tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post3187414521487669099..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 595: Do Androids Sleep With Electric Sheep?Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54548167282243873192009-06-20T15:33:01.202-07:002009-06-20T15:33:01.202-07:00Well, the olive bit was more in response to The_P&...Well, the olive bit was more in response to The_P's hint.<br /><br />But, if we agree on that, then where, precisely, is our disagreement? You admitted that you'd put your money on the more popular of two things as being of better quality. What I was considering when I made my original statement was the relative merits of:<br />1) Hating what's good quality and popular<br />2) Liking what's good quality and popular<br />A) Hating what's bad quality and popular<br />B) Liking what's bad quality and popular<br />So, if we pick one of 1,2 and one of A,B, I'd rank them<br />1A < 1B < 2B < 2A<br />If we are only deciding based on popularity, we can choose either 1A or 2B, and, as above, I say that<br />1A < 2B (Liking what's popular simply because it's popular is better than hating what's popular simply because it's popular.)<br />whereas you implied that<br />1A = 2B (It's just as bad to like something simply because it's popular as it is to hate it simply because it's popular.)<br /><br />But, perhaps you were thinking of the relative merits of:<br />1) Hating what's popular<br />2) Liking what's popular<br />A) Hating what's unpopular<br />B) Liking what's unpopular<br />This is much more of a toss up and I'm less certain of how I'd rank the options. There's some merit in being different and some in the communal experience of the popular, so 2B would be the best. There's also the idea of maximizing your chances of the right opinion, where 2A would be the best (1A is worse because it's a shame to hate everything). So, I'd maybe say<br />1A < 2B<br />1A < 1B < 2A<br />so it's only partially ordered where 2B isn't necessarily better than 1B, but both maximal choices include liking what's popular.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-6044611925030710902009-06-19T15:42:48.911-07:002009-06-19T15:42:48.911-07:00I also draw a distinction between "I don'...I also draw a distinction between "I don't like olives" and "olives have no place in the culinary arts." This is why I can say without worrying about it, "X has no place in the Y arts." I know what an irredeemable piece of shit looks like, and what something that just doesn't meet my approval looks like.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-89575969138945934322009-06-19T12:39:20.849-07:002009-06-19T12:39:20.849-07:00I think there are objective standards on which we ...I think there are objective standards on which we can judge a work of art and it's largely those standards that make criticism worthwhile. For example, I see suggestions on how to improve xkcd not as, "I would like it more if Randall did this," but as, "The comic would be better if Randall did this." Or, I'm not generally a fan of wheat beer, but I can look beyond my own personal preferences and judge a particular wheat beer as a wheat beer. Even more, what I think may make it a better beer could very likely make me like it even less since it would make it a better wheat beer and, as I said, I don't generally like wheat beers. Basically, one looks for the sort of enjoyment the thing can provide and judges it based on that sort of enjoyment.<br /><br />More shortly, I draw a distinction between, "According to my preferences, it has no qualities I enjoy," and, "According to the enjoyment appropriate to it, it has no redeeming qualities." Between, "I don't like olives," and, "Olives have no place in the culinary arts."Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-74832190830340545122009-06-18T06:11:09.650-07:002009-06-18T06:11:09.650-07:00@Way Walker:
Your entire argument seems to rest o...@Way Walker:<br /><br />Your entire argument seems to rest on the basis of some objective standard of positivity. If such an objective standard exists, I'd agree with you (hint: it doesn't). Subjectively, an individual may find that a particular [insert media artifact] has, in their personal opinion, zero redeeming qualities.David Poorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10173847419796847573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-14909232923373430852009-06-17T23:39:02.397-07:002009-06-17T23:39:02.397-07:00can we keep him? I want to make him do trickscan we keep him? I want to make him do tricksrshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-87888425700218926722009-06-17T20:05:01.030-07:002009-06-17T20:05:01.030-07:00rob I think we have found the Anti-Robrob I think we have found the Anti-RobCarlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70941817034758772032009-06-17T17:14:44.098-07:002009-06-17T17:14:44.098-07:00Nor does it imply the existence of a positive.Nor does it imply the existence of a positive.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-8045015630195541132009-06-17T14:26:35.509-07:002009-06-17T14:26:35.509-07:00Having a negative aspect (e.g. catering to idiots)...Having a negative aspect (e.g. catering to idiots) doesn't imply lack of a positive aspect (i.e. the denominator you're left with after you figure out what the LCD of your intended audience is). Even having a net negative doesn't imply lack of a positive.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-37047093409895542342009-06-17T13:52:02.327-07:002009-06-17T13:52:02.327-07:00No, actually, catering to the idiots, as previousl...No, actually, catering to the idiots, as previously established, is actually a negative quality.