ZACH HOTLINE

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Garg preachy graph rarg.

[Gangler]

Is claiming that there are highly opinionated ignorant individuals who take an interest in matters of politics preachy now?

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

If you're a webcomic, and you're claiming it in place of making a joke? Sure.

And any statement that starts with "Everything wrong with X" is basically doomed to be a preach statement.

[Gangler]

I don't know. Seems like a pretty mild claim to me. Kind of like claiming that there are assholes who will bring too many items into the express lane.

I could tell a similar joke about Everything that's wrong with the express lane, with the point being that if you're in a rush, there's going to be some jackass with too many items who can't use a debit machine, and it would work out about the same.

The joke is that political discourse is generally unpleasant and unproductive, despite that being counter to the idealistic principles of it. Your mileage may vary, but the juxtaposition between the goals in political discourse, and the actual accomplishments to be found in it, seems like a legitimate source of humor to me.

Of course, a graph probably wasn't the best way to tell the joke in this instance, but whatever. Beside the point.

[smiley_cow]

The joke is that political discourse is generally unpleasant and unproductive, despite that being counter to the idealistic principles of it. Your mileage may vary, but the juxtaposition between the goals in political discourse, and the actual accomplishments to be found in it, seems like a legitimate source of humor to me.

Of course, a graph probably wasn't the best way to tell the joke in this instance, but whatever. Beside the point.

I think this is where you and I disagree. I have no problem with what Zach is saying, I agree that the people with the most confident opinion (though personally I would say the strongest) tend to be the people who understand the issue the least. But I'm having trouble seeing an actual joke in there.

A legitimate source of humour? Yes. But the key word there is 'source'. You still have to go that extra step in order to make it funny. As it stands now Zach is just complaining about something he doesn't like about people.

[Lethal Interjection]

I'm confident in my viewpoints, because I know they are my viewpoints. I also have a decent amount of knowledge, particularly in the areas of politics and surrounding areas. My graph wouldn't look like that.

I don't know if it was supposed to be a spin on "the more you know, the more you don't know", which may or may not be true. Either way, we are talking about personal viewpoints. Ideologies would probably be a better word.

[Gangler]

I think this is where you and I disagree. I have no problem with what Zach is saying, I agree that the people with the most confident opinion (though personally I would say the strongest) tend to be the people who understand the issue the least. But I'm having trouble seeing an actual joke in there.

A legitimate source of humour? Yes. But the key word there is 'source'. You still have to go that extra step in order to make it funny. As it stands now Zach is just complaining about something he doesn't like about people.

Valid, it is kind of like a premise with no punchline. Much of his comedy is like this though (smbc theater is the worst offender). There are definitely many, many ways that this could have been done infinitely better. I can agree with that.

I'm confident in my viewpoints, because I know they are my viewpoints. I also have a decent amount of knowledge, particularly in the areas of politics and surrounding areas. My graph wouldn't look like that.

Margin of Error.

[smiley_cow]

I'm confident in my viewpoints, because I know they are my viewpoints. I also have a decent amount of knowledge, particularly in the areas of politics and surrounding areas. My graph wouldn't look like that.

I don't know if it was supposed to be a spin on "the more you know, the more you don't know", which may or may not be true. Either way, we are talking about personal viewpoints. Ideologies would probably be a better word.

Yeah, this is why I'd change the word from 'confident' to 'strongest'. I find people who know a lot about what they're talking when it comes to politics do tend to be fairly confident talking about it, but they also tend to have much more nuanced views and are a bit more flexible in their thinking on the subject. Whereas people who don't really know much about an issue tend to be very firm in their opinion and very strongly believe in the side they believe in.

[Lethal Interjection]

I'm confident in my viewpoints, because I know they are my viewpoints. I also have a decent amount of knowledge, particularly in the areas of politics and surrounding areas. My graph wouldn't look like that.

I don't know if it was supposed to be a spin on "the more you know, the more you don't know", which may or may not be true. Either way, we are talking about personal viewpoints. Ideologies would probably be a better word.

