0889: "Turtles"

[DaxInvader]

So, how are you holding up? Because, I'm a potato.

hehe Nice Portal2 reference there.

[Bobbert]

But Zhuangzi asked "how do you know I don't know" meaning he knew that Huizi knew that he didn't know.

That. That absolute torturing of language instead of just answering the guy with "I don't" or "Because of X". ARHGAARGAHRAGH. That's why I hate that story.

ok, enough arguing.

Can we all just agree that this is the worst. xkcd. ever?

ITT: People who don't have it figured out.

Lol cool comic. I didn't read too much into it, as it just seemed nice.

Also ITT: People who do have it figured out... man.

Oh I get it, you must be one of them internet trolls I keep hearing about. There's nothing to get that doesn't change that it's a boring comic. It's like a 90s sitcom attempt to give a stock stoner character something 'insightful' to say. And your little story just butchers logic and language too much to have any real point at all.

[GameboyPATH]

Is it wrong of me to believe that this is one of the best xkcd comics ever? Judging by many replies here, it looks like it.

[Plasma Mongoose]

Tortoise VS Turtle

[alexriehl]

Tortoise VS Turtle

Nice, thanks for this!

[illiterati]

Not to butt into a (finally?) dying argument, but i'll just say that one of my life perspectives is if something isn't to your taste, move on. A webcomic, like any piece of creative art, is the sole ownership + dominion of its creator. The creator of that piece of art is God + they say what has meaning + what doesnt. If something is funny to them, then so be it. God-powers. It really doesn't matter whether we think this is zen-brilliance, social commentary, nihilistic or the WORST.COMIC.EVER (/comic book guy?).

Personally if I was Randall and constantly under high expectations for xkcd, i'd probably create all kinds of pointless, inside-joke comics just to fuck with all my readers + see how upset they'd get. But i'm kind of ornery like that. He's apparently a much more patient person because overall I think the quality of the comic is quite good - hence why we're here, right?

But yeah, I just have yet to figure out why people get riled up and complain about how quality is going down. As though we had any real right to complain? We open a web browser, type in xkcd.com and here we are. Free entertainment. If you hate it the worst you can say is, "Gee Willikers I just lost 4 seconds of my life!" and then go watch Youtube for 3 hours. Oh yes, the suffering of modern man. Just move on.

(I'm not usually this preachy folks, just a personal pet peeve I guess. Carry on.)

[KrytenKoro]

Not to butt into a (finally?) dying argument, but i'll just say that one of my life perspectives is if something isn't to your taste, move on. A webcomic, like any piece of creative art, is the sole ownership + dominion of its creator. The creator of that piece of art is God + they say what has meaning + what doesnt. If something is funny to them, then so be it. God-powers. It really doesn't matter whether we think this is zen-brilliance, social commentary, nihilistic or the WORST.COMIC.EVER (/comic book guy?).

Personally if I was Randall and constantly under high expectations for xkcd, i'd probably create all kinds of pointless, inside-joke comics just to fuck with all my readers + see how upset they'd get. But i'm kind of ornery like that. He's apparently a much more patient person because overall I think the quality of the comic is quite good - hence why we're here, right?

But yeah, I just have yet to figure out why people get riled up and complain about how quality is going down. As though we had any real right to complain? We open a web browser, type in xkcd.com and here we are. Free entertainment. If you hate it the worst you can say is, "Gee Willikers I just lost 4 seconds of my life!" and then go watch Youtube for 3 hours. Oh yes, the suffering of modern man. Just move on.

(I'm not usually this preachy folks, just a personal pet peeve I guess. Carry on.)

Well, on one end of hyperbole, there's the fact that the argument "if something is done badly, just ignore it" is the direct opposite of anything resembling human progress.

Then, there's the other - if people have a right to come here and heap praise on Randall, then others have a right to come here and constructionally criticize his shortcomings. You don't get to have the adoration without the disappoinment.

And then finally - who's being more of a troll, the person telling Randall he needs to improve, or the person just telling the first guy to shut up and go away?

[Incomitatus]

Criticising the comic is fine.

Not understanding the comic is fine, although I feel it speaks poorly to the interpreter's imagination.

Not liking the comic is perfectly fine and within anyone's rights.

