1314: "Photos"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

CasualSax
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby CasualSax » Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:23 pm UTC

If you don't have your flash turned on, you don't get this awesome effect:
Image

I don't care if people take photos of everything, but if they inhibit others enjoyment by stopping the dinner or blinding someone with a flash, I'm against it. But really, why do we care if someone is against taking photos? The problem isn't the guy who wants to snag a sweet picture of the sunset, the problem is the guy who feels compelled to take pictures of everything from a documentation standpoint.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:58 pm UTC

Von_Cheam wrote:Hmm. What's the exchange rate between two cents' worth of opinion and a tuppen'orth of opinion?

Well, although penny is in common use in the US, two penn'orth is British (according to Collins), and almost certainly predates decimalisation in 1971, which means it must refer to 2d, which is one sixth of a shilling or 5/6 of a new penny. At today's exchange rate, that is worth about 1.37 US cents or just over 1 Eurocent.

However, the phrase has probably been around for much longer [citation needed], and inflation being what it is, that amount of money would have bought you really quite a lot of opinion when the phrase was first coined (pun accidental). A hundred years ago it would have bought you four issues of the Daily Mail; bear in mind that just one issue of said organ contains a toxic dose of opinion.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:02 pm UTC

Wumbo wrote:Be considerate with your camera is what white hat guy is talking about
No, because if that's what WHG were talking about he would have said something about how one person's camera affects anyone else, instead of what he actually said, which was about how the photographers take pictures instead of the photographers enjoying the view.

Western Rover wrote:Again Randall draws a great comic that perfectly encapsulates my thoughts or experiences, and then ruins it by putting in a sophomoric swear word. Please, a little more maturity.
You know what? Fuck you.

I could have perhaps sympathized if you'd just left that comment about this current comic, but then you had to go and turn it into a whine about someone dealing with a loved one's cancer being justifiably angry at and about cancer, because he used a fucking naughty word.

Grow the fuck up.

dp2 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:I don't see any sophomoric swear words in that comic. Perhaps you mean "fuck"?

That would be a sophomoric swear word, yes. It has zero meaning, at least in this context. When you can't express your emotion with anything other than a meaningless word that someone else might find offensive, that's pretty much the definition of a sophomoric swear word.
Fuck you, too, you cunting twat.

(By the way, I believe Red Hal was, like me, reacting to the inclusion of the Cancer comic in Western Rover's whinge, where "fuck" is very clearly not a meaningless word, and where it very clearly expresses an emotion that is far more significant and important than worrying about someone else's delicate sensibilities.)

philsov wrote:True. If all I want to do is eat my breakfast with her and she's getting sidetracked and not eating it with me, it does ruin my experience.
Does this actually happen with any frequency, though? I feel like the people complaining here about WHG being a straw man (which he totally isn't; I've met loads of people with exactly that attitude and I'm sure Randall has likewise) are building up plenty of their own as well. Sure, some people get so caught up in taking pictures at a social activity that they can't actually participate in the social aspect of it, which detracts from other people's enjoyment, but what fraction of a total breakfast is actually taken up by snapping a picture or two of your meal before you start eating it?

WHG (and other luddites in this thread) is complaining about something that doesn't affect him and that quite possibly increases the overall enjoyment of life for the people doing it. Doing something that does actually detract from other people's experience is totally different (and admittedly a few here have pointed out the phenomenon of having their own view worsened by the presence of dozens of phone screens in front of them). And hell, I think it's even at least somewhat valid to point out to someone using a flash for a distant (or projected) scene that they're probably ending up with a picture they themselves won't like as much, because of how their camera likely compensates for the presence of the flash. (Dedicated cameras with a proper flash typically adjust the exposure time to some preset standard when the flash is on, and that standard likely assumes a much brighter scene than you can get with a flash too weak to light up whatever you're taking the picture of. On the other hand, I myself have used exactly this tendency to decrease exposures on a camera with no manual settings, because left to its own devices a typical point-and-shoot camera will usually wash out and overexpose things like a sunset.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Heatwizard
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Heatwizard » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:17 pm UTC

quenlinlom wrote:What is embarassing is that, in reality, the White Hat Guy in panel 5 would simply reply, "Whoa, relax, dude, I was just stating my opinion. No need to be so defensive, man." And then Cueball will be the one utterly embarassed and stuttering in panel 6.

People who state something strongly and confrontationally, and then immediately turn around and go "hey bro that's just my opinion you acting crazy" when challenged, are actual demons from actual hell. If you didn't want to actually discuss it then why did you bother bringing it up?

Like, I'm mentally equipped to deal with the idea of people with ideas counter to my own, and I don't even care if you can't come up with a justification; god knows I've got a couple opinions that I'm not eloquent enough to actually put into words. But this passive-aggressive 'gotcha' bullshit is a blight on the face of the earth.

I GOT OPINIONS ABOUT OPINIONS GUYS

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:24 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:WHG (and other luddites in this thread) is complaining about something that doesn't affect him

It does affect him: it fuels his hate.

gmalivuk wrote:On the other hand, I myself have used exactly this tendency to decrease exposures on a camera with no manual settings, because left to its own devices a typical point-and-shoot camera will usually wash out and overexpose things like a sunset.)

Switch the camera to using center focus, point it onto something focusable (like a tree branch) on a background of the part of the sky you want to appear in midtones, half-press the shutter button, recompose to the frame you want to take and then fully depress the shutter.

And yes, it even works on my Android phone (which I almost never use to take pictures).

Lines
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:04 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Lines » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:33 pm UTC

I feel compelled by this topic and these discussions enough to join up to the forum and lay down my own condescending opinion.

I used to take a fair amount of photos of anything that interested me before. Quite recently, I took a course in photography and read a lot about how to make my photos look good. Now I take a LOT less photographs. The reason being, I only take photos when I know with a guarantee that there is someone else on the planet who is as invested in these images as I am.

When I am about to do something that is a first experience for myself and a friend, I will bring along my camera because I know my friend will appreciate the results.

I took some photos of a car show quite recently, because I know my uncle shares my interest in vintage cars.

I take photos of architecture, because I am an architecture student and my fellow students would appreciate the resource material.

Fairly soon, I'm going to get to have a go at operating a small steam engine, which I will take some photos of because I know my Mum would like to see the five-year-old train fanatic come out again.

But then there are the other things. I'd never take a photo of a meal, because the meal is about the taste and texture, not the visual state. I'd never take a photo of a concert, because its the sounds that matter. I'd never take a photo of a fireworks display, because its the rich, outdoors time spent with friends that matter. I'd be far too scared to surrender a moment of those events because I was fumbling with my phone. It just isn't worth the time investment, because I can't think of a soul in the world who would care for what is essentially visual evidence that I did something.

I also don't publicly share my photographs insofar as I can, and that is a big one. I only show my photos to the person they were targeted at.

I feel I may be very susceptible to information overload, because I can't cope with things like Facebook, tumblr and Instagram. In fact, I'm starting to count myself amongst the modern luddites. I don't have an account on any of these myself, but even when a friend is showing me their albums on their accounts, I can't bring myself to care.

I know some photography students who take some amazing pieces of things that are beyond realistic, and they have a visual value that I would never appreciate in the real world. When a photograph brings out the colour, texture, pattern or tone of a vision more than the cluttered and distracting view of reality ever could, then I care.

I can easily look through an album of an event I experienced, because I have an emotional attachment to the thing, and I understand it as something more than a visual snapshot.

But when I'm looking at holiday snaps one after another, theres no emotional investment for anyone who wasn't there. 99% of the people on the planet aren't going to care about this. A camera phone photo of a sunrise, for example, is only a precious memory to the person who snapped the pic in the first place.

So to put it this way: it isn't the action of taking the photo that bugs me, its the relentlessly unrewarding result. The internet feels so cluttered and exhausting as it is that more of the same half-assed snapshots of things I don't care about just add to the fatigue.

ON THE OTHER HAND:
Image research is hugely important in a visual job, as I'm sure it is to many professions. The fact that there is such an enormous catalogue of images available online is a life saver. So I can't argue the case that the internet full of images is awful and I hate it, because I use it on almost a daily basis.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:48 pm UTC

For those of us struggling to understand the US education system, is a "sophomoric swear word" one that would typically be taught in 10th grade (i.e. age 14-16), or would somebody need to wait until their second year at university to learn such a word?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

buggy
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:31 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby buggy » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:55 pm UTC

I kinda figured the hatted guy would retaliate, I guess I mistaked him for bhg, but it got me thinking about how I could retaliate, which led me to a possible What If: What would happen if you swallowed a phone?

CasualSax
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby CasualSax » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:57 pm UTC

Sophomoric means juvenile, but is not linked directly to the high school or college experience. The word has been separated from its origin, much as foolish does not relate directly to a particular kind of clown. It also implies that its user is desperately trying to separate himself from the one he is calling juvenile, thus inferring his own youth and inexperience.
Last edited by CasualSax on Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blowfishhootie » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:02 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:For those of us struggling to understand the US education system, is a "sophomoric swear word" one that would typically be taught in 10th grade (i.e. age 14-16), or would somebody need to wait until their second year at university to learn such a word?


It's not the U.S. education system you're struggling with, it's the English language.

CasualSax
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby CasualSax » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:04 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
orthogon wrote:For those of us struggling to understand the US education system, is a "sophomoric swear word" one that would typically be taught in 10th grade (i.e. age 14-16), or would somebody need to wait until their second year at university to learn such a word?


It's not the U.S. education system you're struggling with, it's the English language.


All made worse because the swear words in question are learned well before a student reaches 10th grade.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:15 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:And yes, it even works on my Android phone (which I almost never use to take pictures).
How does one half-press a touch screen?

Lines wrote:I'd never take a photo of a meal, because the meal is about the taste and texture, not the visual state.
Yeah, because this definitely isn't a thing.

I'd never take a photo of a concert, because its the sounds that matter.
Hence all those noisy lasers and audible dance moves.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:29 pm UTC

CasualSax wrote:Sophomoric means juvenile, but is not linked directly to the high school or college experience.

Ah, I see, though in my defence, that meaning isn't listed in my Concise Oxford.

Still, I quite like the idea of second-year-university level swearwords. Of course it would depend on the subject. English majors might learn some ripe old insults from Chaucer, whereas for social scientists the worst swearword would be something like "positivism".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby speising » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:31 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:And yes, it even works on my Android phone (which I almost never use to take pictures).
How does one half-press a touch screen?

that's actually possible (well, the equvalent), as inrecently noticed, at least on my gingerbread camera. press and hold the shutter. swipe away to abort.
unfortunately, that only fixes focus, not exposure or wb on my phone.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:41 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
CasualSax wrote:Sophomoric means juvenile, but is not linked directly to the high school or college experience.

Ah, I see, though in my defence, that meaning isn't listed in my Concise Oxford.
In our defense, you should have gone with an American dictionary, I guess.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:53 pm UTC

speising wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
Kit. wrote:And yes, it even works on my Android phone (which I almost never use to take pictures).
How does one half-press a touch screen?

that's actually possible (well, the equvalent), as inrecently noticed, at least on my gingerbread camera. press and hold the shutter. swipe away to abort.
unfortunately, that only fixes focus, not exposure or wb on my phone.

Yes, it works too, and it does fix exposure on my Xperia Mini Pro (at least under ICS).

But I was actually speaking about the physical shutter button on its right-hand edge.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blowfishhootie » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:09 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
orthogon wrote:
CasualSax wrote:Sophomoric means juvenile, but is not linked directly to the high school or college experience.

Ah, I see, though in my defence, that meaning isn't listed in my Concise Oxford.
In our defense, you should have gone with an American dictionary, I guess.


I doubt it's the same thing as the Concise Oxford, but www.oxforddictionaries.com also lists "pretentious or juvenile" as a definition.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:39 am UTC

Ah, so a less crappy British dictionary would have done the trick as well.

Moral: Stop using crappy dictionaries.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Mr. Goodfellow
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:49 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Mr. Goodfellow » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:20 am UTC

I have to say, I didn't like the comic (perhaps because WHG reminded me too much of myself), but I've very much enjoyed the resultant discussion.

As one who is admittedly annoyed by serial-photographers, I have only this to say in our defense:

1) I think that it is valid, in human society, to criticize behavior by others, even strangers, that seems vapid, shallow, or unfulfilling. These, perhaps, are not as great of sins as other forms of transgression (violence, hatred, dehumanization of others, etc.) but they still, when considered en masse, take a toll. I'm not sure the red carpet culture of Hollywood actually directly harms anyone, and it certainly brings a fleeting joy to some, but at the same time it doesn't seem like a very positive development for society as a whole. To a lesser degree, I think the same thing could be said about the culture of constant documentation. However...

2) When it comes to photographing one's surroundings, there's obviously a lot of context that needs to be taken into account. While I might make a jab at someone whipping out their camera time after time to take photos of a sunset, or a waterfall, or some other moment of beauty, I think, generally speaking, that is accepted behavior. As often as not, I'm sure there are very good reasons for any particular person wanting to take a photograph at any particular time. But, as anyone who has been through college during the internet era can attest to, there are plenty of people for whom taking a picture is not an act of memory formation but an act of pretense, in the sense of: "Rather than attempt to experience this moment or the people around me fully, I will snap a photograph so that in the future I can pretend to have experienced this moment." I imagine that knowing such people has led many to the white hat guy point of view.

At any rate, it's a difficult issue, and a particularly relevant debate for our era. I'll be curious to hear what others think!

