Talk:1773: Negativity - Revision history

172.68.54.34 at 05:12, 18 January 2018

2018-01-18T05:12:13Z

Chrisahn: fixed SMBC link

2017-01-06T01:01:28Z

fixed SMBC link

108.162.246.35 at 16:00, 27 December 2016

2016-12-27T16:00:58Z

162.158.114.10: get of my lawn

2016-12-21T17:46:02Z

get of my lawn

162.158.91.171 at 16:14, 21 December 2016

2016-12-21T16:14:06Z

Ajfaraday at 09:41, 21 December 2016

2016-12-21T09:41:38Z

162.158.122.126 at 12:55, 19 December 2016

2016-12-19T12:55:50Z

141.101.104.173 at 07:44, 19 December 2016

2016-12-19T07:44:23Z

141.101.104.173 at 07:44, 19 December 2016

2016-12-19T07:44:00Z

108.162.216.226 at 02:38, 19 December 2016

2016-12-19T02:38:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:12, 18 January 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:
	This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday\|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday\|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)		This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday\|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday\|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
	: I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171\|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)		: I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171\|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	I think it's quite a stretch to assume that this is meant to "refer to" the 2016 election. At best it was inspired by the negativity around it, but there has been trolls and negative people on the internet, and this comic is totally relevant even if you ignored the fact that the election happened. I think it's more like someone is reading too much into it based on the fact that it happened close to the same time as the electoral college vote. That would be just one more area where people are being miserable as usual. There is no hint in any of these comics that are supposed to be "about" the internet post-election that they are suggesting anything is changed or different, and that the net use to be a better place. It's more like he's pointing out how the net IS. 2016 is just more of the usual. I haven't noticed anything getting particularly worse than they were before, in spite of that the media likes to suggest. And why not, it gives them something else to blame on Trump. You think after a while they'd realize you don't really have to make stuff up; there is plenty there to work with. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.34\|172.68.54.34]] 05:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
-Any chance that 'the pain and negativity of the internet' is a reference to [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-4 this recent SMBC comic] where SMBC's artist Zach challenges Randall to 'out-nerd him now' (seen when you click the red button just below the comic).
+Any chance that 'the pain and negativity of the internet' is a reference to [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3 this recent SMBC comic] where SMBC's artist Zach challenges Randall to 'out-nerd him now' (seen when you click the red button just below the comic).
 I've been wondering whether the first XKCD after that (that is: today's XKCD comic) would refer to it.
 [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 :: The negative interpretation might as well be humorously exaggerated. Alluding to political correctness gives the defense some weight. A point in favor of our observation, that I came just here to validate, would be the lawn. "Get of my lawn" is a common meme, but even the lawn is impressed with Zach. Anyway I chuckled. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.10|162.158.114.10]] 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls.  [[User:Ajfaraday|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 : I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ::: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=171 Here you go.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.126|162.158.122.126]] 12:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 :: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls.  [[User:Ajfaraday|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 : I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:14, 21 December 2016
Line 10:		Line 10:

	This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday\|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday\|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)		This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday\|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday\|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
		+	: I would object to "inanimate". Things are inanimate, and well, maybe dead organisms; but a growling and talking organism is obviously alive.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.171\|162.158.91.171]] 16:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:41, 21 December 2016
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=171 Here you go.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.126\|162.158.122.126]] 12:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)		::: [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=171 Here you go.] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.122.126\|162.158.122.126]] 12:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
	:: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173\|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)		:: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173\|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
		+
		+	This article mentions XKCD number 1749 as involving "talking to inanimate organisms", but nobody talks to the mushroom in that strip. Neither does the mushroom talk to them, it merely growls. [[User:Ajfaraday\|Ajfaraday]] ([[User talk:Ajfaraday\|talk]]) 09:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 : I kinda doubt it.  SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement.  An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare.  If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 :: We better be seeing a string theory joke sometime in the next week... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226|108.162.216.226]] 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 :: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173|141.101.104.173]] 07:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:44, 19 December 2016
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: I kinda doubt it. SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement. An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare. If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)		: I kinda doubt it. SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement. An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare. If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
	:: We better be seeing a string theory joke sometime in the next week... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226\|108.162.216.226]] 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)		:: We better be seeing a string theory joke sometime in the next week... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226\|108.162.216.226]] 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
		+	:: @SteveBaker That was my doubt too. Looking forward to an adequate response from Randall though :)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:38, 19 December 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173\|141.101.104.173]] 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)		[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.173\|141.101.104.173]] 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
	: I kinda doubt it. SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement. An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare. If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)		: I kinda doubt it. SMBC wasn't being "negative" or objectionable - if anything it was a challenge - and even a kind of complement. An adequate response to that kind of a challenge might take longer than a few days to prepare. If we're going to see anything in response, I suspect it'll be more obvious. [[User:SteveBaker\|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker\|talk]]) 14:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
		+	:: We better be seeing a string theory joke sometime in the next week... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.226\|108.162.216.226]] 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)