You know, I don't understand hard math, but I would never claim that therefore it has no meaning.
Not to seem, like, super-humorless or anything, and I usually enjoy xkcd, but it's sort of hard to effectively make fun of something if all you're doing is riffing on broad stereotypes. Not that there isn't plenty to criticize in the field, but dude, I really don't think it would take me more than a few minutes--a generous estimate--to realize you were bullshitting. I'm just saying.
posted by GeoX, one of the GeoX boys. at 12:34 AM
Q. How many literary criticism majors does it take to change a lightbu-A. THAT'S NOT FUNNY.
Boy, I sure didn't see that coming.
Also, I would note that my objection is not ideological in nature, which I think is a pretty substantial difference.
Finally, I must note that my objection was of the order of mild bemusement, as opposed to righteous fury. Obviously, the fact that I'm responding so many times means a nerve has been hit, even if I was well aware of the potential riposte even as I posted, but seriously, doodz: NOT COMPARABLE. Also, not to be pedantic (too late), but "literary criticism major" is a notably inaccurate and infelicitous phrasing.
Q. How many literary criticism maj-A. YOU PHRASED THAT BADLY.
Only that renders what's left of the joke meaningless, since "super-concerned with careful phrasing" isn't a trope regarding theory people--and if you read some of their stuff, you'd see why not. Zing! See? It ain't that hard.
Seriously, don't you think you've had enough? Want me to call you a cab? You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.