0775: "Savannah Ancestry"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby BioTube » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:06 am UTC

GraphiteGirl wrote:Men would not bother to do anything if they were not rewarded with sex for it.
I think Henry Cavendish makes a nice example: the man was so adverse to human contact, he only communicated with his servants through writing, had to be talked to like an empty space by his colleagues(worthy ideas occasionally got a mumbled reply) and took six hours to be talked back into his own house when a rabid fanboy showed up at his door. Tesla and Nietzsche both had less than a handful of sexual encounters at most(both were probably completely celebrate), yet the latter was a very productive philosopher while the former managed to lose half his life's work in a fire and still be directly responsible for more advancements than any other man in history(hell, he probably invented more things than Edison claimed credit for). Not that asexuals exist in your fairyworld.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Telchar » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:19 am UTC

James A. Donald wrote:
What cats do looks a bit like rape, but if you watch carefully, you will see it is just the female shit testing the male for him to prove he is big enough and tough enough and mean enough and arrogant enough and cruel enough, something we often see in human women. Evo-psych tells us that watching cats will tell us about human women, and sure enough, it does. Evo psych is not anthropomorphism - is not the error of thinking that animals are people, but the truth of thinking that people are animals. If what cats do is not rape even though it often looks like rape, sometimes things that humans do are not necessarily rape either, even though they might look like rape.


Wow. Even from a comparative psychology perspective you're wrong. You've succesfully attributed human crimes which require mens rea to animals. Yes, watching doves/cats/mice can give us insight into human behavior and conditioning, but to pretend it could tell us about why people like the feeling of sand under their toes because cats poop in a litter box is just as absurd as it sounds. You're an idiot who's doing a disservice to a field of legitimate scientific study (psychology) that already has PR problems.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
TheSoberPirate
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:48 am UTC
Location: 13 T 492960 4492224

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby TheSoberPirate » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

James A. Donald wrote:What cats do looks a bit like rape, but if you watch carefully, you will see it is just the female shit testing the male for him to prove he is big enough and tough enough and mean enough and arrogant enough and cruel enough, something we often see in human women. Evo-psych tells us that watching cats will tell us about human women, and sure enough, it does. Evo psych is not anthropomorphism - is not the error of thinking that animals are people, but the truth of thinking that people are animals. If what cats do is not rape even though it often looks like rape, sometimes things that humans do are not necessarily rape either, even though they might look like rape.


Picking cats as a comparison is a spectacularly bad choice. From what I can find in <10 minutes of research, the common ancestor of humans and cats lived about 70 million years ago. That means that about 140 million years of evolution (plus a couple thousand years of artificial selection) separate us from modern day housecats.

This just brings up a bigger problem evo-psych has to deal with, which is that there's just not enough good species to make reasonable comparisons with. 10-14 million years of evolution separates us from even our closest living relatives (chimpanzees). Even though it's an order of magnitude less than cats, it's still plenty of goddamn time for things to change. If you want more than two data points, you have to go to gorillas and than orangutans before you go to gibbons or any other primates, let alone other mammal groups. The length of evolutionary time separating us from these groups quickly gets ridiculous.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Karilyn » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

BioTube wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The anthropomorphic bit comes in when you use a term for a human crime to describe a behavior in non-humans. The reason this can be problematic is because terms for human crimes have specific moral connotations that are rather silly when applied to animals. Is it really "murder" when one animal kills another?
People make the case all the time that dolphins are sapient, so applying terms like "rape" and "murder" to their actions isn't entirely unjustified; besides, I think the requirements for "rape" are lower than those for "murder": merely requiring consensual mating being the norm rather than spaience.

I've long since thought that dolphins were Sapient. It seems hilarious so say they aren't. Any argument to the contrary would be simple human-superiority complex. Then again, I suppose a higher species could always come to our planet and declare humans not sapient because we haven't ascended our race to a state of pure energy.

There is something very telling about the tendency of dolphins to kill their rape victims after they are done with them. Maybe it is Anthropomorphizing, but it sure as heck seems like they understand it is socially unacceptable, and do not want their pod finding out about what they did lest they be exiled from their pod (which is a well established cultural consequence among dolphins).

Yay assigning human traits to animals. However, at least in the case of dolphins, I feel it is inappropriate to not give them at least the recognition for their actions as we would for early proto-human societies. Saying that they are not sapient, is frankly absurd. After all, we evolved from a point where we were a primate nearly identical to dolphins in cultural capacity. Just because they are 50,000-200,000 years ahead of dolphins, does not belittle them. After all, that's just a blink of an eye in the history of Earth.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

Apteryx
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:41 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Apteryx » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:03 pm UTC

GraphiteGirl wrote:Have you noticed that current Western civilisations are actually a lot more pleasant for humans to live in, in terms of the granting of human rights and the enjoyment of those rights, than previous societies which stated as a matter of principle that only some people's rights mattered and others would just have to serve them? Or would you genuinely prefer a master-servant model, because it would be more pleasant for you as the master, and servants can just shut up and make you a sammich?


I was with you all the way, so pleased with your demolition work that I thought I would congratulate you and consider the work done, his HORRIBLE misunderstanding of science and humanity destroyed root and branch, and all that was left for us was to cheer for you.
Then I read this.

Maybe it is forgiveable just because your own life is one that doesn't intersect the average experience of modern wage slaves. Because this is as wrong an assumption as his.

The really wealthy have exactly this life. Shut up servants and make a sammich. Sylvester Stallone has every one of his 50 house hold staff sign a draconian agreement that include such felicities as their never, under any circumstance, raising their eyes about his shoulders. Tens of thousands of people in your country employ staff with similar degradations.
As a personal experience I have crewed on maxi yachts. They cost at least 10 % of their buying price to run a year WHILE HELD IN DOCK, so only multi millionares own them, the guy I worked for owned two islands and three banks. Every morning the owners are aboard, as a matter of course, every crew person is out of bed at dawn, with a cloth, wiping down the deck, rain, hail or reaching upwind. Not on isolated yachts, on all of them, it is a meme that has spread either between Captains ( likely ) or owners. Can you guess why?.

Not so the deck is dry, this is an impossibility especially in the tropics, the best will in the world can not dry the deck.

It is so the owner can see his slaves at work when he wakes up to have a piss. The moment he has seen, you are released to go about your ACTUAL work, the things that must be done every day. The deck goes back to having spray on it, the content slave owner back to bed for a couple of hours. UNTIL he sees you, you must stay out on deck, wiping.

I have also worked at the other end of things, in a food factory, minimum wage. The owners leant on the manager for "cost cuts" as a constant. Every tiny bit he could, he dragged back out of his staff. We had an outside shelter for people having their lunch in, a previous generation of management, the original family owners I think, had put it in for their staff. The company sold the garden furniture and roof as scrap, both to speed up our breaks and to gain the $20 dollars for the company.

Your experience of life mis-leads you, imo.
Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.
John Adams

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:35 pm UTC

GraphiteGirl never said society was perfect, it's just better. Yeah, a lot of things still suck, but you know two big differences between you and actual slaves? You can quit whenever you want, and you do get paid, however meager.

Sure, because most societies are capitalistic we do live in a plutocracy, but it's a fairer plutocracy then it was fifty years ago.
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:49 pm UTC

Apteryx wrote:Your experience of life mis-leads you, imo.

And your anecdotal stories do not for the world make.
I caddied at a country club, and experienced what you are talking about. Assholes who treat you like dirt and tip you a glass of water at the end of lugging golf clubs 18 holes. It wasn't the norm, but it happened. Welcome to the service industry. You don't like it, figure out a better position. There are plenty.
And if you think that being treated like dirt is something that only exists in the service industry, I'd say your experience of life mis-leads you.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby BioTube » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:23 pm UTC

The phrase "wage slave" is also about as meaningful as salami soup: it comes from the "iron law of wages", which states that workers get only the barest wage they need to survive(which not only contradicts Marx's increasing impoverishment nonsense, but is blatantly false). If you don't like your job, get some new skills and quit! If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's very, very, very probably your own damn fault(contrary to modern dogma, saving isn't bad for the economy - just the numbers pseudoscientists like to claim matter).
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Karilyn » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:09 pm UTC

BioTube wrote:The phrase "wage slave" is also about as meaningful as salami soup: it comes from the "iron law of wages", which states that workers get only the barest wage they need to survive(which not only contradicts Marx's increasing impoverishment nonsense, but is blatantly false). If you don't like your job, get some new skills and quit! If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's very, very, very probably your own damn fault(contrary to modern dogma, saving isn't bad for the economy - just the numbers pseudoscientists like to claim matter).

The question is, of course, what is defined as "survival"

The minimum money needed to survive in America is a significantly larger quantity than what is needed to survive in, let's say, Jamaica. It also happens to include indoor plumbing, electricity, air conditioning, heating, a roof that doesn't leak, a minimum of two TVs, a minimum of one car, about 300 more square feet in the home/apartment per person, and enough money left over for occasional leisure spending.

Realistically, even on an American Minimum wage, you should, if you desire to be frugal, can save up a fairly large amount of money each year. A full time job on a minimum wage is $15,080, and I've survived on less than $8000 a year in this country for several years, and I have no doubts you can live on less. The entry level for becoming wealthy is about $200,000. Why $200,000? Because that's the typically point required to get the loan needed to buy a franchise, the "easiest" way to become a millionaire for an uneducated person. One of the things that uniquely defines America is that if you want, you can work two jobs, let's say 60 hours a week at McDonalds and at Walmart, save up every spare penny you have. Then after about 10 years, you'll have saved up enough to purchase a McDonald's franchise (or a franchise of whatever company you worked at). Oh hey now give yourself 10 more years of now earning around $400,000 a year, and you have enough money to pay off the loan and retire at the grand olde age of 40 with no education, and not a single penny to your name when you started.

Is it hard work? Yes. Is it very hard work? Hell yes. But the option is there; an option which is distinctly not available in a lot of the world. And people take that option every day.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

User avatar
GraphiteGirl
Alpha Male
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: South-East Snakeville

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby GraphiteGirl » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:45 pm UTC

Apteryx, that's true, there are certainly positions in contemporary industrial society in which one is viewed by certain employers as essentially existing for their convenience, but they are, at the very least, master-servant models* - the servants get paid, and the servants have basic human rights based on legal principle if we're talking about countries like, say, the USA. Poverty's still a massive problem, and there are still definitely societal imbalances that exist in relation to this model, but - in principle, if not always in practice - you can still leave the job and try for another with better conditions, and your employer knows that you have rights and that you are entitled to a salary based on the common currency of your local area, to be spent on whatever you wish. You may be a servant, but within limits, you get to choose who you serve, and you get to control your own finances, and the society at large recognises your right to pursue your own happiness independent of the desires of others, so you're not a slave.

In the model of "man needs motivation, so society should give him a woman to fuck regardless of what she wants and he'll get motivated", you really aren't talking servant-master anymore, because the implication seems to be that rather than being paid for her efforts with monetary currency, she herself becomes the currency which rewards him for his work.

And I just know someone's going to argue that the security of a marriage or the status of being fucked by someone society-building and important ought to be currency enough. Well, no, it most certainly is not - with currency like that you don't get to be fully self-financed and self-determining; you're subject to someone else's whims. and in a world where you're the currency and your presentness and sexual availability is considered paramount for a man's success but your other abilities are considered inferior to men's, good luck with simply deciding that you wish to leave and deserve to have a life of your own and help build society yourself. (This is the point at which I recommend that everyone go off and read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.)

*EDIT: thus, in my prior post, I should have probably said "master-slave" not "master-servant" (I thought I had, and now see that I did not.) Duly noted.
Last edited by GraphiteGirl on Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Sandry wrote:Man, my commitment to sparkle motion is waaaaay lower than you are intimating.

User avatar
Eebster the Great
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Eebster the Great » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:13 am UTC

BioTube wrote:If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's very, very, very probably your own damn fault.[citation needed]

People keep telling me this and I have yet to find a reason to believe it is remotely true.

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Faranya » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:53 am UTC

Eebster the Great wrote:
BioTube wrote:If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's very, very, very probably your own damn fault.[citation needed]

People keep telling me this and I have yet to find a reason to believe it is remotely true.

Well, it depends highly on how much is contained in those paychecks. If you are making six figures and living paycheck to paycheck, it is probably your own fault. If you are making 10K a year, it is probably the only way you can get by.
Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:08 am UTC

BioTube wrote:If you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, that's very, very, very probably your own damn fault
Yeah... I'ma go ahead and call bullshit on this as well. You try living on minimum wage and having it not be pretty much paycheck to paycheck. I dare you.

Sure, Apteryx pulled out a *massive* straw man, since no one ever said there weren't problems with modern capitalistic society. But that doesn't excuse your ignorant victim-blaming crap about how it's poor people's own fault they're poor.
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
James A. Donald
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:02 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby James A. Donald » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:32 am UTC

MissConglomeration wrote:Consider tribe based self-interest: Humans function in social groups, right? Altruism, giving, sacrifice, these are all useful to the tribes overall function. We admire these traits, because we want people in our tribe to have them. And the more people in the tribe that are functioning well, the less chance we all get wiped out.
Yes, but what one individual does is not going to make a big difference - so unless there are social institutions to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior why should any one individual care?

And social institutions that reward good behavior tend to occur only in patriarchy -for example the well behaved able and industrious working class Raffles gets a promotion and an upper class wife from a patriarch, and is sent out to conquer some land in the colonies for Englishmen.

So maybe you'll give a single mom a hand with taking care of the kids? Maybe you'll adopt someone else's baby even- even if it doesn't have your genes.
Maybe. People take care of pets. But when a pet becomes inconvenient, they have it put to sleep.

Also, a single mother could also reasonably just get pregnant again with a new man, and then it's worth it to him.
And she probably does - and the previous child probably has an unfortunate accident. How sad.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:47 am UTC

James A. Donald wrote:And social institutions that reward good behavior tend to occur only in patriarchy
lolwut?

But when a pet becomes inconvenient, they have it put to sleep.
Only if they're complete douchebags. The rest of us will instead try to give away a pet that's merely become inconvenient.

