A protection racket »« It’s a boy it’s a frog it’s a plane it’s WEIRD

Comments

  1. Stewart says

    I’m having a hard time articulating what it is that makes this one magnificent, but that’s what it is.

    Perhaps it’s everything that’s unsaid in the third panel.

  2. wonderer says

    “I’m having a hard time articulating what it is that makes this one magnificent, but that’s what it is.”

    To me it shows the diametrically opposite point of view between the scientific and the superstitious.

    The superstitious POV is “How dare you suggest that I might be wrong.” Whereas the scientific is, “By all means, please do falsify my hypothesis, so that I can go on to a more accurate POV.

  3. Stewart says

    Without wanting to spoil anything for anyone, I suspect that what is going on in the third panel might be a thought process of “We can’t match that openness to being challenged – so you must think there’s something wrong with us – and that must make us inferior in your eyes – and that kind of feeling can come from only one place.” QED

    The keyboard is kept supplied with fresh coffee because all that stuff is skipped and the punchline is given and makes visceral sense, but we haven’t been given time to figure out why.

    Religion/faith gets furious when science/secularism rejects as unnecessary the protections from serious scrutiny that religion/faith claims are necessary for all because it knows it can’t survive without them.

    Not for the first time, a stroke of genius from the J&M Author.

  4. says

    J&M Author has been provided with a lot of inspiration lately.

    I think we should start calling him Dave, or J&M Dave for clarity. He’s public with that much – it’s on that podcast last week for instance.

  5. kev_s says

    I’ve often thought Author has an easy job because everyday there is new material. Only problem may be that even the most absurd situations do seem to occur rather frequently so there is some risk of accidental repetition. However I don’t want to imply that I think it is easy to create these cartoons. It is worth thinking for a minute why that ‘racist’ in the last frame makes one laugh. And why we shouldn’t be crying instead.

  6. Yahweh says

    I have to disagree Ophelia.

    Author has a much more theological feel than Dave. Particularly capitalised.

    Which probably makes it blasphemous, at least lese majeste.

    Unless, of course, the Author is actually God Himself, or God is speaking through the Author, which, I am sure, even Richard Dawkins would agree is not impossible.

  7. dirigible says

    “The Author” is suitably theological.

    The Author being God is not impossible, just vanishingly unlikely. I’m not willing to make Pascal’s wager on this as the benefits are only a surprising attribution rather than eternal life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>