No Geezer Tag For You!

Cidu Bill on Dec 13th 2013

I’m thinking no on Andréa’s submission, since the show’s in constant syndication. YMMV.


Filed in Bill Bickel, Daddy's Home, Hey Geezers! Comics!, comic strips, comics, humor | 26 responses so far

26 Responses to “No Geezer Tag For You!”

  1. James Schend Dec 13th 2013 at 05:08 pm 1

    The comic is actually pointing out that it’s a geezer joke, at least for the age of those characters. Too self-aware to be filed under geezers, IMO.

  2. Mike Dec 13th 2013 at 07:58 pm 2

    See! this terrible unfunny joke is at least not stale (because it is about how stale the Seinfeld reference is)! Unlike the alcatraz one.

  3. jjmcgaffey Dec 14th 2013 at 05:55 am 3

    It’s painful - not this particular comic, but all of this arc. The kid is a whiny (attempting to be snarky, and mostly missing) slacker and dumb with it - and I identify with him so many times…. I’ve never seen Seinfeld (deliberately). I have no idea what the Soup Nazi joke is, and really don’t care (and I wouldn’t have known it was Seinfeld if the guy hadn’t specifically said that). I don’t think I’d have said his line, but the silent penultimate panel with the weird look (as far as I can see with the “art”)…yeah, that’s me.

  4. DemetriosX Dec 14th 2013 at 07:09 am 4

    20 years seems a little short for a geezer tag to me. And as Bill points out, the show is in constant syndication. Also, I think the original soup guy was in the news not too long ago for some reason.

  5. Detcord Dec 14th 2013 at 09:07 am 5

    Haven’t had a TV for 20 years at least - so geezer or no, this one went over my head. I also stopped reading “Daddy’s Home” ages ago as well. Just not funny, IMO.

  6. Powers Dec 14th 2013 at 10:18 am 6

    Is there a word for the unbearable smugness of people who proudly proclaim they don’t have a TV and the associated implication that widely known cultural touchstones are beneath them?

    “Tom Sawyer? I haven’t owned a book in thirty years, so I have no idea who that is.”

  7. Keera Dec 14th 2013 at 10:26 am 7

    Doesn’t help that the show is in syndication if you didn’t and don’t want to watch it. (I just didn’t care for “Seinfeld”.) Of course, I ran into another popular-culture reference at work that went right over my head (”Despicable Me”; I have to google), so maybe I should watch more TV.

    HA! “Watch more TV.” Yeah, right.

  8. Detcord Dec 14th 2013 at 11:25 am 8


    Not sure where all that ire is coming from. Ire being the word you do not include in your post, but clearly imply. My post was a simple statement of fact. Nothing more. Are you as embarrassed about your preference for TV culture as your post implies? You shouldn’t be. It’s your choice what you do with your free time. I chose a different path. So what? You are usually better than this. Has something happened in your personal life to generate this level of angst? If so, I hope you can resolve it amicably and to your own satisfaction. I wish you well.

  9. zookeeper Dec 14th 2013 at 11:29 am 9

    Bless you Detcord.

  10. Brent Dec 14th 2013 at 02:00 pm 10

    Not knowing this strip my initial reaction was that the joke was that the guy was talking to a 30 something hipster woman who never fails to makes the point of how hip they are by not knowing anything about popular culture at every opportunity. Looking at back strips, it seems like that’s his son? And, thus, not a few years older than him?

    So I think that’s what you stepped into Detcord(8)… your comment was indistinguishable from a smug hipster when read on the internet. It’s not right, but part of your path is now being tarred with that same brush, because some of these people really are that annoying (look at this strip again and consider that SPP as a look of complete condescension… that’s probably part or the reason I read it that way).

    And, if it was a few years ago, I’d say maybe it would be a bit more geezer worthy… the reruns really died down last decade. But then last year there seemed to be some sort of push by the people with the rights to get it back on in syndication, and it’s pretty much replaced Family Guy here as the show you see again and again and again when looking through the onscreen guide (I’m sure you’re never further than an hour away from an episode, although it’s not quite as ubiquitous as Family Guy, which could be watched for 8+ hours in a row, multiple times during the week… when a channel, which was late to the party, was putting out promo after promo about how proud they were to be running Family Guy, I wrote them a quick note to point out that they’d really just become part of the “500 channels and nothing to watch” problem, it isn’t because there isn’t good programming that could fill the time, it’s that everyone runs the same shows). In fact, that’s probably why we’re seeing this strip now… the cartoonist was probably watching that episode at the time. You can probably work out what channel and the artist’s lead time with that information (much like you can by looking for strips on sharks in the weeks after Shark Week).

  11. Detcord Dec 14th 2013 at 03:30 pm 11


    I confess I do not know what a “smug hipster” looks like, or writes like for that matter. Since my wife got homesick soon after our marriage, I took us back to her country - which is Britain. I discovered, rather quickly, that there is an annual fee for watching TV over here. Failure to pay the fee results in an enormous fine and (allegedly) sometimes even a jail sentence. So, as soon as I was able, I drop-kicked the TV out the proverbial window. No smugness there. Just down right anger. They threaten me every so often with a home invasion to search for my clandestine TV set (yes they can do that here) but they haven’t actually done so because they have absolutely no evidence of us using the darn thing.

    I still watch, on my computer, that does not have TV reception, DVDs that I’ve purchased. This does mean that I am often outside the standard entertainment zeitgeist (both here and in the US). I’ve known Powers (after a fashion) for some time on this site and he is not usually belligerent. His - and your - responses imply a schism of sorts is developing in the US with regard to those who watch TV for entertainment and those who don’t. Is this really the case? Are there really unbearably smug Americans walking around proudly proclaiming they don’t have a TV? If “yes” then that is really weird.

  12. Elyrest Dec 14th 2013 at 05:36 pm 12

    “Are there really unbearably smug Americans walking around proudly proclaiming they don’t have a TV?”

    Detcord - That’s been true for as long as I can remember. It does go in cycles, but rejecting television, and often all popular media, is a familiar zeitgeist. I will admit to no longer watching, but that was after what perhaps might be called a slight TV addiction. I just decided that I had watched years worth so not watching is my way of catching up with the real world.

  13. Detcord Dec 14th 2013 at 06:12 pm 13

    Hello Elyrest - nice to hear from you. :)

    I never in my life thought anyone - let alone an American (where TV is ubiquitous) - would “boast” about not having a TV. Personally, I’d love one of those big plasma screens that practically takes-up a whole wall (my friend has one - but remember - the walls are smaller over here). The price - and my stubborn refusal to pay the license fee - are what hold me back. And I have found other means of entertainment - one of which you are enjoying now.

  14. Elyrest Dec 14th 2013 at 10:56 pm 14

    Hello right back at you Detcord! It’s nice to see you here again. I hope that you and your family are having a lovely holiday season so far in Britain. Back here, at least in the mountains of Pennsylvania, we have a ton of snow and more coming down. It’s beautiful and it looks like we’ll have a White Christmas.

  15. Kamino Neko Dec 14th 2013 at 10:57 pm 15

  16. Mark in Boston Dec 15th 2013 at 12:20 am 16

    Powers: I don’t know if there’s a word for it, but when I hear someone say “I never watch TV but it just happened to be on and I saw such-and-such” I feel like saying “I never read books but one just happened to be open and I read such-and-such.”

  17. Dave in Boston Dec 15th 2013 at 12:28 am 17

    Which, btw, IDU. (I understand what it’s about, I just don’t understand why he thinks that’s the shape of the curve.)

    Also, there’s a difference between not having a TV because you think it’s all crap and not having a TV because TVs are for plebs. I expect it’s the latter attitude that Powers (and many others) find offensive. (And justifiably so.)

  18. J-L Dec 15th 2013 at 04:11 am 18

    When I read the title “No Geezer Tag For You!” I immediately thought of that Seinfeld episode — which no doubt was what Bill Bickel intended. But before I read the cartoon I was thinking about how that Seinfeld reference being understood as a Seinfeld reference totally depends on whether or not a person saw that particular episode. Well, apparently that was the cartoonist’s line of thought, too.

    (Incidentally, I saw that episode back in 1996 when my roommate in college told me it was going to be on. He (among others) said that if I only saw one Seinfeld episode, it had to be that one. I’m glad I saw it, because since then I’ve heard the “No for YOU!” quote many times.

    And just a few weeks ago, it was re-run on TV again, so I had my father watch it. Now he gets the references.)

  19. Brent Dec 15th 2013 at 05:16 am 19

    Detcord(11): It’s like Elyrest(12) says, it’s been around for a long time, but comes in waves. I get similar looks when the topic of conversation comes around to recent movies if I bother to mention that I really haven’t seen many movies made after 1990 (so I tend to leave it at “I haven’t seen that”). It’s not that I think I’m too hip for popular cinema, there are lots of other little reasons (like your case with TV)… one of which was moving from a small town nowhere near a theater to a city without a main stream theater (the only consistent was a small independent one, which doesn’t really help because the movies I saw there make me sound even more like an elitist if I bring them up). The end result is that I spent enough of my life where the movies I saw advertised on TV I would see when they came to TV five years down the road… so I lack the drive that makes trailers work for other people.

    Dave(17): The basis for the curve would be that early on TVs were status symbols, so people would be embarrassed not to have one. Eventually they became ubiquitous, and so the people that didn’t have one would mostly be the ones that rejected the media (so smug comes to dominate (not that it wasn’t there before or embarrassment isn’t there after the crossing point). The dip after 2000 would be the rise of the younger generation which doesn’t feel the the real need to have things like a physical TV in their house because they can watch their shows on other devices (tablets, phones, etc).

  20. Cidu Bill Dec 15th 2013 at 04:06 pm 20

    J-L, just for the record, I never saw the episode.

  21. Dave in Boston Dec 15th 2013 at 05:44 pm 21

    Brent: yeah, and the early part I see; it’s the recent dip that I don’t get. If someone says “I don’t have a TV (because I watch everything on my iPad)” doesn’t that count as smug?

  22. Mark in Boston Dec 15th 2013 at 07:11 pm 22

    I don’t know why, but the “No bread for you!” always makes me think of the exchange from the Alastair Sim version of Christmas Carol:

    Scrooge: Waiter! More bread!
    Waiter: It’s an extra half-penny, sir.
    Scrooge: No more bread!

  23. Jeff S. Dec 15th 2013 at 09:33 pm 23

    If you are going to see one Seinfeld show, you shouldn’t really bother. You can’t get the flavor of the show from just one episode.

    Besides, I liked “The Contest” more, but there are so many to choose from, it’s near impossible to pick just one.

  24. Brent Dec 16th 2013 at 07:36 am 24

    Dave(21): Not really. There’s some generational snootiness (as always), but that’s along the lines of “Why can’t the old fogey’s get with the new wireless technologies?” And it applies more to things like land lines… having a big TV at home is still seen as a definite positive, even for those that watch most of their TV on the run. So there is still a bit of embarrassment there for those that can’t afford a TV because they’re just out of school in the current job market and have large debts and are underemployed or working as serial unpaid interns, so they forgo an expensive device and just use the communication devices they already have and need for looking for better jobs.

    But I think part of the supposed (because I’ll agree that xkcd sometimes fails a bit on things, but I’m always willing to try for a No Prize) decline might be that “I don’t have a TV” is losing some of it’s smugness for those people that use it as a way to say that they’re better. They just don’t get the same impact for saying it now that there are more and more people watching TV not on TV. So it’s popped their smugness bubble a bit, and with different media’s converging, eventually TV and Internet will be synonymous, so to maintain that eliteness they’d pretty much have to become Luddites.

  25. Meryl A Dec 18th 2013 at 03:24 am 25

    Keera - agree with you about the show.

  26. feuerstein Dec 25th 2013 at 09:24 am 26

    I avoid telling people I don’t watch television. It alienates people.

    I do have one, but only to play Sonic on the Sega Genesis I got on e-bay.

    television isn’t entertaining for me. But if someone here happens to leave a book open, I do start reading.

    And no, I don’t watch any videos on the internet. There I mostly just look things up. I read news, but that gets old fast. Stupid “entertainment”.

    I got my son to go outside a couple days a week. 200 euros a month, for a horse.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply