Theory

Sometimes makes me wonder if this subconsciously underlies why so many guys go trans these days.

This applies mainly to virtue signalling SJWs.

Well, you get extra special attention for being trans specifically, of course. (both positive and negative)

Let me get the tongs, this take is TOO HOT to handle

I can tell you're a woman because you don't reply with either a joke or an argument, you just get angry and sassy. In a thread about how women are less funny than men, you're literally proving that women aren't funny.

In any fair society I would be allowed to rape you right now.

I would rape her pussy but not with the penis, rather a spiked mace or something like that

Then why are there so many more successful and well-known male cartoonists/writers/artists/everything else then women? It's almost as if your theory was ass-backwards. Or (as you're about to argue) women are just so artistically and intellectually inferior than even making everything extra-easy for them in life isn't enough to make up for their genetically-predetermined lack of talent, right?

Wow it's almost like you have to make compromises on subject matter when making a comic in order to get a substantial readership

I don't care about the cunt's opinion on part 2 of sound and the fury, or if she can recite lines from Dante and explain them using a Thomist vocabulary. People read comics either for a plot (this is a plot less comic so not this) or to be amused by jokes (bingo!)

And the jokes aren't always good but that's why she's doing a middling comic instead of writing an episode of Veep or 30 Rock

...

projecting much?

...

Behold this very funny joke.

You see, he thought the ghost was not invited, but in fact, he was.
Shut up, this is Veeky Forums related.

>>>/comicsandcartoons/

A sensible person here? How bizarre. Yep, and Beaton has never claimed to be some literary scholar. She has a BA in history and anthropology and makes fun of historical and literary characters she likes. Sometimes funny, sometimes not. More power to her. At least she's not remaking "Garfield."
harkavagrant.com/about.php

>>>/cuteauto/

>Veep or 30 Rock
LMAO if that's actually where you think the good jokes are

Perhaps it's because I personally have a goal to improve my drawing and writing and make a fun plot based webcomic. So I can sympathize with cute webcomics like hers. It's honestly not pretentious at all unlike say, XKCD, which is the equivalent of Bill Nye giving a lecture on Global Warming

are you fucking retards overanalyzing a shitty webcomic just because it has some small references to literature?

what type of fucking ignatius j reilly do you have to be to take a web comic that seriously for not having literary merit

I have no fucking clue what that's supposed to mean.

I mean for TV they're not bad. Pretty good for mass market.

just /co/ fags trying out a new board

It's not pretentious, but it does feed on the pretentious.

And it's about 30% of the time funny. Which, to be fair, is not below average for webcomics.

Trash should be called out wherever it exists.

Well then you're lucky your real life peers are too nice of people to do similarly

>Or (as you're about to argue) women are just so artistically and intellectually inferior than even making everything extra-easy for them in life isn't enough to make up for their genetically-predetermined lack of talent, right?
Pretty much.

When it comes to higher levels of intelligence men start to outnumber women drastically as intelligence increases.

>tfw men win

But Kate Beaton is funny

So, like, don't read the comic? I'm not a big fan for the most part so I just don't read it.

Is...is it that big a deal?

It's OK to judge bad things as bad.

webcomics are all shit, it makes no sense to judge a webcomic as shit for any further reason

So you agree Kate Beaton is shit?

>In any fair society I would be allowed to rape you right now.
this last statement caught me off-guard

how would i know anything about that?

So you feel that a roughly 5-point IQ difference on a graphing of 13 year-olds is a meaningful factor in explaining away societal imbalances in the arts. Brilliant.

She's pretty funny I think. Then again I don't exactly seek her work out, I only see what gets filtered down to me. And some of the ambient stuff I've seen is pretty meh, like Austin or Fitgerald comics.

Iunno I'd probably do her.

and this one is good too

and this one just gets me to the core

does she do any with actual jokes?

Not what you consider jokes, no. Now forget she exists so you don't get all stressed.

She looks both cute and psychotic.

this just a silly comic for YA readers, lads
no need to get mad

>Why do you care so much? Lol I don't care at all I'm jw why you care so much? Like it doesn't make any sense baka why do you care? Why do you care? I don't care but why do you care? Don't get so upset lol you're like obsessed wow why do you care so much

Are you a triggered woman or something?

CUTE

uhh those are the jokiest I've come across, but I'm not looking very hard, in fact those are the only three I have on my hd

I think the Yeats one is especially funny, literalizing the cover makes me laugh

it also reminds me of crow dad, which then makes me laugh again [I don't wanna spook you but I think crow dad was also drawn by some sort of plump literary woman]

>I think crow dad was also drawn by some sort of plump literary woman]

You don't say.

Maybe jokes are a guy thing.

I didn't ask you why you cared, or anything else. You seem confused.

Theory: This chick makes comics and probably makes a living off of it. She almost certainly enjoys doing it. You are bitter doing something you don't like and feel the need to post negatively about her on a Chinese food forum.

She looks exactly like the kind of woman I'd expect to write and draw with her style.

