xkcd

by **today's special** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:49 am UTC

alt text: You know that I'll never leave you. Not as long as she's with someone.

whatever.

by **HighSpeedFallingObjects** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:50 am UTC

She's like a foot shorter than him.

by **bert5412** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:50 am UTC

guest comic by Joey Comeau? it's definitely his style.

by **cjf** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:52 am UTC

Sounds like my dad, he constantly makes jokes like this. Reading them just isn't as funny.

by **lsdigit** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:56 am UTC

bert5412 wrote:guest comic by Joey Comeau? it's definitely his style.

yep, my faith in humanity dropped a fraction further, so you are probably right.

by **snowyowl** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:00 am UTC

I hope she feels the same way.

Then it would be a Nash equilibrium.

by **Eternal Density** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:02 am UTC

Wow, this comic really stands apart!

From the good ones.

by **Fat Tony** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:05 am UTC

I really like this one a lot. It's not funny at all, and I see why people would think it was lame if they were trying to see it as a punchline, but I think it's really deep - especially the alt-text. Hit a little too close to home. Mr. Munroe needs to, as they say, "Get out of my head".

by **from canada** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:13 am UTC

This is just fucking creepy

by **bitwiseshiftleft** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:33 am UTC

Come on, Randall, you know the condition is more complicated than that.

by **Nihiltres** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:38 am UTC

snowyowl wrote:I hope she feels the same way.

Then it would be a Nash equilibrium.

That should have been the alt text! Sure made me laugh a lot more than the comic itself.

by **sje46** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:44 am UTC

I like dark humor like this (is that the right term? Well, negative humor, anyways). He's, well, telling it how it is. People often lie to their girlfriends that they're the only girl they have feelings for, and we all know that many of these people are liars. You can't take it as fact.

by **StClair** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:52 am UTC

from canada wrote:This is just fucking creepy

Whereas I was going to say "creepy as fuck."

by **xquared** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:53 am UTC

Fat Tony wrote: Hit a little too close to home. Mr. Munroe needs to, as they say, "Get out of my head".

i second that... one of my rare "randall get of out my head" moment that prompted me to post...

this is so bitterly funny for me. describes the dynamic between my ex and i to a tee. [i was a foot shorter than my ex too!]
at least stick figure guy had the balls to tell it as it is.

[edit: and the other girl in question is a friend of mine]

by **Idhan** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:56 am UTC

So cynical. I thought xkcd was more optimistic and indulgent of humanity's foibles. What about something more romantic, like "I'll never leave you, regardless of whether she's with someone or not. I may do passive-aggressive bullshit until you leave me so I'm finally free to be with the one I have deeper feelings for without taking responsibility for the breakup, but I'll technically never leave you."

Wait, that wasn't more romantic, was it?

by **caligeekchic** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:58 am UTC

HighSpeedFallingObjects wrote:She's like a foot shorter than him.

Pretty commn actually. My husband is six three and I am five three.

by **Kalos** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:34 am UTC

Idhan wrote:So cynical. I thought xkcd was more optimistic and indulgent of humanity's foibles. What about something more romantic, like "I'll never leave you, regardless of whether she's with someone or not. I may do passive-aggressive bullshit until you leave me so I'm finally free to be with the one I have deeper feelings for without taking responsibility for the breakup, but I'll technically never leave you."

Wait, that wasn't more romantic, was it?

You're forgetting about Randall's phenomenally cynical friendzone comic, which was biting and dark, but made funny by people on the forums completely missing the point and wangsting in creepy detail about the women they're borderline stalking.

Given that Randall almost exclusively uses appreciable height differences to convey that the shorter character is a child (or possibly teenager, but usually child) this comic is wholly unsettling.

by **utmost** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:38 am UTC

bert5412 wrote:guest comic by Joey Comeau? it's definitely his style.

I signed up to post that I didn't recognize that name, but when I read it, I thought to myself "I'll bet that's the Softer World guy".

Upon googling, it seems I've backed up your assertion.

by **Richard.** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:13 am UTC

Zoidberg approves of this comic

by **sje46** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:17 am UTC

If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

by **Diadem** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:01 am UTC

sje46 wrote:If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

As if that's limited to just women. I bet I can find gay couples with a foot or more length difference.

With a bit of interracial mixing you can easily get a two foot length difference.

by **TheoGB** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:22 am UTC

StClair wrote:
from canada wrote:This is just fucking creepy

Whereas I was going to say "creepy as fuck."

I was going to go with from canada's version I think. Either way: creepy + expletive = this comic.

by **bjornart** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:31 am UTC

I liked it. Alt-text made me chuckle.

It's like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZMIgheZro

Only for people who aren't all that happy in their relationships.

by **Kalos** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:14 am UTC

sje46 wrote:If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

If you've never noticed that Randall Munroe portrays children and other younger members of the humanity as being appreciably shorter than the adults, and commonly draws adults with little to no height difference between them, you've clearly never read xkcd.

by **winter** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:21 am UTC

Is it just me, or do their heads in the last panel form a Venn diagram?
"All the girls that love me" "All the girls that I love" and her hair is more or less the intersection.

by **sje46** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:51 am UTC

Kalos wrote:
sje46 wrote:If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

If you've never noticed that Randall Munroe portrays children and other younger members of the humanity as being appreciably shorter than the adults, and commonly draws adults with little to no height difference between them, you've clearly never read xkcd.

And apparently I've been missing the obvious pedophilia subtext?

It's not a child, idiot.

by **tekNico** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:57 am UTC

More openness, less jealousy, more polygamy. Thank you all.

by **sellyme** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:59 am UTC

She was probably drawn shorter so as to avoid nasty, messy overlap in the second and third panels.

by **iforgotmyusername** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:21 am UTC

Is there a Lacanian lesson to learn?

by **FreyasSpirit** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:32 am UTC

As someone who enjoys being cynical, this comic made me smile.

ASW style comics on here always do because they're unexpected when they do come.

by **Kalos** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:34 am UTC

sje46 wrote:
Kalos wrote:
sje46 wrote:If you think that any human a foot shorter than a man has to be a child, you clearly have never met a woman before.

If you've never noticed that Randall Munroe portrays children and other younger members of the humanity as being appreciably shorter than the adults, and commonly draws adults with little to no height difference between them, you've clearly never read xkcd.
And apparently I've been missing the obvious pedophilia subtext?

It's not a child, idiot.

Oh wow, really? It isn't? And did you figure that out all by yourself?

I'm quite aware that Randall didn't intend to illustrate such a relationship, and had you been able to maintain the mental abilities to read both of my posts, instead of resorting to childish name-calling, you could have noticed that I said that due to Randall's own established art conventions, she appears as one, which made an initial read of the comic a tad squicky for a particular reader (being me).

by **oddtail** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:37 am UTC

I like this comic a lot. Probably because I've seen this kind of attitude time and time again, and it really angers me. Seriously, if you want to be with the person you're with, then, for all intents and purposes, they should be the only person in the world, at least at that particular moment (unless you're both polyamorous). 1) People are not waiting rooms; 2) "love" is just as much attitude and trying really hard as it is about feelings (surprisingly few people realise that).

So, good comic. I like it.

As for the surprise that xkcd should get so cynical, bittersweet/sad/cynical/similar themes have been explored in the comic before, for example numbers: 310, 420, 449, 584, 636, 701 and, of course, 513.

Today's comic is not *that* cynical in the context of those.

by **Sortie** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:04 am UTC

bitwiseshiftleft wrote:Come on, Randall, you know the condition is more complicated than that.

Oh, man. I expected a wikipedia article on couple therapy. I laughed out loud when I read that article. Multiple times. Now I simply need to do a few surveys among my friends and find out who I have to pair up, so that I can be with that girl.

I have also successfully looked a girl in her eyes and told her "Yeah, you are my type." Of course, that wasn't the whole truth.

by **Chiffre** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:14 am UTC

snowyowl wrote:I hope she feels the same way.
Then it would be a Nash equilibrium.

It still has Shapley value > 0, though it is surely not coalition-proof. :twisted:

Sortie, that game is optimal for the persons who propose, e.g. who choose first, be it man or woman... (just to make it more complicated) :mrgreen:

anyway: http://xkcd.com/601/

by **proc** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:32 am UTC

For me, this was less GOOMHR, and more an "Oh my goodness, you can actually see inside my soul" moment.
This is me in seven hours if I don't sort my head out.

by **Switch31** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:43 am UTC

bert5412 wrote:guest comic by Joey Comeau? it's definitely his style.

Absolutely. This is exactly like A Softer World...just with images that makes sense.

by **littlelj** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:49 am UTC

winter wrote:Is it just me, or do their heads in the last panel form a Venn diagram?
"All the girls that love me" "All the girls that I love" and her hair is more or less the intersection.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.

I like the not-meant-to-be-funny comics. Sometimes I like a little philosophy. We are told to expect it.

18" height difference between me and my significant other. I'm not short; he's just tall. I agree that the difference in this comic is entirely for aesthetic purposes in panel 3 and shouldn't bother us.

by **derick** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:01 pm UTC

This comic is awful. Not only is the observation he's making completely pedestrian and tired, he's made it before in a different comic. That's in addition to how unfunny it is, and before you say it wasn't trying to be, the format of it makes it perfectly clear it was trying to be. Of course he could upload a blank white space and everyone would say "Holy crap GOOMHR I saw something white the other day."

by **BioTube** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:23 pm UTC

derick wrote:This comic is awful. Not only is the observation he's making completely pedestrian and tired, he's made it before in a different comic. That's in addition to how unfunny it is, and before you say it wasn't trying to be, the format of it makes it perfectly clear it was trying to be. Of course he could upload a blank white space and everyone would say "Holy crap GOOMHR I saw something white the other day."

Holy crap! I thought xkcd was unfunny the other day! GOOMHD!

by **SirMustapha** » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:34 pm UTC

sje46 wrote:It's not a child, idiot.

Wow, and I thought I was the troll here.

Anyway, why are there so many comparisons with A Softer World here? Just because of the three panel layout? Come on, folks, A Softer World is actually funny. This one is just head-scratchingly bland, pointless and -- to Randall's standards -- already beaten to death all the way to Hell and back.

Who is online