Yeah, this is why I'd change the word from 'confident' to 'strongest'. I find people who know a lot about what they're talking when it comes to politics do tend to be fairly confident talking about it, but they also tend to have much more nuanced views and are a bit more flexible in their thinking on the subject. Whereas people who don't really know much about an issue tend to be very firm in their opinion and very strongly believe in the side they believe in.

Me, I'd change the other axis. Perceived knowledge vs. actual knowledge. Although that does have a bit of a "personal viewpoint" bias to it. Narrow vs. wide does too, but less so, so I'll use that. I can learn everything possible that conforms to my starting viewpoint, but that doesn't make it uniformly true. The graph is using "knowledge" as an abstract, and an idealized one at that (in that certainty through knowledge is achievable, just not in a lifetime*).

Actually, now that I think about it, while there does seem to be a "the more you know, the more you don't know" spin on the first part of the graph, but that Zach made it grow again, the more it looks like an enlightenment idea that knowledge has a salvific end, that if we ever are able to reach that second peak, all problems would be solved. Which I don't agree with, as there are always other factors other than knowledge. We know how we can reverse plenty of human problems, but we aren't really doing it, are we?

This over analyzation of a one-off joke has been brought to you by the Lethal Interjection Society for Hire Lurning.


*As knowledge has a certain cumulative effect through history, we can know more on any subject as we plunge through time, as we have a basis of understanding and knowledge is able to be condensed somewhat with each generation. So I would suggest that with this graph, as history moves on, we are able to move ever closer to the second peak, albeit slowly.

[Gangler]

I'd also posit that more informed people are more likely to take the "Quiet assurety approach", basically meaning that they're less inclined to engage in prolonged arguments with those who are clearly unwilling to bend on the issue. They might think they have better things to do than chew out every ignorant fool they come across. It's not at all uncommon however, to see an uninformed individual who feels the need to engage everyone who disagrees with him on controversial matters like Politics or Religion.

Of course, Lethal makes a good point with the perceived vs actual knowledge. Really comes down more to how infallible you view your knowledge to be than how much you actually have. People have often claimed that the more they learn, the more they are aware of how much they don't know. What's that classic line? "The only thing I learned in University is how little I know." or something like that.

[Edminster]

I'd also posit that more informed people are more likely to take the "Quiet assurety approach", basically meaning that they're less inclined to engage in prolonged arguments with those who are clearly unwilling to bend on the issue. They might think they have better things to do than chew out every ignorant fool they come across.

Well of course you'd posit that, because it lets you believe that we here at SMBC are imbeciles when we chew you out for being so amazingly wrong on basically every subject you take a stand on! The truth of the matter is we know exactly what we are talking about and don't care about wasting our own time.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Whoa, whoa, what just happened there?

[Gangler]

Wait, wut? Where the hell did that come from? You often chew me out for being wrong because when I post something moronic you're not afraid to call me on it. More often than not these arguments end with you being right. I don't see why you feel the need to tie this to previous unrelated arguments though.

[Edminster]

Here is where it came from:

Qualities Of Ed:

• Loud
• Very inclined to engage in prolonged arguments with those apparently unwilling to bend on a particular issue
• Does not think he has better things to do than chew out every ignorant fool he comes across

Gangler's thoughts on what "informed" people are like:

• Quiet
• Disinclined to argue with people who are apparently unwilling to budge
• Has better things to do than argue

Admittedly I fell into my tendency to project my personality onto the SMBC forum as a whole, but the point still stands that intentional or not Gangler's list of qualities inherent to an informed person is in essence the exact opposite of myself.

So of course I'm going to be a bit tetchy.

[Gangler]

I don't even know who you think you're talking to. I argue as loudly as anyone and often about subjects I'm completely uninformed about using nothing but a crude line of reasoning that's blatantly flawed and skewed to favor preexisting opinions. My stances are as predictable as the staunchest of leftist or Rightist. You can sum it up in one sentence. "I trivialize everything."

I hardly come out looking good in the "Informed people are quieter" hypothesis.

There's exceptions to every rule, and the internet is often a place people go to take up useless arguments anyway. At the end of the day you've pretty much proven me wrong time and time again, so I don't see how I could reasonably claim that you're on the less informed end of the spectrum. Certainly not without greatly diminishing myself beyond what my track record has already done.

Really, generalities as a whole should be taken with a grain of Nackle.