1370: "President"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
keithl
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:46 pm UTC

1370: "President"

Postby keithl » Mon May 19, 2014 7:29 am UTC

ImageAlt text: Anyone who thinks we're all going to spend the 2032 elections poring over rambling blog posts by teenagers has never tried to read a rambling blog post by a teenager.

"I can't imagine anyone who learned to read from Sesame Street being able to run for president" is how we put it in the late 1990s.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon May 19, 2014 8:00 am UTC

I really just don't know if I can ever bring myself to vote for someone who's ever posted a duck-faced selfie. I really just don't know...

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Tova » Mon May 19, 2014 8:13 am UTC

I take it that this was drawn in response to something specific.

It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way).

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby StClair » Mon May 19, 2014 9:51 am UTC

An end to hypocritical moralizing and shaming within my lifetime? Look, Randall, I'm willing to put up with a lot of absurd premises but I can only accept so much.

darthmark
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:52 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby darthmark » Mon May 19, 2014 10:09 am UTC

Tova wrote:I take it that this was drawn in response to something specific.

It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way).

Are you looking for a fair and balanced presentation of arguments discussing both the pros and cons of the issue equally? If so, stop reading webcomics.

origimbo
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:16 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby origimbo » Mon May 19, 2014 10:26 am UTC

darthmark wrote:Are you looking for a fair and balanced presentation of arguments discussing both the pros and cons of the issue equally? If so, stop reading webcomics.


Equal presentation isn't necessarily fair:

"Welcome to talking head debate. On one side I have a doctor who says eating large quantities of cyanide will kill you. On the other I have Mad Jack the Quack who says it'll be fine if you name him in your will and wait until he leaves town."

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby da Doctah » Mon May 19, 2014 10:55 am UTC

I can't imagine anyone getting elected president of a USA that still has the same number of states it had the day he was born.

Oh, wait....

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby cellocgw » Mon May 19, 2014 11:22 am UTC

Hey, I'm running for President ! (you insensitive clod)

But I don't exactly qualify, seeing as I had been in the workforce for 15 yrs when Mosaic first hit the (not-yet-called) information highway.
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby orthogon » Mon May 19, 2014 11:25 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:Hey, I'm running for President ! (you insensitive clod)

But I don't exactly qualify, seeing as I had been in the workforce for 15 yrs when Mosaic first hit the (not-yet-called) information highway.

I thought of you as soon as I saw this :)
Was the "Information Highway" the predecessor to the Information Superhighway?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Tova
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 3:44 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Tova » Mon May 19, 2014 12:21 pm UTC

darthmark wrote:
Tova wrote:I take it that this was drawn in response to something specific.

It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way).

Are you looking for a fair and balanced presentation of arguments discussing both the pros and cons of the issue equally? If so, stop reading webcomics.


Ha ha. No. I am all for shameless lampooning and satire. For example; are you only looking for fawning responses to webcomics? If so, stop reading forums!

Seriously, though, was it, in fact, in response to something? The statement being satirised is so self-evidently nonsense, that it seems a ridiculous thing to even take the time to poke fun at.

Randall should draw a comic poking fun at today's comic. Chuck in a reference to Inception, and you'd have another keeper.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby orthogon » Mon May 19, 2014 12:38 pm UTC

rhomboidal wrote:I really just don't know if I can ever bring myself to vote for someone who's ever posted a duck-faced selfie. I really just don't know...

It's better than posting cringeworthy selfies when you're already in office...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Draco18s
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:50 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Draco18s » Mon May 19, 2014 12:51 pm UTC

I take issue with the title text. There's no reason to wait until 2032. The 2020 elections are the first one where someone who watched the internet age as they did will be able to run.

How do I know?

Because I'll be turning 35 that summer.

(On the other hand, I hate people, so...)

Pops1918
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 5:03 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Pops1918 » Mon May 19, 2014 1:01 pm UTC

With a response from the little girl like that, I'd have gone a different way. The prompt was clearly ridiculous, but the response was acidly smug, self-righteous, instantly unlikeable, and does nothing to say why Internet-raised candidates would actually be good at the job. If her go-to mode of debate when she hears something she disagrees with is to unload some data-free snarky zingers, I'd be inclined to bet against her chances of office.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby cellocgw » Mon May 19, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Draco18s wrote:I take issue with the title text. There's no reason to wait until 2032. The 2020 elections are the first one where someone who watched the internet age as they did will be able to run.
How do I know?
Because I'll be turning 35 that summer.
(On the other hand, I hate people, so...)


"I love mankind. It's people I can't stand." <-- an ancient goody :D . Besides, you don't have any actual evidence suggesting that a president does a better job if he likes people, do you? :twisted:
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby brenok » Mon May 19, 2014 1:22 pm UTC

Tova wrote:
darthmark wrote:
Tova wrote:I take it that this was drawn in response to something specific.