Of course, you haven't given us any reason in this discussion to assume you're anything other than a complete douchebag, so I suppose it's not surprising that you'd only consider the douchiest options available in any situation.

and the previous child probably has an unfortunate accident. How sad.
Yes, stepparents seem to abuse children at a higher rate than biological parents. That doesn't mean all of them do. Hell, it doesn't even mean any more than a slightly larger (but still rather tiny) minority of them do, compared to biological parents. Most of the people I know with stepparents prefer that to the shitty shitty relationship their biological parents had before finally getting divorced.

But then again if you'd actually ever talked to real people about most of these things, you wouldn't be here spouting such nonsense, so once again your sentiment here surprises no one.
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
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:50 am UTC

James A. Donald wrote:And social institutions that reward good behavior tend to occur only in patriarchy -for example the well behaved able and industrious working class Raffles gets a promotion and an upper class wife from a patriarch, and is sent out to conquer some land in the colonies for Englishmen.

Your example is inadequate to support your claim. You need to show that good behavior isn't rewarded in the absence of patriarchy (or at least that it usually isn't. Your claim is pretty vague, to be honest.).

And then there's the small matter of showing that morality is the criterion used to reward behavior in a patriarchy.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:01 am UTC

Part of me wonders whether society itself isn't misogynistic, since it's a set of constructions to have males stop killing each other, which Gaia tells us is our duty, while the women are, by and large, and in a way only increased in more recent, more egalitarian societies, protected to have the next generation. Evolutionarily, men kill each other to test out various alleles, while women take their pick of the men to further test them; society, boiled down to its essence, seems to be essentially something to give men a better lot than that, with everything that would ultimately give women a better lot being an eventual consequence, making it an inherently male-furthering, misogynistic institution of institutions.

User avatar
Flagpole Sitta
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:27 pm UTC
Location: luminiferous æther
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Flagpole Sitta » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:54 am UTC

Why/when/how did the comic discussion thread devolve into a PUA inspired misogynistic, evo-psych bile fest?

James A. Donald wrote:Yes, but what one individual does is not going to make a big difference - so unless there are social institutions to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior why should any one individual care?

And social institutions that reward good behavior tend to occur only in patriarchy -for example the well behaved able and industrious working class Raffles gets a promotion and an upper class wife from a patriarch, and is sent out to conquer some land in the colonies for Englishmen.


You are ignoring A) Women as people who can accomplish things on their own and B) Men who accomplish things and do good things for the sake of good things/accomplishment/money/prestige/any fucking other reason besides sex. People have pointed this out to you before. Why haven't you addressed it?

James A. Donald wrote:But when a pet becomes inconvenient, they have it put to sleep.

I love my pets like family. Anyone who does this is dirt. Many people, men and women feel the same way. And (almost, sadly) no one puts a baby to sleep when it becomes inconvenient.

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:Part of me wonders whether society itself isn't misogynistic, since it's a set of constructions to have males stop killing each other, which Gaia tells us is our duty, while the women are, by and large, and in a way only increased in more recent, more egalitarian societies, protected to have the next generation. Evolutionarily, men kill each other to test out various alleles, while women take their pick of the men to further test them; society, boiled down to its essence, seems to be essentially something to give men a better lot than that, with everything that would ultimately give women a better lot being an eventual consequence, making it an inherently male-furthering, misogynistic institution of institutions.


This whole paragraph is merely weak postulations. You make these assertions like they're true, but there's no proof that men kill each other to prove genetic worth, and even if there were it's no reason to run a modern society off that principle. Furthermore your whole hypothesis puts all the power in men's hands, as if women never had to compete to pass on genetic material, and never had any impact on society building, being mere observers.
Last edited by Flagpole Sitta on Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Poxic is, like, awesome. She's my favorite.

Kapojinha is pretty awesome too. <3

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:58 am UTC

Flagpole Sitta wrote:Why/when/how did the comic discussion thread devolve into a PUA inspired misogynistic, evo-psych bile fest?
When the giant talking cock started posting.
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
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:09 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:and the previous child probably has an unfortunate accident. How sad.
Yes, stepparents seem to abuse children at a higher rate than biological parents. That doesn't mean all of them do. Hell, it doesn't even mean any more than a slightly larger (but still rather tiny) minority of them do, compared to biological parents. Most of the people I know with stepparents prefer that to the shitty shitty relationship their biological parents had before finally getting divorced.

o/

But yeah... Jimmy, this may come as a shock to you given you have yet to assimilate the radical concept that women are people too, but most people have figured out that children are also tiny people. They've also got it through their heads that murder is wrong. And when you marry into a family (which both of my stepparents did and were quite adamant about what follows) you are marrying the family, not just your spouse. I mean, in a matter of speaking. But it's a package deal, Jimmy, and people get that.

