Meanwhile in the New Yorker
Meanwhile in the New Yorker
Huh?
No wonder she’s pissed, she wants to bang and all this guy talks about is history
Is she annoyed because he's too into it, because she doesn't care, or because he's whitemansplaining something she already knows?
Why is she judging the man who clearly has autisim. That's not very progressive.
Who the fuck talks about how conquistadors had whores while at a nice restaurant drinking wine?
strawmen of course
What else is there to talk about?
This guy is pretty based
The original image had a different caption.
The weather.
Fashion.
Stocks.
World hunger.
The current status of Tony Hawk.
I don't totally understand the supposed context here. If he's a insensitive racist that brought this up based on her ethnicity, why is he on a date with her in the first place?
If he he brought it up naturally during a conversation, then why is she so pissed?
Wow, that's worse than OP's.
Somehow that manages to be even dumber.
I don't get it.
Expertise on what? Also women can't be confident? What?
men bad, woman good
"Don't mansplain me."
It's somewhere in between the reality of annoying spergs who just talk over people and low self esteem women who feel threatened by men who have self-confidence.
This is like a punchline with no joke leading in to it. They could be talking about fucking anything, how the fuck am I supposed to find humor in that response?
man bad, woman good
It's a joke about how a woman might be super experienced in a topic but since the man is sure that he's right he overrides her knowledge with his ego and just ignores what she's saying.
There's a lot of people who project their own buildup on to these things. It's how a lot of memes exist. It's why shit like this goes over well with the masses.
The woman can speak the fuck up and tell the man he's wrong. This is retarded and is equating a grown woman to a child that can't stick up for themselves.
They're just a shitty cartoonist
Here have a competent one
But I don’t care about any of that bullshit, I want to talk about history
The introductory bullshit is necessary to determine if you're worth talking about deeper topics with.
You spergs are really fucking pathetic sometimes.
>If he's a insensitive racist that brought this up based on her ethnicity, why is he on a date with her in the first place?
He clearly has jungle fever, and this is the moment she’s realizing it.
You find the humor when its something you've experienced yourself. It doesnt have to be a sexual thing, like think of a time when you've been trying to explain an IT thing to your manager who just doesn't accept you can't retrieve the lost contents of a reformatted hdd just by going into the recycle bin
Tony Hawk is 180 years old.
He IS history.
The man typically doesn't listen though due to his "confidence"
shittynewyorkercartooncaptions.tumblr.com
With that many details those companies must be full of deetlemores
The purpose of chitchat is to let your subconscious pick up on all your conversation partner's body language, mannerisms, and verbal signatures, compare them to everyone you've ever interacted with in your life, and spit out a weighted judgement of if they pose any risk to your wellbeing, your mood, or if there's actually something special about them. This judgement us delivered to your consciousness in the form of "getting a good/bad vibe" from them.
And history in particular is a red flag because most if the time its just fanboys of imperislism pining for a charismatic dictator to serve, which tends to go hand-in-hand with seeing women as incubators and at that ppint the odds of you being a serial killer are just not worth getting laid . If instead you wanna talk about, say, the agricultural technologies of Sumer or the hanging gardens of Assyria then that'd be a pleasent surprise. And if you know how to make Turkish bread then even better
This KILLS the SJW otaku.
Japan is very conservative though.
The stereotypical situation at hand usually accounts for the possibility of the woman speaking up and insisting her point with one of two outcomes:
A: the man continues to speak over her and insist his own point is the correct one, while the woman needs to either give up, or become increasingly frustrated, causing her to become more and more aggressive and insistent to convince him to see her point
B: the woman has finally become aggressive and insistent enough that the man can no longer ignore it, in which case he turns the tables and instead accuses her of being hysterical, and suddenly gives up all importance of the subject to instead focus on her attitude, and tells her something like “it’s not a big deal, you need to chill out,” while also probably never admitting he was wrong
Now keep in mind, like I said, this is the stereotypical situation. Most reasonable people aren’t like this at all, so this entire thing doesn’t even need to happen and very frequently doesn’t. But women who complain about this shit consider this cycle inevitable.
>Tony hawk
>introductory
all I know aboit the Holy Roman Empire is it wasn't Roman, wan't an empire, and most certainly wasn't holy, but it was The.
Who cares about some crummy Conquistadors? They should be talking about fetching a pail of water