Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on November 08, 2010, 10:25:40 am

Title: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MP-Ryan on November 08, 2010, 10:25:40 am
It may well apply to HLP General Discussion =P

http://xkcd.com/810/
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: headdie on November 08, 2010, 10:29:23 am
 :yes:
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on November 08, 2010, 10:31:00 am
xkcd rocks
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 08, 2010, 10:31:33 am
xkcd sucks (http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/)

go read nedroid and dresden codak

(that said i actually rather liked that one, it wasn't chart humor or another ONE OF US circlejerk)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Topgun on November 08, 2010, 10:35:31 am
xkcd sucks (http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/)

false
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: X3N0-Life-Form on November 08, 2010, 10:42:08 am
Quote
It's been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was)

sad, but true. I wouldn't say it actually sucks though. Whatever, I keep checking it, just in case.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 08, 2010, 10:42:47 am
Yeah me too. I don't actually care enough to do more than troll on the subject, but it has definitely gone way downhill from its brief peak.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MR_T3D on November 08, 2010, 11:02:08 am
I look at it and chuckle or smirk, and its simple, so I see no problem with it.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Polpolion on November 08, 2010, 06:59:33 pm
While on the other hand, this (http://www.supermegacomics.com/index.php?i=332) webcomic illustrates HLP IRC's antics fairly well.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Dilmah G on November 08, 2010, 08:29:37 pm
Ah, Bearstrikes showed me that one the other day. Coincidentally, half a dozen of us talked about how **** xkcd had gotten as well yesterday.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Bearstrike on November 08, 2010, 08:45:24 pm
Ah, Bearstrikes showed me that one the other day. Coincidentally, half a dozen of us talked about how **** xkcd had gotten as well yesterday.

Indeed.  Shame, It was once insightful, now it's just trying too hard.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 08, 2010, 09:08:14 pm
Pretty much that.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 08, 2010, 09:30:00 pm
Meh, I've read through the entire archive a few times now, and I still get decent chuckles from the newer strips.  Maybe not quite so many as from a few years ago, but there have been some recent gems too.  That "xkcd sucks" guy needs to find something far more productive to do with his time.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Dilmah G on November 08, 2010, 09:36:39 pm
I have to agree with you there. I cannot believe someone would take the time out to write all that just because they don't like the webcomic. :P
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 08, 2010, 09:57:59 pm
It's a bunch of people, actually, and there's very little more satisfying than sitting around in a huddle and discussing how tragically good things have gone bad. Witness the endless amusement inherent in discussing hypothetical Matrix sequels!

Or, more personally, nothing in recent history has pleased me more than posting my crushing reviews of Halo Reach over on halo.bungie.org. Ah, the tears, the drama.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Dilmah G on November 08, 2010, 10:16:37 pm
Yeah, but looking at it in a broader sense, apart from releasing pent up steam and frustration, and perhaps acting as a source of amusement as people take sides, Bungie aren't going to do a re-release of Halo:Reach - The Battuta's Cut because of it. :P Though they may incorporate some of the more productive criticisms in whatever they decide to do next.

Reading your NPC piece now though; there are some good ideas in there.

I digress.

xkcd -> downhill.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 08, 2010, 10:22:47 pm
In point of fact Bungie (well, ex-Bungie, now 343) personnel on the forum opened up about content of upcoming novel lines, which was personally illuminating for me.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Bearstrike on November 08, 2010, 11:22:38 pm
Or, more personally, nothing in recent history has pleased me more than posting my crushing reviews of Halo Reach over on halo.bungie.org. Ah, the tears, the drama.

Link?  I want to savor the delicious fanboy tears  :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 09, 2010, 12:31:39 am
I have nothing at all against critical reviews of a particular item or work, but going out of one's way to post daily blog updates breaking down why each and every new strip supposedly sucks feels way beyond excessive.  I mean, for ****'s sake, it's a few-panel stick-figure webcomic we're talking about here. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 12:38:17 am
A cultural touchstone read by thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds?) as well. Any good art form should have critics; webcomics are no exception.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 09, 2010, 05:03:11 am
Yes but when you go to the same webcomic 3 times a week and then complain about how bad it is, it's not cause you are a critic. It's cause you are a wanker. And a masochistic wanker at that!
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 09, 2010, 10:34:10 am
Yes but when you go to the same webcomic 3 times a week and then complain about how bad it is, it's not cause you are a critic. It's cause you are a wanker. And a masochistic wanker at that!

This.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 10:35:25 am
Or because you get more genuine laughs and pleasure out of dissecting how bad it is than out of the content itself. It's like having five minutes of The Matrix Revolutions come out every week!
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 09, 2010, 10:41:05 am
 :doubt:  Sounds like a thin excuse to be a public jackass, to me.  But I guess I should expect no better.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 10:41:35 am
Really? You've never enjoyed something like Mystery Science Theater 3000, where all they do is make fun of bad stuff?
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: SpardaSon21 on November 09, 2010, 10:54:38 am
MST3K doesn't have a blog devoted to ripping a single webcomic to shreds.  Focusing on just a single webcomic is petty in the grand scheme of things that need being dissected.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 09, 2010, 10:56:54 am
MST3K teared down "movies" that really were that abominably bad.  This is XKCD.  Even on its worst days, I at least get a mild snort of amusement.  You are comparing XKCD (or at least the last few months / years of it) to The Matrix - Revolutions.  Come on.  Really.  There are plenty of worthy targets of all that bile and venom.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 10:59:14 am
Ah, but there's actually a whole network of (webcomic)sucks! For example, Questionable Content gets savaged pretty regularly.

noobs gotta go read dresden codak and nedroids and DINOSAUR COMICS

MST3K teared down "movies" that really were that abominably bad.  This is XKCD.  Even on its worst days, I at least get a mild snort of amusement.  You are comparing XKCD (or at least the last few months / years of it) to The Matrix - Revolutions.  Come on.  Really.  There are plenty of worthy targets of all that bile and venom.

I don't care enough to have any bile and venom; I'm not really attached to the issue either way except as a conversation starter. But after four years of college I got to experience the pleasure of casually - casually, mind! - dismantling love for XKCD and turning it into disdain. They all came out Stronger (Wo)Men, better prepared to handle the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with sneering, sanctimonious contempt!

webcomic tastes differ in internet shocker! heated opinions expressed!

It does have a pretty good one now and again.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 09, 2010, 11:03:39 am
It took you less than 3 minutes to come up with a rebuttal.  I find the "I don't really care" line 1) unconvincing and 2) disingenuous.  If you don't care, why are you even talking about it?  Are you just that pathologically bored?
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 11:05:18 am
Because it's fun to discuss things? XKCD is something a subset of people are very into, like Twilight or Call of Duty. Having opinions on the product isn't hard. It doesn't mean that everyone with an opinion on the topic defines their existence by it.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Darius on November 09, 2010, 11:11:53 am
If you recommend Nedroid, you also must include Dr McNinja (http://drmcninja.com). They have very similar styles of humour  :lol:
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 11:20:18 am
Bear in mind that I do think the xkcdsucks blog is kind of overboard, although I totally get the motive to point out that XKCD basically runs on groupthink. But I agree with its general principle! And counterculture is the LIFE OF AMERICA
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: CP5670 on November 09, 2010, 03:52:43 pm
xkcd is decent. I don't follow it regularly but check it once in a while. This one (http://www.xkcd.com/804/) gave me a chuckle, even if it probably only makes sense to mathematicians. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 09, 2010, 04:21:51 pm
MST3K teared down "movies" that really were that abominably bad.  This is XKCD.  Even on its worst days, I at least get a mild snort of amusement.  You are comparing XKCD (or at least the last few months / years of it) to The Matrix - Revolutions.  Come on.  Really.  There are plenty of worthy targets of all that bile and venom.

See, you're trying to come up with grades of badness. While arguably such things exist...oh **** that, who am I kidding, I cohabit with all kinds of atrocities on ff.net.

The point is, screwups are screwups. Magnitude varies but they're still screwups and deserve to be commented on. When they are created in a public venue, such as a webcomic, any attempt to deflect criticism of them is stupid at best. If you create public works then you must expect and be prepared for public criticism. It is the nature of the world.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 09, 2010, 04:26:32 pm
As long as Randall keeps creating the occasional bit of magic like this (http://www.xkcd.com/802/), I'll remain sold.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 09, 2010, 06:23:16 pm
The point is, screwups are screwups. Magnitude varies but they're still screwups and deserve to be commented on. When they are created in a public venue, such as a webcomic, any attempt to deflect criticism of them is stupid at best. If you create public works then you must expect and be prepared for public criticism. It is the nature of the world.

Which is why we're allowed to call the creator of XKCDSucks a pathetic wanker. :p

Quote
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2010/10/comic-810-reddit.html

And a pathetic wanker who doesn't understand the concept of humour judging from that review. Could you imagine this guy posting 40 years ago?


Quote from: JohnCleeseTalentlessHack.blogspot.com/1969/12/Sketch-Dead-Parrot
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse we were treated to this example. Did Cleese really think we'd buy this bull****? What shopkeeper could possibly stay open with such poor customer service? Doesn't Cleese understand that there are all kinds of laws designed to protect the consumer from this kind of fraud? Why wouldn't he simply call up trading standards? Or at least mention them instead of going on about a rant about how the parrot is in fact dead.......

Sometimes I'm really glad the internet wasn't around earlier. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 06:30:23 pm
There are multiple posters there. I think his FAQ is actually pretty good too, check it out.

I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Bearstrike on November 09, 2010, 06:40:11 pm
I've always wondered, what was it that made the Matrix 2 and 3 so amazingly bad that it seems the world universally hates them?  I was kinda young to understand all the hate when it came out and I havn't seen it since (but seen the first one multiple times since, that is gold.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 09, 2010, 07:04:13 pm
I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), you'd be all over him.

No. I think he's pathetic for the reasons I parodied him above. It's not simply that he's picked subject matter I happen to like.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 07:05:06 pm
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?), but I agree with a lot of his other general points.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 09, 2010, 07:22:36 pm
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 09, 2010, 07:29:13 pm
But again, you're trying to compare the lengthy dissection of a full-length novel versus that of a ten-second three-panel joke.  Surely you'll agree that there's a massive difference of depth/scale there.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 09, 2010, 07:30:21 pm
Well I think XKCD is about as fluffy as (and only slightly less of a phenomenon than) Twilight, and we're happy to watch that get ripped apart page by page for it's hilarious failings. All's fair in love and war and mocking things on the Internet!

Personally, when something hits a critical mass of being recognized and cited, I like to have a countervailing opinion on it so I can dissect it, look smart, and get babes. (And semikidding aside, I really do think it's fairly weak, I'm just not all that passionate about it either way.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 09, 2010, 07:35:50 pm
But again, you're trying to compare the lengthy dissection of a full-length novel versus that of a ten-second three-panel joke.  Surely you'll agree that there's a massive difference of depth/scale there.

Considering the novel(s) and writers in question and that it's done in one-scene-or-less chunks, no, not really. The Slacktivites have been known to create stick figure comics to illustrate Fred's points or the basic impossiblities of behavior from the novel that aren't much more involved than XKCD. (Really, they're fun people if they'll just stay on-topic.)

Actually, I'd argue XKCD is much deeper than the average material evaluated in a Left Behind Monday; most of the reason you get good mileage out of LB and LB The Movie and Tribulation Force is because you can learn a lot by its sheer incompetence on every level rather than any sort of depth of story or plot.

(And for the record, I still like XKCD, I'm merely speaking as someone with long experience with various forms of criticism.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 09, 2010, 07:42:05 pm
I think all this conversation is doing is reminding me of why I loathe criticism in a professional-esque sense. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 09, 2010, 07:49:21 pm
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.

Dissection isn't the issue, it's what he decided to dissect. Many jokes revolve around the idea of something that is impractical but amusing to consider. To spend paragraphs analysing why it isn't practical is pointless. Both the author and the audience understand it isn't practical already. You're not actually exposing any new information with your dissection. It's not really a valid criticism of the work. You're simply showing that you don't understand how humour actually works.

And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: StarSlayer on November 09, 2010, 08:34:03 pm
It may well apply to HLP General Discussion =P

http://xkcd.com/810/

Thats treading down a dangerous path, see if you make spambots good productive members of the internet, they'll soon realize most of humanity are a bunch of dicks.  Then it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from...

(http://aardling.com/wp-content/uploads/battlestar-galactica-caprica-nuked_.jpg)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Qent on November 09, 2010, 09:10:48 pm
Or they'll start discussing the merits and shortcomings of xkcd. :nervous:
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Dilmah G on November 10, 2010, 02:55:35 am
And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.
I agree.

Quote
    . . . the plan outlined in #810 simply wouldn't work. The "constructive" nature of a particular comment is far too subjective, even for a person, to judge another poster by their appraisal of it. If you're only letting comments get posted that have received that sort of approval, then you're essentially letting the hoards of bots be your moderating team, an awful idea if there ever was one. (And as a one-time forum owner, I can promise you that bots are FAR more numerous than legitimate posters).

    So, we have three possible outcomes:
    1) Bots rate all comments as constructive. Posts continue through as though unmoderated, and significantly more spam makes it through than a captcha would allow.
    2) Bots rate all comments as not constructive. The board grinds to a halt as all comments, regardless of their quality, are discarded before making it to the message board.
    3) Bots rate roughly half of the comments as constructive, and half as not constructive. The rating system fails, as all comments receive roughly the same rating (the hundreds of bots outweigh the few real users and render their ratings essentially meaningless). Comments are either posted or blocked as a fluke, and enough spam gets through to make it worthwhile. Again, a captcha would be more effective.
This is just taking the piss. And whilst you're entitled to do that, as kara says, it just makes you a pathetic wanker.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 08:07:24 am
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.

Dissection isn't the issue, it's what he decided to dissect. Many jokes revolve around the idea of something that is impractical but amusing to consider. To spend paragraphs analysing why it isn't practical is pointless. Both the author and the audience understand it isn't practical already. You're not actually exposing any new information with your dissection. It's not really a valid criticism of the work. You're simply showing that you don't understand how humour actually works.

And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.

I agree that it was pointless but don't agree that this makes him a pathetic wanker. Again, you would probably find a dissection of the improbabilities of vampire biology in Twilight hilarious (I would; what geek wouldn't?) That's missing the point, because Twilight is about being unable to have sex with hot people while really wanting to. It still appeals to us, because we don't like it.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 10, 2010, 08:43:55 am
Yes but if Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the sites that spend all their time bashing her were to write a long rant about the quality of the paper it was published on, I'd call them on that too.

As I keep pointing out it is not the subject matter he has chosen to review with is influencing me. It is the fact that he obviously has decided he doesn't like the XKCD comic but yet keeps reviewing it, not in the hope that they will get better but in the hope that he can find something, anything, not matter how trivial or pointless to complain about that makes him a pathetic wanker.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 08:47:46 am
This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Which 'he'? There are more than one of them.

I dunno, I think he is/they are pretty reasonable sounding.

Quote
#1. "If xkcd sucks so much why do you read it? Just skip it you turd, some of us like intelligent comedy and if you are such a stupid idiot that you don't get the jokes just leave it alone."

Ah, a common misconception here. I do not hate xkcd because the jokes go over my lowly plebeian head, rather, I hate them because they are not funny. I get the joke (or rather, often what the joke is supposed to be) and I don't like it. Usually. Basically the answer is that is pains me to see lousy humor, and, like genocide, I simply cannot ignore it and have the problem go away. See Rob's Explanation for a much more logical, less offensive answer to this question (and one with which I entirely agree)

#2. "Why are you criticizing such a brilliant comic when you can't do better yourself? LAME."

Also a good question. But the fact is that few movie reviewers are movie makers, few theater critics are directors or actors, and few book reviewers are authors. In any case, there are times when I could do better myself, and have offered Helpful Critique. See here, here, here.

Rob has provided a good answer to this question, too: right here.

#3. "Why are you so mean spirited and evil? What are you hoping to accomplish?"

I am hoping to either get Randall Munroe to shape up and make better comics, admit that he's lost his touch and stop, or make enough fans see the light that they stop visiting and Randall Munroe drifts slowly into obscurity like a shriveled leaf in an ocean of forgotten love. I'd also be more than happy if he switched from comic to Picto-Blog.

In the short term, I'm trying to have fun, analyze humor, and be a bastion of enlightenment for those people who see xkcd for the washed up shadow of its former self that it is.

#4. "Dude it's supposed to be a comic about math and relationships and stuff. So why do you criticize it for doing just what it pretends to do?"

I understand that xkcd is in theory "a webcomic of sarcasm, math, romance and language", in some order. Those categories are perfectly broad enough for a lot of diverse humor. The problem is when it becomes a webcomic of "python references, ****ty breakups, memes and charts" which I think are a bit too specific and feel repetitive quickly.

I don't think I ever say "lame, another joke about computers," I tend to say, "oh lame, another joke about meshing the line between humans and computers, whoop de do."

#5. "Aren't you just jealous?"

No, I would be jealous of him if he wrote good comics. I am jealous of Ryan North, who writes Dinosaur Comics. Once more, see Rob's more thoughtful, detailed answer if you would like a longer explanation.

#6. "Why are you picking on xkcd? Aren't there like ten thousand ****ty webcomics out there?"

Yes, there are, but few seem to have the popularity of xkcd. I could always find stupid things to critique, but for the most part, I wouldn't feel like I had accomplished anything (HEY GUYS THE SIMPSONS KINDA SUCKS NOW just thought you should know ok cool we all agree great). It is not so much how much xkcd sucks as how overrated it is - the blog was originally titled just "xkcd: overrated" though that has since been changed to the punchier "xkcd sucks." In short: No other comic seems to combine the same amount of popularity and crappiness. Most popular comics are good, and most bad comics every can agree are bad. XKCD manages to escape that, and I want to change that.

For a related discussion, see my essay here.

#7. "Why are you so freaking humorless?"

I dunno. Childhood accident? I am a Trained Humor Analyst and everyone else in the world seems to think that analyzing humor destroys it, so perhaps there is some answer there. I, of course, being an Trained Humor Analyst know that this silly idea is false. If you want to know what I think is funny, try the following webcomics -

Perry Bible Fellowship
Dinosaur Comics
Achewood
Chainsawsuit
Married To The Sea

#8. "Isn't the whole point of this blog stupid, because humor is entirely subjective?"

OK. here's how it works. Obviously, different things are funny to different people. We all have different experiences and can relate to different things. Person A might laugh at a really great joke about the French Revolution and person B will have no idea what the point is because he never learned about the French Revolution. Or something. Anyway the point is there are clearly some things that people don't think are funny. I'm not talking about terminal diseases, where someone like Cyanide and Happiness makes a joke about it and people go "NOT FUNNY." I'm talking about plain old boring things. A man eats an apple. A yardsale gets rained out. A waiter is particularly friendly. Basically no one (Rob excluded of course) would laugh at those, right? There is something about those situations that is less funny than, say, a funny situation on Arrested Development (or whatever you happen to think is funny).

So there has to be some element of humor that is objective. If you can't agree with that, you are not going to like this blog, and you should probably leave. I'm not trying to be a dick (well, no more than usual) but it's just that we are a community that tries to discuss humor and get at the heart of it, and as a prerequisite, we think there is actually something to find. I don't think it's unreasonable, but then again, I don't think any of my opinions are unreasonable.

#9. "How long to you plan to continue this infantile blog?"

Until it stops being fun.

#10. "Aren't you predisposed to hate every xkcd because you write a blog that relies on them sucking?"