Or, you know, it's possible I managed to survive 10 years of assassination attempts without noticing by pure luck. Can't rule that out I guess.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
aurumelectrum13
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:11 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby aurumelectrum13 » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:10 am UTC

James A. Donald wrote:
Also, a single mother could also reasonably just get pregnant again with a new man, and then it's worth it to him.
And she probably does - and the previous child probably has an unfortunate accident. How sad.


I read an article in either Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2009/06/19/why-do-we-rape-kill-and-sleep-around.html) that basically asserted that a step father would be unlikely to kill step children because A) they are a free form of labor that he wasn't required to raise, and B) the mother would not be happy to have her new sex- and food-supplier kill her child, to whom she has given much energy and (presumably) love. The other theory assumes that women would be incapable of protecting her children, or selecting a proper mate (who would presumably require the ability to care for the woman's children to be considered proper). Try asserting either of these theories: I'm sure you'll receive a great deal of support. /sarcasm

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Kulantan » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:18 am UTC

SocialSceneRepairman, not only is Sitta right that you have no evidence for your claims, even if we took them at face value your argument would be ridiculous. Your argument is (correct me if I'm wrong) that society is misogynistic because men don't kill each other thus not filtering their genes leading to non-optimal outcomes for women. This is utter shit. That argument is purely about the genetic value of combat as a filter. It says nothing about the experience of the women involved. How is it better for women to have kids with a grizzled, asshole combat veteran compared to a lovely, kind pacifist? The only benefit a combat genetic filter could be said to have is for to make the offspring better at combat. That only benefits women if they only exist to make and raise warriors. Furthermore, the fact that a warrior father might give birth to better warriors is only "good" genetically speaking if that is the be all and end all of being male.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Lucia
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 1:35 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Lucia » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:28 am UTC

Wait, Savannah, Georgia is a place? I thought he was randomly tacking the girl's mother's name onto the end of the sentence. This makes so much more sense now!


I must agree though, xkcd is slipping. These threads are much more hilarious.
Wildhound wrote:Nobody ever sigs me. I think it's because I never say anything clever.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5178
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Felstaff » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:07 pm UTC

Flagpole Sitta wrote:
James A. Donald wrote:[disturbingly detached class-entrenched social commentary with a massive amount of conjecture and very little but opinionated ramblings to back it up]

[sane argument] People have pointed this out to you before. Why haven't you addressed it?

I'm not sure, but I think it's because he's presented a disturbingly detached class-entrenched social commentary with a massive amount of conjecture and very little but opinionated ramblings to back it up.

I could be wrong.

But let's provide some proof, anyway:
James A. Donald wrote:is fine and perfectly Basically Decent to suggest that people who come from small town America, flyover country, are stupid white trash.
It's not fine. It's politically incorrect. Where were you going with this statement? I hope you weren't implying that people who decry evo psych are the kind of people who think it's fine to mock Jiminy Billybob and his web-toed toothless sister.
if you actually knew science, you would find that the scientists are saying the Basically Decent thing in simple English
Indeed. Come on people, if you actually knew science, you too would be a condescending prick towards a forum composed of a large group of, uh... scientists and science fans.
Supposedly the rate of fatherless children is a mere 9%, a number curiously similar to the supposed unemployment rate
Hey, 9%. A number curiously similar to the number of Asians in my neighbourhood. CURIOUS! Doesn't it seem odd to you that as payrolls decrease, the number of Asians in my neighbourhood still stays at 9%? also, even curiouser: did you know the number of pirates with good dental plans IS ALSO 9%?? I KNOW! I'm not saying there's a definite link between the number of Asians in my neighbourhood and the percentage of seafaring pirates with great teeth, but I am implying it. So anyway, what was that you were saying about fatherless children and unemployment? I'm sure it was something relevant, perhaps that they shared more than just a "9%" statistic. I'm genuinely interested.
Why are there so many species in which this is the mating strategy, despite the fact that it is a mating strategy that is likely to send the group, the race, and the species, to extinction?
For such a proponent of science, you're quite keen on forgetting key facts, like, uh, there are about 100 million species on the planet. One way works for some, one way works for another, and some die out and some do not, and if you think something so complex can be explained succinctly by some shitty theory that's not even really based in real science, I... I can't be bothered to labour this point, primarily because you go on to say shit like:
The decline of marriage, and the end of colonialism, happened at about the same time
Just like the decline of Wham, and the end of the Cold War, happened at about the same time. Also, may I add, you're quite the idiot: marriage is not in decline in, uh, most of the world actually. Perhaps in your hometown, or street, or whatever tiny narrow strata you base your observations on (I'm presuming middle-class predominantly white suburb near an affluent city in the United States (go with the cliché, my mind told me)). India, China, several parts of Africa, most of the Emerged and Emerging Markets: marriage is strengthening on a decade-by-decade basis. Funnily enough, this boom happened in postcolonial times; marriages in India soared in the latter part of the twentieth century, thanks to growing affluence, surging population and, (here's the kicker) the end of fucking colonialism. Man, you equating the death of marriage with the death of colonialism is just... Ironic? Possibly ironic. Stupid, definitely. I was going to mock whatever you said after that post for being trite to the point of ridiculous, so I'm a little disappointed that I debunked it in the first sentence.
Failure to reproduce set in around 1970 or so
...


what?
we certainly have not been displacing any societies since then, rather the reverse.
You're right. Western Civilisation has been creating societies! You know, in that place! That place where Western Colonists once conquered, raped, pillaged, massacred, tortured, displaced, murdered, divided amongst themselves using arbitrary borders that showed no regard for the indigenous population and their differences and then set about exploiting the rest by extracting the minerals, metals and resources that most of Western civilisation was built upon. Really, is your mind so narrow? All those displaced peoples; all those millions of people, displaced by Western society, and exploited. They don't just go back to being an unsmashed vase once the ink dried on their nation's declaration of independence. No, new powers moved in and exploited them. What was once France, Britain, Spain and Belgium colonising for $head_of_state and country, are now Chinese, Russian and Indian corporations moving in and exploiting the people (funding rebels for control of mines, that kind of thing). So yeah; we're cool 'cause we stopped displacing societies? Fuck you, and your little ignorance too, Dorothy. That's the kind of shit some quack evo psych without a grasp on history or basic societies would say.
and now there are not that many young french men (33 million)- and rather a lot of young Muslim men (1.96 million)
Yeah, the bold's mine. Included mainly to let people know that you know shit, but also that I see agendas are coming through now. You're projecting. Possibly Islamophobia? Xenophobia? Otherphobia? Plain ol' racism? Let's read on:
They swiftly returned to eating each other in the Congo
Ignorance, pure ignorance. I'm sure you'd take objection to me announcing that Americans like to eat each other after I watched a TV show on Jeffrey Dahmer. Americans liked to eat each other right up until the 1990s - some 200 years after they gained independence (what a vile, backwards nation). Hyperbole aside, the actions you are describing focuses on the rebel groups to the East and Northeast; criminal deviants brutalising children, forcing them into armed combat by evil men feeding off the West's insatiable lust for minerals, fed drugs and treated like dogs; made to perform unspeakable acts like rape, mutilation, necrophilia and (allegedly) cannibalism. Not, I presume, that you care, but by brushing off rebel milita (most of which do not originate from Congo) as "Congo" is particularly offensive to highly cuntish levels, which is why I'm treating you with such disdain.
England and France are already looking distinctly Muslim
Islamophobia. Sensationalism. Factually incorrect. But hey; believe the rag that screams loudest, am I right?
The most popular boy's name in England is various spellings of Mohammed
Jack, actually. Followed by Harry, Alfie, Thomas, Oliver, Daniel, Joshua, and Charlie. Mohammed is below Joshua. We don't even have that many Jews in Britain.

Seriously, if I were a psychologist (a real one, not an evo one), and someone was telling me what you've been posting, I'd be hard pressed not to come up with the following conclusion:
Spoiler:
phobic.GIF
Replace brown people with "single mothers", or "lower classes" to get the same effect
phobic.GIF (23.7 KiB) Viewed 8207 times

If what cats do is not rape even though it often looks like rape, sometimes things that humans do are not necessarily rape either, even though they might look like rape.
Rape apologist. Classy. And by classy, I mean read Belial's red text below - that shit don't fly here
Are we suffering civilizational decay.
No. It's called shift. It might be decay in your eyes, but if you think your ideal rose-tinted comfortable world is under threat (seemingly from unemployed unmarried Muslims with children and the hideous monster of the "welfare state"), then you're mistaken. Shift happens.
The present system not only reduces the resources applied to raising children...
reduce...reduces resources? Shit, man, my grandparent lost a brother because there wasn't the right food or medicine available that would have cost less than a pint of beer today. That wasn't even 80 years ago. Today, mortality rates have sunk so low, that... I mean. Seriously. Reduced? I hope the rest of the sentence makes sense...
...but reduces incentives to build and create.
You're absolutely right. It must have been that civilisation that existed before us that built the Donghai bridge, the space shuttle, the Al-Burj tower, broadband, the Hoover Dam, microprocessors, the Hubble telescope, liquid crystal display, modern art, solar power conversion, nuclear fission power generation, the TVG bullet train, Nintendo goddamn Wii...

Anyway, dude; I'm out. This took me more than an hour to write. Perhaps if someone who knew more than one millicrapsworth of evolutionary psychology can come and defend its tattered reputation, I might have sat up and listened instead of just feeling my jackassometer keep twitching into the red with each sentence I read

tl;dr - Occasionally one has to resort to quote sniping to prove just how wrong another really is.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

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

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:12 pm UTC

James A. Donald wrote:What cats do looks a bit like rape, but if you watch carefully, you will see it is just the female shit testing the male for him to prove he is big enough and tough enough and mean enough and arrogant enough and cruel enough, something we often see in human women. Evo-psych tells us that watching cats will tell us about human women, and sure enough, it does. Evo psych is not anthropomorphism - is not the error of thinking that animals are people, but the truth of thinking that people are animals. If what cats do is not rape even though it often looks like rape, sometimes things that humans do are not necessarily rape either, even though they might look like rape.


Yeah, you know what? I don't care how much of a point you think you have, if you find yourself writing out a paragraph about how rape is super-okay and who needs consent anyway?

Don't write that paragraph

I am perfectly comfortable being the big mean censoring authority squelching out the "politically incorrect" truth you think you've found here. I will be your leftist bogeyman. Vilify me all you want, just keep that shit to yourself, or spout it on whatever PUA blog you came from. We're not buying any.

Edit: And just so you can't say I didn't warn you, this is not an invitation to defend this point to me or explain how I've got it all wrong. Words cannot possibly capture how uninterested I am in that conversation. Never speak of this again.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby BioTube » Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Yeah... I'ma go ahead and call bullshit on this as well. You try living on minimum wage and having it not be pretty much paycheck to paycheck. I dare you.

Sure, Apteryx pulled out a *massive* straw man, since no one ever said there weren't problems with modern capitalistic society. But that doesn't excuse your ignorant victim-blaming crap about how it's poor people's own fault they're poor.
I never said that - most people don't work for minimum wage and do have the excess income needed to build a decent buffer; most just live beyond their means and build up debt they can barely handle. That's what I was saying.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:49 pm UTC

So cite it. How many people live paycheck-to-paycheck. How many of them make above minimum wage? How many make above the cost of living for their area?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Karilyn » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:10 pm UTC

I think the issue isn't that people are living paycheck-to-paycheck in America.

Rather, I think it's easy to agree that people living paycheck-to-paycheck in America have one of the highest standards of living of people living paycheck-to-paycheck around the world, with only a handful of nations able to compete.

No matter how much money a minimum wage is in a country, the people on it will always be living paycheck-to-paycheck because the minimum standard of living will be defined at that point. And America's minimum standard of living is much higher than most of Europe, with only a dozen or so nations around the world that have a higher minimum standard of living.
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby JBJ » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:14 pm UTC

The claim that most people don't work for minimum wage is correct. Source

In 2009, 4.9% of ALL hourly wage workers (both part time & full time) are at or below minimum wage. If you include salary workers as well, then it drops to 2.9%. To trim out part time workers, for full time hourly wage earners 2.4% are at or below minimum wage.

Sources for paycheck-to-paycheck and income relative to cost of living are harder to come by. The tables included in the link do have data by state, and states with notably high costs (California, Washington) of living tend to have lower percentages of minimum wage workers. States with lower cost of living (Texas, Alabama) are higher.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:42 pm UTC

JBJ wrote:states with notably high costs (California, Washington) of living tend to have lower percentages of minimum wage workers.
Yes, because those states have higher minimum wage of their own, because of the higher cost of living. So the only people there making at or below *Federal* minimum wage are making well below their state's minimum wage.
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)

haroldcturner
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:50 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby haroldcturner » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:25 pm UTC

7 pages and no one has posted Evo-psych bingo yet? I thought that was a fairly popular image on the internet. I tried filling it out for our friend James and I almost had a bingo on the second row. All I'm missing is the "confusion over...polyamory..." square--he came sooo close with the "women are fickle" comment but I just couldn't check the box with a clear conscience. Jimbo, your consistent defense of 1950s-style patriarchy is costing me my bingo!

It's too bad the bingo card is only about the sex/gender side of evo-psych with nothing about race. With such a goldmine of crypto-racism I would be raking in the internet dollars in no time.

P.S. mods, I know new people aren't supposed to post links, but boingboing should be acceptable, right? If not, sorry :oops:

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:31 pm UTC

I'm the first mod who saw this pending post, and I decided yes, evo-psych bingo is an acceptable link because it's hilariawesome.
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
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:33 pm UTC

Check the last column. I think you may be good.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Karilyn
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:09 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Karilyn » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:18 pm UTC

haroldcturner wrote:7 pages and no one has posted Evo-psych bingo yet? I thought that was a fairly popular image on the internet. I tried filling it out for our friend James and I almost had a bingo on the second row. All I'm missing is the "confusion over...polyamory..." square--he came sooo close with the "women are fickle" comment but I just couldn't check the box with a clear conscience. Jimbo, your consistent defense of 1950s-style patriarchy is costing me my bingo!

I throughly deny the fact that women cannot rotate three dimensional objects in their mind. Hell. I can rotate four dimensional cubes in my mind... or at least their shadow. Suck on that evo-psychs. Now I just need to teach myself how to rotate five dimensional objects in my mind, and I will become a Goddess.

Also. Breast-Fetishism is an awesome word.

Can I count a Bingo in the second row for expressing confusion over why it says polyamory as opposed to polygamy when the two aren't the same thing and I don't understand what polyamory has to do with any of the arguments? Maybe I'm just missing that one :|
Gelsamel wrote:If you punch him in the face repeatedly then it's science.

haroldcturner
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:50 pm UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby haroldcturner » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:11 pm UTC

I throughly deny the fact that women cannot rotate three dimensional objects in their mind. Hell. I can rotate four dimensional cubes in my mind... or at least their shadow. Suck on that evo-psychs. Now I just need to teach myself how to rotate five dimensional objects in my mind, and I will become a Goddess.


I downloaded a 4d rubik's cube simulator a while ago and played with it for like an hour before I realized I don't even have the patience to solve the normal kind. Then I downloaded a version where you could specify the dimensions (up to 9, if I recall) and that was completely incomprehensible. Oh well, I'll just have to play miegakure when it comes out. </derail>

belial, I didn't have the "most geniuses are men" (in hindsight I should have) or "human nature" squares. Did I miss some choice nugget of misogyny?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26816
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:39 pm UTC

I don't like the "human nature" square, because it's entirely possible to talk reasonably about the science(s) of human nature, like cognitive science and neuropsychology.
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
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby BioTube » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:43 pm UTC

My point was merely that most people in America make enough not to live paycheck-to-paycheck and that, statistically speaking, the idea of wage-slaves is really ridiculous these days.

EDIT: On second thought, it looks more like my post was aimed at the fallacious law of wages, rather than the idea of wage-slavery directly.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:33 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I don't like the "human nature" square, because it's entirely possible to talk reasonably about the science(s) of human nature, like cognitive science and neuropsychology.

All the bingo cards annoy me for similar reasons, like the "complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection". Many people, whether on the right or wrong side of the debate, think they understand natural selection better than they actually do. (Myself included! And I've read, like, three popular science books on the subject, one of which was written by a libertarian.)

And the bingo cards drip with smugness: "Rest assured, these views are wrong, but you're not going to get an explanation why". You could just as easily construct a "Climate Change alarmist" bingo card and smile like an arrogant fuck when someone gets a row ("You just said Antarctica's melting - Bingo!").
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow

Spill Wooner
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:22 am UTC

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Spill Wooner » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:54 am UTC

Karilyn wrote:I throughly deny the fact that women cannot rotate three dimensional objects in their mind. Hell. I can rotate four dimensional cubes in my mind... or at least their shadow. Suck on that evo-psychs. Now I just need to teach myself how to rotate five dimensional objects in my mind, and I will become a Goddess.


'fraid that only happens when you can rotate in an arbitrarily large number of dimensions. 5 gets you a toaster and 6 gets you an iPad, though.

Can I count a Bingo in the second row for expressing confusion over why it says polyamory as opposed to polygamy when the two aren't the same thing and I don't understand what polyamory has to do with any of the arguments? Maybe I'm just missing that one :|


50's nostalgia evpsychers get all the attention, but there's a vocal contingent of free love/spread the seed/bonobo worship/"monogamy is unnatural" pro-poly crowd in there as well. Although it is interesting how peoples seem to react more strongly to one sort than the other. (Which goes both ways. Put the two types in a conversation if you like to watch flames.)

Which is a pity. I'd love to see more respect for a field that honestly drew from anthropology, zoology and infant studies to back up its claims. I'd also like to see more arguments actually involve that without relentless anecdotes and cherry-picking on both sides.

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

Re: "Savannah Ancestry" discussion (#775)

Postby Belial » Wed Aug 11, 2010 1:38 pm UTC

Pez Dispens3r wrote:And the bingo cards drip with smugness: "Rest assured, these views are wrong, but you're not going to get an explanation why".


Duh. They're not constructed as teaching aids, or even as arguments, they're constructed for people who are intensely frustrated with a particular pattern of argumentation to laugh at the whole situation. You're blaming a screwdriver for being a shitty cellphone.

The purpose of, for example, "breeder bingo" (for the childfree), isn't to explain to others why saying "you'll change your mind" or "it'll be different when they're yooouuurs" is intensely condescending and annoying and wrong. It's so that the childfree, upon hearing those statements for the eight. billionth. fucking. time. can say "hahah, I got bingo" instead of screaming or gouging someone's eyes out.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests