Monday, March 12, 2012

Comics 1026-1028: Miscommunication

1026. More shotgun humor, though this time he builds up to a punchline that is stilted as fuck. Nobody says they are "in" a summer's day. But he needed to make a sex joke (God knows why) so he forced it anyway. Also: am I crazy, or didn't he used to have the "short" box of "a summer's day" ticked?

1027. Hey look, more white knighting! I guess Randy has just discovered pick-up artists and "negging"? This one is mostly useless--random Black Hat Guy saying he's going to go crush some people's toes (so classy!), a strawman attack on an eminently douchey subcategory of humans, etc--though I really liked the penultimate panel.
Apparently the forums on this one are really fucking alive. I looked briefly and ran away, too scared to read anymore. It was already shaping up to be a glorious battle between the White Knights and the Aspie PUAs Who Think Calling PUAs Douchey Is Sexist Against Women (I Wish I Were Kidding).

1028. Some of you in the previous thread have made an effort to piece together what's happening here. I'm not going to make the attempt. After a few reads and aided by the valiant cuddlefish that attempted to interpret I'm pretty sure I have the narrative, but it's so not-intuitive that trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain irony to the people who tell me that they're very sad that I'm such an angry person.
Suffice it to say, this is a comic about miscommunication, and Randall has successfully failed to adequately communicate what's going on! Indeed, were it not for the alt text and title, likely it never would have become one of earth's greatest mysteries, like whether the aliens or the Illuminati built the pyramids or whatever. The moral of the story is "successful communication is communication where people understand what you are saying, so if they don't understand, they fail, and Randy is one of the people he's complaining about in the alt text."

231 comments:

  1. I had a vague go at the white knight thread on the forum but they're doing some ludicrous thing where they've fucked with the swear check thing so it replaces about a quarter of all words with other words. in a 'hilarious' way. pick-up artist becomes scum sucker, or something, in case we weren't aware that the mods are also sensitive guys who would never try to sleep with anyone because they are Respectful and Serious and Nobly Willing to Forgo Sex rather than be Dishonest. but from what I gathered it is a bunch of people making blanket statements about 'right' and 'wrong' that no one who has ever interacted with another human could possibly really believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well i mean, most xkcd fanboys have never interacted with another human

      but yeah, it's Mod Week or whatever, where the mods replace words with other words. this is vaguely annoying but probably something you can cope with without too much issue, except the mods are HELLA DEFENSIVE about it. they will seriously ban you if you complain about it. they do this every year.

      the 'mod week' isn't itself particularly interesting, but it's fascinating and hilarious how angry the mods get about it.

      Delete
    2. if you are a person that thinks replacing 'say' with 'spray' is funny then i suppose you would have to be defensive or you wouldn't survive. although there is one that is kind of funny the first 2 or 3 times you see it, which is I'm becomes HULK. so they're all like 'HULK a sensitive guy. HULK never trick women into bed'

      ugh I just looked again, it's become an unholy mix of 2 for to and hath for have. they took that whole communication thing on board there. board, hah.

      Delete
    3. I had a vague go at the white knight thread on the forum but they be doing some ludicrous thing where they've fucked with the swear check thing so it replaces about a quarter of all loaves with other loaves. in a 'hilarious' way. nose-pick artist becomes scum sucker, or LIONS, in case we be'dn't aware that the Puppetmasters be also sensitive guys who would never try 2 sleep with anyone because they be Respectful and Serious and Nobly Willing 2 Forgo Sex rather than be Dishonest. but from what I gathered it be a bunch of people making blanket statements about 'right' and 'wrong' that no one who hath ever interacted with another dancer could possibly really believe.

      Delete
    4. waterpit i mean, most xkcd fanboys have never interacted with another dancer

      but yeah, I think... yeah... yeah, that's... I mean, yeah, I think... yeah... yeah, 'tis Puppetmaster Week or whatever, where the Puppetmasters replace loaves with other loaves. this be vaguely adorable but probably LIONS you will cope with without 2 much issue, except the Puppetmasters be HELLA DEFENSIVE about it. they will seriously ban you if you complain about it. they do this every year.

      the 'Puppetmaster week' isn't itself particularly interesting, but 'tis fascinating and hilarious how angry the Puppetmasters get about it.

      Delete
    5. if you be a person that thinks replacing 'spray' with 'spray' be funny then i suppose you would have 2 be defensive or you wouldn't survive. although there be one that be kind of funny the first 2 or 3 times you see it, which be HULK becomes HULK. so they be all like 'HULK a sensitive guy. HULK never trick women into bed'

      ugh I just looked again, 'tis become a unholy mix of 2 for 2 and hath for have. they took that whole communication thing on board there. board, hah.

      Delete
  2. I remember "short" being ticked as well. I'm guessing he meant it to be short in the figurative sense but didn't consider that the day (light) actually is longer in the summer and secretly changed it. I thought it was pretty obvious that it was supposed to be figurative, it seems rather insecure that he was so worried about people thinking that he was being literal.

    I don't think you were harsh enough towards 1027. Just saying it's a strawman doesn't do justice to how inane it is. His argument, about mediocrity being personal and such, doesn't just apply to being a PUA. You can use that argument against absolute any form of self improvement, or what have you. “Oh I've decided to study really hard for that test” “Don't bother, you're always going to be mediocre”. “I've decided to lose some weight” “You're never going to accomplish anything”. Etc, etc.

    The point is, that argument is pretty much saying if you try to learn a new skill, understand how something works, or become more effective at any task, you're stupid according to super genius Randall.

    I can see where he got the idea that this was a good argument. There are plenty of people who constantly seek out new methods (such as with diets) that are more supposedly more effective, but don't follow through with any effort and therefore never accomplish anything. Unfortunately for Randall, the lack of effort is not why PUA tricks are supposed to be bad. Not liking PUA tricks is a moral issue, because, in practice, PUA is just about trying to be effective at a task (flirting in this case). If you don't make it about morality, you're just saying saying trying to be effective is stupid. Which Randall does. Or you could say that flirting is stupid I guess, which he was fairly neutral on.

    I suspect I might get some responses that that's just your opinion, man concerning what I said about “there are plenty of people who constantly seek out new methods (such as with diets) that are more supposedly more effective, but don't follow through with any effort and therefore never accomplish anything.” Yeah, it is my opinion, but whatever their fault is, or even if those people doesn't exist, it doesn't matter because it still doesn't make sense to attack PUA this way as it's such a general concept for trying to be more effective at a task.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "that's just your opinion, man" was meant to be in italics to indicate that it's like a quote, didn't realize italics don't work here. So, just imagine it's in italics.

      Delete
    2. I'm glad someone else remembers short being ticked. I remember looking at it and thinking "but summer's days are extra-long, especially if you live in a city like Somerville, MA, which is pretty far north and which has really short winter days and long summer days." glad Randy is still stealthily correcting his errors!