It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way).

Are you looking for a fair and balanced presentation of arguments discussing both the pros and cons of the issue equally? If so, stop reading webcomics.


Ha ha. No. I am all for shameless lampooning and satire. For example; are you only looking for fawning responses to webcomics? If so, stop reading forums!

Seriously, though, was it, in fact, in response to something? The statement being satirised is so self-evidently nonsense, that it seems a ridiculous thing to even take the time to poke fun at.

Randall should draw a comic poking fun at today's comic. Chuck in a reference to Inception, and you'd have another keeper.
I thought it's a response for a joke that people made, like this one on The Onion. Or is that also a reference to something else?

Jamaican Castle
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Jamaican Castle » Mon May 19, 2014 1:41 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Besides, you don't have any actual evidence suggesting that a president does a better job if he likes people, do you? :twisted:


If a President is elected who likes people, don't worry, the job will quickly take care of that oversight.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Jackpot777 » Mon May 19, 2014 1:47 pm UTC

Tova wrote:I take it that this was drawn in response to something specific.

It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way).


Unless Randall is posting on Mommyish.com under the name of Maria Guido, I doubt this is an invented topic he constructed so he could tear it down.

Or on HuffPo under the name of Mark Brennan Rosenberg, for that matter.

Or if Randall is actually famous author Tony Parsons, glad he's not a younger man (masturbaing himself into a coma instead of interacting with the real world like his generation had to).

Or Laura Beck on Jezebel.com.

I have to say: "I'm glad social media didn't exist when I was younger" isn't that rare a thought for those of us above a certain age. The fact you didn't even think it could be, following it up with the qualifier "the statement being satirised is so self-evidently nonsense, that it seems a ridiculous thing to even take the time to poke fun at", probably reveals your age. Or lack thereof.

Although I'd have thought a younger person would know how to search Google to check if it was as ridiculous as you seem to assume. So now I'm just wondering if it's a lack of experience you're dressing up with pop psychology phrases like "It comes across as a strawman putdown (not that this is the first time I've felt that way)."

So evidently nonsense, indeed...

User avatar
80-watt Hamster
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:17 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby 80-watt Hamster » Mon May 19, 2014 2:31 pm UTC

The internet will likely be so different 18 years from now that what today's teenagers post may be irrelevant more for technical reasons than otherwise.

Epod
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:48 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Epod » Mon May 19, 2014 2:35 pm UTC

One more reason to loathe the inevitable Chelsea Clinton - Noelle Bush campaign.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Whizbang » Mon May 19, 2014 3:10 pm UTC

I can't imagine anyone who grew up on Earth to be able to run for president.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby HES » Mon May 19, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

Whizbang wrote:I can't imagine anyone who grew up on Earth to be able to run for president.

Hannelore Ellicott-Chatham for president!
He/Him/His Image

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby speising » Mon May 19, 2014 3:26 pm UTC

80-watt Hamster wrote:The internet will likely be so different 18 years from now that what today's teenagers post may be irrelevant more for technical reasons than otherwise.

otherwise, google take-down notices will take care of that.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Belial » Mon May 19, 2014 3:44 pm UTC

Pops1918 wrote:With a response from the little girl like that, I'd have gone a different way. The prompt was clearly ridiculous, but the response was acidly smug, self-righteous, instantly unlikeable, and does nothing to say why Internet-raised candidates would actually be good at the job. If her go-to mode of debate when she hears something she disagrees with is to unload some data-free snarky zingers, I'd be inclined to bet against her chances of office.


Why prove something you don't have to? Unless we invent immortality or destroy the internet in the next 20 years, "internet-raised candidates" are going to be the only options, so proving whether they will or won't be "good at the job" is moot.

But, also, y'know, fuck the idea that every comment deserves a data-laden serious-debate answer no matter how stupid and baseless it was. Just because you opened your mouth and stuff fell out of it doesn't mean anyone's obligated to engage it. Sometimes the only possible response is a "Data-free snarky zinger", because anything more serious would be in-and-of-itself absurd.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2262
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Flumble » Mon May 19, 2014 3:49 pm UTC

Draco18s wrote:Because I'll be turning 35 that summer.

(On the other hand, I hate people, so...)

You'd be perfect!

Well, as long as you're running for president in the US. I'd like an empathic PM in the Netherlands by then. Yes, that'd be a good change. :)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 19, 2014 3:55 pm UTC

80-watt Hamster wrote:The internet will likely be so different 18 years from now that what today's teenagers post may be irrelevant more for technical reasons than otherwise.


Depends where they posted it - the original Wiki is still perfectly accessible 19+ years later.