DavidLP
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:48 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby DavidLP » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:30 am UTC

This comic is really similar to one of my favorite Jake & Amir videos. Extremely relevant: [When I try to post the link, I get flagged as spam, but this is the youtube url]: /watch?v=xVjwP2gwwI8

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:08 pm UTC

Maybe some of us just want to steal the sunset's soul and keep it in our little communication box. Ever think of that, GLR? Huh?
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby dp2 » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:29 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:I don't see any sophomoric swear words in that comic. Perhaps you mean "fuck"?

That would be a sophomoric swear word, yes. It has zero meaning, at least in this context. When you can't express your emotion with anything other than a meaningless word that someone else might find offensive, that's pretty much the definition of a sophomoric swear word.
Fuck you, too, you cunting twat.

See, that's different. Unlike your "Grow the fuck up" above, the words you have chosen have meaning in their context. (Except "cunting". How do you even make a adjective out of that?) I also disagree that it is more grown up to sprinkle "the fuck" around randomly in one's speech.

(By the way, I believe Red Hal was, like me, reacting to the inclusion of the Cancer comic in Western Rover's whinge, where "fuck" is very clearly not a meaningless word, and where it very clearly expresses an emotion that is far more significant and important than worrying about someone else's delicate sensibilities.)

That may be, and I would agree with you there. Other words could be used (come to think of it, how did the word come to be used that way? Is the implication that you so hate the object that you wish someone would rape it?), but it has definite meaning there.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:39 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:I also disagree that it is more grown up to sprinkle "the fuck" around randomly in one's speech.


But sprinkling one's speech doesn't make it automatically more juvenile either. Expletives are a wondrous part of speech and one of the areas where the richness of any language really gets the chance to shine.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Thu Jan 09, 2014 3:02 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:That may be, and I would agree with you there. Other words could be used (come to think of it, how did the word come to be used that way? Is the implication that you so hate the object that you wish someone would rape it?), but it has definite meaning there.

According to Pinker, it developed from "damn you", i.e. "may you be damned", when sexual swear words became stronger than religious ones.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby speising » Thu Jan 09, 2014 4:32 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
dp2 wrote:That may be, and I would agree with you there. Other words could be used (come to think of it, how did the word come to be used that way? Is the implication that you so hate the object that you wish someone would rape it?), but it has definite meaning there.

According to Pinker, it developed from "damn you", i.e. "may you be damned", when sexual swear words became stronger than religious ones.


but i would be delighted if someone wished me "may you be fucked".

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:01 pm UTC

speising wrote:but i would be delighted if someone wished me "may you be fucked".


Imagine "raped" instead.

User avatar
Soup
Posts: 299
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:47 pm UTC
Location: The Comfy Chair

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Soup » Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:However, the phrase has probably been around for much longer [citation needed], and <snip>


For fun, I looked up "citation needed" on Wikipedia, and the page includes an xkcd comic! Did we know about this? Is it a coincidence?
Waiting for it...

Go username5243, musthavebeenmykarma, Rakhal, thunk!!

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Thu Jan 09, 2014 8:12 pm UTC

Soup wrote:
orthogon wrote:However, the phrase has probably been around for much longer [citation needed], and <snip>


For fun, I looked up "citation needed" on Wikipedia, and the page includes an xkcd comic! Did we know about this? Is it a coincidence?


It's citaception. Yeah, I've noticed it before.

lgw
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:52 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby lgw » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Western Rover wrote:Again Randall draws a great comic that perfectly encapsulates my thoughts or experiences, and then ruins it by putting in a sophomoric swear word. Please, a little more maturity.
You know what? Fuck you.

I could have perhaps sympathized if you'd just left that comment about this current comic, but then you had to go and turn it into a whine about someone dealing with a loved one's cancer being justifiably angry at and about cancer, because he used a fucking naughty word.

Grow the fuck up.


Indeed. "Fuck cancer" beyond a simple fucking expression: it's a goddamned popular movement. Café Press currently sells 28 distinct Fuck Cancer T-Shirts, none of them with stick figures.

(Plus, avoiding "swear words" is a tribal identification signal for a tribe that's not particularly popular in these parts, much as these forums try to be open minded.)
"In no set of physics laws do you get two cats." - doogly

madaco
Posts: 165
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby madaco » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:35 pm UTC

Maybe a good solution would be to designate one and only one person (or maybe a few, for different angles) in the group to be the person(people) to record the event, and no one else would, and afterwards they would share the recording/pictures with everyone.

However, there would be the question of "how does the person share the images/video with the other people, without there being any likely-hood of malicious behavior by the person, or worms or anything.

and of course then there's the problem of how to organize which person (people) film ahead of time, and to convince people that this would be a good idea.

or I guess if people just had a very small head mounted camera (that would be small enough to not noticeably obstruct other's vision.

Although if someone wants to take the pictures for photography's sake, and not just to preserve information about the event, that would be another problem with this idea.

So, maybe not practical.

Personally, I am not irritated by people taking pictures of things.

But then again I don't really go to places super often, so my experiences might not be as applicable.
I found my old forum signature to be awkward, so I'm changing it to this until I pick a better one.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26763
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:40 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:(Except "cunting". How do you even make a adjective out of that?)
Easy: if you often or habitually cunt, then you are cunting. If you are simultaneously a twat, then you are a cunting twat.

Where's the confusion?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DavidLP
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:48 am UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby DavidLP » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:47 am UTC

To you people arguing over swear words, I believe Vsauce has a rather eloquent explanation: youtube link: /watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc (again sorry, flagged as spam, but I swear[pun intended] its not)

Invertin
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Invertin » Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:32 am UTC

I like how everyone immediately sided with the white hat guy with arguments that could be countered with exactly the same thing said in the comic.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:47 am UTC

dp2 wrote:
dp2 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:I don't see any sophomoric swear words in that comic. Perhaps you mean "fuck"?

That would be a sophomoric swear word, yes. It has zero meaning, at least in this context. When you can't express your emotion with anything other than a meaningless word that someone else might find offensive, that's pretty much the definition of a sophomoric swear word.
Fuck you, too, you cunting twat.

See, that's different. Unlike your "Grow the fuck up" above, the words you have chosen have meaning in their context. (Except "cunting". How do you even make a adjective out of that?) I also disagree that it is more grown up to sprinkle "the fuck" around randomly in one's speech.


What on earth gives you the idea that it is random? I feel like this misunderstanding on your part is at the heart of your agreeing with the baseless objections to the two comics in question. Just saying it is meaningless doesn't make it so. How can any word be meaningless, and if it is meaningless then how can it be objectionable? Do you hate blank sheets of paper for their content?

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:55 am UTC

dp2 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:I don't see any sophomoric swear words in that comic. Perhaps you mean "fuck"?

That would be a sophomoric swear word, yes. It has zero meaning, at least in this context. When you can't express your emotion with anything other than a meaningless word that someone else might find offensive, that's pretty much the definition of a sophomoric swear word.

Isn't "sophomoric" from your definition a "sophomoric swear word" by the definition itself?

Spoiler:
It has zero meaning in the context of the definition, might be found offensive by someone else, and you (well, either you or Western Rover - or both) use it to express your emotion.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:44 pm UTC

Invertin wrote:I like how everyone immediately sided with the white hat guy with arguments that could be countered with exactly the same thing said in the comic.


"The comic is a strawman."

"Why the fuck do you care how someone else enjoys his comic?"

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Kit. » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:08 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Invertin wrote:I like how everyone immediately sided with the white hat guy with arguments that could be countered with exactly the same thing said in the comic.

Why the fuck do you care how someone else enjoys his comic?

This answer would work too.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby Klear » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:35 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
Klear wrote:
Invertin wrote:I like how everyone immediately sided with the white hat guy with arguments that could be countered with exactly the same thing said in the comic.

Why the fuck do you care how someone else enjoys his comic?

This answer would work too.


Yeah. "Fuck off" works for anything as well.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3074
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby orthogon » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Kit. wrote:
Klear wrote:
Invertin wrote:I like how everyone immediately sided with the white hat guy with arguments that could be countered with exactly the same thing said in the comic.

Why the fuck do you care how someone else enjoys his comic?

This answer would work too.


Yeah. "Fuck off" works for anything as well.

... in that case you could pass the Turing Test with the following:

Code: Select all

10 INPUT A$
20 PRINT "Fuck off."
30 GOTO 10
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1314: "Photos"

Postby blowfishhootie » Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:44 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:
dp2 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:I don't see any sophomoric swear words in that comic. Perhaps you mean "fuck"?

That would be a sophomoric swear word, yes. It has zero meaning, at least in this context. When you can't express your emotion with anything other than a meaningless word that someone else might find offensive, that's pretty much the definition of a sophomoric swear word.

Isn't "sophomoric" from your definition a "sophomoric swear word" by the definition itself?

Spoiler:
It has zero meaning in the context of the definition, might be found offensive by someone else, and you (well, either you or Western Rover - or both) use it to express your emotion.


In reality, calling it a "sophomoric swear word" is kind of the exact opposite of saying it is "a meaningless word."


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlgaeSea, Moose Anus, mscha and 121 guests