Suggesting that the comic is the way one perceives it to be because the creator must be stoned, suffering from a head injury, lazy, etc. is not fine. Nor is it constructive criticism. Rather, it's just a mean way to feel superior and express disappointment, thereby revealing a completely irrational sense of entitlement.

Why in the world would any well-adjusted rational human being get angry over the perceived value of a single web-comic? Seriously, those who don't like it, that's fine; those of you who don't like it and feel the need to therefore come on here and personally insult those who do probably need counselling.

PS. Zhuangzi knows what the fish enjoy because he spends time with them and believes that observation paired with reflection provides insight, wisdom, and understanding. In other words, he has a Theory of Mind for the fish. He is gently rebuking Huizi for presuming the impossibility of the knowledge and therefore not trying to understand. At least that's one possible interpretation: these stories operate on many potential levels and they are anything but stupid (though they may not be rational). Dismissing them with a cursory glance is to commit the same failure of wisdom as Huizi.

[J L]

Well, on one end of hyperbole, there's the fact that the argument "if something is done badly, just ignore it" is the direct opposite of anything resembling human progress.

Thanks for clarifying you're here to promote human progress ... won't stay in your way then. Please tell us more about it

[BobTheElder]

TORTOISE!

[SirMustapha]

Why in the world would any well-adjusted rational human being get angry over the perceived value of a single web-comic?

Okay, now there's something that made me beat my head against the wall for quite some time, even though the answer is pretty simple: usually, art means something to people. It's perfectly common and normal for someone to get attached to a piece of art, or to an artist, in an unpersonal way. Some people get attached to TV shows or characters (Randall with Firefly, anyone?), some get attached to actors, others to musicians, and so on. I am like that towards music. Why shouldn't people get attached to xkcd? Is it absolutely impossible that xkcd means something to its fans? In that case, is it unreasonable that such fans will have a strong reaction towards a frustrating or sub-par comic eventually?

That's how it goes, man. People are complicated. Some folks just refuse to stop reading xkcd, even when they think it's bad. That's bloody human nature, and you'll be fooling yourself if you expect everyone to act in a rational and logical way 100% of the time. We are human, and to realise that is also to "have it figured out, man".

The creator of that piece of art is God + they say what has meaning + what doesnt. If something is funny to them, then so be it. God-powers. It really doesn't matter whether we think this is zen-brilliance, social commentary, nihilistic or the WORST.COMIC.EVER (/comic book guy?).

I'll give my personal two cents here and say that there are two big main reasons why an artist would act like that: he's autistic, or he's a pompous asshole who's full of himself -- sort of like that wossisname author of Least I Could Do. Any reasonable artist knows that he has an audience, however small, and any art he makes, he makes it for the audience. If he was making it exclusively for himself, there would be no point in publishing it, right?

An artist isn't a god. He is a human being, with flaws and problems, and he should be aware of that and trying to improve. The good artist learns to use the audience as a mirror -- an imperfect, warped mirror, but a mirror nonetheless. He won't follow EVERY opinion he hears to the letter, but he will filter out the important and useful information and use it to improve himself. An artist who doesn't do that should think twice before calling himself an "artist".

And I am 100% sure that Randall cares about his fanbase: 1) He sells merchandise, so aside from having an audience, he has CUSTOMERS; 2) He always struck me as a needy person, one who needs attention, and his comic is the #1 source of attention he has (#2 being the blog, of course). He feeds on the positive commentary and on the GOOMHtards, and, most importantly, he gets annoyed when people don't get his comics. He reacted badly when comic 631 came out and puzzled the hell out of many of his fans. That, to me, is not the behaviour of a god -- maybe Saramago's version of God, but not a god as we would have it.

Do we have a right to complain? Of course we do. We have free speech. Nobody was banned for criticising Randall or his comics. Randall and xkcd depend on an audience, so yeah, the audience has the right to complain.

[ravenzomg]

Tortoise VS Turtle

Aaagh, now I can't stop looking at the differences between things between which I already know the differences just to make sure that I'm not actually making it up -- I'm calling you out for paranoid-sniping [which is far less fun than paranoid sniping]. =\

[Bobbert]

PS. Zhuangzi knows what the fish enjoy because he spends time with them and believes that observation paired with reflection provides insight, wisdom, and understanding. In other words, he has a Theory of Mind for the fish. He is gently rebuking Huizi for presuming the impossibility of the knowledge and therefore not trying to understand. At least that's one possible interpretation: these stories operate on many potential levels and they are anything but stupid (though they may not be rational). Dismissing them with a cursory glance is to commit the same failure of wisdom as Huizi.

Then he would be perfectly capable of just answering "how do you know what fish enjoy" with just "hey, I've been observing them for quite some time while trying to understand them" as opposed to completely butchering logic in language in an attempt to be a smartass to Huizi.

[alexriehl]

Any reasonable artist knows that he has an audience, however small, and any art he makes, he makes it for the audience. If he was making it exclusively for himself, there would be no point in publishing it, right?

I agree with much of what you said, but on this sentence I have to cite The Fountainhead.

[Odal]

ok, enough arguing.

Can we all just agree that this is the worst. xkcd. ever?

Huh, you think that one is bad? Novice.

If you don't agree, which one is worse?

Ladies and gentlemen, the comic that broke xkcdexplained:

I have to agree that the above is the worst comic he's made. Without the alt text it just looks like a big pile of emo. Even with the alt text it's still the worst. "Turtles" isn't very good either, but at least there's words on the actual comic.

[Technical Ben]

Replace "I deleted the file" with, "I don't get XKCD!" and the comic makes much more sense.
Guess I'm a turtle too...

[doggitydogs]

In a biological respect, a tortoise is a kind of a turtle, but not all turtles are tortoises.


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-turtle-and-a-tortoise.htm

Tortoises (Testudinidae), box turtles (Terrapene), terrapins (Deirochelyinae), and turtles (all other members of Chelonia) are all completely distinct and share no overlap, and thus none of these terms can be used to refer to any other one. All of these are chelonians (Chelonia): "a tortoise is a kind of a chelonian, but not all chelonians are tortoises."

From that article:

Colloquially, both biologists and lay people use the word, "turtle" to mean all chelonians.

Emphasis mine.

Turtles reside primarily in water, but still breathe air. They're like...well, turtles. I guess they're like crabs or whales or something. They go on land sometimes, but they can't get around well on land.
Box turtles reside primarily on land, but go in the water sometimes, as they can kinda swim.
Terrapins share land and water equally. They have equally adequate mobility on both.
Tortoises reside only on land. If they went in the water, they would drown.

Thus, I conclude that one of the following is true:

• Randall is incorrect in referring to this reptile as a turtle, and it is either a box turtle, terrapin, or (most likely of these) tortoise.
• The scene takes place underwater.
• It's a mutant ninja turtle that has developed exceptional mobility.
• The tortoise is laying eggs on land, and one of them is stuck there for fifty years. It didn't hatch for some reason.
• This was all intentional on the part of Randall to get me to type this.

[Incomitatus]

Why in the world would any well-adjusted rational human being get angry over the perceived value of a single web-comic?

Okay, now there's something that made me beat my head against the wall for quite some time, even though the answer is pretty simple: usually, art means something to people. It's perfectly common and normal for someone to get attached to a piece of art, or to an artist, in an unpersonal way. Some people get attached to TV shows or characters (Randall with Firefly, anyone?), some get attached to actors, others to musicians, and so on. I am like that towards music. Why shouldn't people get attached to xkcd? Is it absolutely impossible that xkcd means something to its fans? In that case, is it unreasonable that such fans will have a strong reaction towards a frustrating or sub-par comic eventually?

That's how it goes, man. People are complicated. Some folks just refuse to stop reading xkcd, even when they think it's bad. That's bloody human nature, and you'll be fooling yourself if you expect everyone to act in a rational and logical way 100% of the time. We are human, and to realise that is also to "have it figured out, man".

Fair enough, I worded a descriptive question and you gave me a descriptive answer. I meant to ask a normative question: "Why should...." but strictly speaking, your answer still misses the point. I didn't ask why people get angry over art. I asked why would well-adjusted people get angry over art. The implication being that people who do get angry, no matter how common, are not well-adjusted.

I understand why people get angry, I do. I get it. I "have it figured out, man". But it still doesn't make sense, and it baffles me that people would be so inclined to expose their irrationality publicly. Anonymity, I guess. That or there's no shame anymore in being a pompous jerk.