The only technical reason current postings may become lost is the death of the hosting sites, not evolution of internet technology making it inaccessible. It's still possible (or was, last time I ran across any) to access content originally posted "online" before the internet existed - there's no reason to expect that moving to a cyberpunk-style "Matrix" would stop people from being able to access old-fashioned internet content.

Until and unless someone manages to kill off the internet (to be fair, the US government seems to be giving it a shot, so it might yet happen) and does so in a way that means its replacement won't be backward-compatible, there are two truths about the internet and any future evolutions of it: Once you put something online, there's no guaranteed way to delete every copy; and Just because you find something online today, there's no way to guarantee being able to find it again tomorrow unless you make and maintain your own copy.

Any information online can persist, and any information online can disappear.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2067
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby cellocgw » Mon May 19, 2014 3:59 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote: there are two truths about the internet and any future evolutions of it: Once you put something online, there's no guaranteed way to delete every copy; and Just because you find something online today, there's no way to guarantee being able to find it again tomorrow unless you make and maintain your own copy.

Any information online can persist, and any information online can disappear.


In Soviet Russia, information online persists and *you* disappear. :mrgreen:
resume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby San Fran Sam » Mon May 19, 2014 4:00 pm UTC

keithl wrote:Alt text: Anyone who thinks we're all going to spend the 2032 elections poring over rambling blog posts by teenagers has never tried to read a rambling blog post by a teenager.

"I can't imagine anyone who learned to read from Sesame Street being able to run for president" is how we put it in the late 1990s.


"I can't image anyone who listens to rock and roll being able to run for president" is how my parents put it in the 1970s.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3099
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby orthogon » Mon May 19, 2014 4:20 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:[...] and Just because you find something online today, there's no way to guarantee being able to find it again tomorrow unless you make and maintain your own copy. [...]

... but it's ok to store your copy in the cloud though, right?

Actually if we combine rmsgrey's law with Murphy's law, we conclude that all useful data on the Internet will be lost, and all embarrassing photos will persist.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Jamaican Castle
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:10 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Jamaican Castle » Mon May 19, 2014 5:19 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Actually if we combine rmsgrey's law with Murphy's law, we conclude that all useful data on the Internet will be lost, and all embarrassing photos will persist.


Isn't that Finagle's Law? Murphy's Law suggests that, given a choice between deleting the useful data and the embarrassing photos, someone will choose the former. (I'm not sure what happens in the small number of cases where embarrassing photos are useful data.)

CBusAlex
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby CBusAlex » Mon May 19, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

The first US President to have a sex tape leaked onto the internet is probably alive today. Yeah, that's a little weird.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Whizbang » Mon May 19, 2014 5:23 pm UTC

What happens if photos are neither embarrassing nor useful? Like, as in all of Facebook.

User avatar
Zassounotsukushi
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:38 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Zassounotsukushi » Mon May 19, 2014 5:31 pm UTC

rhomboidal wrote:I really just don't know if I can ever bring myself to vote for someone who's ever posted a duck-faced selfie. I really just don't know...


But what about some obscure 80s or 70s fad right now? After the fad has passed, the pictures are no longer as objectionable. Gawdy and embarrassing, yes. But it loses its weight as a character statement and social classifier.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Whizbang » Mon May 19, 2014 5:33 pm UTC

Zassounotsukushi wrote:
rhomboidal wrote:I really just don't know if I can ever bring myself to vote for someone who's ever posted a duck-faced selfie. I really just don't know...


But what about some obscure 80s or 70s fad right now? After the fad has passed, the pictures are no longer as objectionable. Gawdy and embarrassing, yes. But it loses its weight as a character statement and social classifier.


I can't imagine anyone who ever wore a mullet being able to run for president.

User avatar
thesingingaccountant
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:18 pm UTC
Location: My trusty tablet, most likely

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby thesingingaccountant » Mon May 19, 2014 7:17 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Pops1918 wrote:With a response from the little girl like that, I'd have gone a different way. The prompt was clearly ridiculous, but the response was acidly smug, self-righteous, instantly unlikeable, and does nothing to say why Internet-raised candidates would actually be good at the job. If her go-to mode of debate when she hears something she disagrees with is to unload some data-free snarky zingers, I'd be inclined to bet against her chances of office.


Why prove something you don't have to? Unless we invent immortality or destroy the internet in the next 20 years, "internet-raised candidates" are going to be the only options, so proving whether they will or won't be "good at the job" is moot.

But, also, y'know, fuck the idea that every comment deserves a data-laden serious-debate answer no matter how stupid and baseless it was. Just because you opened your mouth and stuff fell out of it doesn't mean anyone's obligated to engage it. Sometimes the only possible response is a "Data-free snarky zinger", because anything more serious would be in-and-of-itself absurd.