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-49215811754926835692009-06-17T13:47:53.365-07:002009-06-17T13:47:53.365-07:00You got me, I wasn't so careful there and left...You got me, I wasn't so careful there and left out the probabilistic aspect. I would amend it to say:<br /><br />It's highly unlikely that one million fans would be completely and utterly wrong, so there's almost certainly something likeable in xkcd(/Halo).<br /><br />But, other than that single misstep, I believe I was careful and never implied that popularity implies something is good. In fact, even there I didn't say it implies the thing is good, merely that there is some good aspect to it (the work as a whole may still be bad).<br /><br />However, I'll still give you that I don't find it at all likely that something that is immensely popular would have zero redeeming qualities. In fact, I'd say the probability of it having zero redeeming qualities decreases with popularity. Even saying that it's catering to the least common denominator asserts that it has some redeeming quality.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-32450158129132487232009-06-17T10:58:06.703-07:002009-06-17T10:58:06.703-07:00"If you want me to say it, the closest I'..."If you want me to say it, the closest I'll come is to say that one million fantards can't be completely and utterly wrong and there must be something likeable in XKCD(/Halo). I haven't played Halo, but, for xkcd, I'd say it's the shadow of its former glory."<br /><br />Thanks for doing my homework for me. I hate when I have to tell people that they are capable of making implications and shit.<br /><br />You're wrong. It is possible (and, indeed, utterly plausible) for something to be immensely popular and have zero redeeming qualities, except for its ability to appeal to idiots. That is not a redeeming quality--it is the opposite of a redeeming quality. That drags its quality down.<br /><br />Indeed, many a popular thing is popular not because it is good, but because it was cynically and carefully crafted to cater to the whims of idiots or otherwise exploiting a formula. Neither of these are quality things.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-65896188125970709512009-06-17T09:06:43.197-07:002009-06-17T09:06:43.197-07:00Amanda: None taken. This blog is, after all, a vi...Amanda: None taken. This blog is, after all, a vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness. I'd say, "When in Rome..." but I don't know that I could keep up, so, for now, maybe I'll just be the stranger in a strange land (though no longer, to attempt the local dialect, a cuddlefish).Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-45062502116645995192009-06-17T08:24:00.248-07:002009-06-17T08:24:00.248-07:00Way Walker: The only person who can expect any nic...Way Walker: The only person who can expect any niceness from poore (The_P) is me.<br /><br />Take no offense.Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192581573588205095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21817903251081688712009-06-17T08:19:36.256-07:002009-06-17T08:19:36.256-07:00Wow, so much hate because I posted anonymously? F...Wow, so much hate because I posted anonymously? Fine, here's a name.<br /><br />The_P: It's funny that you mention the Beatles, because they're anything but a counter example to the claim that popularity is quality. Heck, even their fun and peppy stuff could be considered innovative for the time. Of course, even if they were a counter example to that claim, it would still be irrelevant to the claim I was making. You seem to be arguing a point that I never disagreed with, and doing so quite rudely by the end of it.<br /><br />As for the bit about platinum songs, I'm pretty sure there are many more non-platinum songs than platinum songs. If even an extremely, almost vanishingly, small percentage of non-platinum songs are good, there are probably more good non-platinum songs than all platinum songs combined. I'd also be surprised if the majority of, let alone pretty much every, classical composition was good. If we limit it to the pieces that have survived to this day, most of those can be considered platinum for our purposes (have they sold more than 2 million copies?).<br /><br />And what definition of "sycophant" are you using? It perhaps doesn't mean what you think it means.<br /><br />Rob: When you say, "You can't use this knoweldge... to make any sort of meaningful claim, especially after you've perused it," you'd be clearer if you left out the word "especially". Before you've perused it, you can certainly use it to make meaningful claims. Think of it like poker. When you're betting, you're using probabilities to make meaningful claims. Of course, once the cards are dealt and we show our hands, all those probabilities are of no more use, but that's only after the cards are dealt.<br /><br />Since there seems to be some confusion over what I was saying, I'll try to clarify again. As you say, Rob, when trying to find something good, if all we know is that A is more popular than B, we maximize the probability of finding something good by choosing A. If based only on this information we liked/hated A, we'd be maximizing our probability of liking/hating something good. Since I think it's better to like something good than to hate it, liking A based on that information maximizes the chance of the better outcome while hating A minimizes that chance. Therefore, liking something because it's popular is better than hating something because it's popular.<br /><br />And could you point out where I said, "One million XKCD(/Halo) fantards can't be wrong"? What I was saying wasI was Anon 6:28 and 4:44. If you want me to say it, the closest I'll come is to say that one million fantards can't be completely and utterly wrong and there must be something likeable in XKCD(/Halo). I haven't played Halo, but, for xkcd, I'd say it's the shadow of its former glory.Way Walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-46268929781266365042009-06-16T20:38:44.207-07:002009-06-16T20:38:44.207-07:00Damn straight, Poore.