This is a very good question and a point I worry about a lot. I try as best as I can to be openminded, and not just say "eh that sucks" with no particular reason. I read the forums to see how people predisposed to like the comic think, and I encourage people who think I'm totally wrong to comment and explain why, and I have been known to admit that certain comics are better than I give them credit for.

And now I've paid more attention to this website in the last two days than I have in the last two years! And of course the debate has introduced a need for social consistency which guarantees I will go on about how XKCD sucks at future social engagements. It's lovely how debates polarize people.  ;7
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 10, 2010, 08:52:19 am
So, in other words, we've been feeding a troll.  Good to know.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 08:53:38 am
So, in other words, we've been feeding a troll.  Good to know.

People who express opinions that disagree with you are trolls? That's a dangerous line to cross.

On an XKCD fansite, maybe. But this isn't one.

If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 10, 2010, 09:18:03 am
This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Evidently they're not the only people who need to have humour explained to them. :p

I've not bothered reading Twilight and probably never will so I made the point in a way that I had hoped was universal enough that it could be understood by everyone. Let me restate then.

If Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the site you mentioned STILL lambasted it, picking on trifling minutiae in lieu of the major flaws her books usually do have, then I would call the writer of that blog a pathetic wanker.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: perihelion on November 10, 2010, 09:19:06 am
But that's the whole point, Battuta.  It isn't criticism.  It's just ridicule.  Ridicule for its own sake.  Frequently, ridicule whilst deliberately missing the point of the work being ridiculed.

I do retract my troll comment, though.  That was out of line.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 09:47:40 am
This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Evidently they're not the only people who need to have humour explained to them. :p

I've not bothered reading Twilight and probably never will so I made the point in a way that I had hoped was universal enough that it could be understood by everyone. Let me restate then.

If Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the site you mentioned STILL lambasted it, picking on trifling minutiae in lieu of the major flaws her books usually do have, then I would call the writer of that blog a pathetic wanker.

I'm not sure I'd disagree that this blog probably goes overboard in its critiques at points, but I'm okay with that; I can shrug off its excesses because its value to me is as a wake-up call to reify all those vague senses of 'oh, that was a letdown' and 'huh this seems sophomoric/like it's trying too hard; what is wrong with this comic I insist on emailing to the dorm list every single week and making clever noises about at lunch?'. In a way it's compensation for the mechanisms XKCD deploys, like shotgunning concepts 'only nerds would get' to create a sense of inclusiveness and belonging and to conceal a lack of truly clever (see: Dresden Codak, Dinosaur Comics) 'geek humor'. Extremism one way, extremism the other, I'm happy to lean one way but not go all the way.

But that's the whole point, Battuta.  It isn't criticism.  It's just ridicule.  Ridicule for its own sake.  Frequently, ridicule whilst deliberately missing the point of the work being ridiculed.

I do retract my troll comment, though.  That was out of line.

The point of Twilight is to tell a veiled erotic story about contrained desire; the point of the Matrix sequels was to show some kind of weird kung fu Buddhist journey; the point of the Star Wars prequels was to show how the characters in the OT came to be, and to make buckets of cash. But that on its own, the ability to have a 'point' - in this case, to be funny - isn't proof from criticism. Criticism can miss the point and still hit home; criticism of Star Wars doesn't need to focus on its goal of showing the rise of Darth Vader, it can talk about how a fight scene makes no sense. Criticism slips into ridicule, sure, but as I said above, I'm okay with that; human cognition is such that the moment you hit opposition in an argument you immediately start scaling towards your chosen extrema, and everything escalates. It's almost inevitable.

Unless the ridicule's aimed at me. Then of course I'm going to say it's a horrible injustice!

And missing the point is something critics, fans, and viewers do all the time. We make fun of the robot suit fight scene in The Matrix Revolutions because it makes no sense. The 'point' is to have an awesome robot fight scene that is awesome, in the same way the point of an XKCD strip is to be funny, but that doesn't necessarily inoculate it against mockery regarding the terms used to accomplish that aim.

Ridicule only becomes offensive when you're attached to the object being ridiculed. When you're not, it's just schadenfreude. That's not always fair, and it can be hurtful to someone who is attached, but that's a middle ground that has to be negotiated.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 10:04:09 am
Ironically this debate is forcing me to reify an actual position on the issue of whether or not I like XKCD, which I never really had before except inasmuch as I liked being able to antagonize freshmen.

This jives nicely with this data set I'm analyzing about how firm political attitudes rarely exist in voters until they're forced to make a choice.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MP-Ryan on November 10, 2010, 12:16:32 pm
1.  Look, I happen to enjoy some of XKCDs jokes because I do find them genuinely funny.  In fact, two of them are decorating my cubicle at work.

2.  The POINT of humour is to be humourous, not be subjected to rigorous critical analysis.  Everyone enjoys humour differently.  I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it, and if you sit down and critique how unfunny it is to you, it just makes you appear like a gigantic douchebag.  Not talking to anyone in particular here, just the "generic" you.  It's like the person who dissects how bad a stand-up comic is but continues to watch it - if you don't like it, just leave/switch off the TV.  You'll note that critical analysis of satirical work does not revolve around how humourous it is, but rather around the literary devices, prose, and tone it uses that makes it humourous to some people.  The more successful and accessible the satire, the greater the audience - BUT, the audience does not establish its greatness as a satirical or literary work.

3.  As likely the only, or one of very few, people who has actually read all four Twilight novels (on HLP) from cover to cover, I look at the infantile comments people make about how bad it is and am reminded of a popular statement:  "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt."  Stephanie Meyer is not a literary genius, by any stretch, but it's not the worst popular fiction I've ever read by a long stretch.  It would seem that the majority of criticism is being leveled by people who never actually bothered to read the complete story... which I would file under "Ignorant" on the critical analysis continuum.

In short:  Just STOP already.  It's not often that GD actually raises my ire by a significant level, but the sheer inanity of this discussion is making my head-shaking rate increase to a level that might have a negative impact on my health.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 12:23:02 pm
1.  Look, I happen to enjoy some of XKCDs jokes because I do find them genuinely funny.  In fact, two of them are decorating my cubicle at work.

Me too. I like some of it.

Quote
2.  The POINT of humour is to be humourous, not be subjected to rigorous critical analysis.  Everyone enjoys humour differently.  I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it, and if you sit down and critique how unfunny it is to you, it just makes you appear like a gigantic douchebag.

I don't buy that. I think everybody agrees The Simpsons is less funny than it used to be. When this was still a divisive issue, sitting down and explaining why could have been illuminating, and maybe even helped reverse the decline. Simpsons critics have probably been accused of being gigantic douchebags, but in the end the consensus turned out to be in their favor.

I have never watched much TV so I have very little stake in the issue. But I did read io9's Futurama movie reviews, and they were another instance of analyzing humor and explaining where it sometimes failed.

Quote
3.  As likely the only, or one of very few, people who has actually read all four Twilight novels from cover to cover, I look at the infantile comments people make about how bad it is and am reminded of a popular statement:  "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt."  Stephanie Meyer is not a literary genius, by any stretch, but it's not the worst popular fiction I've ever read by a long stretch.  It would seem that the majority of criticism is being leveled by people who never actually bothered to read the complete story... which I would file under "Ignorant" on the critical analysis continuum.

But there's plenty of criticism on, for example, the gender dynamics of Twilight which is quite informed, quite thoroughly non-infantile and quite nuanced. I know someone who did a paper on the first book both criticizing its treatment of control and praising its willingness to depict active female sexuality. And I'm not sure that ties in to the debate over this blog as the man clearly does read XKCD.

Calling him a pointless wanker is maybe fair, but it stands at odds with the reactions many of us would have, to, for example, lists ripping apart the Star Wars prequels on both the macro and micro level. I think a lot of us would appreciate those, but someone not interested in Star Wars would probably see it as geek masturbation.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MP-Ryan on November 10, 2010, 12:37:08 pm
I don't buy that. I think everybody agrees The Simpsons is less funny than it used to be. When this was still a divisive issue, sitting down and explaining why could have been illuminating, and maybe even helped reverse the decline. Simpsons critics have probably been accused of being gigantic douchebags, but in the end the consensus turned out to be in their favor.

I have never watched much TV so I have very little stake in the issue. But I did read io9's Futurama movie reviews, and they were another instance of analyzing humor and explaining where it sometimes failed.

Critiquing humour is akin to explaining it - it removes the humourous element.  Considering that humour isn't even all that well understood (because it simultaneously relies on individual and collective consciousness), any critique is going to remove spontaneity.  Applying a critique to future revision causes it to become formulaic, and eventually it will reach a point where it is no longer entertaining.  It's an elusive beast, and retroactive critique accomplishes nothing OTHER than making the commentator (and anyone who agrees with him/her) smug.

Quote
But there's plenty of criticism on, for example, the gender dynamics of Twilight which is quite informed, quite thoroughly non-infantile and quite nuanced. I know someone who did a paper on the first book both criticizing its treatment of control and praising its willingness to depict active female sexuality.

I'm not disputing that there is a great deal of very valid critique on Ms. Meyer's work out there - I'm asserting that not much originating HERE is valid because people don't actually know what they're talking about, having not read the subject matter in question, and therefore relying on what everyone else says.

As an aside, it is my critical opinion that any critical analysis of the Twilight novels must be done based on the collective works; while literary analysis is possible on each individual book, the theme is prevalent (and modified) throughout the series and requires a holistic overview of all four books together.  [By way of example:  I think the second novel is crap, but the series of the whole is a reasonable attempt at entertaining fiction based on an alternative use of a common fictional entity to address a somewhat underdeveloped thesis on teenage emotional and psychological development].

Quote
And I'm not sure that ties in to the debate over this blog as the man clearly does read XKCD.  Calling him a pointless wanker is maybe fair, but it stands at odds with the reactions many of us would have, to, for example, lists ripping apart the Star Wars prequels on both the macro and micro level. I think a lot of us would appreciate those, but someone not interested in Star Wars would probably see it as geek masturbation.

You misunderstand me; I'm not referring to him as a pointless wanker alone.  I'm referring to anyone who spends so much time developing an inane and tiresome treatise, in excruciating detail, on why something is not funny to them as a general waste of bandwidth.  Satire as a device used in critique is fantastic, and literary critique of popular fiction or film is also quite valid; but there is a difference between dissecting populous works and nitpicking short humour to death.  Despite the fact that I find Will Ferrell's work to be tedious and distinctly unfunny, were a blogger to create a site dedicated to a non-satirical/amusing thrashing of his work I would have exactly the same opinion as I do here.  If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 12:40:56 pm
I can pretty reliably point to something that's funny and at least take a stab at why I think it is. Sure, it kills the joke, but when the question is why something's not funny the joke is already dead. You can't make it funny again, but you can establish rules to obey. And comedians do certainly have rules.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MP-Ryan on November 10, 2010, 12:49:23 pm
I can pretty reliably point to something that's funny and at least take a stab at why I think it is. Sure, it kills the joke, but when the question is why something's not funny the joke is already dead. You can't make it funny again, but you can establish rules to obey. And comedians do certainly have rules.

Yes, but they operate based on the public conscious perception that they do NOT have rules.  Discussing the rules of humour breaks the perception barrier, and renders the product formulaic, obvious, and generally not the slightest bit amusing.

Much like this discussion has effectively rendered the original cartoon into an object of debate instead of humour.

And now I'm going back to XKCD to try to forget this debacle of a thread.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 12:54:44 pm
Debacle? It's seemed perfectly civil to me.

Deconstructive debate of any object usually, well, deconstructs it. But if it's not achieving its goal for a given party what else are they supposed to do?

If someone posts a thread about a game that looks awesome and then someone else posts about how it doesn't look awesome/wasn't awesome/will not be awesome for reasons X, and untangles the game's stated aims, sure, it's going to steal the magic of the game's trailer or whatever content came up. But that's how discussion goes; it renders things objects of debate instead of [original intent]. How much utility you lose is tied to how much you were extracting in the first place. The world's biggest Jar Jar Binks fan is going to suffer a lot more when he stumbles onto the Internet than you or I would.

Also, click heah for something I enjoy. (http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-01-27-advanced_dungeons_and_discourse.jpg)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Topgun on November 10, 2010, 01:34:05 pm
Also, click heah for something I enjoy. (http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-01-27-advanced_dungeons_and_discourse.jpg)

See, I personally do not find that funny. I mean there was a few parts that were a little cute, but I probably only smirked a little.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 01:35:09 pm
Also, click heah for something I enjoy. (http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-01-27-advanced_dungeons_and_discourse.jpg)

See, I personally do not find that funny. I mean there was a few parts that were a little cute, but I probably only smirked a little.

webcomic tastes differ in internet SHOCKER
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 10, 2010, 03:47:00 pm
this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: redsniper on November 10, 2010, 03:51:05 pm
this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MR_T3D on November 10, 2010, 04:00:52 pm
this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 04:02:56 pm
u wanna fight

(http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/10/975eca2afc1fba410bc9c3639c8f2ef7/340x.gif)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 10, 2010, 04:54:49 pm
If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.

I was about to bring up this point myself.

I always hold comedians who decide to make fun of other comedians to a simple standard. You'd better be funnier than the person you're taking the mickey out of or it would be a better use of my time to simply ignore you and watch the other guy.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 04:57:34 pm
If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.

I was about to bring up this point myself.

I always hold comedians who decide to make fun of other comedians to a simple standard. You'd better be funnier than the person you're taking the mickey out of or it would be a better use of my time to simply ignore you and watch the other guy.

But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

(there is a great comeback here)

Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site, so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: The E on November 10, 2010, 04:59:38 pm
Which makes metahumour very, very hard.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: redsniper on November 10, 2010, 05:06:49 pm
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

(there is a great comeback here)
I'm sure this isn't what you meant but...

Oh yeah, well your face is subjective!









:p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 10, 2010, 05:45:58 pm
Oh yeah, well your face is subjective!

Only when it's not an image!
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 10, 2010, 08:27:29 pm
If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.
But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change? :p

And man, not only do I get only about half of the references in that strip you linked, but its physical layout is absolutely atrocious.  That artist seriously needs to take some sort of sequential art class.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 08:33:32 pm
If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.
But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change? :p

Are you saying people...have different...opinions!?

Spock! I need! Answers!

Quote
And man, not only do I get only about half of the references in that strip you linked, but its physical layout is absolutely atrocious.  That artist seriously needs to take some sort of sequential art class.

Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.

It actually reminds me of Mack's Kabuki in that respect. People go 'i r confused' but then it clicks and they're like 'oh!'

I have my problems with DC, actually I feel in some respects it's dwindled with time, but it's a cut above most, and it doesn't pander to its audience.

Of course I understand that by linking it I diminished the chance you would ever genuinely enjoy it on its own merits. Context can get people to react very differently to something than they might coming in neutral.

In short:  Just STOP already.  It's not often that GD actually raises my ire by a significant level, but the sheer inanity of this discussion is making my head-shaking rate increase to a level that might have a negative impact on my health.

Your posts keep getting edited. I did not see this until now. I don't have these same kind of strong feelings in this case; this doesn't feel to me categorically different than discussing the quality of a TV show or whatnot!

Arguments that it's a disposable bit of fluff humor walk into all the endless worship of the undergraduate masses.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: pecenipicek on November 10, 2010, 08:49:56 pm
Ah, HLP, where telling someone "**** off ya git! I is RIGHT AN YOU IS NOT AND THATS THE END OF IT!" is often understood as a mating call, heralding the arrival of many, many interesting species of the common internet brainy guy.















Spoiler:
ah ****e, who am i kidding, we're all comedians inside. love seeing the arguments and counterarguments. As for the main topic, well, the comic was sorta funny, but i never really got into xkcd a lot, so nnnnnyeah... carry on then
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Mongoose on November 10, 2010, 09:06:02 pm
Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.
I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence.  I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right.  At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing. :p Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.

(And yes, I'm aware that there was sort of an inherent bias in me reading it in the context of this conversation, but I do know that I wouldn't have understood several of the references regardless.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 09:12:06 pm
Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.
I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence.  I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right.

Yes! Yes!

Quote
At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing. :p

No, no! You make Judith Butler sad! Information is stored in the form, form becomes content, the effort of pursuit can be leveraged to force the viewer to think about what they are seeing! Causality can be challenged!

Quote
Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.

(And yes, I'm aware that there was sort of an inherent bias in me reading it in the context of this conversation, but I do know that I wouldn't have understood several of the references regardless.)

It is dense. The density is part of why it is so permissible to repeat reads. But then you have Nedroid, which makes no demands past that of absurdism!

(http://nedroid.com/comics/2010-11-09-beartato-movingwalkway.png)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 09:14:38 pm
Also, the dispositional error was you assuming that the author was flawed because the layout of the content was flawed. Dispositional errors involve misattributing situational problems as diagnostic of personal problems! (One might of course argue that this is a necessity when analyzing content, but it has to hold as a trend, I think, to be excepted.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 10, 2010, 10:53:05 pm
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

Yes, but they are trying to claim you can objectively grade it in their FAQ. So they're wrong?
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 10:58:42 pm
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

Yes, but they are trying to claim you can objectively grade it in their FAQ. So they're wrong?


(there is a great comeback here)

(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/you-just-activated-my-trap-card.jpg)

JUST AS I FORESAW

I think I've made my stance on xkcdsucks.com clear by now.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: redsniper on November 10, 2010, 11:09:43 pm
TRAP CARD ZOMG
wait what

I don't understand this post. Were you a double agent? You think they're both bad? Different people have different opinions? (No, it can't be true!)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 10, 2010, 11:18:17 pm
No, I just totally knew someone was going to bring up that entry in the FAQ as soon as I made the 'humor is subjective' crack.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: Thaeris on November 10, 2010, 11:19:06 pm
(http://public.bay.livefilestore.com/y1p6DCCIEMdafMHJg6H0BLSr2F0Ko7rTY79fLRz9iFz8YlSabDMzR7U_ikbu8x6lowG1sH9YahpSAjT10C85_RioQ/GreatestPostEver.JPG?psid=1)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 02:31:31 am
(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/you-just-activated-my-trap-card.jpg)

JUST AS I FORESAW

So you foresaw your entire argument was flawed and decided to make it anyway?

What was I supposed to do, not call you on the fact that you made no sense? :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 11:22:39 am
No, you just missed the point.

Quote
I think I've made my stance on xkcdsucks.com clear by now.

You can read back if you're interested.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: MR_T3D on November 11, 2010, 12:55:17 pm
No, you just missed the point.

Quote
I think I've made my stance on xkcdsucks.com clear by now.

You can read back if you're interested.
you mean this:
Quote
Personally, when something hits a critical mass of being recognized and cited, I like to have a countervailing opinion on it so I can dissect it, look smart, and get babes. (And semikidding aside, I really do think it's fairly weak, I'm just not all that passionate about it either way.)
understandable, coo, but in my experience, guys like that get less babes than I.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 12:57:16 pm
Ah look, a cleverly veiled personal attack! Unfortunately the mighty Battuta is so successful in all domains of life that the armor of his ego cannot be breached.

I actually bet that you and almost everyone you know feels the same way about something, whether it's Twilight, some tween card game, Avatar, or some other bit of dubious cultural desiderata.

And unfortunately for you, MEIN TEDLING, what I meant was this:

Quote
Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site (referencing the fact that it's probably taken things a bit too far), so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.

by 'great' i think we can safely read 'inflammatory'
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 11, 2010, 01:34:39 pm

I actually bet that you and almost everyone you know feels the same way about something, whether it's Twilight, some tween card game, Avatar, or some other bit of dubious cultural desiderata.

Yes, but it takes a special kind of No Life to dedicate one's time and energy to a blog about it.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 01:35:19 pm

I actually bet that you and almost everyone you know feels the same way about something, whether it's Twilight, some tween card game, Avatar, or some other bit of dubious cultural desiderata.

Yes, but it takes a special kind of No Life to dedicate one's time and energy to a blog about it.

A stance which is addressed in my last post.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 03:45:10 pm
Yes, but it takes a special kind of No Life to dedicate one's time and energy to a blog about it.

So basically, you can't spare one, possibly two hours a day on a leisure activity, without being accused of "no life"?

Damn. I guess all that FS or reading or using the hexbox that nearly every living American does means they have no life.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 11, 2010, 04:10:54 pm
If your leisure activity is going out of your way to find something wrong with a particular webcomic strip, then you have problems. His criticisms aren't even funny, they're mostly really boring. There are few hobbies more retarded than this guy's.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 04:13:21 pm
So, again, it's a whole bunch of guys/girls, like a community.

Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 04:14:06 pm
If your leisure activity is going out of your way to find something wrong with a particular webcomic strip, then you have problems.

Ah, I see the issue here. You're scared of people who like to do things requiring above-average intelligence for leisure. Like analysis.

Nerd hate is the last respectable prejudice, etc. (Word of warning, this is the internet.)
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 11, 2010, 04:29:34 pm
Analysis? He bends over backwards to find something to criticize. People like that are annoying and wastes of space.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 04:37:37 pm
Yeah I agree some of them often go overboard (why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community), but that doesn't mean they're wrong, just that they go too far.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 11, 2010, 04:50:28 pm
I didn't say they were wrong. I said they were wastes of space.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 04:55:07 pm
Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.

I've told people off for going too far when having a go at Derek Smart.

So not only are you wrong, I've got proof you're talking bollocks. :p

So basically, you can't spare one, possibly two hours a day on a leisure activity, without being accused of "no life"?

Trainspotting automatically qualifies you as having no life. This is in the same category. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 04:59:34 pm
Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.

I've told people off for going too far when having a go at Derek Smart.

So not only are you wrong, I've got proof you're talking bollocks. :p

I've done so myself. But I doubt you've written any angry letters to the numerous Internet diaries of Derek Smart's hilarities. They're not close enough for you to care!
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 05:03:05 pm
You successfully refute your first comment with your second one. Well done sir!

EDIT: That was for Karaj.

Basically, if you want to slag off analysis for fun, you're an even bigger wanker than he is. :P
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 05:08:21 pm
I'm not slagging off analysis for fun. I'm saying if you go past the point where you're actually performing any analysis of the matter and simply bashing it, regardless of the quality, then you are a wanker.

I've done so myself. But I doubt you've written any angry letters to the numerous Internet diaries of Derek Smart's hilarities. They're not close enough for you to care!

You have repeatedly claimed I would be willing to accept excessive criticism if I didn't like the subject matter. I've proved you wrong. Are you now claiming I have to write angry letters to prove I don't like something? :confused:
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 05:14:38 pm
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 05:26:02 pm
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

That's a rather pointless argument though. I could similarly claim that you wouldn't have posted the XKCDSucks site if you didn't care about XKCD or XKCDSucks. I can point out we wouldn't be on the 6th page of this topic if you didn't care, you would have simply accepted the comment that they were wankers and moved on.

Quote
And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.

Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.


See, I can claim bias too. :p
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 05:33:23 pm
Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.

See, I can claim bias too. :p

I don't!

WHERE IS YOUR BIAS NOW.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 05:40:08 pm
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

That's a rather pointless argument though. I could similarly claim that you wouldn't have posted the XKCDSucks site if you didn't care about XKCD or XKCDSucks. I can point out we wouldn't be on the 6th page of this topic if you didn't care, you would have simply accepted the comment that they were wankers and moved on.

I did accept the comment; made it clear I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. You can read back a few pages and find it. It kept getting pressed for some reason. Unclear on why.

Quote
Quote
And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.

Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.


See, I can claim bias too. :p

No, I like myself, and my participation in this argument is about my personal merits. As I said above in the 'pointless argument', there are at least two axes on the coordinate plane, and while I may have an opinion on the topic (valence) I don't particularly give a **** about either XKCD or its detractors (amplitude.)

'Claim bias', what a bizarre notion. It's like 'claiming language'. It's always present.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 05:45:28 pm
I did accept the comment; made it clear I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. You can read back a few pages and find it. It kept getting pressed for some reason. Unclear on why.

Because you have repeatedly claimed that whether someone likes a site or not has relevance to this discussion. It really doesn't and now you seem to be finally claiming that. If you want to try to claim we must argue this matter without bringing up your attachment to the site you should afford me the same courtesy and avoid continually claiming that I would be of your opinion about a subject I didn't like or didn't care about. 

'Claim bias', what a bizarre notion. It's like 'claiming language'. It's always present.

Which is why I have an issue with you saying I have it.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 05:51:46 pm
Quote
Because you have repeatedly claimed that whether someone likes a site or not has relevance to this discussion. It really doesn't and now you seem to be finally claiming that. If you want to try to claim we must argue this matter without bringing up your attachment to the site you should afford me the same courtesy and avoid continually claiming that I would be of your opinion about a subject I didn't like or didn't care about.  

I'll repost again:

Quote
Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site (referencing the fact that it's probably taken things a bit too far), so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.

Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about. I like when people go to ad homs to undercut arguments, though; it evinces a willingness to get upset about a topic!

Quote
Which is why I have an issue with you saying I have it.

You probably wouldn't have taken that issue if you'd spent another minute to consider the metaphor it followed from. Bias is omnipresent, language is omnipresent. This doesn't mean language is irrelevant, can't be dissected, studied, categorized, used to explain behavioral traits. Similarly, framing, bias, all sorts of heuristics will impact the way a discussion goes.

The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Attribution is probably not going to be helpful to the discussion, so avoiding 'I' and 'you' might be a decent tact; it's a shortcut to getting yourself offended.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: iamzack on November 11, 2010, 05:58:58 pm
Oh god, the argument is now about the dumbest serious argument on HLP. METARETARDATION, NOOOOOO
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 06:00:14 pm
Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.

Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.


As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 06:03:36 pm
Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.

Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.

As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.

Really? I don't think those are claims I've tried to make, at least on my side of the perception gap.

The second claim in particular I'd never make, though I can see how you'd take it that way.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 06:04:53 pm
Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 06:14:16 pm
Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.

As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.

Contrary to what you may have heard, Battuta and I are not a single entity. (For one thing, that'd mean Rian and Alessia are too.)

Now he may be a wanker, or he may just be delivering the most devastating criticism possible. I don't regard them as mutually exclusive. In fact, it's better than your critics are wankers to a degree. As a loyal Sartinist on the matter of criticism and review, I live by the mantra that reviewers and critics should be enlisted for the strength of their cruelty.

So basically, accusing a critic of being a wanker rather than attempting to refute or even study his points, you've lost the plot. Wankerhood, like hypocrisy, has no bearing on factual correctness. And by abandoning facts for accusations of wanking, you've turned yourself into a greater wanker than he'll ever be because now we're down to pure, unsupported trolling.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 11, 2010, 11:21:35 pm
Contrary to what you may have heard, Battuta and I are not a single entity. (For one thing, that'd mean Rian and Alessia are too.)

I'll address this point first.

When the hell did I imply that you were? You quote a post in which not only did I directly reply to Battata but even directly quoted him.

If you're on about the bias thing, that's because I'm about to have a serious go at Battuta on the subject. You never brought up bias so the argument doesn't apply to you. You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.


Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.

You can't? Okay, lets get started then.

I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?

i.e You're saying "You're biased because you like XKCD. If you didn't like it you would have a more objective view/agree with me."

Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.

Now you're basically saying the same thing to Iamzack.

No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And now again you're saying the same thing but you've substitute caring for liking. Doesn't really pertain in the slightest as to whether the site is a pathetic waste of time or not, which if you recall was the matter at hand.


The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Finally you get to the real reason this is still going. So since you are well aware why this discussion has gone on so long why not drop this bull**** about caring or liking websites and get back to the matter at hand. Is the xkcdsucks website a waste of time?

With that in mind shall I point out that Rob is himself getting significant criticism on that website from people who are calling him out for the same **** that I've called him on.  For instance this post

Quote
/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.

Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.

You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"

I'll post that as supporting evidence against NGTM-1R since he appears to have missed it when I pointed out the exact same flaw in the writers criticism. Oh, while I'm at it.

why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community

I'll point out that all the posts on the front page are by Rob and at the top of the page we have
Quote
new website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.

Sounds like first person singular to me. But if it avoids this particular complaint coming up again let's assume Rob is the sad act wanker that we're referring to with he.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 11, 2010, 11:41:12 pm
Quote
Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.

You can't? Okay, lets get started then.

I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?

i.e You're saying "You're biased because you like XKCD. If you didn't like it you would have a more objective view/agree with me."

Where does disagreeing with him equate to liking XKCD? Where does it imply that I do not have bias (which was a full half of the point you claimed I was asserting?)

Quote
Now you're basically saying the same thing to Iamzack.

Fails on the same grounds.

Quote
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.

And now again you're saying the same thing but you've substitute caring for liking. Doesn't really pertain in the slightest as to whether the site is a pathetic waste of time or not, which if you recall was the matter at hand.

Not a substitution at all; I'm arguing caring and liking (valence) are two axes of opinion.

Quote
The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.

Finally you get to the real reason this is still going. So since you are well aware why this discussion has gone on so long why not drop this bull**** about caring or liking websites and get back to the matter at hand. Is the xkcdsucks website a waste of time?

Because I like the chaos? The matter at hand for you is whether the xkcdsucks website is a waste of time; it's not a question I'm particularly interested in. It has value to me, which I've already expressed.

Quote
With that in mind shall I point out that Rob is himself getting significant criticism on that website from people who are calling him out for the same **** that I've called him on.  For instance this post

Quote
/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.

Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.

You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"

I'll post that as supporting evidence against NGTM-1R since he appears to have missed it when I pointed out the exact same flaw in the writers criticism. Oh, while I'm at it.

You've now spent more time reading the site than me! I'll refer you back to my earlier posts for my explanation of why I value the website. The question of why you're still arguing the point of whether the website goes too far after I've explicitly said I don't disagree (more than once) is a fair component of why I find this discussion so invigorating.

Quote
why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community

I'll point out that all the posts on the front page are by Rob and at the top of the page we have
Quote
new website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.

Sounds like first person singular to me. But if it avoids this particular complaint coming up again let's assume Rob is the sad act wanker that we're referring to with he.

I think I recall a bunch of guest posts, it was good times.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 11, 2010, 11:48:03 pm
I'll address this point first.

When the hell did I imply that you were? You quote a post in which not only did I directly reply to Battata but even directly quoted him. '

It was the only logical reason why you'd say Battuta has been arguing with you for six pages about whether or not the man is a wanker, or for that matter why you'd argue the bias point with Battuta, because both are clearly false. Battuta has made neither claim.

I on the other hand have made both claims.

You never brought up bias so the argument doesn't apply to you.

I don't!

WHERE IS YOUR BIAS NOW.

Also, this is a public thread. If you don't want to have a discussion where people interject about bias whether you like it or not, I suggest you discuss that point over PMs instead of "this isn't your business".

Though it is.

You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.

You can no more prove that point by arguing it then you could prove (or disprove) the existence of God, so why you're even trying is frankly totally lost on me.

You're also posting supporting evidence that does not support your thesis against me. In fact, it supports my thesis against you. You are attempting to delegitimize the criticism by outright trolling it as wankery or a waste of time rather than attempting to delegitimize it in the only valid fashion there is: engaging with and disproving its points.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: redsniper on November 11, 2010, 11:53:25 pm
omg srsly, this thread is dumb and you should all feel dumb.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: General Battuta on November 12, 2010, 12:03:31 am
Quote
You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.

This is such a weird, bizarre, pre-cognitive-science thing to say. It's like saying 'I wasn't using breathing to speak my words.' Of course you were. Everybody does. Everybody is biased. Framing impacts the way things are received.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: The E on November 12, 2010, 01:30:02 am
I am really ****ing tired of this constant trolling.

Seriously.

Battuta: The Poe's Law thing was not meant as encouragement.
As a friend and fellow global Mod, I would like to suggest to you to reread this thread without your ego on. You once again fall into the cognitive trap of thinking you are right by default, and everybody else is wrong, or mistaken in their analysis of you and your posts.

It's getting a bit annoying. Seriously.

Thread closed.
Title: Re: I had to share this xkcd gem on spammers
Post by: karajorma on November 12, 2010, 03:48:52 am
Also, this is a public thread. If you don't want to have a discussion where people interject about bias whether you like it or not, I suggest you discuss that point over PMs instead of "this isn't your business".

I'm going to address this one point cause it bears mentioning. You can interject all you like. You can't however assume I am talking to you when I'm not. Especially if I explicitly state I'm not.

And that's what I did here. I told you I wasn't referring to you and you could ignore everything you had assumed was about you. Or at least go back and understand that it wasn't aimed at you and wasn't in reference to what you posted. Continuing the conversation as if it was a reply to anything you had said would be a waste of both of our time so I pointed that out.