That's weird.

Do you have a problem with bitterness?

You expect talentless women to be ugly?

>Everyone who criticizes a woman is secretly a bitter loser with emotions and sadness and everything in life is reducible to emotion and I'm very sad right now!

Hello, woman!

nah

I expected her to look Victorian, which she does.

Also it's my fetish fuck you.

As long as we're all acknowledging that most real interest and discussion surrounding her is about her gender, you're fine. Godspeed with your sexual interest in Kate Beaton - the only reason anyone has any interest in her.

To be honest, yeah. Her comics are my fetish. She draws characters in a way that is very erotic to me.

I wouldn't mind some pics of her in Victorian dress.

Did you know she's a GIRL too? Let's post pics of her ITT.

I'm a dude, and I haven't read her stuff since high school. It just seems lime wasted energy, no? To what end do you talk shit? No matter how bad you think it is, she has some sort of audience, whether they are retards or not.

Might as well. This thread is a joke started with a lazy condescending insult and sustained by lazy misogyny and bait. I didn't know what she looked like until a few minutes ago, but I've liked her comics for years.

You're right. Misogyny sucks. Now let's look at girls' appearances in peace, like good feminists.

She's so pretty. I bet she's really funny and smart :)

You like things I don't like and it has to stop the thread.

You are the same faggots who would post the Tyler the Creator copypasta in any other situation.

How the fuck are you mad at a comic nigga like close your eyes hahahaha like go read a fucking book so you can impress the girl you are stalking lmao.

Mods should move this thread to .

Hahaha! I bet they're virgins lol. I bet because they don't like women it means they are in moms basement star trek cheetos.

she's not sexy

Well, to be absolutely fair, I don't think a lot of guys who explain to anons online how shitty Kate Beaton is are exactly doing well with the ladies.

I mean, it's totally random tumblr style jokes, from the mindset of a girl. But why would you actively follow and start a thread about someone who you dont like.

Her fans aren't here to listen to you, her lit fans dont care what you say, and you are literally just crying about what she does as if it bothers you in any way. Speaks to jealousy on my part.

She has something and you don't. Same reason why the King and Greene threads keep popping up. You can't be Joyce, so you want so fart on everything you deem lowbrow or inferior just to feel better.

>totally random tumblr style jokes,

I didn't read the rest of your wall of text about how people who disagree with you are virgins, but please don't post oxymorons.

>So you feel
No, you feel. Pic related.

>that a roughly 5-point IQ difference
The effect this difference has is why the ratio of men to women grow exponentially as intelligence increases.

>on a graphing of 13 year-olds is a meaningful factor in explaining away societal imbalances in the arts.
There are plenty of other sources for adults that show the same thing. Here are some:
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606000250
iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

I suggest you gain a deeper understand of how evolution and natural selection works. You should then realize that there is no such thing as equality. Hence, there will always be societal imbalances, and the fact that there are correlations between different phenotypes within a species is to be expected.

>Brilliant.
At least I provided some hard data, all you have provided is empty rhetoric.

>Pol still hasn't learned to read.

Go fuck yourself then.

>I'm on lit to NOT READ but I still want to bitch and moan like a huge faggot.

Literally kill yourself and GO THE FUCK BACK TO POL!

This is /pol/

This isn't pol, you are pol.

It's an obvious observation that pol refuses to read when they come here, they just spout shit.

So go the fuck back already.

Lol ok

Your "hard data" is irrelevant, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise. You've implied a correlation--a crucial one--between specific IQ test scores and creativity in the arts, without the slightest evidence. There is no more "natural selection" in the current marketplace than there is equality. And I used the word "feel" advisedly. Just because you delude yourself that you're being rational and unbiased doesn't mean that's the case. You're being intentionally obtuse and pretending that your taste in humor is some sort of empirical evidence of quality, or important in any way. I suggest you gain a "deeper understanding" of the actual topic at hand and stop pretending you're a scientist.

I suppose the stock explanation for any such difference is that women were not encouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative. But I don’t think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

genuinely curious. why do you both think that xkcd is bad?

We don't think, we know for a fact.

Do you even do research or is everything you say based on nothing but what plebian logic has proven to run circles around those poor souls around you unfortunate enough to be a bit duller than you are?

>Your "hard data" is irrelevant, and you have done nothing to prove otherwise.
You have done nothing to prove it is irrelevant. You also do not seem to understand how arguments of this nature works: the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Prompted by your attempt to rebuke an antipated remark by predicting it, I asserted that very remark and provided evidence for it. You have claimed the data is irrelevant after failing to discredit it with logic that shows you lack knowledge of the subject matter. The burden is on you to provide empirical data that refutes my position. Otherwise you have no ground to stand on and should just keep quiet.

>You've implied a correlation--a crucial one--between specific IQ test scores and creativity in the arts, without the slightest evidence.
>"women are just so artistically and intellectually inferior"
>"social imbalances in the arts"
Never once was "_creativity_ in the arts" brought up by either one of us, so if anyone is making that implication, you are. I was talking about the relationship between gender and intelligence. However, now that you have brought it up: intelligence is linked to general creativity, which includes artistic creativity. Being intelligent also allows one to make better use of said creativity.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

>There is no more "natural selection" in the current marketplace than there is equality.
I wasn't talking about natural selection in the current marketplace, I was talking about the process of evolution via natural selection within the context of the 20 million years of early homonid and later human evolution. The fact that you didn't pick up on this clearly shows how lacking your understanding of this topic is.

>And I used the word "feel" advisedly.
And I made my remark about your usage of the word likewise.

(1/2)

(cont.)
>Just because you delude yourself that you're being rational and unbiased doesn't mean that's the case.
Just because you delude yourself that I'm deluding myself doesn't mean that's the case.

>You're being intentionally obtuse and pretending that your taste in humor is some sort of empirical evidence of quality, or important in any way.
I never once revealed anything about my sense of humor or opinion of Kate Beaton's work, whatever perception you have is all your own assumtion.

>I suggest you gain a "deeper understanding" of the actual topic at hand and stop pretending you're a scientist.
The "actual topic" is about "why are there so many more successful and well-known male cartoonists/writers/artists/everything else then women?". I gave a reason supported with scientific data. Based on our exchange so far I can with confidence say I know a lot more being scientific about something than you do. Do you even know what science is and how, and why, it works?

Anyway, it is clear you are beyond reasoning with.

First you said that data for 13 year old do not carry over to older people, which obviously would have been a stupid argument to make if you researched a bit and saw that this trend stays as people get older. When that failed, you attacked me more directly:

You said the data I provided is irrelevant without even so much as an argument as to why. Then you implied I made a correlation to something I didn't followed by you showing a complete lack of understanding on the topic of evolution, which I only suggested as it would help you understand why this inequality exists. Next you reveal your true colours by trying to employ a series of ad hominem attacks in order to discredit me so you wouldn't have face the more intellectually demanding task of discrediting my argument.

So, tl;dr sorry toots, your bullshit only works on your weak minded gaggle of spineless cucks; tits or gtfo

(2/2)

...

So many words, so little content. If you're prepared to allege that the general success of women in all creative fields is because they're stupid and not because of systemic inequality, then just come out and say it, turbopleb.

>So many words, so little content.
I'm almost amazed you think this counts as a valid argument.

>If you're prepared to allege
>al•lege (ə-lĕjˈ)
>To assert without or before proof
Since I have already provided ample proof for my arguments I wouldn't "allege" anything.

>that the general success of women in all creative fields is because they're stupid and not because of systemic inequality, then just come out and say it
That was more or less my point, but I'd phrase it as follows:
The general success of women in all creative fields is predominantly a result of the scientific fact that on average women are less intelligent than men and any systemic inequality is an emergent result of this inherent factor of human nature.

>turbopleb
If you are going to try and insult me at least try to be more creative. Oh wait... nevermind...

Anyway, been fun hun but I need to get some sleep.

half the time the "joke" is "i know obscure thing"
even if you say kate beaton does the same thing, at least she has an art style, whereas xkcd doesn't

2.
to declare with positiveness; affirm; assert:
to allege a fact.
3.
to declare before a court or elsewhere, as if under oath.
4.
to plead in support of; offer as a reason or excuse.

>social factors have no influence on iq test scores

Ok buddy

Psychometrics has been correcting for "social factors" for a century

God damn it, /pol/, if you don't cut this shit out we'll have a site-wide vote to have your board deleted.

>The general success of women in all creative fields is predominantly a result of the scientific fact that on average women are less intelligent than men and any systemic inequality is an emergent result of this inherent factor of human nature.

Haha, oh wow, someone never studied statistics a day in their life. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

>The chicken definitely did!
Prove it. You can't. Your entire argument falls apart when you realize (though I'm not sure your intellect allows it) that intelligence is as intertwined with capital as it is with the neurons firing (or not, in your case) in the brain.

>Kate Beaton has never actually read a book. She is a pseud who skims Wikipedia pages for plot summary then incorporates a random element as a punchline
No fucking shit?

How is she still relevant to anything though, I remember retards shilling her Wikishit like 10 years ago on /co/.

Your bullshit isn't improving. You have now at least clearly stated your idiotic claim:
>The general success of women in all creative fields is predominantly a result of the scientific fact that on average women are less intelligent than men and any systemic inequality is an emergent result of this inherent factor of human nature.
but have yet to show any relationship between IQ test scores and success in creative fields, especially comics (since that is the subject of this thread). I never once debated that men score higher than women on IQ tests, I said the fact was irrelevant. Your posting of the fact in the first place implied the claim that it was, so the burden of proof, assclown, still lies with you. And stop assuming I'm female because I don't agree with your idiocy.

>are too nice of people
Is this
>[adjective] of [noun]
phrasing a Murrican thing? It sounds awkward as hell.

I can't believe that there are still people actually believing in the "systematic" meme, and here of all places