About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
As seen in:
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.
also: facebook statuses
You left out attack ads. I think attack ads should be more liked Punk’d though…now that would be fun. Or perhaps jousting…or even a good old fashiond knife fight.
Fantastic. Love it.
I think the problem is less with slogans and more with people who think they should substitute for discourse.
I think the only time T-shirts intersect with bumper stickers is when you either stick a bumper sticker on your shirt, or cut up a shirt and stick it to your bumper.
I know (and like) what you intended here, but you got the logic wrong, IMO.
I think the only time ideas intersect with Ethan’s head is when they are in concrete, physical form, like a hammer. No offense, Ethan, but it seems like a hammer might be all that would penetrate the density, there.
It’s really not hard to differentiate between the physical object, a T-shirt or bumper sticker, and the concept of a physical object, nor is it hard to understand that Jessica deliberately doesn’t “explain everything” for people who bluntly and ineptly choose to take everything literally. Brevity is…you know the rest. Jessica’s very good at what she does.
Do you need it spelled out for you? The intersection of “using T-shirts as your political statement” and “using bumper stickers as your political statement” and “using sound bites as your political statement” equates to “insufficient political discourse.”
Seriously – I enjoy checking out Indexed when I get a chance, but I’m quite irritated by the literal-minded trolls so frequently trying to “correct” the card of the day. It’s humor, folks, not maths – humor, with maths (logic) as a kind of mechanism. Give it up, and stop trying to correct humor. Sheesh.
insufficient political discourse = the stuff nobody cares about
OR
SXSW
Bravo to GE. I’m not sure why I even check the comments anymore. I’ll read over the card of the day and chuckle to myself, and then I’ll go into user comments hoping to find some silly expansions/variations on the theme, and instead I end up with people who fancy themselves to be the stoic soul who has to break it to Jessica that she’s wrong.
Guess what. If you think she’s wrong, then you yourself are probably wrong. It’s a web comic. Web COMIC. Comedy. Laugh or don’t laugh, but don’t get all snooty with the girl.
Hey, GE and Matte: No need to flame. Discussion (not only political) is usually a Good Thing, esp. when it’s polite. Cheers!
&, @Matte: Jessica inspires all kinds of comments – even, sometimes, very funny in their own right, but feel free to skip the lot.
I can’t possibly imagine her seeing herself as strictly sacrosanct; neither should we.
Am I not (somewhat) right, Jessica?
All Hail the Might Mind of Jessica! Hazzah!
(no sarcasm intended — sometimes people need and deserve a little unfettered tribute)
It’s not a “flame,” henrykwdk – not even remotely. If folks want to attempt to prove their intelligence by dissecting Jessica’s work to the point where their assessment of it has nothing to do with the point of the work itself, they’re free to do so. If other folks want to point out quite how asinine that is, should they not also be free to do so? I’m at a loss to explain how you can call the latter a “flame,” but not the former.
Imagine someone writing publicly to Bill Watterson to clarify that neither stuffed animals nor tigers talk. Are you telling me you wouldn’t feel it necessary, after more than a full year of such nonsense, to point out that his strip is not about whether or not stuffed tigers talk, but rather about the humor that is generated by assuming that basic premise?
If someone insisted to Groucho Marx that his dangling modifier “in my pajamas” was misappropriated as a phrase to modify “elephant” when he’d initially presented it as a phrase to modify his own state…would you applaud and say “Oh, yes, thank you for pointing out Groucho’s misuse of English grammar”?
Or would you, more rationally and more intelligently, roll your eyes and say, “Ah, so you don’t understand humor, is that it?”
Ethan’s statement had practically nothing to do with the subject at hand – it was mere (and quite inaccurate) nitpicking. If you truly see it as “discussion,” I’d have to thoroughly disagree. Discussion is great. Public exhibition of one’s own inability to assess humor is just fine, as well – just don’t expect it to go unanswered (at least, not for much more than a year!).
Okay people, lets calm down. There isn’t really a reason to continue firing rounds. Yes, Ethan missed the point. Henrykwdk provoked a response by calling it a Flame, and GE is guilty of not only being long-winded, but could probably stand a slight attitude adjustment and knocked of his soap-box. Lets stop this foppishness, recognize the scale of the problem at hand, and realize its JUST A COMIC. Tomorrow, a new one will be posted, someone will be probably say something silly then as well, and you know what? It doesn’t matter! ITS JUST A COMIC.
dialogue through comments = insufficient reconciliatory discourse
@John I think it was necessary and right for GE to be ‘long winded’ in his/her response – can’t the point of this comic (insufficient political discourse) be applied also to commenting discourse? I think we are all quite aware that it’s JUST A COMIC but are you saying that we shouldn’t have strong feelings/thoughts and express them where we see fit? If that which makes us react doesn’t matter why do we react?
And this discussion, no matter how robust, is not ‘flaming’ – logically and eruditely exchanging differences of opinion is what sets us apart from 4chan or YouTube commenters.
Pingback: So there « I have qualities