There have been times when I haven't understood XKCD, when I haven't liked it, even times when I've been offended by it. But my reaction is my reaction. You won't find me ranting and raving about it on here: I don't need the validation of others agreeing with my reaction to feel it is valid. I certainly don't need to defend my reaction by attacking those who react differently. Art is too subjective for there to be any point in arguing about it. There is no 'right' answer; there is no universally perfect art; there is no winning an argument over taste.

If you do not like the comic, then saying "I do not like this comic" is enough. Saying "I do not like this comic and anyone who does is obviously a stoner loser beneath my contempt" is patent nonsense. That is beating one's head against the wall.

[doggitydogs]

Wow. Wiki never lies.
Turtle = tortoise.
Mind Blown. You learn something new every day. I did not know a "sea turtle" is such because of the "sea" tag. I thought turtle only applied to them, and not to tortoises. Oops.

Wha-- Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't count as an appropriate source.

[Incomitatus]

PS. Zhuangzi knows what the fish enjoy because he spends time with them and believes that observation paired with reflection provides insight, wisdom, and understanding. In other words, he has a Theory of Mind for the fish. He is gently rebuking Huizi for presuming the impossibility of the knowledge and therefore not trying to understand. At least that's one possible interpretation: these stories operate on many potential levels and they are anything but stupid (though they may not be rational). Dismissing them with a cursory glance is to commit the same failure of wisdom as Huizi.

Then he would be perfectly capable of just answering "how do you know what fish enjoy" with just "hey, I've been observing them for quite some time while trying to understand them" as opposed to completely butchering logic in language in an attempt to be a smartass to Huizi.

You've missed the point. Zhuangzi is expressing an irrational pathway to wisdom. He is criticising Huizi for being too rational. Logic isn't the point: if anything, too much logic is the 'bad' in this story. That's why this isn't a Greek parable.

Besides, these stories are teaching mechanisms. They aren't just meant to provide a moral, they are also meant to train the students' minds to navigate the twists and turns and to seek different possible understandings of the material. This is a lesson plan meant not just to teach you the moral of the story (whichever of several morals you may decide it teaches) but also to teach you to think about the story. Think of it less as a narrative and more like a puzzle.

[Stellazira]

I saw a turtle hop into the school's pond one day as I was going to my class. I sort of wished I had a carefree life like that turtle...

[Ephemeron]

An artist isn't a god. He is a human being, with flaws and problems, and he should be aware of that and trying to improve. The good artist learns to use the audience as a mirror -- an imperfect, warped mirror, but a mirror nonetheless. He won't follow EVERY opinion he hears to the letter, but he will filter out the important and useful information and use it to improve himself. An artist who doesn't do that should think twice before calling himself an "artist".

Yeah, I totally I agree with you. But he sure as hell doesn't read his own forums. Moreover he doesn't listen to criticism at all. He says in this interview that he did listen to his critics in the past, but he found it counterproductive.

If I see a bunch of really negative stuff, I get self-conscious and I don't think I draw better, I just draw less. [...] I find that the less I look at the feedback, the more fun I'm having, and the better the strip is.

The same point was made in the book party talk, when he was asked about xkcdsucks. The following is an exact transcription.

But I think, and, and, and maybe it's just I'm too, y'know, thin-skinned or, not secure enough or whatever but, so, so I know that that's weird. And, and it's much weirder to have someone who's intent on criticizing everything you do.

Well, it's clear enough from this that hearing criticism hurts him. This is not the right mindset for a widely published artist. But I can't totally condemn him. You see, Randall never aimed this high. He just started out by putting his drawings online. He remains reclusive today because he can't stand that much fame. I'm not saying this makes it forgivable, but I think I understand him better now.

[SEE]

Are turtles self aware?

Well, I am.

By the way, originally in English, "tortoise" was the group and "turtle" was the sub-group of ones that were in the sea; thus the OED defines turtle as a "sea tortoise" in its first definition. Then, over in the definition of tortoise, the OED notes that turtle got expanded in some circumstances to refer to all chelonians, while at the same time "some zoologists" confine tortoise "to the terrestrial genus Testudo and its immediate congeners".

Which is to say, usage is sufficiently mixed that it is perfectly valid English usage to define turtles as a subgroup of tortoises, or tortoises as a subgroup of turtles, or both as different subgroups of the chelonians. People (including the websites linked/quoted above) who hold that one of the three approaches is correct and the others are wrong are, in fact, themselves wrong. The trouble is that words and concepts do not universally have a simple one-to-one correlation in the English language, however much some people wish it did.

[Devilot]

The turtle is probably stressed wondering where his next meal is coming from. The life of an animal is not fun at all. Animals must dedicate pretty much all of their time to searching for food, searching for a mate, avoiding predators, and sleeping. They have no energy or time to reflect upon their lives even if they had the ability to. Nature is cruel and we should be glad we no longer have to live out in it.

Erm... that's how people live, too. Sure, "searching for food" is now "keeping a job" and "shopping", and "predators" are muggers, rapists, drunk drivers and the like, and we rarely put our search for romance in as blunt terms as "finding a mate", but really, the difference between human life and how you describe nature comes down to the terms you choose to use. Really, there's a lot of strength to the argument that the difference between "civilization" and "nature" is ultimately artificial and just used to make us superior to other animals.

Also, speaking of the references to "stone humor"... http://furryexperience.smackjeeves.com/ ... r-page-18/

[atomfullerene]

Hm, I'm a biologist. Tortoises are most definitely a subgroup of turtle, in exactly the same way that humans are a type of mammal or toads are a type of frog. And most aquatic turtles will still come out on land occasionally. I found a slider (about as generic turtle as you can get ) crossing a road 50 feet and up a hill from a stream a couple years back.

Also, I take issue with this statement

Any reasonable artist knows that he has an audience, however small, and any art he makes, he makes it for the audience.

I do art. I've even put some online (mostly on a whim, because it's so easy to do). I do not make art for an audience (with a very few exceptions). I make art because drawing and painting is relaxing and mostly because I get a lot of self-satisfaction from creating it. It kind of bugs me when people talk about art as if everyone makes it to communicate something to other people.

[ShamelessRinger]

You're all wrong. This is a true romance xkcd comic. But that might only be because my boyfriend and I developed a sort of couply in joke (you know the kind, the ones that are super annoying to witness) about turtles while snorkeling in Hawaii... Sea turtle!

I'm a turtle. I love turtles! And I am not stoned. Merely very sleepy.

[cyanyoshi]

Oh, and cyanyoshi, I thought Filler Art was hilarious. You have to know the whole webcomics milieu to really appreciate it, though.

Okay, I guess I stand corrected. From this discussion, it is pretty clear that all of xkcd's comics appeal to some portion of fans. Therefore, there is no worst comic. For the record, I understand the reference to MegaTokyo's filler art days. I just didn't find Filler Art that funny, for whatever reason.

[Neostar]

At first I thought this comic was kind of cute but not really all that funny. Not up to Randal's usual snuff.

However, after three pages of argument over whether or not tortoises are turtles (any decent biologist will tell you they are exactly the same thing - one likes the water, one doesn't - "tortoise" is just a description of a sub-group), arguing over whether it's a cleverly subtle joke of form A, a cleverly subtle joke of form B, the random drawings of a stoned cartoonist, or an angst-ridden cry for attention, I think it is clear that this is a brilliant execution of... something or other.

Is Randall trolling us? Is it possible to troll your own forums by drawing a vague, somewhat puzzling comic? Was Randall just feeling lazy?

I think the clear answer to all these questions and more is a definitive maybe.

Thats kinda what i was thinking. xkcd is usually an "intelligent" comic, so everyone has come to expect a deeper meaning in each comic. The joke here is, the meaning is right there, this to troll all the "deep readers". And if that is the case, thank you SO much Randall, they were asking for it!

[petermottola]

From Laudator Temporis Acti: E.B. White, The New Yorker (January 31, 1953):

Medical men, it seems, are interested in turtle blood, because turtles don't suffer from arteriosclerosis in old age. The doctors are wondering whether there is some special property of turtle blood that prevent the arteries from hardening. It could be, of course. But there is also the possibility that a turtle's blood vessels stay in nice shape because of the way turtles conduct their lives. Turtles rarely pass up a chance to relax in the sun on a partly submerged log. No two turtles ever lunched together with the idea of promoting anything. No turtles ever went around complaining that there is no profit in book publishing except from the subsidiary rights. Turtles do not work day and night to perfect explosive devices that wipe out Pacific islands and eventually render turtles sterile. Turtles never use the word "implementation" or the phrases "hard core" and "in the last analysis." No turtle ever rang another turtle back on the phone. In the last analysis, a turtle, although lacking know-how, knows how to live. A turtle, by its admirable habits, gets to the hard core of life. That may be why its arteries are so soft.