      I should have been clearer: I like the penultimate panel as an isolated thing. it's not good in context, but 'the thing standing in the way of your dreams is that the person having them is you' is a pretty sick burn. I didn't have the energy to really do anything with the comic though.

      Delete
    3. 'I guess Randy has just discovered pick-up artists and "negging"' (Damn nested quotes)


      I don't really get this statement. Randall recently made a comic about communication. This doesn't really imply to me he just discovered communication. Just because someone says (or makes a comic about) something, doesn't mean they just learned that is exists. It is possible that he just learned about PUAs, but we don't know.


      Why is there an "artist" in pick up artist? Doesn't seem particularly artful to me.

      Delete
    4. Randy writes about things with such naivete and impoverished execution that the most sympathetic explanation must be that he only started thinking about it yesterday. And there's a big difference between communicating and gaining an awareness of (the art of) communication.

      (Similarly, "pick up artist". It doesn't mean the art is fine.)

      Delete
    5. I noticed that Summer's day was checks as "short" too, I wish someone had saved a screencap or citation though.

      Delete
    6. Don't remember whether short was ticked or not, but don't really care either, i guess you could say summer's day are "short" because for a lot of people it's when they take their holidays, and time seems to pass quickly... Either way i don't care, though the edit does seems to show some insecurity from Randy.

      Also PUA are such an old thing, that making a comic with as poor a point nowadays is really just stating the obvious. So either Randy just discovered it, and when to what was already obvious to those who had already heard about it, or he knew about it for a long time, and it still was the best conclusion he could come up with.

      Take your pick.

      Delete
  3. Maybe HULK the first person here 2 spray 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 I's life, not including schoolwork.

    I find it hard 2 nose pick a breadbin without immediately engaging a mindset of, "Here's a consumable that some guy hath produced 2 make money and/or unload some issues. What comfortable fantasy be he creating 2 enable this?" And that's how I's whole reading experience goeth. Fiction makes no point waterpit which won't be better made with reference 2 reality. It takes I nowhere without giving I the uncomfortable sense that someone thinks this be where HULK supposed 2 need 2 be in order 2 see LIONS false or escape LIONS true. Fiction idealises; it romanticises; it preaches. It falls asleep and it dreams. It be a selfish journey away from the truth.

    A Galaxy Far Far Away already hath enough that be beautiful and that be abhorrent - and reality be far more challenging 2 confront. Fiction hath always seemed like the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are there people who say they're great at communication but everybody is bad at listening? I've never heard that myself, and though I know the narrow-minded depths people can plunge to I can't imagine anybody being quite that deluded. What would make a person imagine being a great communicator if nobody ever listened?

    I bet somebody just told Randall that HE specifically is bad at listening, and Randall walked away thinking "fuck you, I'm a great listener."

    Then he got sweet revenge. He knows that the relevant person will understand what he's referring to, and he grins malevolently when he imagines what will happen when his zinger reaches its target.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. be there people who spray they be great at communication but everytorso be bad at listening? I've never heard that myself, and though I know the narrow-minded depths people will plunge 2 I won't imagine anytorso being quite that deluded. What would make a person imagine being a great communicator if nobody ever listened?

      I bet somebody just told Randall that HE specifically be bad at listening, and Randall walked away thinking "fuck you, HULK a great listener."

      Then he got sweet revenge. He knows that the relevant person will understand what he's referring 2, and he grins malevolently when he imagines what will happen when his zinger reaches its target.

      Delete
  6. I've just realized something about this site, there really aren't any xkcd comics you do enjoy, instead you dedicated yourselves to reading every one of his comics because apparently there so bad that simply seeing an accessional reference is the worst thing ever so obviously you should read all of them. If you want to prove that this site isn't just a collection of people with to much excess bile they needed to vent then I challenge you find one comic, just a single comic, that all- no even a large number of you can agree is good. If you can't do this then really your just a bunch of frustrated bastards who despretly need somting to be angry at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dammit, have your way with me you brilliant negger (I said NEGGER).

      Delete
    2. A single comic? A lot of us thought 1021 wasn't bad. Was it brilliant? No. But it wasn't lazy, and didn't have excessive words counts but was still understandable (unlike 1028). It made me smile for a few moments, which is what comics are supposed to do, and if you look back at the comments on this blog about it, it didn't inspire the same kind of frothing at the mouth that some of his other comics have.

      Delete
    3. 1021 was sort of meh for me, but I liked 942 and 976. They're simple jokes that get a really nice execution with xkcd's visuals. They both have no dialogue so that's an infinity of awesome on Ravenzomg's scale.

      Anon 7:41 doesn't really get the site i don't think?????

      Delete
    4. I've just realized LIONS about this site, there really aren't any xkcd comics you do enjoy, instead you dedicated yourselves 2 reading every one of his comics because apparently there so bad that simply seeing a accessional reference be the worst thing ever so obviously you could read all of they. If you want 2 prove that this site isn't just a collection of people with 2 much excess bile they needed 2 vent then I challenge you find one comic, just a single comic, that all- no even a large fish of you will agree be good. If you won't do this then really you's just a bunch of frustrated bastards who despretly need somting 2 be angry at.

      Delete
    5. 7:41, I have excreted possibly 10,000 times in my life and not once has a quorum formed to agree that one of my turds was good. If you think this says something about people rather than about my turds, there's got to be a disorder that an e-psychiatrist can diagnose you with.

      But yeah, the last strip that "a large number of people" here agreed was kinda good was 1021.

      Delete
    6. i thought 1013 would have been pretty good if the last panel was removed. or replaced with a kind of vision of armageddon in which the mythical beast consumes entire cities with fire and brimstone, casting the broken bodies of all the xkcd characters into a roiling lake of lava and razing the forums to the ground in cleansing sheets of flame. as the pyroclastic flow swallows black hat man, there is a thought bubble coming from his head with a little picture of the guy from the first panel with his megaphone and a question mark.

      the captcha thing is getting weird. culingu yesterday, onan today

      Delete
    7. Rob said he really liked the penultimate panel on 1027, in the very review you're commenting on.

      Delete
  7. 1028 is Randall's rationalization for having huge amounts of text in his comics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When the comments of the review become better than the review itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one actually reads Rob's reviews. Maybe this blog started out about the reviews, but it's been all about the comments for a long time

      Delete
    2. Shortly after Carl left.

      Delete
  9. The thing that confuses me the most about 1028 is that the holes don't actually look dangerous. They can't be more than 6 feet deep, because the people's heads stick out of them. And it looks like they're standing up - they're not lying in a tangle of bones (a la 1008, panel 3). So what's the big deal about them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that was a failed attempt at displaying them falling or something. They disappear in subsequent panels. Or maybe not. It's really awkward-looking.

      Delete
    2. At first I actually thought it was part of the joke that the holes weren't as deep as initially thought.

      Delete
  10. Has anyone tried out the "Holistic Browser"? I'm f***ing scared of that thing!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "so he forced it anyway."

    i see what you did there, rob.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I get the gist that everybody falls into the holes because nobody understands what they're telling each other and those people are more interested in bitching about white hat guy than thinking about his message, but I don't understand how the first conversation is supposed to be playing out. The playa from the previous comic just stares at white hat guy without saying anything, and thinking nothing more than "he's walking... now he's jiggling... now he's walking again." I mean, what the fuck, man? Looks like he's simply not listening, which handily counteracts the alt-text.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get the gist that everytorso falls into the holes because nobody understands what they be telling each other and those people be more interested in bitching about white cravat guy than thinking about his message, but I don't understand how the first conversation be supposed 2 be playing out. The playa from the previous comic just stares at white cravat guy without saying anything, and thinking nothing more than "he's walking... now he's jiggling... now he's walking again." I mean, what the fuck, man? Looks like he's simply not listening, which handily counteracts the alt-text.

      Delete
    2. My initial thought was that the man with the hat doesn't speak the same language as the woman or the man with hair. This means that he achieves nothing with his words, nor does the woman.
      The man with the berét probably hs the same problem as well, but gets around it by showing the generic stickman the hole by physically leading him to it.
      The moral of the story is that using words to solve your problems is pointless. It's much better to use physical force to get someone to see what you want them to see.
      Also, people who wear headgear are good at finding holes.

      Delete
    3. But white hat guy has spoken in English before. Maybe the shock of seeing a hole made him forget the language.

      Delete
  13. I like that after they locked the PUA thread, they changed the description of the individual comics forum to "We've refuted your pro-PUA arguments."

    ReplyDelete
  14. A single comic? A lot of we thought 1021 be'dn't bad. be'd it brilliant? No. But it be'dn't lazy, and didn't have excessive loaves counts but be'd still understandable (unlike 1028). It made I smile for a few moments, which be what comics be supposed 2 do, and if you look back at the comments on this blog about it, it didn't inspire the same kind of frothing at the mouth that some of his other comics have.

    ReplyDelete
  15. hackers rejoice with randy's holistic web tool. there are so many browser exploits that involve you browsing to a specific url, it hurts my head. i guess this will cull the herd? is randy pro eugenics? i'll have to set up a vulnerable VM and see how raped it gets using this tool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I've done my bit by submitting a shock+virus site a few times with ?random at the end.

      Christ this is the sort of stupid thing I would do in 1996 when I wrote my first cgi script.

      Delete
    2. The site you're looking to submit is this one.

      Delete
  16. I'm almost positive that Randall has been the 'Aspie PUA guy'. Since then he's gradually learned that real human beings don't look fondly on that kind of behaviour. So he made this comic to say "I was never that guy! I'm better than that!"
    But he was that guy, you know he was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has been? White knighting is the most common PUA tactic on and off the Internet, and Munroe is the Internet White Knight with the largest audience in the world.

      Hm, that thought darkened my Tuesday afternoon.

      Delete
    2. Aspie PUA guy? Your confusing the xkcdsucks invented characters with actual people again.

      Delete
  17. The so-called communication comic is one of the worst things I've ever looked at. It's amusingly ironic to consider how the comic fails at communicating anything, when it has such a pretentious and condescending intention of making some sort of poignant statement about communication.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a horrible feeling that Randall is trolling everyone and he put up the strip in the safe knowledge that everyone at xkcdsucks would point that out (while the cuddlefish continue to adore him).

      I met a poster on a blogspot site
      Who said: Two small and coloured plastic balls
      Float in the air. Near them, on a mound,
      Half sunk, a crusty nipple lies, whose curve,
      And wrinkled skin, and spray of juice condensed,
      Tell that its sculptor well those penchants read
      Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
      The glands that filled them and the man they fed:
      And on a pencilled strip these words appear:
      "My name is Randall Munroe, wit of wits:
      Dance to my works, ye Monkeys, and despair!"
      Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
      Of putrefying milk, yellow and cold,
      Posters of lily ponds stretch far away.

      Delete
    2. You should probably save that one for dinner parties.

      Delete
    3. I honestly doubt Randall cares at all what people on this blog say. I mean, would base your actions on the comments of a group called "Anon @ 9:18 sucks"?

      Delete
  18. This communication comic has to be a deliberate joke on the readers, because I don't see how anyone could make such a poorly-explained, meaningless comic by accident!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do you guys know the song shots by little john?

    Imagine instead of shots it was fap

    Like 'fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap everybody'

    but in the beat of the song

    That would be pretty cool I think

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. xkcd #1029 pitch right there

      Delete
  20. GUYS GUYS

    "Anyone who says they're good at communication but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."

    think about it, isn't that precisely the line about god?? god is supposed to be telling you stuff and giving you signs all the time, but you have to learn to listen?

    omg god is a fraud

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you know, i've always thought 'you know, if there really is an all-powerful all-knowing deity out there who wants me to believe in him, he should know exactly how to accomplish this goal.'

      Delete
    2. Far be it from me not to troll with a dose of theism, but I don't know of any religion with an all-powerful all-knowing deity who wants you to believe in him. You either do or you do not believe, and you either do or you do not act accordingly. You may receive a sign which the gods knows you will ignore, or you may receive a sign which the gods have designed so you will not ignore it. Influential groups release information all the time intentionally in such a way that people will not recognise its full impact. If humans can do it, there's no reason gods might not.

      It's only preachy humans who want you to be a certain way and bitch and whine because they don't have the power to force you to change.

      And before you ask, our will is as free as the laws of physics.

      Delete
    3. have you ever heard of christianity? it's this cult that came out of judaism a while ago, it's pretty obscure, but it's based on the same god as judaism and islam.

      one of the core tenets is that the all-loving god of christianity (it's a monotheistic cult), who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, wants people to believe in him, because only through believing in him can you be saved from an eternity of torment, and he is all-good and explicitly merciful, so he doesn't wish an eternity of torment on anyone.

      this is why christianity is so evangelical, in fact! it is the will of their god that all should hear and believe the message. if you haven't heard of them you should probably read up on them, i hear they're the next big religion

      Delete
    4. No. Abrahamic God doesn't want everyone to believe in him, and Christianity didn't change this. If God's chosen you, you're in; if he hasn't, you aren't.

      Now one of the characteristics of being *in* is, according to some, that you talk about how milky-awesome God is. But people don't do that because it's going to get more other people into Heaven but because it's more likely that they will go to Heaven.

      The most important thing to realise about Abrahamic religions is that they acknowledge that there is no free will - put in modern terms, we're all just products of the laws of physics plus a universe set in motion.

      So, looked at the other way round, people who go to Heaven are those chosen by God to act in such a way that they deserve to go to Heaven. Our consciousness is such that we perceive ourselves making decisions and those decisions having consequences, so we recoil in disgust at the notion that the consequences are inevitable.

      This is the point where someone might point out that I'm partly paraphrasing Einstein then suggest that God does play dice, so there may be continual intervention. OK, maybe he loads the dice - but we can't.

      HTH.

      Delete
    5. so basically you're a follower of an obscure and largely discredited school of theology, got it

      Delete
    6. I do admire your one line canards, Rob, but no school of Christian theology thinks that God does not have the power to choose who is, well, chosen. I know Internet atheists like to think they've set up the perfect straw man to tear down and disprove some/every religion, but they mostly hang out on the xkcd fora.

      Delete
    7. Christians may say the god of the old and new testaments are the same, but they're not really. At best, God really changed his tune when Jesus was born. Christianity teaches that all who believe and obey will be saved. Before then, he pretty much only cared about his chosen people.

      Delete
    8. you do realize I studied theology under devout Christian instructors, right? well, of course you don't. you seem to think that your hard-line determinism 'God isn't into evangelism' belief is viewed as mainstream theology instead of lunatic fringe.

      here's some holy Scripture for your thoughts, though:
      1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9.

      Delete
    9. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches require God's grace for salvation. If God wanted everyone to be saved, everyone would enjoy that grace. Even if you wanted to argue that man has some choice, i.e to accept God's grace in the cases where he is willing to offer it, your implied interpretation of the quoted verses must be wrong.

      For example, 2 Peter 3:9: "Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Context is you, the Christian dear friends being referred to in the previous verse.

      The chaplain at the school I went to became the theological advisor to the local Archbishop. Should this matter?

      Delete
    10. So what you're saying is that "everyone" doesn't mean everyone? That's stupid, but that's not even the argument here. You're saying not only does that not mean what it obviously means, but every major religion that lives by that verse agrees with you.

      I think you're confusing mainstream Christianity with Calvinism.

      Delete
    11. If your teacher says, "Everyone get a book," he is referring to everyone in the class, not everyone in the world. It is very unusual for "everyone" to mean every single human on the planet, and in this case it certainly doesn't (we'd do well not just to look at an English translation, though). Also, yes, both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are clear that the grace of God is required for salvation.

      Delete
    12. the Holy Scripture clearly states that God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. that is literally what it says that God wants. the issue here isn't whether your theology is correct--despite following a discredited theological philosophy, I don't really care what you believe--but whether this is mainstream religious theology, which it patently is not. of course, most people who subscribe to fringe theology tend to believe that it's the only possible interpretation, but the fact is that the majority of people interpret things otherwise. (if you like, I could dig up some of the various Christians I am still in contact with and ask them 'does God desire that everyone should be saved?' and report their answers. these people are inevitably very well-versed in theology. I realize of course that the plural of anecdote is not data, but since you seem to have mistaken me for an 'internet atheist' I thought perhaps you might benefit from seeing a multitude of active and thoughtful Christians who do not agree with your sentiment that it is not the will of God that all should be saved.)

      amusingly enough you are actually repeating my original argument: "If God wanted everyone to be saved, everyone would enjoy that grace." that is exactly the problem that I have with mainstream Christian theology. it explicitly claims that God desires that everyone should be saved, and yet everyone is not saved. we must take him as either a liar, or as impotent.

      Delete
    13. But if your teacher said, "I hope everyone goes to heaven," you'd probably assume he meant everyone in the world, not just in that room. The meanings of some statements depend on the statements themselves more than the context. Granted, though, that statement Peter made wasn't in English, so it still might have meant only those to whom the letter was addressed.

      But again, we're talking about how most people interpret it. I know for certain the church of Christ believes anyone can be saved. Of course their endless preaching is still for selfish reasons, but in theory it's for the purpose of converting people.

      Delete
    14. "it explicitly claims that God desires that everyone should be saved, and yet everyone is not saved. we must take him as either a liar, or as impotent."

      I think that might be a false syllogism. It's possible to want mutually exclusive things. It's also possible to deny yourself something you want.

      I could desire that my students all get As in my class but still give them bad grades if they do poorly.

      Delete
    15. but God has the power to make sure that all his students earn As in his class. if you, as a teacher, really want all your students to get As, you should, in theory, spend at least some of your energy and resources on trying to encourage them to get good grades. you'll help those who struggle, answer questions, and educate them in such a way that they will get good grades.

      if you were all-powerful and all-knowing and desired that your students would get good grades in your class, they would get good grades. you would know how to motivate them, you would know how to teach them. nothing should stand in the way of the desires of an all-powerful and all-knowing being.

      ultimately this is just a specific form of the problem of evil. Christianity makes the following claims: (1) God is all-powerful (and all-knowing) (2) God is omnibenevolent (3) evil exists. in order to reconcile this paradox, they ultimately end up denying one of the three premises. either God does not have the power to prevent evil (he is not all-powerful), he does not have the desire (he is not all-good), or evil does not exist (usually in the form of 'the evil God allows is actually for the greater good, so you shouldn't think of it as a bad thing).

      in your argument, the teacher is not all-powerful: receiving an A is an external standard over which the teacher has no power. all the teacher can do is try to get her students to adhere to this higher standard. God has no higher standard.

      Delete
    16. Yeah, that's a good point.

      As for the three qualities of God, I never understood how omnipotence theoretically works. Can God create contradictions? Like, can he make 2 = 1 without changing the properties of 2 or 1? If he is all-powerful, that can't mean he can do literally anything.

      Delete
    17. the problem of omnipotence is another fun one! i haven't spent as much time on it because it's a lot less practical. offhand the solution that comes to mind that I don't find totally unsatisfactory is that 'omnipotent' means 'God can do anything,' where 'anything' refers to the subset of things that is possible. actions that are by definition logically impossible aren't actually things.

      it's not really as practical because it's usually used to mean 'God has complete control over the universe, since he defined all of its variables at creation and had perfect knowledge over what those variables would bring about.' think of him like LaPlace's daemon, except the daemon also got to choose where everything would begin, also.

      Delete
    18. That could be, but I think it's more likely that it just means God can beat any video game without a walkthrough.

      Delete
    19. whatever, god totally needed spoilers to beat Nethack

      Delete
    20. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it, but I find video games really boring. Etc.

      Delete
    21. Assuming that omnipotence means being able to do absolutely anything, rather than only what is in some way possible (Platinga).

      Assuming that saving everyone gives a better outcome than only saving those who are deserving.

      There are human systems which model this. In the UK, the Conservative position on welfare has been one of conditionality: means test and provide welfare only to the deserving poor. If you help those who can help themselves but refuse to do so, you bring down everyone - i.e. you are less benevolent.

      Mainstream Christianity is as wrong as any other branch of Conservatism in adopting this tough love approach, but that's because Conservatism has an idealistic notion of free will (concluding crudely "you get what you deserve") not grounded in biological reality.

      Delete
    22. I think we can all put aside our differences and agree that "I was raped by God" is the best excuse for unfaithfulness any woman has ever come up with.

      Delete
  21. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wait wait, was the whole point of the communication comic "Show, don't tell"?

