Re:XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time
by tptacek on Thursday October 29, 2009 @04:00PM
(#910754)
Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are equally valid, it is nevertheless more equally valid to conclude that XKCD's gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate (pace manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy or outrage over the station of the modern woman in today's technological world.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
(Taking this comment seriously...) After spending time with Randall IRL, I'm convinced his feelings on the subject are genuinely empathetic.
That said, I don't think the comics are a particularly good expression of this. The male is always being rational-logical and the female intuitive-wholistic, which seems a bit sexist, even if the rational-logical character is always the butt of the joke.
I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you reached that conclusion.
He is using deconstructionist language on deconstructionism itself. This is funny because it shows us that deconstructionism contradicts itself.
"tptacek explained". Nice.
I'll refer you to Lacan, if you don't mind.
Look at tptacek's other posts. He is making a joke here. It is a funny one.
Re:XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time
by roundsquare on Friday October 30, 2009 @03:32AM
(#911670)
Its always frustrating when things more more equally valid than other equally valid things.