SMBC Comics Forum

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2439#comic

Y'know, I completely sympathize with the man in this situation. Sweet talk is the domain of people too stupid to be bothered by basic wisdom and logic, and couples with absolutely nothing going for them except mutual physical attraction and horniness. That's why teenagers "in love" use it. That's why "true loves" on reality TV use it. If you're in a relationship, and your partner is making sweet talk, break it off*, because 1.) it's going nowhere, 2.) you can do better, and 3.) they're a fool that deserves to be alone.

*Unless they're filthy rich or something.

ChaoticBrain wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2439#comic

Y'know, I completely sympathize with the man in this situation. Sweet talk is the domain of people too stupid to be bothered by basic wisdom and logic, and couples with absolutely nothing going for them except mutual physical attraction and horniness. That's why teenagers "in love" use it. That's why "true loves" on reality TV use it. If you're in a relationship, and your partner is making sweet talk, break it off*, because 1.) it's going nowhere, 2.) you can do better, and 3.) they're a fool that deserves to be alone.

*Unless they're filthy rich or something.

Tell me more about basic human interaction and why it's forbidden in your enlightened nerdtopia

It is called Excessiveburg and it is located in Overreactistan.

Their chief export is flipping out.

First thought: "Oh god, engineers! Run! D=!"

Second thought: "Lol, I really am an engineer; I'd probably think that too =|"

Third thought: "He has a point, I kind of agree with him =|..."

Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.

Eisbreaker wrote:Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.

DOH HO HO HO HO

Come now, someone had to say it.

Comic's wrong, nerds are wrong, romantics are wrong. Next comic.

DR is wrong!
>: O

To whit; what he said was not smart, nor does it make him a smart man. It's actually something a six-year-old would say. Quite literally, a six-year-old could, and invariably would, come up with the logical fallacy of "trading everything for the person would include trading that person, too." It's playground talk, not 'accuracy'. It's also a cliché, an adage, a saying, a turn of phrase-- not a scientifically sound phrase. A "smart man" would recognise and discern the difference between cliché and fact (also: context). This man does not, proceeds to be obtuse, and it turns out that the woman, indeed, is smart enough to dump him.

I dislike this comic on the basis that it equates being smart with being a dick. Even if it's poking fun at the nerds' expense, it's then furthering the annoying stereotype that nerds ("smart men") are self-righteous, infantile, and incapable of reacting to their environments the way that context would make seem obvious.

Well, for a true nerd, even being aware of the environment and context in which these lines were spoken, the call of the wild is sometimes too strong to repress. Doctors call it Obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Felstaff wrote: what he said was not smart, nor does it make him a smart man.

You are just trying too hard here. You can say he's a dick, but you can not say he is wrong. In fact, this is the default response of a LOT of women when they really want to object to something their partners said but just can't say it's wrong (like "why did you say those blasphemous words to my creationist friends?"). They then just call the man a dick and/or cease the discussion (obviously the man should have taken the hint and left the creationists alone). Now if you know a woman that doesn't go into sudden BSOD mode and can take a discussion to its proper conclusion, I suggest you keep her close.

We understand the woman in this strip actually means 'anything else in the world'. We ALSO understand that English is inherently ambiguous and spotting such loopholes is fun (and potentially deadly if you're a lawyer). If you've stopped doing that and start taking everything you read at face value, you've stopped thinking. The death of precision is also the death of a language, and the beginning of doublespeak. So yeah, while it might be very frustrating when someone focuses too much on the semantics and ignores the point you're trying to make (we've all gone through that), telling them to shut up is just being a sore loser. If they aren't wrong, concede the point and get back to the original topic. And you'll learn to be more precise next time.

You think nerds like the one depicted here are incapable of picking up the hints. But has it ever occurred to you that they know all the etiquette, get all the hints, but refuse to let the norms override their personal principles ? So it is true that someone who publicly accuses his professor of being inept or disillusions his wife's creationist friends might be described as 'stupid' and told to 'get the hints'. But frankly, that's just the kind of people this world needs and I'd gladly befriend all such guys instead of all those sleazebags who care too much about their social success to defend what they believe in. You don't see too many people with such strong principles these days.

If I were the 'nerd', I'd not nitpick her choice of word but doubt the veracity of what she said. If I were to face imminent death would this girl sacrifice her life to save me ? (most probably not) How do I know her words aren't just empty and she didn't say this to her ex before ? Frankly, I'd try to steer clear of this kind of people. Sweet talk is an easy, cheap form of manipulation that requires little thought.

omonde wrote:

Felstaff wrote: what he said was not smart, nor does it make him a smart man.

You are just trying too hard here. You can say he's a dick, but you can not say he is wrong. In fact, this is the default response of a LOT of women when they really want to object to something their partners said but just can't say it's wrong (like "why did you say those blasphemous words to my creationist friends?"). They then just call the man a dick and/or cease the discussion (obviously the man should have taken the hint and left the creationists alone). Now if you know a woman that doesn't go into sudden BSOD mode and can take a discussion to its proper conclusion, I suggest you keep her close.

We understand the woman in this strip actually means 'anything else in the world'. We ALSO understand that English is inherently ambiguous and spotting such loopholes is fun (and potentially deadly if you're a lawyer). If you've stopped doing that and start taking everything you read at face value, you've stopped thinking. The death of precision is also the death of a language, and the beginning of doublespeak. So yeah, while it might be very frustrating when someone focuses too much on the semantics and ignores the point you're trying to make (we've all gone through that), telling them to shut up is just being a sore loser. If they aren't wrong, concede the point and get back to the original topic. And you'll learn to be more precise next time.

You think nerds like the one depicted here are incapable of picking up the hints. But has it ever occurred to you that they know all the etiquette, get all the hints, but refuse to let the norms override their personal principles ? So it is true that someone who publicly accuses his professor of being inept or disillusions his wife's creationist friends might be described as 'stupid' and told to 'get the hints'. But frankly, that's just the kind of people this world needs and I'd gladly befriend all such guys instead of all those sleazebags who care too much about their social success to defend what they believe in. You don't see too many people with such strong principles these days.

If I were the 'nerd', I'd not nitpick her choice of word but doubt the veracity of what she said. If I were to face imminent death would this girl sacrifice her life to save me ? (most probably not) How do I know her words aren't just empty and she didn't say this to her ex before ? Frankly, I'd try to steer clear of this kind of people. Sweet talk is an easy, cheap form of manipulation that requires little thought.

that's a lot of words to say 'i fundamentally do not understand human interaction'

It's also a lot of words that don't really have anything to do with what was quoted?

omonde wrote:

Felstaff wrote: what he said was not smart, nor does it make him a smart man.

You can say he's a dick, but you can not say he is wrong.

Couldn't... couldn't really give a flying monkey bollock if he's wrong or right, it's inconsequential. What he said was not smart, nor does it make him a smart man. I thought we'd been through this part.

It also contains some very dumb comments on language, equating the complexity of the semantics (note that he has used this word differently, because he does not know what it means) of human language and semiotics with some horrific and confusing vision of 1984-type oppression.

If this supposedly intelligent man is going, "fuck it, I refuse to participate in social interaction," then so be it, that's his choice. But if he's smart enough he should be able to figure out what that means. Everyone else is capable of piecing together this rather simple interaction.

I always think the biggest problem of the stereotypical nerd who goes "why doesn't everyone else think LOGICALLY" is this: they are the ones thinking illogically because they cannot understand the depth and complexity of these semantics. In fact, they're oversimplifying things and sometimes remaining willfully ignorant of how we actually use language. And why the fuck am I spending this much time talking about this.