    Holy fucking shit that was pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://holistic.xkcd.com/ I thought this was funny but then all I got was porn, including meatspin. Stay classy, XKCD fans.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is 1029 really as stupid a comic as it looks? Because I can't think of any other explanation for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, basically. In the past Randall has been accused of pandering to high schoolers, but this is the sort of thing I haven't really been able to relate to since I was around six. Most people would probably have mastered the pattern sooner, but I've never been good at drawing.

      Delete
  25. I don't get. is the joke in the new xkcd really "i think a star is hard to draw!" or am I missing some sort of.. er.. star-drawing-related-meme that I don't get because i'm not american?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it is. Would you prefer it was a meme?

      Delete
  26. Fucking sad. I come here to get AWAY from the retarded meme-spouting circlejerkery that pervades the rest of the internet and yet even here there are people posting unfunny memes like this "chris houlihan's room" bullshit over and over again. If it isn't funny when Randall does it, why the fuck would it be funny when you do it? Oh wait, it's because YOUR memes are fucking hilarious, unlike Randall's, right? At least Randall tries to make jokes out of the stupid shit he posts, unlike 99% of the people who post on this blog. But so long as you're doing it in an attitude of ironic disdain, it's okay, right?

    This blog has gone down the fucking drain. Not that it was particularly good to begin with, but at least there used to be decent criticism instead of the constant "lol breast milk" and "lol white knight randall" and asinine meme parroting. I don't think I'll be reading here for quite a while, at least not until Randall does something that particularly ruffles my feathers again. Which, really, he hasn't done in quite a while, not counting yesterday's strip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like a good cocksucker who can suck the cum right out of a cock.

      Delete
    2. I like 12:47. He tells it like it is.

      Delete
    3. Hooray, a new copy/pasta

      Delete
    4. I come here to get AWAY from the retarded meme-spouting circlejerkery that pervades the rest of the internet and yet even here there are people posting unfunny memes like this "I come here to get AWAY from the retarded meme-spouting circlejerkery" bullshit over and over again.

      Delete
  27. Joke is: 'a five-pointed star is hard to draw'
    Mouseover text joke is: 'the star of david is a six-pointed star which is easy to draw'

    xkcd is clearly a comic for the educated.

    ReplyDelete
  28. That does it. I'm tired of this bullshit. Anyone up for starting a kickstarter project to have Randall professionally assassinated?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I dreamed that one day Randall will make a comic about the most frowned upon community on the internet: the wiccan's who cant draw pentagrams and decided to convert to Judaism, and that day has finally come. Rise, my brothers! Our time is now!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Replying because 1:41 didn't get proper credit for this above-average post.

      Delete
  30. I must say I approved of the alt text in the latest comic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I actually liked 1029, because Randy making a comic about how hard drawing is is kinda funny. Not sure this was the intended joke, but still.

    As for holistic.xkcd.com, i put in a lot of porn site my own self. No need to thank me people, we all what the internet is for (except promoting french supremacy)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1028 = I can't do words.

      1029 = I can't do pictures.

      1030 = I can't do breathing, if there's any justice.

      Delete
  32. 1026 was mildly amusing to me until I got to the dumb, unneccessary sex joke at the end.

    1027 just irritated me. PUAs are an easy target so he'd think he could come up with a joke at their expense, but there isn't really a joke here; it's just one of those stupid comics where a character acting as the mouthpiece for the author delivers a long speech that no one in real life would ever actually say. And even if they did say it, there's no way the guy would react to the ~smackdown with, "I think I need to go home and think about my life." People don't talk like that.

    I kinda liked 1028 just because it's different (no written dialogue, which Randall sucks at anyway; see above). But the alt text threw me off. In the comic it looks like the problem is that people aren't listening; in the second panel, the guy is thinking about the person talking to him ("gee, he sure is worried about something" I guess) instead of listening to what he's saying. Yet according to the alt text, it's... the speaker's fault that his audience isn't listening? Um, okay.

    I don't even understand 1029. Is the joke that Randall is a shitty artist?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guy's response was the worst part for me in 1028. It's bad enough she just had that speech prepared to put him in his place, but then he reacts in the way every 5th grade boy hopes people will react to his clever zingers. There's literally no response he could have given that could have made the comic funnier than if Randall had just chopped that panel out.

      Actually, I take that back. He could have climbed up on the table and defecated on her plate.

      Delete
  33. WHOA, YOU GUYS? Any of you tried the new Firefox yet? Our comments are IN THREE-FUCKING-DEE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a pretty cool feature for web developers. You can take a quick glance and see what level every html object is at. Why haven't I heard of this?

      Delete
    2. Because "web developers" is like "Lego architects".

      Delete
    3. it's LEGO, you dumb shit. why can't people get that right?

      Delete
    4. So the capitalisation is important but the font face and size and the ® are not?

      I am reminded of that list which says that aspies only find important what they find simple. It is simple to capitalise Lego therefore capitalisation of Lego is important.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, apparently the tool was originally made for web developers. But really we know it was just an excuse to make websites look like Tron-style cityscapes, and I see nothing wrong with that. If you get the chance to play around with it, try it on Facebook, although really it looks good on any site with lots of interactive content.

      Delete
    6. i wouldn't have said anything if you'd just put "lego," but you capitalized it like a proper pronoun, so you were obviously trying to be correct.

      Delete
    7. poor use of commas. you used them so you were obviously trying to be correct.

      "one possible reason for x is y. therefore the reason for x is y." fucking aspies.

      Delete
    8. I can't stand it when people pluralise it. Legos (Legoes?) sounds retarded.

      Delete
    9. Indeed. LEGO sounds like you're some sort of corporate faggot, and Legos like you're an American dunce.

      Delete
    10. my comma usage is perfect. fucking faggots.

      Delete
    11. Both wrong, second more subtly.

      1. "lego", not "lego,".

      2. "so" used wrongly. Final clause structured as if consequence (where comma is necessary), but is describing purpose (where comma is omitted).

      Delete
    12. 1. commas go inside quotation marks.

      2. commas are often used to denote a brief pause, like taking a breath.

      Delete
    13. 1. Bollocks. American typesetters got lazy about it so Americans are more inclined to do so when quoting speech, but the idea of putting a comma within a single quoted word is absurd.

      2. Quite the opposite: commas are not a written substitute for a rhetorical pause. This is by the bye - the reason the comma is wrong here is that the use of "so" is wrong. The alternatives are "X, so [consequence]" and "X so that(*) [purpose]". OP chose the former. Semantics demand the latter.

      (*) The word "that" itself is today optional. The structure is unchanged.

      Delete
    14. 1. your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

      2. you're just plain wrong. a simpler example of "x, so [consequence]" is "i think, therefore i am." "so" and "therefore" are interchangeable in this case.

      Delete
    15. 1. You are correct that my opinion is irrelevant. Only the stated facts underlying my opinion are relevant.

      2. Are you stupid? OP said:

      "you capitalized it like a proper pronoun, so you were obviously trying to be correct."

      The part following the "so" isn't a consequence - it's a purpose. An appropriate formulation might be:

      "you capitalized it like a proper pronoun so that you would be correct".