You beat me to it. And did it more eloquently than I would have.
Never trust a psychic who has to reschedule.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Xeio » Mon May 19, 2014 7:24 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Why prove something you don't have to? Unless we invent immortality or destroy the internet in the next 20 years, "internet-raised candidates" are going to be the only options, so proving whether they will or won't be "good at the job" is moot.
Hah, jokes on you. Amish 2040!

User avatar
Platypodes
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:42 am UTC
Location: On a knot on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Platypodes » Mon May 19, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

The woman's comment is stupid, with a grain of truth--of course people who grew up with the internet will be elected president, but of course sometimes people will drag out embarrassing old photos and manage to make campaign issues out of them. Anybody hear about the thirty-something congressional candidate a few years ago and the scandal over some old photos on her Facebook where she and her husband wore sexy Halloween costumes?

But... What kind of vicious bullshit is that girl spouting? "A world that no longer needs you"? I used the internet as a teenager, when the internet was pretty new, and I can't imagine saying that the world "no longer needs" anybody who's a few years older than me. I can't imagine saying that in 2032, either. Why would anybody say that?

Hell, even if you want to say that the world no longer needs anybody who isn't tech-savvy (which is stupid, but just hypothetically suppose we wanted to say it), plenty of people who didn't have internet access as teenagers become as tech-savvy as any modern teen.
videogamesizzle wrote:so, uh, seen any good arbitrary, high numbers lately?

User avatar
Zassounotsukushi
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 8:38 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Zassounotsukushi » Mon May 19, 2014 9:10 pm UTC

At least for my cohort, I don't think very much bad stuff ever got left out there publicly.

Livejournal was a bit of a close call at times. Out of my friends, it didn't take us long to realize that sites exist that cache public posts, and a greater degree of self-censorship followed.

Then there were a lot of obscure corners of the internet. AIM profiles, for instance, saw inordinate amounts time spent on them, and hosted some really juicy details. But did anyone ever do bulk caching of those? Quite possibly not. It was probably the same tenuous feeling of erase-ability that teens get now with Snapchat.

But gone from the internet does not mean gone for good. How many entrepreneurs are sitting around with stacks of hard drives full of user content from old internet services? How many reputable companies are doing this in secret? The world will never know. They will only know that dick pics of the top-runner in some race surfaced without any explanation. Even better - these people get to make money twice. One time, as the competition pays to get the goods, and a second time as a tabloid pays to have them published!

But no amount of industrial-scale data collection could ever compare to what is stored by the individuals themselves. Fortunately, most people are probably too stupid to maintain good data preservation practices. This isn't an argument against being friends with nerds - just an argument against taking fellow nerds along with you for naked hijinks.

GGCS
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:20 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby GGCS » Mon May 19, 2014 9:24 pm UTC

Platypodes wrote:But... What kind of vicious bullshit is that girl spouting? "A world that no longer needs you"? I used the internet as a teenager, when the internet was pretty new, and I can't imagine saying that the world "no longer needs" anybody who's a few years older than me. I can't imagine saying that in 2032, either. Why would anybody say that?

Because the more vicious and dismissive you are of others with flippant opinions, the more "emotional maturity" you have over your opponents. Plus, it will be more likely the "bad thinkers" will be so insulted, they'll just go away forever and bother no one. This scenario especially *won't* inflame to a point where either side of the issue roots themselves into the ground and refuses to budge and otherwise good people become demonized.

...what?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon May 19, 2014 10:56 pm UTC

Platypodes wrote:But... What kind of vicious bullshit is that girl spouting? "A world that no longer needs you"? I used the internet as a teenager, when the internet was pretty new, and I can't imagine saying that the world "no longer needs" anybody who's a few years older than me. I can't imagine saying that in 2032, either. Why would anybody say that?


It's one of those "universal truth of the human condition" things - people are born into a world where their parents' generation works for their grandparents' generation. As the kids grow up, the grandparents retire and the parents take over running things, the kids enter the workforce, work their way up, having kids on the way, and are running things by the time they have grandchildren, and are living in a world run by their kids by the time their grandchildren enter the workforce.

It starts with policemen and the peons in the service industry, but, gradually, everyone in a position of responsibility or authority around you ends up being younger than you, and you find yourself checked into that nice "retirement community", or yelling at the kids to get off your lawn...

2032's a little early, but by 2040, I'll probably be thinking wistfully of the days when retirement would have been on the horizon, and looking forward to when I can hand over keeping the world running to the youngsters...

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1370: "President"

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue May 20, 2014 12:58 am UTC

I hope for the day when an internet-teen does run for president, someone drags something up, and they respond by simply shrugging it off and changing the attitude of a large portion of the country.

Hey, what is reality if you don't dream it up first?


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests