History Headscratchers / Xkcd

10th Nov '17 9:13:41 PM NoriMori
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** I'm gonna say this is the most likely possibility.

to:

*** I'm gonna say this is the most likely possibility.possibility.
** What? The ''Idiocracy'' strip wasn't accusing ''Idiocracy'' fans of being snooty and self-righteous. It was accusing people who genuinely buy into its premise of being {{Moral Guardian}}s with a NostalgiaFilter. That has nothing to do with the other two strips. Not to mention that the first strip is completely serious in its criticism, while the other two are at least ''somewhat'' joking. Besides, as pointed out above, the latter two strips do have a point even if they're being a bit harsh.
2nd Oct '16 2:28:25 PM Mr_White
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Alternatively, he actually is just a hypocrite. Talent does not make you a better person, morally. (And fame and praise can easily reveal the opposite!)

to:

** Alternatively, he actually is just a hypocrite. Talent does not make you a better person, morally. (And fame and praise can easily reveal the opposite!)opposite!)
*** I'm gonna say this is the most likely possibility.
27th Nov '15 10:17:21 AM Josef5678
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies soft sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.

to:

* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' ''Film/{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies soft sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.
13th Nov '15 11:15:15 AM Alexsi
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Time is passing. RIGHT NOW. It targets to kill every single human. And it will never, ever stop.
13th Nov '15 11:13:48 AM Alexsi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I thought it was that fields like engineering and linguistics have several hard-and-fast rules/laws that really can't be broken (and when the "impostor" breaks them, that's when the "BS Alarm" goes off), but something like literary criticism is ''extremely'' open to debate and alternate interpretation. There ''are'' no rules or laws to be broken, and even if there were, literary criticism by its very nature is subjective!

to:

** I thought it was that fields like engineering and linguistics have several hard-and-fast rules/laws that really can't be broken (and when the "impostor" breaks them, that's when the "BS Alarm" goes off), but something like literary criticism is ''extremely'' open to debate and alternate interpretation. There ''are'' no rules or laws to be broken, and even if there were, literary criticism by its very nature is subjective!subjective!
** Alternatively, he actually is just a hypocrite. Talent does not make you a better person, morally. (And fame and praise can easily reveal the opposite!)
19th Nov '13 7:47:19 AM SgtFrog1
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I didn't quite read it like that. In the former, I just thought he was pointing out that every scientist has a way of making him or herself feel superior to those in other fields. He does have a point in that mathematics are about as "pure" as you can get, since it has far less in the way of relativity than, say, sociology. In the latter, he's talking to grad students, not actual established experts who would probably seen through the bullshit within one sentence. It's not really so much a comment on their fields as on their proficiency -- or presumed proficiency versus the actual lack thereof.

to:

** I didn't quite read it like that. In the former, I just thought he was pointing out that every scientist has a way of making him or herself feel superior to those in other fields. He does have a point in that mathematics are about as "pure" as you can get, since it has far less in the way of relativity than, say, sociology. In the latter, he's talking to grad students, not actual established experts who would probably seen through the bullshit within one sentence. It's not really so much a comment on their fields as on their proficiency -- or presumed proficiency versus the actual lack thereof.thereof.
** I thought it was that fields like engineering and linguistics have several hard-and-fast rules/laws that really can't be broken (and when the "impostor" breaks them, that's when the "BS Alarm" goes off), but something like literary criticism is ''extremely'' open to debate and alternate interpretation. There ''are'' no rules or laws to be broken, and even if there were, literary criticism by its very nature is subjective!
9th Oct '13 5:07:55 AM damnedifiaint
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies soft sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.

to:

* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies soft sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.much.
** I didn't quite read it like that. In the former, I just thought he was pointing out that every scientist has a way of making him or herself feel superior to those in other fields. He does have a point in that mathematics are about as "pure" as you can get, since it has far less in the way of relativity than, say, sociology. In the latter, he's talking to grad students, not actual established experts who would probably seen through the bullshit within one sentence. It's not really so much a comment on their fields as on their proficiency -- or presumed proficiency versus the actual lack thereof.
2nd Oct '13 8:32:10 AM NolanRBurke
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies sof sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.

to:

* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies sof soft sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.
2nd Oct '13 8:31:54 AM NolanRBurke
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* In [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] strip, the author accuses ''{{Idiocracy}}'' fans of being intellectually snooty and self-righteous. How does he reconcile this with his attitude in strips like [[http://xkcd.com/435/ this]] and [[http://xkcd.com/451/ this]], in which he declares hard sciences to be necessarily superior subjects of study and anyone who studies sof sciences to be an idiot? I'm not even a big fan of soft sciences, but I think that's a bit much.
11th Sep '13 8:39:09 PM SteveMB
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Perhaps the Hill People (who dislike the protagonists' tribe) were found by the Beanie People and told them that nobody lived down by the seashore, thus preventing them from getting the warning.
This list shows the last 10 events of 15. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Xkcd