[WildBidoof]

I had a turtle(Boris). He never did not have things figured out. The only thing that turtle would do was attempt to climb up the side the enclosure then *Thump* back to ground level. Repeated that move for years.

[Andrusi]

If you know the song but still don't find the comic funny, well, fair enough, but I still think that the comic is better than the turtle comic in that it at least has a joke.

I've read a lot of comics that didn't have jokes in them. I've also read a lot of comics that had jokes in them that weren't funny. I generally prefer the first kind to the second.

[butthisismyusername]

Well I was gonna chime in here, but apparently what I have to contribute has been deemed "unworthy" by moderators. Nail in the coffin for me; it's been swell, but it's time to move on. Sorry. Thanks for the lulz.

[ewfw]

Weird but when my kids were little turtles were an obsessive topic. So this is like a private joke from 20 years ago. Thanks Randall.

[metaphoreign]

This comic made me laugh really hard. I love turtles. My downstairs neighbors had a turtle named Mr. Soup. He would hang out in the yard sometimes on nice days. his favorite color was yellow, and he would (slowly) chase yellow things if they were near him, especially dandelions and banana peels. but one day i guess mike wasn't paying close enough attention, and the turtle escaped and disappeared down the road, never to be found again. I hope he is out there having turtly adventures. once we made him a tank costume for halloween, and there was a littlest pet shop turtle riding the tank. it was sweet.

[doggitydogs]

FTFY.

[Daggoth]

I am not downplaying people's right to complain, i'm just dissapointed at the value and quality of such complaints. As someone who loves to read other people's complaints, do i not have the right to expect them to be well-founded and reasonable?, and if i feel that they are progressively more lackluster and built on air, am i wrong to point out these facts?

[SirMustapha]

IAs someone who loves to read other people's complaints, do i not have the right to expect them to be well-founded and reasonable?, and if i feel that they are progressively more lackluster and built on air, am i wrong to point out these facts?

If you can point out why and how the complaints aren't well-founded and reasonable, that would be excellent, and would be more constructive than a bunch of fanboys going "if u dont liek it then gtfo"

[Zalde Ocga]

I have a friend that doesn't read xkcd, but all the time he'll randomly say, " I am a turtle." so immediately after reading this I txted him and said he had to read it. In short, we laughed our butts off!

[scarletmanuka]

I have a friend that doesn't read xkcd, but all the time he'll randomly say, " I am a turtle." so immediately after reading this I txted him and said he had to read it. In short, we laughed our butts off!

But does he have it figured out, man?

[FourTael]

PS. Zhuangzi knows what the fish enjoy because he spends time with them and believes that observation paired with reflection provides insight, wisdom, and understanding. In other words, he has a Theory of Mind for the fish. He is gently rebuking Huizi for presuming the impossibility of the knowledge and therefore not trying to understand. At least that's one possible interpretation: these stories operate on many potential levels and they are anything but stupid (though they may not be rational). Dismissing them with a cursory glance is to commit the same failure of wisdom as Huizi.

Then he would be perfectly capable of just answering "how do you know what fish enjoy" with just "hey, I've been observing them for quite some time while trying to understand them" as opposed to completely butchering logic in language in an attempt to be a smartass to Huizi.

You REALLY missed the point.

Hui Tzu (I'm going to use Wade-Giles. OH NOES!) said that Chuang Tzu can't know what fish feel, since he's not them. Using this logic, however, Hui Tzu can't know that Chuang Tzu doesn't know.

Chuang Tzu was saying that Hui Tzu was being hypocritical in his analysis.

It's fine to complain, and it's fine to not understand. But complaining because you don't understand is absurd. Complaining because you MISUNDERSTAND, and then getting angry at those that point out that you misunderstand, is even worse. It betrays your own arrogance.