Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

xkcdexplained.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 95 posts

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#51

Post by eli »

tptacek wrote: post #47
jexe wrote: post #41

This guy is writing a blog explaining the comic XKCD using a dry, faintly sarcastic tone. Note: He seems to have issues with XKCD's apparent feminist slant.

Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are equally valid, it is nevertheless more equally valid to conclude that XKCD's gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate ( pace manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy or outrage over the station of the modern w…

I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#52

Post by tptacek »

eli wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are equally valid, it is nevertheless more equally valid to conclude that XKCD's gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate ( pace manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy or outrage over the station of the modern w…

I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

I'll refer you to Lacan, if you don't mind.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#53

Post by davi »

eli wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are equally valid, it is nevertheless more equally valid to conclude that XKCD's gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate ( pace manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy or outrage over the station of the modern w…

I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Look at tptacek's other posts. He is making a joke here. It is a funny one.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#54

Post by Semiapies »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28
mquander wrote: post #4

I think XKCD is sophomoric, but this is largely just of godawful quality. The blonde girl calls megan’s boyfriend and convinces him to make some delicious nachos. However, he doesn’t know that the blonde girl’s real motive was to kill megan’s wifi signal with the microwave he uses because they were playing a first person shooter video game against each other over the internet, and the blonde girl wanted to kill her.…

The explanations of the jokes are funny because they're not funny. You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny. But these explanations are not funny. That's what makes the whole thing funny.

"You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny."

Who would expect that? It's a old cliche that explaining a joke isn't funny or entertaining. I certainly wasn't expecting humor when I looked at it.

(Nor did I find any, but then, the "it's funny because it's not funny" shtick is right up there with "Bill Clinton is a horny guy, amirite?" jokes in Dated Gag Heaven.)

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#55

Post by jpwagner »

decklin wrote: post #19
KirinDave wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only valid response: http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226264418/a-man-is-alon...

You should do this one: http://xkcd.com/33/

"the androgynous figure has arbitrarily promised not to make humor out of referring to itself any longer. given the assumption that the 'blank stare' is funny, the promise has been broken and regret sets in."

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#56

Post by [deleted] »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28
mquander wrote: post #4

I think XKCD is sophomoric, but this is largely just of godawful quality. The blonde girl calls megan’s boyfriend and convinces him to make some delicious nachos. However, he doesn’t know that the blonde girl’s real motive was to kill megan’s wifi signal with the microwave he uses because they were playing a first person shooter video game against each other over the internet, and the blonde girl wanted to kill her.…

The explanations of the jokes are funny because they're not funny. You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny. But these explanations are not funny. That's what makes the whole thing funny.

[deleted]

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#57

Post by tptacek »

KirinDave wrote: post #44
likpok wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marmaduke Explained has the benefit that Marmaduke is worse. It lacks the basic fundamentals of a joke in many cases. For what it's worth, XKCD does not have this. It may or may not be funny, but it is not awful.

XKCD certainly has its share of completely punchless entries ( http://bit.ly/4E2Uv0 ), especially in the first year. It sort of amazes me that so many people can be fans of discomfort humor and missed-context humor (like in "The Office" or "Parcs and Rec") and yet when it is applied to something friendly to them they flip out. We all agree the outrage over this silliness is part of the fun in this project. You could…

If xkcd is "unfriendly" to you, xkcdsucks is actually pretty damn funny. Randall appears to have actual groupies, so it's hard to feel too bad for him, even if Carl and Aloria can be pretty mean.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#58

Post by jrp »

eli wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are equally valid, it is nevertheless more equally valid to conclude that XKCD's gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate ( pace manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy or outrage over the station of the modern w…

I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

He is using deconstructionist language on deconstructionism itself. This is funny because it shows us that deconstructionism contradicts itself.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#59

Post by KirinDave »

tptacek wrote: post #57
KirinDave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XKCD certainly has its share of completely punchless entries ( http://bit.ly/4E2Uv0 ), especially in the first year. It sort of amazes me that so many people can be fans of discomfort humor and missed-context humor (like in "The Office" or "Parcs and Rec") and yet when it is applied to something friendly to them they flip out. We all agree the outrage over this silliness is part of the fun in this project. You could…

If xkcd is "unfriendly" to you, xkcdsucks is actually pretty damn funny. Randall appears to have actual groupies, so it's hard to feel too bad for him, even if Carl and Aloria can be pretty mean.

Yeah, I just don't like making fun of the drawing style. "This just in stick figures are crude, etc. etc."

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#60

Post by tptacek »

jrp wrote: post #58
eli wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.

He is using deconstructionist language on deconstructionism itself. This is funny because it shows us that deconstructionism contradicts itself.

"tptacek explained". Nice.
Post reply on HN