It is vaguely true that man...Damn straight, Poore.<br /><br />It is vaguely true that many things are popular because they are good. And, if I were forced to randomly pick one thing that I thought would be good, I would probably choose something that was fairly popular, rather than something from the bargain bin.<br /><br />Unfortunately for our anonymous 'friend,' you can't use this knowledge to say "Well, there's a pretty good chance a popular thing is good" to make any sort of meaningful claim, especially after you've perused it. If everyone thinks Twilight is the best movie ever and you go to watch it and think it's shit, your friend saying "Well, it's really popular, so it's PRETTY LIKELY it's good!" means nothing. You've seen it. You already know that it is not good.<br /><br />Anonysux is basically just saying "one million XKCD(/Halo?) fantards can't be wrong." He is wrong in saying this.<br /><br />Next?rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54268845937280283562009-06-16T20:13:06.371-07:002009-06-16T20:13:06.371-07:00@Amanda:
Years of practice.
:D@Amanda:<br /><br />Years of practice.<br /><br />:DDavid Poorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10173847419796847573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-55639033175350628772009-06-16T19:54:16.373-07:002009-06-16T19:54:16.373-07:00@Anonymous:
True, but constant fanboyism ensures ...@Anonymous:<br /><br />True, but constant fanboyism ensures that nothing BUT the Macarena ever gets produced. It's the innovators that push the boundaries of media forward, and create new modes of expression, even within a particular media form.<br /><br />And how do these innovations occur? Through critical examination, whether from a third-party or self-imposed. The Beatles made plenty of fun music, but as they examined themselves and their music, they pushed the boundaries of what was possible and revolutionized music as we know it, especially with "Abbey Road" and "Sgt. Pepper". Imagine if they had said, "Okay, our music is fun and peppy. We're done here. Let's do it over and over again without trying anything new". Here's a hint: people wouldn't call them the greatest band of all time, and the world of rock/pop music would be very, very different. Hell, even the Beach Boys did this with "Pet Sounds". <br /><br />By constantly producing tripe and reusing formulaic, uninteresting formats for his comics, Randall has put aside his possibility of becoming the Beatles, a lasting force of innovation, to become the Jonas Bothers, a cliche pile of self-indulgent shit.<br /><br />Also, I guarantee you I can find more non-platinum songs that you'll enjoy than platinum songs. Case in point: pretty much every piece of classical music ever written. And most film scores. The highest "They Might Be Giants" have ever been on the charts is 14, and they are fucking incredible, from musical, lyrical, and production standpoints.<br /><br />Look here, you sycophantic son of a bitch - I don't hate things that are popular. I hate apologists who believe that everything that is popular is above criticism or can't be improved on. I hate YOU, you cowardly, anonymous motherfucker, with your flawed ideals of a stagnant world where popular things can never be improved, where the will of the masses is more importatnt than artistic integrity, innovation, and originality. Go get some four-bar blues and shove it up your whiny, conformist ass, you cocksucking piece of shit.<br /><br /></rant>David Poorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10173847419796847573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-62193685342252683262009-06-15T16:47:40.830-07:002009-06-15T16:47:40.830-07:00xkcd isn't a song.xkcd isn't a song.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-90468496637631216842009-06-15T16:44:56.629-07:002009-06-15T16:44:56.629-07:00format: I'm the 6:28 Anon and, well, I'm n...format: I'm the 6:28 Anon and, well, I'm not really sure where I said or defended the idea that people here hate or should hate xkcd because of its popularity. I was just arguing that "liking something because it's popular" isn't as bad as "hating something because it's popular". So, in reality, it'd be easier to twist it into "you should like xkcd because it's popular" than mistaking it as saying "you shouldn't hate xkcd because it's popular", but, of course, both of those miss the point.<br /><br />The_P: I never said that popularity or price was the same thing as value or worth. I said that the more popular or more expensive item is more likely to have more value or worth. It's a probabilistic game. A handful of examples doesn't prove what I was saying wrong, it only reinforces the probabilistic aspect.<br /><br />Let's say that we take a list of every song that's gone platinum (sold more than 2 million copies) and another list with every song that hasn't. Which list will have a higher percentage of good songs? My money's on the list of platinums.<br /><br />Or, here's an idea that's a little more feasible, but based on price instead of popularity. Consider all the cars from a certain class (e.g. mid-size sedan, or whatever) in a certain model year. If we were to plot various quality metrics, my guess is that quality would generally increase with price, but I haven't actually done this.<br /><br />And why hate the Macarena, anyway? I won't argue that it's a finely-crafted masterpiece, but I'm reminded of the scene in Mr. Holland's Opus where he says:<br /><br /> These fellas have absolutely no harmonic sense. They can't sing, the lead singer is yelling. They're playing<br />the same boring three chords over and over and over. The recording sucks. The lyrics are awful when you can understand them, if you can hear them. This song is about a decibel away from being noise. But we love it. I love it!<br /><br />Yeah, the Macarena is fun, and that's merit enough. Honestly, it's no slight against the piece to say that's it's neither finely-crafted nor interesting, just as it's no slight to point out that Jeeps aren't particularly fast and muscle cars won't do well off road.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21951647228759326762009-06-15T04:25:34.659-07:002009-06-15T04:25:34.659-07:00She's talking about pulling something off of w...She's talking about pulling something off of what looks like a pair of cherries and arc welding it back. (hence...the drop your pants statement)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-44268239738208650782009-06-15T04:22:38.522-07:002009-06-15T04:22:38.522-07:00Rob thank you for being intelligent. I do not than...Rob <a href="http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2009/06/comic-595-do-androids-sleep-with.html?showComment=1245023290117#c7125316607141293417" rel="nofollow">thank you for being intelligent</a>. I do not thank people for that enough.<br /><br />And Amanda, no matter! Your posts are well thought out and that's what counts.Rehoboamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-67098138858447285112009-06-14T23:09:01.229-07:002009-06-14T23:09:01.229-07:00Rehoboam: I think your bolded and italicized word...Rehoboam: I think your bolded and italicized words make your post far more effective than mine!<br /><br />Yuk Yuk and Rehoboam: omfg<br /><br />poore how can you drink so much I haven't even been able to successfully get myself drunk yet. I am not sure if I should admire you or... well okay I just admire you, is that okay (i don't admire you only because you drink, your posts have just been the best damn thing I have read today other than the dinner menu)Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192581573588205095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-16336481752493126552009-06-14T19:03:28.553-07:002009-06-14T19:03:28.553-07:00The "Macarena" sold 11 million copies. D...The "Macarena" sold 11 million copies. Does that make it a finely-crafted, interesting piece of music? No. Popularity means accessibility, advertisement, and being tailored to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I'm not saying that things can't be popular AND good. Far from it. What I'm saying is that accepting popularity as the primary metric for quality is pretty ignorant, and will result in people missing out on the "unpopular", less wll-known artists in all fields of media.<br /><br />There are plenty of things that are popular that I like, but I don't like them just because they're popular. Similarly, there are plenty of popular things that I hate, but not just because they are popular. Please don't reduce my judgement that based on my own personal evaluation of hundreds of Randall's comics to something so simple as "you meanines just hate popular things", you condescending jackass.<br /><br />Also, the best Cuban sandwich I've ever had I bought for 4 dollars from an old Cuban guy in a run-down old gas station. The best concert I ever saw only cost me 18 bucks. It's fairly superficial to believe that "price" is the same thing as "value". "Price" is an economic concept and is contolled by the market. It can be artificially inflated. "Value" is a personal, judgement-based evaluation system that has nothing to do with the spending patterns of others.David Poorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10173847419796847573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-46442131287794005812009-06-14T19:03:13.602-07:002009-06-14T19:03:13.602-07:00The thing is, few people hate things just because ...The thing is, few people hate things just because they are popular. Popularity merely amplifies hatred--and that is entirely legitimate.<br /><br />If, for instance, I make a mediocre webcomic, and you think it sucks, you're not likely to waste your time talking about it or thinking about it. You'll probably just move on to another comic and forget about it.<br /><br />But if I make a mediocre webcomic and I am propelled to fame and stardom because of it, and you see its mediocrity everywhere, you're probably not just going to continue thinking "meh, whatever" and move on. Indeed, you'll start to hate it, not just for its popularity, but because that popularity is undeserved, because it is everywhere, and because its fans all appear to be deranged. Sometimes you hate it because even normal people you know have become rabid fans. It's never just "Oh, they're popular, therefore I hate it."<br /><br />Almost anything which is disliked for its popularity is a backlash phenomenon--people don't think it should be this popular, for whatever reason, or possibly people hate its fans, or etc. It is never just "it is popular, and therefore I dislike it."rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-50258677724167441092009-06-14T19:00:46.563-07:002009-06-14T19:00:46.563-07:00@6:28 Anon
no one here hates xkcd because it is po...@6:28 Anon<br />no one here hates xkcd because it is popular. <br /><br />I hate xkcd because it could be so much better but it instead panders to the worst possible audience to pander too and more often then not tries to push a very creepy (to me) attitude towards sex and women in general to it's readers. And when it isnt doing that the comic is just lazy, listing references and passing off terrible and contrived dialogue as a funny joke.formatnoreply@blogger.com