SMBC Comics Forum

YellowKeys wrote:I know I may be missing something.

There's definitely something missing, all right.

Edminster wrote:Alright I'll give you a better hint.

YellowKeys wrote:Few people = intelligent but low on membership.

YellowKeys wrote:stay tiny and keep the average IQ up.

Oh, all right. I wasn't sure what flaw you were talking about, either.
Seemed to me that Yellowkeys did a fine job of interpreting a bad graph.

Though I wonder if Zach's point was just that, he won't join the group because if he did, it would make them all dumber.
(I'm feeling generous.)

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:Oh, all right. I wasn't sure what flaw you were talking about, either.
Seemed to me that Yellowkeys did a fine job of interpreting a bad graph.

Oh yeah I'm not debating that, I was just pointing out exactly where that graph is wrong because it kinda felt like he* was defending it as correct.


*or shi, I'm no cissupremacist

Edminster wrote:Alright I'll give you a better hint.

YellowKeys wrote:Few people = intelligent but low on membership.

YellowKeys wrote:stay tiny and keep the average IQ up.

[img]SMBC[/img]
[img]WBC[/img]

By your arguments (and the argument of the comic), the WBC is smarter and less assholish than the SMBC Fanclub (taken as an aggregate).

I didn't think this was about making arguments on how the world always is 100% of the time. In the more detailed 2nd post, I typed that I think the graph is "a joke that's speaking about large groups in general." And, generally speaking, I think it does hold true. Obviously there are outliers, and the WBC is one such case. There aren't many things that are always true. I think if jokes were worded with exceptions to be 100% accurate, then they wouldn't be funny:

"A house is just a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get more stuff. However, you may also have a storage shed, or some other method of keeping things. So, perhaps your house may be tidy and you may not add stuff to it, after all. Some people do prefer to live in spartan or unchanging decor. It also may not be your stuff in the house, because you may live with family or roommates. Another possibility is that you only have a few items, which you don't care about keeping, and so your house is not just a place to keep stuff -- you see it as serving other purposes. It's also equally possible that you have no desire to get more stuff, since you're frugal, or for other reasons. There are people who exist whose houses are not primarily used for storage." (First line=George Carlin. TL;DR=added caveats.)

It felt politically correct to add the extra lines there, and I don't think the comic would be better if it added at the bottom:
* in most cases

DonRetrasado wrote:

YellowKeys wrote:I know I may be missing something.

There's definitely something missing, all right.

Wow... didn't realize I'd get trolled so fast here...

YellowKeys wrote:Wow... didn't realize I'd get trolled so fast here...

You're Adorable.

Edminster wrote:or shi, I'm no cissupremacist

Wouldn't a cissupremacist say "she?"

I'm not familiar with shi, except in the context of motha uckas.

Sure, if they're bigoted against third gender and neuters.

Man, Oldrac, you're so cissexist*.


*this is the word I should have used

Gutchucker's list of fun facts and gut chucking!

1. It' a fucking comic.

2. The membership of a group depends on the premise of a group. I'm sure there's several intelligent neo-nazis lurking somewhere, even if every single one of them is a misinformed asshole.

3. Intelligence in a decent population is a bell curve. Every few extra points of that dubious measurement of 'IQ' is another standard deviation thataway.
---->

4. This shit is pretty irrelevant but it was fun to point out. I see no deep thought behind Zach's comic, it's just an observation. I'm sure I've read people from this forum griping about finding something nice on the internet which later fills up with idiots and posers and dickheads. Maybe the pioneer assholes bring their dumb friends?

5. IT'S A FUCKING COMIC.

6. Chuck guts.

You know, the more I think about this, the more immaterial it becomes. Assholishness is a matter of opinion (well, someone's, anyway. Most assholes don't think they are assholes) and intelligence is not well defined. See Zach's older comic: people who are a genius on one subject may be retarded when it comes to another. It could just be a falsification for the purposes of humour.
Or something. Unfortunately I just ceased to give a fuck about this subject.

It is implicitly written in The Rules* that I am allowed to derail threads. Here goes.

Oldrac the Chitinous wrote:

Edminster wrote:or shi, I'm no cissupremacist

Wouldn't a cissupremacist say "she?"

I'm not familiar with shi, except in the context of motha uckas.

Edminster wrote:Sure, if they're bigoted against third gender and neuters.

Man, Oldrac, you're so cissexist*.


*this is the word I should have used

Is there a clear-cut definition of which genders hi/shi/zi/etc apply to? I don't know any (outwardly) transgender persons and thus don't have any opportunity to use these pronouns, but even if I did I would stick with "they" for the risk of misapplying one of these other pronouns. Is there one that strictly applies to nonbinary/third-gender persons? One that strictly applies to agender persons? One that strictly applies to transgender men, or one that strictly applies to transgender women? I want to be progressive in my vocabulary, but I just don't understand it well enough.

*The Rules also state that footnoting must be done with asterisks and in smaller size. I object to the "smaller size" portion of the rule, but will follow it. My greater objection is to the way Size 50 is often used--85 is fine but 50 is just a pain to read, requiring that I either zoom in or copy/paste into Notepad.

Hey Ed, Zach is telling you to stop letting people join the forum, because it will only make us dumber. *sage*

But then who will we mess with?

Edminster wrote:Sure, if they're bigoted against third gender and neuters.

I think if you are not bigoted against third-genders and neuters, you are not a very good cissupremacist.

sotic wrote:
Is there a clear-cut definition of which genders hi/shi/zi/etc apply to? I don't know any (outwardly) transgender persons and thus don't have any opportunity to use these pronouns, but even if I did I would stick with "they" for the risk of misapplying one of these other pronouns. Is there one that strictly applies to nonbinary/third-gender persons? One that strictly applies to agender persons? One that strictly applies to transgender men, or one that strictly applies to transgender women? I want to be progressive in my vocabulary, but I just don't understand it well enough.

My understanding is that gender neutral pronouns such as zi/zer (which are the two I'm told to use the most but there are quite a few) are just that. They can be used for anybody, and all it means is that you are not specifying a gender.

For transgendered people, if you're worried about pronoun use and not sure about gender neutral pronouns, the best rule is to go go with their gender and not their sex. For example, my older brother is ftm, so even though he looks female and has a lot of feminine qualities, it's still best to refer to him as he. But gender neutral pronouns are really useful when you have people who's gender is neither male or female. And you'll find people out there who really dislike being placed in either gender.

I'm unaware of any third gender pronouns that are to be used just for people who are neither male or female, but I'm really no expert on this either. If I ever hear of one, I'll post it in this thread.

Fun fact: English actually used to have gender neutral pronouns back in the middle ages. Ou and a.

Thank you for the explanation. I will keep it in mind.

I just use the third-person plural, like a normal man.

EDIT: For everything.