Groups  Oct 18, 2010
0/5 from 0 ratings |
This chart is quite incomplete. If I had the time, there would be many more petals on that flower of loneliness.
-swb October 18th '10
That's me!
3 years ago by haruhi #67302
ya got the word "geek" confused with "nerd".
3 years ago by destreaks111 #55293
Haha You seem a lot like me LOL
3 years ago by GeeGee125 #53276
3 years ago by wsduvall #42669
@Corin I guess at least we all fit into the group of "popstrip reader". Wait, technically I don't even fit in with that group. =/ Blimey! @Maldoror I've never met a romantic who doesn't fantasize about a great marriage proposal. @Rat-Face Everyone I've ever met fits into at least one of those groups. *Everyone* @Angelo The qualities are not rare, but the *combination* is. @Chrysshart But I'm assuming you have several of the red ones too? @Denk A clone wouldn't help - I need duplicates. Preferably female. @Bloo haha @vinny You smell like cabbage? @Jacobe Where is this place you speak of???
3 years ago by swb #42638
Personally I haven't met up with grouping really except in people who no one likes... I'm lucky I guess?
3 years ago by Corin #42634
If I may say, all those things are actually why you should be able to find lots of people like you. The problem isn't related to the fact that you are not all of one clique, it's the stuff that does not define cliques. Lots and lots of people fit -that- -exact- -profile-. However, not everyone has creative capacity, or your particular morality, not everyone enjoys talking for twelve hours on end with someone they just met, or walking on nature trails and drinking coffee. It's not that you fall between the groups, it's that you don't connect, and because of this, you feel you don't belong. It's not because you don't fit a profile. No one -really- fits a profile. Anyone who does is a shallow, sad person.
3 years ago by Rat-Face #42585
3 years ago by Rat-Face #42584
Well I've got all of the blue ones except for the enjoyment of sports. So you're not totally alone, right?
3 years ago by Chrysshart #42583
This is certainly one way to look at it. But why don't we look at it this way instead? Every full petal is essentially a stereotype. And there is something to dislike about every stereotype. If you feel that you don't fit into any of them, then that may more simply mean that you are discerning. You recognize that there is something to like about groups as disparate as "jocks" and "geeks," while there is something to dislike about them as well. I think many people could agree with many of the nuanced opinions you've presented here. Personally, I only find myself outrightly disagreeing with the "Geeks" petal; I would reverse it. In terms of the one that bears on religion, I too would like to believe that there is something more in the world, but my life experience (which has been, at times, horrid) makes it such that if I were to begin to believe in any God, I would be angry with that God. I am somewhat aligned with the opinion of Tony Kushner, who once said "I have become comfortable with the discomfort that is being an agnostic." (that was a paraphrase; I probably butchered it). So, like you, I want to believe in a higher meaning, but I don't have all the answers. Actually, it was this very dichotomy that first attracted me to your comic. And, like you, I think that "skeptical" books that try to debunk religion are sort of missing the point. On the face level, this may seem like a contradiction. "If you're skeptic, you should agree with things written from a skeptical perspective." But in reality its more complex than that. I might decide, for example, that I want to interrogate the claims of people who claim to be skeptics themselves. I guess what I'm saying is that if you look at different labels and feel that none of them fully describe you, but that you can see some room for agreement in almost all of them, you are probably just a very smart, thinking, reflective person. Which I do believe of you, because I have read your comics and seen a lot of intelligence in your best work. Sometimes I feel very alone as well. But I try to battle that impulse. There is a place in this world for people who think, care, and use an intelligent skepticism to battle against stereotypes, even the stereotype of skepticism itself.
3 years ago by Jacobe #42565
All the sentences in red apply to me.... Does that mean I've failed at life? :'(
3 years ago by vinny #42560
This is like a personal ad gone wrong.
3 years ago by Bloo #42553
You should totally clone yourself and hang out!! Thats the perfect solution..
3 years ago by Denk #42551
Let's see. Romantics: enjoy emotional connections, don't require marriage. Skeptics: skeptical, don't trust skeptic books (do reading enjoy blogs such as skepchick). Believers: don't need a higher meaning, agnostic on a higher meaning. Entrepreneurs: am entrepreneurial, don't have rich parents. Hippies: am open to experiment, probably smell worse than cabbage when sweaty, easily resolved with deodorant. Jocks: don't enjoy playing sports (unless social sports such as bowling, maybe tennis, maybe [mini]golf, and computer games count), know nothing about teams. Nerds: not overly concerned with social appearance, do make public appearances at least weekly. Geeks: enjoy star*, internet memes = meh. That's me! Close, but no cigar.
3 years ago by lukian #42543
The hidden message is @SWB is a sunflower.
3 years ago by Bronin #42540
Do you believe that those things are rare in someone?
3 years ago by Angelo #42536
And I thought you were talking about groups in the mathematical sense.
3 years ago by Turion #42526
those meme-loving geeks nowadays... they are not into Star trek anymore. img(http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/feels-bad-man.jpg)
3 years ago by pistatic #42525
You *like* sports?! You monster... And why do you say romantics need marriage? I always thought quite the contrary.
3 years ago by Maldoror #42524