fucking word is one.

      Oh, another internet psychology stinger. Keep on swinging, fella. Maybe you'll hit something one day.

      Delete
    13. 1) You've spent the last day or two raging over a post which mocked xkcd humor. You've expended more concentrated energy on it than even this site did on xkcd in the days of Carl. You haven't even explained why beyond saying that IT'S NOTHING LIKE XKCD because THE XKCD ONE IS FUNNY AND 1:29 IS NOT. You're fucking hilarious;

      2) Yes, of course it would be. As you indicate, SMBC doesn't have battalion of angry aspie fans - partly because it's not designed from the ground up around a cult of aspie personality;

      3) Sigh, aspies. When someone does ALL CAPS LIKE THIS LOL! they are usually mocking the way someone else speaks. Your argument here appears to be, "If I make an overly literal interpretation of the whole rant then it is wrong, therefore it is wrong." You're your own parody, cuddlefish;

      4) Sigh, aspies. Stop thinking in binary. Just because some phrases make clear reference to some idea it doesn't mean that "every fucking word is one". For example, "welcome aboard" is a cliche uttered to a new recruit bringing to mind a ship (usually of fools). Similarly, "I HAVE SLEPT FOR 10,000 YEARS" + horned beast rising from earth = Christian cliche. Antitheism is a aspie libertardian staple.

      Could you paste what it is you're referring to with "another internet psychology stinger"? The new proposition in my last paragraph is an attempt to help you. Or is that another aspie thing to take sincere advice as an insult? IS IT BECAUSE YOU UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ALREADY?

      Delete
    14. 1) Hypocrite.

      2) I thought as much. You like the pandering, and dislike the inaccuracy. Bit aspie-ish, in fact.

      3) He is mocking Randall's thought process, not the cuddlefish response. Moron.

      4) Missing the point again. Randall references are references to nerd staples, to get that 'OH MY GOD I KNOW ABOUT THAT TOO' response. A reference to well-known images and cliches is stock and trade for a highly limited medium.

      Aspie diagnosis is the epitome of internet psychology bullshit.

      Delete
    15. 1) OK, you've given up on that point. Only one of us here is white knighting for Randall and his fandom because someone dared display it for what it is. 1/4;

      2) I said it would be better if it merely pandered and wasn't also full of inaccurate aspie bullshit. I didn't say I'd like it. Only one of us here is white knighting for Randall. 2/4;

      3) You're just repeating yourself, wilfully misinterpreting something rather than tackling the criticism which has been explained to you multiple times. Criticising Randall and criticising his well-selected fanbase go hand in hand. 3/4;

      4) Well, that's a new strategy: "Comics are a limited medium so we should expect cliches. It's not Randall's fault he has nothing original in his comics - he has no choice!" Christ, child, why don't you just write to the man and ask for his seed. 4/4.

      You're now directing your entire argument toward playing the apologist for Randall and his fandom. The last scintilla of respect I had for your position has been extinguished.

      Delete
    16. 1) Disliking the rant is white-knighting for Randall? Nice logic there.

      2) You are white-knighting the rant-writer, if anything. I have already mentioned my dislike for xkcd. But fair enough, you didn't say you liked the pandering. It is clearly the worst aspect of it though - without it, he wouldn't have his legions of fans.

      3) Randall's thought process is not the same as a cuddlefish response, especially when you are claiming it is a satire of the latter. I repeat myself because you are deluded about this.

      4) He has original content in his comic, it is just bad original content. And you skip my point about references again. '10,000 years' is not a reference to something like 'girllookatthatbody' is. This is obvious.

      I would support a good rant about xkcd. I won't support a rant that, well, reminds me of Gamer at his worst.

      Delete
    17. 1) No, but spending two days hating on an "xkcd sucks" rant on xkcdsucks, where your argument becomes less about tackling the criticism and more about mindlessly attacking those who would criticise him, is white-knighting for Randall;

      2) Like Rob says, all cuddlefish when pushed hard enough end up claiming that they don't like xkcd that much but, "You know this one strip is just so funny how can you say anything bad about it and why can't you just let people enjoy it?" Well, bullshit. If your claim to disliking xkcd were rational then you would, having had OP explained to you, appreciate the points being made. But you don't because you suffer from Internet Asperger Disease, so it goes something like this: you like xkcd; someone criticises xkcd; you attack the critic; you're asked for your opinion on the argument; you say you don't like xkcd anyway;

      3) Isn't it obvious that the OP is speaking from the PoV of more than one person? It's presenting various pro-xkcd arguments with the occasional retort. Right at the start: "YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE FUNNIER?" Clearly that's not Randall speaking because the aim is to build upon Randall's opus, and someone being represented as a sensible xkcd detractor is hardly likely to say "FUNNIER" or even speak in all caps - perhaps, gee, it's a mock cuddlefish applying Randall's strategy for humor? Hell, near the start there's "SO HILARIOUS" and later "Actually, no, not hilarious." Did that not give you a fucking clue that it's written from the PoV of at least two different people? You are so stupid it's painful;

      4) OK, move the goalposts again. You're right about the references being different: I got the 10,000 years one immediately but had to look up the girllookatthatbody one using the "LMFAO" hint which Randy helpfully provided. Usually Randall hints because he treats his audience as stupid, but that time I actually didn't get it because I'm not hip with teen music - and TBH I think he knows that some geeks aren't either so he's giving himself street cred. "Look up to meeeee! I'm smart AND I'm cool!"

      At this stage I'll settle for any argument whatever from you beyond HURR THAT POSTER ABOVE SUCKED HE WAS SO AWFUL SO SUCKY SO AWFULLY SUCKY LOL BUT I HATE XKCD TOO AND IM NOT AN ASPIE CALLING PPL ASPIE IS LAME. Did I summarise your last 48 hours well enough?

      Delete
    18. 1) I am attacking one poorly written rant, not rushing to Randall's defence. If you still think this is white-knighting, there is no hope.

      2) Cuddlefish don't claim to dislike xkcd. The most common responses are, in fact, listed under Rob's Rants on this very blog.

      3) And yet, the initial point is the same. His initial complaint was a 'explain structure of joke DOESN'T IT SUCK' motif that Gamer and his cronies are so fond of. It works for anything. It is worthless criticism.

      4) I haven't moved the goalposts, I replaced them.

      You have spent 48 hours defending a shitty rant. I will point out I didn't write the 'stupidest rant ever' comment though. I came in after you did.

      Delete
    19. 1) You haven't actually attacked its substance. Look through what you've said. You've merely misinterpreted it as an attempt to improve on Randy's humor and then said IT'S NOT FUNNY - UNLIKE RANDY;

      2) Rob's rants are years old and don't really reflect the current state of affairs. As he's indicated in this very fucking thread around 1:35, cuddlefish today (the few smart enough to read yet dull enough to admire xkcd) know they can't muster an argument for xkcd being good. Instead they'll take great pains to highlight the mediocre strips while trying hard to suggest that they don't really like xkcd that much. Yet for some reason it's still absolutely fucking necessary for us to LOOK JUST LOOK WHY CAN'T YOU SEE that not all of his drivel is pure turdmanship;

      3) One of the premises of xkcdsucks is that humor can be objectively analysed. If you disagree with this then you can pretty much fuck right off as it's like coming to a swinger's party while preaching monogamy. Gamer's problem was that he ended up taking himself too seriously over a period of months to the point that he even spammed this site, but at least he understood the premise;

      4) You asked what 10,000 had to do with anything - it was answered. You argued about what a cliche was - it was explained to you. You implied that cliches are necessary in comics - your excuse was laughed out. So then you start with a new thing about how "Randy's unoriginal!" is not a valid criticism because it's not that Randy's unoriginal but that he's original in a bad way. You're all over the fucking place - pull yourself together.

      I'm not defending the rant - I'm defending the criticisms which I gleaned from it. You keep returning to the rant itself, trying to interpret it in the most literal way possible just so you can criticise it. I tried to explain to you what message was evidently being conveyed but you'll have none of it. You probably masturbate to 556. Why?

      Seriously, dude, are you just annoyed because you didn't get something right the first time? Now like the stubbornest mule you can't just say, "Oh, ok, I misunderstood that.. perhaps it could have been made clearer but I guess I see where I went wrong." I feel this is unlikely and it's really that you're just another cuddlefish who wants to attack the messenger because you can't bear the message.

      Either way, your inability to analyse a parody written with the sophistication of a preteen suggests you have some severe difficulties with understanding humans who don't speak using simple, literal language.

      Whichever the explanation for your continued rambling, it looks bad for you. :-(

      Delete
    20. What the fuck is wrong with you two? You're making Randall's "Someone is wrong on the Internet" comic look like valid satire.

      Delete
    21. http://xkcd.com/386/

      captured perfectly indeed :)

      Delete
    22. 1) The number before 2.

      2) The number between 1 and 3.

      3) A crowd.

      4) A homophone of "for".

      P.S. You fucking aspie moron bedwetter.

      Delete
    23. that wasn't funny at all, 1:20. if someone would like to disagree with me on this, please do so, so we can debate the subject for 17 pages.

      Delete
    24. Guys, did you know that someone is wrong on the Internet?

      Delete
    25. HOLY SHIT NINJA'D I really need to read through all the posts before I reply...lol.

      Delete
  13. Agreed, another funny one. I can't wait to hear this site's moronic knee jerk reaction to it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1013 - wasted potential. An unnecessary final panel filled with unfunny dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1013 was good. I don't care how many of you call 'post-punchline dialog'. It was still good in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People here definitely focus unnecessarily on post-punchline dialogue - I don't think that PPD, on it's own, is enough downgrade a good comic to a bad one. But it's still a big problem, and 1013 serves as a good example - by not adding anything, the last panel actually detracts from the comic. Maybe not as much as some people want to say it does, but it's certainly a problem.

      Delete
    2. I didn't have my glasses on when reading 1013 so the sheep frame looked like a scrawl of nothing and the comic only made sense once I'd strained to read the last frame. I admit that this is no excuse.

      Delete
  16. The "sheeple" comic, I liked. This is the second comic in a row that I liked. Now to find out what irrelevant, vitriolic nitpicking Rob will think up for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, I might add that, without the final panel, the comic feels... unbalanced, somehow. As in, the "sheeple" awake, THE END, NOBODY CARES. Seeing the reactions (however hamfistedly Randy rendered them) actually adds to the comic.

      It's not "post-punchline dialogue" because there really is no clear-cut "punchline".

      captcha: "imsorap"

      Delete
    2. Which illustrates the strip's shitiness: no-one cares unless you force some sort of feeling into and back out of the audience. It's a predictable Randallesque literal interpretation followed by childlike horror at the chaos which results.

      Although clearly he's executed it well because it's brought out the correct feeling in several people, this doesn't make xkcd any less of a hollow vacuum of banality.

      Delete
  17. @2:21 I think PPD matters more than you realise. It doesn't just detract from the joke it destroys the joke. There is a certain feeling when you reach a punchline- its a good feeling (assuming the joke is good which it is in 1013). But then you realise there is more to read and the punchline feeling dissapears leaving emptyness. You haven't even had time to smile at the joke which makes the whole thing a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah but in the case of 1013, it helps a lot. "All is lost" is the funniest phrase ever.

      Delete
    2. Gog DAMN I hope you're a Poe.

      Delete
  18. Yeah. I mean I sort of thought the first four panels were amusing. then the final panel is so moronically dreadful it ruined the whole thing.not just by being PPD but by making me question the entire thing, I mean, i probably wouldn't have bothered thinking 'but is this guy really the first person to shout stuff like this' and 'that's a shit name for a demon/whatever that is' & so on if the stupid last panel hadn't been there to make me think about it for a microsecond more than I should have. mr munroe really thinks his readers are fucking stupid doesn't he. he's like a kid telling a knock knock joke and then spending 10 minutes going 'get it? doctor who is a tv show so when you said doctor who you thought I was going to say 'doctor something funny' but doctor who is a thing in itself so that's why it's funny LOOK AT ME I'M FUNNY'

    ReplyDelete
  19. Your will be led to judgement
    Who wants to bet Randy does get a do-over this time

    ReplyDelete
  20. RANDY DOESN'T DO DO-OVERS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. yeah I mean despite 'etymology man' showing his dedication to pedantry over exact meanings of words he nobly hasn't gone back to fix 'cryogenics' yet. just to show how he doesn't get do-overs. not any other reason.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Look, I fixed it. The post-punchline dialog is gone, and there is a panel in the middle to build suspense. And I did it just by rearranging the panels.

    Further proof (as if we needed any) that Randall needs an editor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is better, but the final panel needs removing. Do the 10,000 years or the eye add anything? No.

      It then wouldn't be "most quotable funny thing on the Internet" funny, but at least not "reason to hate humanity at every new strip" poor.

      I maintain that xkcdsucks exists not because xkcd isn't great but because, as 2:34 implies, Randall's an overrated dick - an overrated dick forced down your throat by your nerdy friends. So the fact that he's produced one mediocre strip is no material defence.

      Delete
    2. I disagree, I think the 10000 years panel adds a lot. Just ending with a drawing of sheeple arising is less interesting and less funny, and I feel like the 10000 years thing really cements the joke. I guess you could call that PPD, and I suppose in some ways it is, but this is a misuse of the term. While the central joke is the double entendre with "wake up sheeple," the ridiculous exposition and play on the "this evil has slumbered under the earth for [insert long time]" cliche is a better way to end comic. Humor peaks there.

      The last panel really is PPD - as people say, it's obvious as fuck, and the dialog isn't funny. It adds nothing. But @3:04, maybe we read comics differently, but I experienced it in an entirely different way - I read, got to the second to last panel, laughed internally, then read the last panel, thought "that added nothing, but that comic was funny," and felt sated. No emptiness. Maybe you were just trying to use hyperbole and be funny, in which case, it didn't work. So basically you're Rob.

      Delete
    3. Fixed more. The "He awoke the sheeple!" panel isn't just out of place, it's entirely unnecessary. I like the "NOW WE RISE" bit, but it works better as buildup than dangling off the punchline like that. I also compressed the first two panels into one: it's kinda crowded now, but I still think it's a bit better this way.

      I agree that Randall really needs an editor. He's shown himself capable of coming up with good jokes, but he needs someone to point out when he's flubbed the execution (or when he produces something irreparably shitty, like 1011).

      Delete
    4. ^Yeah, that's a pretty good fix for it. It's a good joke, executed...well, I laughed at the original, so I won't say it's a shitty execution so much as it's not the ideal execution.

      Delete
    5. Your "fix" would not be anywhere near as good in Goatkcd. Randall knows what he's doing.

      Delete
  23. 1013: Randall bought Dawn of War in the Steam sale over the weekend and thought the Necrons were cool.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am noticing a trend in which Randall wants to draw a lot more detailed things than stickmen in the last two comics. Is this a step up in rank from the poorly-traced car bumper sticker comic? Find out at 7.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "He awoke the sheeple!"

    Nooooooo shiiiiiiiit Sheeeeerlooooooooock

    ReplyDelete
  26. The pupil of a sheep's eye has a very distinct and interesting shape.
    How could Randall, a self-professed factoid/trivia/Wikipedia/science/biology-hound miss out on an opportunity to draw a sheep's eye accurately?
    Or are we assuming they have human eyes, since they're some sort of imaginary sheep/human hybrid?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Whatever happened to...February 6, 2012 at 8:16 AM

    ...Gamer_2neckbeard4?

    I suddenly miss his shameless whoring and just how seriously he took the process of xkcd critique.

    Not because I think Rob should take it more seriously, but because there was something reassuring about it. I can't quite pinpoint it...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth be told, I just do not care anymore about xkcd. The people who praise it, the people who link to it, the people who think it's the defining webcomic of the internet...leave them. I don't care. The man who writes it and profits off it...whatever. If that's really how he wants to live his life, what am I going to gain by being upset by it?

      There was a time when I did feel a hate towards xkcd, or at least towards its fanbase. I couldn't stand that Randall would post something on G+ like "hey i think women need more respect" and dozens of people would praise him for it. Now, I don't care. People who drool over xkcd are rare in my life and dismissed quickly. If I don't go searching for them, I don't find them.

      It's not a time issue; I definitely have the time to update my blog. I could update a dozen times a week if Randall made that many comics. I just don't want to. I don't want to have go to xkcd three times a week and think, "Wow, another completely boring comic. What the heck do I say for this one." Some xkcd strips make me angry, yes. But they're so rare these days that it's more likely I'll get angry at how consistently unremarkable the strip has managed to be. What's the point? Randall's not getting any better, and he's not getting worse fast enough that there's an end in sight.

      We've reviewed over 60 comics here since the blog began. Out of those, only six got my "worst of xkcd" ire. That means a comic really only makes me feel legitimately angry about once every three weeks. That's just not enough to keep a blog running. Still, we've been here since June, which is pretty remarkable.

      I wouldn't have kept going for as long as I did without the support from all of you. Thanks to Jon Levi for bingo, thanks to SinbadEV for "sucks less" submissions and guest reviews, thanks to Ann Apolis for filling in for me here and there, and thanks to T-Jack and sorcfs and all the anons who left so many reviews in my inbox. Thanks to all the commenters who shared their thoughts. You guys kept my blog alive.

      I don't know what will happen to my blog. I'll send author invites to the people I named above in case they want to keep contributing here, and I'll retain admin rights so I can check in every so often. I'm sorry it had to go this way, I really am. I joined up with the blog solely because I couldn't stand the awful reviews on the original hateblog, and I wanted to help provide an alternative. I did it because I was a dissatisfied hateblog READER, and I sympathized with other readers. I never wanted to own a blog myself, and you can see the results of that.

      It was a good (albeit short) trip, and a wild ride while it lasted. I'm glad all of you were here to share it with me. I hope xkcd-sucks lives on, but if it doesn't, so be it.

      Delete
    2. The cycle repeats, as old as time. The old hater of xkcd becomes bored by xkcd's inexorable mediocrity. A new hope rises, filled to the brim with pure anger that slowly dies away when faced with that self-same mediocrity.

      Tired he limps away, beaten. Leaving his place for the next in line.

      Delete
  28. I would like FINAL COUNTDOWN to return. I miss them. maybe they could do negative countdowns, like, -11 or whatever. or they could do a countdown to 2000 xkcds.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you for making this web site.

    Honestly, XKCD is actually funny about 15% of the time. The rest of the time people only laugh at it to salvage the 30 seconds they just wasted on web comic, or they laugh because they want to prove that they are in on the in-jokes.

    Reading this web site makes me feel better at being one of the few people that think XKCD is over-rated and somewhat silly.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The "wake up sheeple" is a clever ruse! He is attempting to stop us asshats from screaming "wake up, forumites." by stating that we could awaken a greater evil than that of xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @11:02 AM, you said, "I don't think you people even understand. Maybe xkcd just isn't for you."

    You mean like this?

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/24/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Crap, brain damaged, I am. I mean @11:02 PM.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Fuck! Turns out that the goatkcd hosting provider employed massive xkcd fans! How are we going to fight back, guys?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. goatkcd is overrated.

      Delete
    2. Goatkcd is ingenius. Just imagine how great the goatkcd for the Sheeple comic would be. I wanna see it so bad!

      Delete
  34. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. chris houlihYOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

      Delete
  35. Re: sheeple comic - not to be a pedantic sperg but there's only one in the comic.. Sheeple is plural..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Randy had actually drawn the other sheeple, it would have taken him all week to release the comic.

      And stop ending your sentences with 2/3 ellipses, asshole.

      Delete
    2. Sheeperson. It's not great.

      Delete
    3. If you got car troubles i feel bad for you son, i got 99 problems but chromatic aberraion ain't one.

      Delete
    4. There is no singular of 'sheeple'. That's the point. Sheeple are not individuals.

      Delete
  36. This one was pretty funny I thought, but does anybody else notice that xkcd comics are becoming more frequently... freakish?

    We've got the freaky-bad perspective in 1001, the terrifying eldritch monstrosity in 1008, a giant mantis in 1012, and now this thing?

    Randall must be catching up on his HP Lovecraft.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I actually thought 1012 was pretty good. He's showing, not telling. He doesn't actually explain the joke. The art is okay. It doesn't overstay its welcome with two dozen panels. And if you take it on its own - separately from the awful 1010 - it's actually funny.

    ReplyDelete
  38. is this whole argument over whether the rant at 1:27 was intended to be an honest, constructive suggestion for what would be funnier than this comic?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Okay, whew, after two okay comics were back to lazy pandering and Black Hat guy being vaguely snide.

    Golly.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Randy should write sitcoms instead of comics. 1014 is a great sitcom situation.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As the original writer of 1:27 I just want to say that it was totally intended to be an honest, constructive suggestion for what would be funnier than this comic. The interest it has received reflects the effort I put into it and I sincerely thank you all.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't know what's worse with 1014, that the situation is not believable at all, that the joke is predictable from the second panel, or that the girl on the right seems to have hairy armpits rather than long hair.

    On the other hand, another comic with black hat guy just being "vaguely sarcastic guy" just doesn't seem that big a deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how an unbelievable situation is a complaint after a comic about sheeple rising from beneath the ground. Your arguments are petty and it seems as though you are grasping at straws. You people are pathetic. Now you'll all shout "cuddlefish, cuddlefish!" Grow up, you pedantic little shits.

      Delete
    2. Are you the guy who got owned after the rant above, 5:08?

      captcha: heronou: and knighted for his trouble!

      Delete
    3. Don't know who you're talking about.

      Delete
    4. 05:08 you do realize there is something called suspension of belief, right ? In 1013, the sheeple rising were supposed to be an unexpected reaction, which was suppose to create laughter.

      In 1014, it's not about suspension of belief, it's about poor setup writing.

      If you don't see the difference, you are a moron, and not worthy of using the Holy Name of cuddlefish. Begone, sheeple.

      Delete
    5. Stop not thinking in binary, neurotypical@3:43.

      Delete
    6. Actually 3:43, the complaint that I was responding to was about the unbelievability of the situation in 1014; "that the situation is not believable at all," I did not respond to any other part of the message above mine. If you look, you would see this. You do you realize that your eyes are used for reading, right? You comment would be better directed at 1:56 who made the complaint about the unbelievable situation.

      Also, you want to talk about sheeple? There is no distinguishable difference between you and the rest of these pedantic fuckwads. You do know why people are called sheeple, right?


      If you can't see the difference between someone responding to a comment and the comment itself then you are not just a sheeple, not just a pedantic little shit, you are also severely lacking in reading comprehension. Go back to grade school you fucking idiot.

      Delete
    7. 4:19, you're like a terrier snapping at the heels of gods.

      Delete
    8. gods of circlejerking

      Delete
    9. 5:37, this place is little more than a vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic. They should just come out and admit it!

      Delete
  43. Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the new comic?

    ReplyDelete
  44. i actually quite like the Car Problems one... as a concept. of course, the actual implementation leaves a lot to be desired. as does the entirely last panel.

    but the concept of 'technical people giving an overly literal answer to a question' is always good for a bit of a laugh.

    but the actual writing on this one... oh dear god. why a presentation (with pointer and everything)? why the last panel? why the alt text? gah.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I agree with the other person who sided with Randall on "sheeple." I don't think Randall is ambitious enough to ever suck as hard as the people who say "Wake up, sheeple!" do. I think they all belong in a FEMA camp. Run by the UN.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're kinda right, though. And it's better to be right and annoying than wrong and annoying.

      The problem with most young activists is that they're not very active, not very well-organised, unsure what they DO want (as opposed to what they don't) and very easy to drown out (or perceived as hypocrites). It's very hard to get heard without using the gadgets built under the systems you're hating on - although any good socialist firebrand would argue, say, that it's the workers building the iPhones and it's the workhouse conditions you want to change, not the iPhone-building.

      Indeed, China shows that an oppressive technocracy is much more productive than some lawyer-inspired rights-respecting western nation, right Ruiqi?

      captcha: ancle. Joe? Sam? Chains? You have nothing to lose but your chairs! &c.

      Delete
  46. Two XKCDs in a row which made me smile/laugh. Good job at doing what you're supposed to be doing Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Two XKCDs in a row that made me groan at the post punchline dialogue. Learn how to tell jokes Randall!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Two anons in a row that made me cringe at how little gets done around here. Learn how to get past your obsessions with Randall!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two anons in a row that made me cringe at how little gets done around here. Learn how to geYOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

      Delete
  49. Why waste a few minutes a day poking fun at a shitty comic when you could waste a whole life writing it?

    ReplyDelete
  50. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
  51. Guys, why are you worrying about this when there's Beyonce's post-baby body to consider? Don't you have any perspective whatsoever?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Wow, I just stumbled on this thing. Is this a part of XKCD? It fits so well. "Reading XKCD is a waste of time, here are the details". This is brilliant meta-humour. Of course I have not looked at any archives so I suppose this comment could be anything but new. In which case we have one of

    "This idea was funny the first time but is now stale"

    or

    "This idea was not ever funny the first time"

    Which is itself meta-humour.

    Of course this second comment might not be original in which case we get recursive.

    "We are all individuals" "I'm not"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, xkcd is very meta indeed so who knows?

      Delete
    2. Dude, he's just some cum-for-brains who can't distinguish simple irony from meta-humour because he's too eager to describe things as "meta." The only reason you don't know is because you're stupid.

      Delete
    3. The problem is that irony is a form of meta-humour so the phrase "can't distinguish simple irony from meta-humour" is itself ironic. But you are claiming it is not, so irony is not a form of meta humour but this is ironic so irony is a form of meta humour ...

      Hofstadter coordinate

      Delete
    4. Actually, it isn't--look at the FAQ

      Delete
    5. This thread is now metameta.

      Delete
    6. I'm so meta, even this acronym - before I tell Carl he's extremely stupid -

      Delete
    7. I remember when flagrantly misusing the word "irony" was considered cool enough. Now that's old hat and you're expected to flagrantly misuse the meta prefix. When did life get so complicated?

      Delete
    8. Wow, Like I was literaly bowled over. Hopefully, I will learn to in the most flagrent way possible not make mistakes with word usage. I have dumped all my style manuals (take that Fowler) and will henceforth misuse only the XKCD sucks FAQ.

      Delete
    9. I remember when people were satisfied with broadly accusing others of misunderstanding irony when all they really understood themselves was that the others misunderstood irony. Now you have to accuse others of misunderstanding meta- if you want to look smart without really working at it. When did life get so complicated?

      Delete
  53. xkcd is back on form today I notice. pompous, smug, thinks it has a 'twist', actually factually inaccurate anyway, despite being too clever for non-scientists, utterly self-conscious whilst also being entirely lacking in self awareness. 10/10

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. xkcd is back on form today I notice. pompous, smug, thinks it haYOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

      Delete
  54. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find reading fiction really boring. I have started reading hundreds of pieces of fiction of various lengths and probably finished a dozen throughout my life, not including schoolwork.

    I find it hard to pick up a book without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some guy has produced to make money and/or unload some issues. What comfortable fantasy is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole reading experience goes. Fiction makes no point well which can't be better made with reference to reality. It takes me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to see something false or escape something true. Fiction idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It is a selfish journey away from the truth.

    The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and reality is far more challenging to confront. Fiction has always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find masturbation really boring. I have started jacking off to hundreds of pieces of porn of various lengths and probably finished a dozen throughout my life, not including schoolwork.

      I find it hard to pick up my cock without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that God has produced to make babies and/or unload some issues. What comfortable fantasy is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole chicken choking experience goes. Wanking makes no point well which can't be better made with more wholesome activities. It takes me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to put my hands in order to see something false or escape something true. Petting the one-eyed trouser snake idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it fantasises. It is a selfish journey away from getting a girlfriend.

      The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and real women are far more challenging to confront. Bishop flogging has always seemed like the easy way out.

      fordeen: Dats what de police day but de webcam was dark.

      Delete
  55. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find Asians really untrustworthy. I have started socialising with hundreds of Asians of various abilities and probably made friends with a dozen throughout my life, not including ninjas.

    I find it hard to pick up an Asian without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a subhuman that God has produced to do mathematics and/or take our jobs. What immigrant visa program will be created to enable this?" And that's how my whole Asian experience goes. Asians make nothing well which can't be better made by whites. They take me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to see something false or buy the latest iPhone. An Asian produces a fascist meritocracy; it sets up a workhouse; it destroys the hard-working Western man. It falls asleep from over-work but it does not dream. It is a selfish journey away from humanity.

    The world already has enough that is mechanised and that is robotic - and natural beauty is far more challenging to confront. Asians have always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find kerning fiction really boring. I have started kerning hundreds of pieces of fiction of various lengths and probably finished a dozen throughout my life, not including schoolwork.

    I find it hard to kern a book without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some guy has produced to make money and/or unload some issues. What comfortable spacing is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole kerning experience goes. Kerning makes no point well which can't be better made with good content. It takes me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to see something false or escape something true. Kerning idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It is a selfish journey away from real work.

    The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and monospace is far more challenging to confront. Kerning has always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find finding reading fiction really boring really boring. I have started finding reading hundreds of pieces of fiction of various lengths boring and probably found a dozen boring throughout my life, not including schoolwork.

    I find it hard to pick up a book while immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some guy has produced to make money and/or bore me. What boring fantasy is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole reading experience goes. Fiction makes nothing boring which can't be more boring with reference to reality. It never bores me without giving me the exciting sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to see something boring or escape something exciting. Finding fiction boring idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and doesn't dream. It is a boring journey away from the truth.

    The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - but reality is far more boring to confront. Finding fiction boring has always seemed like the boring way out.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Eh, I might as well repost it.

    Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find talking really boring. I have started saying hundreds of sentences of various lengths and probably finished a dozen throughout my life, not including this blog post.

    I find it hard to say anything without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that I have produced to fit in and/or unload some issues. What comfortable generalization am I creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole verbal experience goes. Words make no point well which can't be better made with a non-verbal signal. They take me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks I need to speak in order to see something false or escape something true. Language idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It is a selfish journey away from the truth.

    The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and muteness is far more challenging to confront. Language has always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look up the definition of insanity.

      Delete
    2. Look up the definition of inanity.

      Delete
    3. Look up the definiYOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

      Delete
  59. @Jon
    Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior? If not I would be happy to direct you to the resources you need to guarantee that you will live forever in Heaven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find religion really boring. I have started attending hundreds of Sunday masses of various lengths and probably remained awake for a few dozen throughout my life, not including Sunday School.

      I find it hard to pick up a holy book without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some schnorrer has produced to make money and/or unload some issues. What comfortable fantasy is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole worship experience goes. Religion makes no point well which can't be better made with reference to reality. It takes me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to see something false or escape something true. Religion idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It is a selfish journey away from the truth.

      The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and atheism is far more challenging to confront. Religion has always seemed like the easy way out.

      That, and I'm also a Jew.

      Delete
    2. I like the word "schnorrer" because it reminds me of "schnozzle" and brings up the image of a sponger with a large nose...

      ...and we all know what they are called.

      PAY YOUR DUES? MOAR LIEK PAY YOUR...

      Delete
  60. 1015 is about how Randall really hates his readers.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Haha! I just realized--Rob, you're the colonel from Money Python's Flying Circus! "No, no, stop that, that's too silly..."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! I just realized--Rob, you're the colonel from MonYOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

      Delete
  62. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Posting to confirm Anon's sexual identity.

      subrasis: You not even rasis.

      Delete
  63. POST ABOVE ME IF YOU ARE A CLOSETED HOMOSEXUAL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why, you're a closeted homosexual who likes to be below ?

      Delete
  64. So, I'm assuming 1015 is Randall's failed attempt at trolling his fans, as by showing them the comic he is implicitly teaching them to recognise bad kerning. The thing is that if I see bad kerning I'll just ignore it and continue with my day. It takes a very pedantic mind to get angry at this kind of problem. The same goes for 859 (the terrible bracket one.

    Also, kerning. I like that word. Kerning, kerning, kerning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. )

      Did you do that on purpose?

      CLOSE YOUR PARENTHESES, YOU GAY HOMOFAG!

      Delete
  65. So I score between an INTJ and an ISTF on Briggs-Meyers

    How aspergers is this, on a scale of 1-10?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8, but only if you're a socially retarded arsehole.

      Otherwise, you're fine.

      Delete
    2. 9, for taking a personality test and believing it.

      Delete
    3. When I hear aspies talk about how highly they scored in some personality or IQ test I always hear, "I JUST GOT AN MSCE WHY WON'T YOU LET ME BE CIO?"

      Delete
  66. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find being gay really boring. I have started sucking hundreds of cocks of various lengths and probably finished a dozen throughout my life, not including rape.

    I find it hard to pick up a cock without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some guy has produced to make money and/or unload some semen. What comfortable fantasy is he creating to enable this?" And that's how my whole homosexual experience goes. Gay sex makes no point well which can't be better made with reference to heterosexuality. It takes me nowhere without giving me the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this is where I am supposed to need to be in order to suck some guy's cock. Homosexuality idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It is a selfish journey away from sex with women.

    The world already has enough that is beautiful and that is abhorrent - and vagina is far more challenging to confront. Being gay has always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
  67. *notices it's near VD*
    *checks xkcd expecting cynical LOL NERDS WONDERING WHETHER AND WHAT TO BUY AND ENDING UP DOING SOMETHING REALLY GOOFY strip*
    *confirmed*

    captcha: cinest. pCatcha ngeerator pexlains lreationship tbeter athn I ever ucold.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The comic itself was doomed from the start but the mouseover text was salvageable. Just remove the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' mention from both the comic and the alt text (but leaving the rest of the alt text intact.) People will read the strip and the mouseover text, realise 'prisoner's dilemma', then be all 'hahaha xkcd is so clever'

    but I guess Randall knows his audience

    ReplyDelete
  69. i wonder why randall munroe thinks his audience would relate to a comic about failing to understand basic social interacti- oh

    ReplyDelete
  70. When did it became ok to make hyperlinks in the comments ? i don't think it's ok.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since when not respecting the exact phrasing of hilarious memes suddenly became okay ? I don't think it's ok.

      Delete
  71. I don't think this qualifies as a prisoner's dilemma. If memory serves correctly, in a prisoner's dilemma there are no negative consequences to you for defecting—only to the other player. Also, your only objective is to maximize your own outcome, with no thought to the other player's happiness.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Prisoner's dilemma is one of those nerdgasm inducers which illustrate the geek's (i) disregard for humanity; (ii) inability to appreciate the complexity of real scenarios.

    If anyone fresh-faced shouts PRISONER'S DILEMMA you can assume they're operating at the intellectual maturity of a college freshman and ignore whatever they have to say for the rest of the year. If they continue to mention it you can assume Asperger's and mock mercilessly.

    Other hints that you have a psychopathic dullard in front of you are utterances of RON PAUL, SUPPLY AND DEMAND and any allusion to CAVEAT EMPTOR.

    captcha: precrem. And here I was thinking premed was hard, oy!

    ReplyDelete
  73. GOOMH, Randy, the prisoner's dilemma came up in a study I just heard about involving blue jays!
    GOOMH, Randy, I too write comics to people when I want to get a message across instead of telling her to her face what I'm thinking because I fear conflict!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I hereby baptise the following the Randall dilemma:

    A once succesful author has grown old and lost any shred of talent he might have once had. His girlfriend has been struck by cancer, and has trouble lactating as well as before. By continuing publishing his now-crap books and selling them to a dumb biased fanbase, the unnamed author can pay for his girlfriend treatment in hope of having her lactating correctly again, one day.

    If he stops, he will gains ethical integrity, and will still have enough money based on all the crappy derived products he sold over the years, but might have to go with cow milk for the rest of his life.

    Also, his girlfriend is fat.

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Solution is to move to Quebec for civilised healthcare + company of people who are one big in-joke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those guys speaks French. Even Randy doesn't deserve that.

      On second thought...

      Delete