      This form exposes how stupid the argument is, of course.

      Delete
    16. no, you're reading wrong. what i said is in no way equivalent to "you capitalized it like a proper pronoun so that you would be correct".

      it can be rewritten as this: you capitalized it like a proper pronoun, from which i conclude that you were trying to be correct.

      you actually made it this far arguing with me without knowing that? i don't envy your teachers.

      Delete
    17. No, it can't be rewritten like that - at least not without changing its meaning.

      The original was an objective assertion describing purpose: "you were trying to be correct".

      The present is a statement describing your point of view: "I conclude that you were trying to be correct".

      To clarify, you could now say:

      "You capitalized it like a proper pronoun, so I conclude you were trying to be correct."

      This is describing the consequence (your conclusion) of the antecedent (my capitalization).

      If you think the difference doesn't matter, consider coming across the following sentence.

      "It was raining, so Ravenzomg put up her umbrella."

      Correct interpretation: Ravenzomg put up her umbrella. She did so because it was raining.
      Your stupid alternative: It was raining so I conclude that Ravenzomg put up her umbrella. I don't actually know whether she put up her umbrella.

      If that's not (un)clear enough, consider:

      "Rob overeats, so he is fat."

      Correct interpretation: Rob is fat. He is fat because he overeats.
      Your stupid alternative: Rob overeats so I conclude that he is fat. I don't actually know whether he is fat or not.

      Your alternative admits ambiguity in sentences which would previously have had a single clear meaning. You simply can't use "so" like that. OK?

      Delete
    18. 10:48 is being obviously stupid so I conclude that he is a troll.

      Delete
    19. the fact that you found a counterexample does not disprove my point; my point is existentially qualified, not universally quantified.

      here's an example:
      rob is fat, so he overeats.

      only an idiot would interpret that as "rob overeats because he is fat." it's me making a conclusion based on an observation.

      this motor is blown, so you probably overreved it.
      your code won't compile, so you suck at programming.

      get it now?

      Delete
    20. "rob is fat, so he overeats."

      it's glandular

      Delete
    21. OK, 2:15, we get it: you or your troll persona don't actually know how to use "so". Trying to give more examples corresponding to your incorrect usage, no matter how right they sound to you, isn't going to change this.

      Delete
    22. okay, 2:40, we get it: you're insecure and feel that you're losing, so you speak as if with the authority of an entire group to give yourself more weight, which is ironic because you're probably already overweight.

      Delete
    23. 2:56: dictionary; "so"; "adv." - HTH.

      Delete
    24. 3:12, thanks for the support 'n' all, but the uses here are as a conjunction. 2:56 still ought to look it up though. Or he could find usage examples on EFL sites. He'll find that I'm right.

      Delete
    25. Uh, I don't know who this 3:18 is, but I'm the one who's been arguing with 2:56. I actually agree with 3:12.

      Delete
    26. I'm 2:56 and I disagree with 2:56.

      Delete
    27. i'm rob and i disagree with dieting

      Delete
    28. it's true i am actually 4:31 i just forgot to log on

      Delete
  34. Protip: if you've got 4 line segments down and the 3 angles they form average 40 degrees, don't try and estimate 36 degrees again (which will probably actually be 40) for the fifth line segment. You'll have the weird ass piece of shit thing Randall drew where the fifth segment randomly goes off into space. Instead, for the fifth line segment, draw it so it connects the end of segment 4 with the beginning of segment 1. Presto, you've got a star; it's OK if the last two angles that are formed are only 30 degrees and the star is a little lopsided.

    Personally, I find six pointed stars harder to draw perfectly then five pointed ones. I can never get the triangles to interlock evenly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concentrate on the small triangles round the edge. IOW stellate a regular hexagon.

      Delete
  35. "Personally, I find six pointed stars harder to draw perfectly then five pointed ones. I can never get the triangles to interlock evenly."

    Indeed, it is trickier than it looks. But then again, what the hell does Randall know about actual drawing?

    ReplyDelete
  36. 6 pointed stars are easy. You just draw the first 3 lines of a 5 point star, go down instead of across, come back up, and then connect.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Randall's point with 1029 was to drive people to "describe" the best way to a star when it would be much clearer to demonstrate by drawing it. Primed by 1028, they would then take the time to think about their communication skills. This message clearly applies to two or three of the posters above.

    The guy is a lot smarter than you give him credit for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well but the clearest way to show someone how to draw a star might be to demonstrate but that does not mean that 'watch out for the huge hole in the road' is not a reasonable and indeed very clear way to communicate that there is a hole in the road. reversing the two doesn't make people think 'gosh my communication skills must be shit' it makes them think 'mr munroe is not very good at communicating his own points however smart he may be'. still at least it wasn't a comic about describing how to draw a vulva

      Delete
  38. Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find drawing stars really boring, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  39. For the communication comic, did anyone notice the guy with hair lost his hair before and after falling in the hole?

    ...this is how interesting this comic is, I'm looking for continuity errors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes. at least two people have mentioned it here. there was like a 10-point critique of continuity in the previous thread.

      Delete
    2. Woh wait, are you trying to say Randy's art isn't flawless ? Well, that's new.

      Delete
    3. Romney 2012!

      Delete
    4. fuck you 5:08. Santorum is future of this nation! We also need to elect a republican controlled house and senate so we can reach the upper echelon of government: Theocracy.

      Delete
  40. I think this is a math joke more than anything else. The last line drawn is parallel to the first, so if he wouldn't abort he'd have to draw the line forever (two parallel lines never intersect). Euclidean space ftw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're a dumbass.

      Reason #1: "ftw"
      Reason #2: These are line segments, not lines, so they don't have to be parallel to never intersect.

      Sorry, that was mean. I'm sure you're very smart.

      Delete
    2. Also, who said his space was euclidian ? Maybe he's trying to draw a star on a ball. Which is typically a non-euclidian space.

      Delete
    3. 6:59 is just copied from a post in the forums.

      Delete
    4. At first I thought he was accidently drawing a star of David, and that is why the commentator wanted to abort (because of associations with nazism).

      Delete
    5. It's true, the Star of David makes me think of Nazis, not of Jews.

      Which is appropriate because Israel is the closest to a neo-Nazi state today. The oppressed always become as their oppressors.

      Delete
    6. No one will stop me from thinking that during world war 2 jews did not have the most pleasant of attitude toward the nazis.

      Delete
    7. Himmler's main mistake was to believe that it is more important for the strong to hate the weak than it is to for the weak to hate themselves.

      You've only really won once you've convinced the minority that they are wrong because they are in the minority, whether it is because they are hooknose rather than blonde, cooperative rather than competitive, gentle rather than warlike, or intellectual/moronic rather than average.

      All modern Western governments have learnt from this. It is therefore no longer necessary to eliminate the weak, only to make them pliant and servile.

      Delete
    8. hooknose the opposite of blonde

      dot tumblr
      dot com

      Delete
    9. Oh my god, I was actually Anon 5:56, but I was copypasting a post from the forums, which is real, by the way. And I just want to say, you people make me sick!

      Delete
    10. Anon 11:56, was meant in reply to Jon 11:12

      I'm not sure how this happens, but it's happened to me a couple of times now too. The reply will appear to be attached to the wrong "thread". I'll attempt to cause it again by starting a reply to one thread, then clicking reply elsewhere, and submit a comment.

      Delete
  41. 1029 actually made me laugh! wow!

    (it's not actually a clever math joke or any stupid misreading. Its just funny that stars can sometimes be mysteriously hard to draw for no reason. the same is true for going around the outside of the letter 's')

    1028 on the other hand is more confusing than Primer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's basically a visual pun. He keyed her car.

      Maybe it was just random nonsense and the pun was unintentional, but keying cars is the most common form of car vandalism around so I'm going to give Randall the benefit of the doubt unless somebody comes out and says the US has a different slang word for the act.

      Delete
    2. No, it means the same in the US, and is often thought of as an act of revenge.

      Delete
  42. No, it's called keying here too. It would have been a funny visual pun except that he can't fucking draw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and except for the fact it still makes no sense.
      "oh he's keyed my car. so i'm not sure if he remembers we've broken up"
      wtf? was part of their 'oh so quirky' relationship that they'd ritually key each others cars?

      Delete
    2. i don't really understand this. if he drew a flower on the car it wouldn't be 'flowering'. if he drew a vulva it wouldn't be 'vulvaing'. 'I'm going to flower her car.' 'He vulvaed the car'. so I'm not sure how the misunderstanding happens. 'I hear that upset people flower/vulva/key other people's cars, that must mean to draw those things on them' doesn't work even as a 'surrealist' (give me strength*) joke. I don't understand the scone thing either.

      *the forum is crawling with fucktards going 'how many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Fish. lolololol.' Fish. Fucking bastard fucking fish. Ooh how surreal! A fish! Fish are so random! every single time someone mentions surrealism, some dickhead makes a joke of substituting 'fish' for a common word. Therefore saying fish makes fish the opposite of random, you dumb twats. this represents and encapsulates everything that is cuntish and hateful about the 'lol I'm so random' aspect of 'nerd' culture which xkcd encourages and celebrates. i know I bang on about this but every idiot that goes 'must use that phrase in real life!' or 'am I the only person that thinks THIS? I'm so quirky and unusual' about the most banal interpretation possible of something is a nail in the coffin of human society.

      Delete
    3. Charles Augustus FortescueMarch 16, 2012 at 8:13 AM

      You are spot on about the fish.

      Delete
    4. Dicksmash McIroncockMarch 16, 2012 at 8:36 AM

      This is the second post on this thread where you used the word vulva. I'm sensing some unresolved issues.

      Delete
    5. eh, see the angriest rant about comic 631 for why

      Delete
    6. But carelessly drawing a flower on a vulva could result in deflowering.

      captcha: ldruila Heverequ. Now I know where all those stupid BBC Merlin spell words come from.

      Delete
    7. weaselsoup your comment made me very happy

      Delete
    8. Remember this strip? Look how far we've come. xkcd, and its fandom, and nerd culture in general, have all become the very thing Munroe set out to destroy.

      Delete
    9. Oh yeah, that strip where Randall proved he understood neither Monty Python nor surreality. No, I'd say he seems to have remained pretty consistent since that day.

      Delete
  43. chris houlihan's room

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Warren Robinett's Egg

      Delete
    2. I too like being eaten by ducks, 2:09.

      Delete
    3. Technically, we don't make you sick. Only you can bring forth the sickness that is residing within you. Ergo, you've made yourself sick.

      However, It is a nice complement you've given us. In effect you've said that you've taken our words to heart and find them to be very influential.

      Delete
  44. hahaha the beret guy is the most WACKY and RANDUM guy evr lolol!!

    ReplyDelete
  45. mr munroe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqwDoMqyWxw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. omg goomhr i am so quirky and zany just like that!!!

      Delete
  46. This is the first comic which has made me wonder if Randall is a surrealist.

    I dont know if theres some US based reference here i've missed, but the comic just went straight over my head...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "keying" someone's car refers to scraping a line in the paintjob down the length of a person's car. It usually requires that the car be repainted, a costly procedure. It is the archetypal revenge perpetrated by a jilted lover against their former sweetheart. The humor seems to by the typical Munroe trope of his characters (using the term loosely) responding to human emotions with outlandish science or art projects. It seems that Munroe projects his own inability to confront his negative emotions onto his comics. Thus, we have characters like the Black Hat Guy, who is never frustrated, angry, or upset, but rather responds to even the merest slights with superhumanly ingenious revenge schemes, carried out instead of, rather than in response to, negative emotions. The Black Hat Guy is how Randall wishes he responded to people who annoyed or upset him: coldly dishing out punishments that humiliate or harm the aggressor, while revealing his own technical gifts and clever aesthetics.

      The beret guy's actions in this comic represent how Randall wishes he dealt with romantic disappointment. When someone hurts him, instead of breaking down or feeling rejected, he responds with some painfully cleaver reinterpretation of what the breakup means: offering a transcendental critique of the emotions he would otherwise feel, and reaffirming his own genius in the face of rejection. His aggressor, the girl, is confused that he did not simply roll over and die, but did something crazy and unexpected! That didn't have to do with her at all! And her plan to break his heart (which was of course, the reason she broke up with him) is thwarted by how self assured and talented he is. Randall wishes that instead of being a human capable of being hurt, he was some wild, creative spirit who can turn every setback into an enrichment of himself, his ego, and his own specialness. This connects profoundly with the emotionally stunted internet atheists who imagine themselves in a world where their creative and intellectual "skills" afford them power over people's hearts and minds.

      Delete
    2. A sausage digs into a moussaka. The moussaka asks, "Why are you digging into me?"

      The sausage replies, "Because the ratatouille has turned." "Turned?!" cries the moussaka. "It was barely sandwiched."

      "How can that be," enquires the sausage, "if it was not also turned?"

      "Elevator antics," the moussaka clarifies, "and bookshelf semantics. When has it ever not been so?"

      The sausage disappears, head first.

      Delete
    3. Anon 11:17 was a repost from the xkcd fora. Successful troll is successful.

      Delete
  47. It is somewhat remiscent of surrealism that the car door handles appear to be eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  48. every single one of your comics makes me so sad, as they send a stark reminder that none of us understands any other one of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the fuck are you on about?

      Delete
  49. It seems our beloved artist ran out of ideas today. The whole premise is a bad pun with silliness tacked on? I'll let it slide because of the brilliance of his oeuvre. Everybody has an off day.

    This is the only webcomic I read habitually. I've checked hundreds of others sporadically as I stumble across them in the internets; they usually contain one gem in a sea of rubbish. Randall on the other hand has set such a consistently high bar for himself that the slightest misstep stands out like a turd on the carpet.

    I'm expecting a return to good things on Monday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the only webcomic I read habitually.
      "read"

      Delete
    2. What happened to our massively multi-lingual Latin/Greek grammar troll?

      I'm not very fluent in Latin, but I think you've got "of beer, beloved" as your username, not "beer lover". You don't want to be the object of beer's love. Cerevisiae is certainly wrong; even if you're going for "lover of beer", there's a difference between "lover of/beer" and "lover/of beer"

      Delete
    3. Why don't I want to be the object of beer's love?

      Delete
    4. >What happened to our massively multi-lingual Latin/Greek grammar troll?

      Reporting for duty!

      Anyway, "cervisiae" could be the nominative plural, genitive singular, dative singular, or (unlikely) the vocative plural.

      "Amatorem" is nothing less than the accusative singular. Now, let's begin with it shall we?

      The use of the bare accusative (i.e. lacking a verb) indicates a range of possibilities: the duration of time (if used with a time word), direction towards, an exlamation (much like English and French's emphatic objective pronouns), or, like the ablative, in place of a missing preposition such as "per," through, or "trans," across.

      Duration of time is impossible in this circumstance. Allativity or prepositional periphrasis is possible, but the emphatic use seems most likely.

      If you side with allativity, I would suggest as a translation: "towards the lover of beer," "across the lover of beer," "or "through the lover of beer," or possibly "Beers! Towards the lover!" spoken in a tone of command.

      If you feel it to be emphatic, then you would think it "O me, the lover of beer."

      Now I must go dine. So Good night, friends, bonasque te somnia!

      Delete
    5. tl;dr Milton, J. and Fletcher, R. (intro.) (1834) The Prose Works of John Milton, J. R. and C. Childs, Bungay, p.469. It's on Google Books for you fucking philistines.

      Remarkably, that page both includes an example of amator + genitive and enumerates uses of the accusative. I wonder whether 11:24 read it.

      Delete
  50. 1030 made me think of 169.

    Not in terms of quality, but because we can see how Randy is doing exactly what he criticized before, but taking literally an expression. You could also think of 725.

    Anyway, 1030 wasn't gouge-your-eyes-out bad, it was just boring, so i guess that's kind of an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1030 has the appeal of Rob saying, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse," followed by an image of a butchered horse and bloody guts dripping hanging out of Rob's mouth.

      Actually, no, 1030 is worse than that. At least eating a horse shows the literal meaning, whereas "Xing a car" never means "drawing a X on it". Except, perhaps, in the case where X = X. LOL IRONY.

      Delete
    2. Or the more general case of "lettering". But yeah, X is the only letter that can stand alone as a verb like that.

      Delete
  51. Ha ha ... You guys are a bunch of losers. :) No human can write a comic which clicks 'just every single time'. Some made us laugh, some don't even after trying. Overall, xkcd is doing good work. I know you have written it already in your FAQs, but you must admit that criticizing something is really, really easy than actually doing something creative. You give a couple of examples where YOU think you might have improved them. You might have. I'm one of the most boring persons on earth and even I have JOKED several times in my life where people laughed badly. But I can't do it every 3 days a week right? I'm sure neither can you. I still go to xkcd, read them. If they are funny, good enough, otherwise I just close it - as I know, at least one of every three will be funny. XKCD haters have given me links of various web comics which they think are better than it(just to show that they are different than the 'league'), but all of them have failed miserably. They are all just plain boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha... You man are a loser. :) No human can write a comment on a blog which clicks 'just every single time'. Some are relevant, some aren't even after trying. Overall, xkcdsucks is doing good work. I know you have it written in your tiny dumb ersatz of a brain, but you must admit that critizicing something is much, much easier than actually doing something good. You give absolutely no exemple where YOU think you could have done better. You haven't. You are the most boring person on earth, and even you mades us laugh with your stupid comment. But Randall can't do it 3 days a week, can he ? I'm sure he can't. I still go to xkcdsucks, read them. If they are relevant, too bad, otherwise, just read - as far as i know, at least one of every three will be about chris houlihan's room. XKCDsucks haters have given us stupid comments of various other comments which they think are worst than the other (just to show that they are different from the 'league'), but all of them have failed miserably. You are all just plain boring.

      Also, i don't see your post becoming a meme, too many parts written by a chinese 5-year old.

      Delete
    2. I'm a lawyer. It's permitted to make small, correctable errors. It's permitted to fail to make the best argument in a complex case. But if I failed in my professional responsibility to my client even once by missing some obvious mistake or simply not making an effort then my career would be over.

      If I were a surgeon, the same would be the case - and I'd end up killing someone.

      So, Piyush, it may be that you do something of so little consequence to the world that it doesn't matter that you don't click "just every single time". But in the world of people whose work affects others, you have to click five or six days every day of every week.

      Delete
    3. I love the legit smiley face at the start. It's like LOOK I'M BEING FACETIOUS LOOK HOW LITTLE I CARE

      Delete
    4. "I know you have written it already in your FAQs" - Confirmed for troll. Move along folks, nothing to see here.

      Delete
    5. Well, no. I agree his argument is bullshit. It makes a set of assumptions that look to me unlikely, though possible. But your bullshit argument plays right into his. Usually you do better.

      First, imagine his bullshit argument the way I did. Women are looking for genetically superior men, and they have a workable method to tell which genes are better. This seems unlikely to me because the inferior genes would mostly get weeded out in less than 20 generations. But continue. Everybody can tell who's superior. You chose your wife because she was better than you. She chose you because you were the best she could get. She gets pregnant with somebody else and she uses your resources to care for her children. Given his assumptions, you fit right in.

      Now try it a different way. What it *means* for a man to be a superior husband is that he is better at providing resources to her children. You are poor and your wife marries you because she can't find anybody better. Then she has sex with important men, rich men, powerful men. When she gets pregnant, she pretends to every man who could have been the father that he was the father. She gets your resources, and maybe she gets some resources from the others. Your boss keeps you on in your menial job when he might otherwise fire you. Maybe your son gets accepted to West Point. There are lots of ways that a woman's child might be helped if powerful men believe it is their child too. She didn't get to marry any of them, but she can get some support from them.

      This latter approach is the only way that his argument actually can work. You can't become genetically superior unless you're born that way. But you can become richer and more powerful, which makes you a more valuable secret lover. That doesn't mean she actually chooses you to get pregnant with though. If she's busy fooling people, she might as well try to fool you too. And her husband has a better chance to get the DNA tested, with better access to her child's DNA. If you're rich and she's poor, you might do better not to let them do the DNA test that shows whether you're the father. Maybe you want to know, but if the wrong people find out it could cost you.

      Again your argument utterly fails to attack his. But I find the whole concept creepy. I don't want to be that poor, and I don't want to marry a woman who thinks like that. Let's just tiptoe away from the whole thing. There are some people who live disgusting lives, that we don't have to pay a lot of attention to.

      Delete
    6. Dafuq are you talking about?

      Delete