Cidu Bill on Jun 16th 2017


Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, New Yorker, comics, humor | 23 responses so far

23 Responses to “Wobbly”

  1. Kamino Neko Jun 16th 2017 at 01:16 am 1

    I got nothin’, but I’m impressed to see a gay couple in a non-web comic…

  2. Arthur Jun 16th 2017 at 01:45 am 2

    The usual is, “It’s not you, it’s me.” He doesn’t want to take
    the blame, either, though. So he just names the next thing he
    thinks of as the culprit.

  3. Dave Van Domelen Jun 16th 2017 at 02:02 am 3

    “I’m leaving…it’s not you, it’s this damn table. You can stay here if you want.”

  4. James Pollock Jun 16th 2017 at 02:19 am 4

    This is obviously a political jab. Members of the IWW were known as the “wobblies”.

    Apparently, they either owned or made this table, and it’s totally polarized the political discussion between these two.

  5. Kilby Jun 16th 2017 at 04:36 am 5

    Is there some reason that everyone is so politely ignoring the fact that there are two copies of the cartoon?

    Or is the second one off the right edge for those of you reading this on a microscopic device?

  6. Kilby Jun 16th 2017 at 05:50 am 6

    P.S. @1 - I don’t this it is (necessarily) a couple, and the interchange doesn’t have to be about a breakup. The man on the left might be worrying that he has Parkinson’s disease.

  7. Mitch4 Jun 16th 2017 at 07:55 am 7

    The IWW was also my first-glance association.

  8. tigalilee Jun 16th 2017 at 08:28 am 8

    @Kilby — two copies? You must be seeing things.

    *shhh! Everybody play along!*

  9. Joseph K. Jun 16th 2017 at 10:19 am 9

    Ah, the infamous Wobblies, who have broken up innumerable gay couples, strikes again!

  10. Joseph K. Jun 16th 2017 at 10:19 am 10

    Ah, the infamous Wobblies, who have broken up innumerable gay couples, strikes again!

  11. larK Jun 16th 2017 at 10:27 am 11

    So in third grade or so, the big sophisticated intellectual joke that was going around was a shaggy dog story that went something like this: a shipload of cattle were braving a storm; a particularly big wave rocked the ship, and all the cows fell down, but the bulls remained standing. When later questioned about this, the bulls explained: “We bulls wobble, but we don’t fall down!” Cue hilarity.

    How this explains this joke, or why there are two copies of it, I don’t know. But at least I have participated.

  12. larK Jun 16th 2017 at 10:32 am 12

    Oops, I guess I should mention that there was a popularly advertised toy at the time, “Weebles”, ovoid bottom-weighted figurines, and the slogan was “Weebles wobble but they don’t fall down!” and “Kids are idiots! They’ll buy ANYthing!”

    Whether Weebles the toy was some sophisticated political satire on the Wobblies I’ll leave to someone who has graduated from the third grade.

  13. Fuzzmaster Jun 16th 2017 at 11:27 am 13


    Around the same era, I was told by a reliable source that employees of a Chicago five-and-dime chain had an inside joke about why their stores were the safest place to be during an earthquake: because Weiboldts wobble but …

  14. Bob Jun 16th 2017 at 01:03 pm 14

    larK @11 “But at least I have participated.”
    Be sure to pick up your participation trophy on the way out. :-)

  15. Brian in STL Jun 16th 2017 at 01:50 pm 15

    Back when I what was a young sprat in the old University, I had a professor stop in the middle of a lecture to deliver the “we bulls” joke. Nothing to do with what he was discussing.

    This was an economics course, and I have to say that even though I didn’t take many, these were some of the oddest professors. Considering that I was a Physics major, that’s saying quite a bit. I had one econ prof tell us about his lawn-care method. Basically let go until the village would cut it for him and bill him. He said it didn’t cost much and it was very little work.

  16. James Pollock Jun 16th 2017 at 02:46 pm 16

    In physics, you’re looking for the fundamental rules that govern the way the Universe works. It turns out (if you stick with Newton) that there’s only a few rules and they don’t change. We now know that Mr. Newton’s rules only hold for a subset of conditions, and very high velocity and/or very small mass allow for some very un-Newtonian results. One of the core axioms, however, is that there are no forces in the Universe that are discretionary. Even when describing the actions of quadrillions of actors, even if it’s difficult or impossible to model them as individuals it IS possible to model the behavior of large numbers of them (Paging Mr. Boyle).

    Economics, on the other hand, is an attempt to model the interactions of billions of actors who each have discretionary power. Economists like to assume that each is acting in self-interest, but anyone with real-world experience knows that this is not true, irrationality is quite common.

    So, in a university setting, the physicists and economists have nothing in common. The physics instructors have to keep developing new ways to ask questions about things that don’t change. Economists can keep using the same tests year after year… they just change the answers they consider “correct”.

  17. Scott Jun 16th 2017 at 02:51 pm 17

    KN@1 - This is the New Yorker, where it is not going to be a problem. Anyhow, there are lots of man acknowledging their husbands and women talking about their wives on Wheel of Fortune these days, so I think this debate is about over in most of America.

  18. James Pollock Jun 16th 2017 at 03:05 pm 18

    “I think this debate is about over in most of America.”
    The Civil Rights act of 1968 is almost 50 years old, and there’s still plenty of people unhappy about that one. Ask Bill Mahar if it’s still a dangerous area for humorists to tread.

    For that matter, the First Amendment is over 225 years old, and there’s still people AMAZED that people with (insert religion here) are allowed to just walk around in America, unchallenged.

    Granted, people who object to depictions of gay people enjoying the civil benefits of legal marriage and the New Yorker subscription base are probably largely non-contiguous, but New Yorker editors (and other comic editors, generally) still might want to avoid unnecessarily poking the bear.

  19. Minor Annoyance Jun 16th 2017 at 11:17 pm 19

    Arthur got it back at #2. But just want to point out that the table has a single leg with insufficient horizontal support, and is going to flat out tip over if any weight is added or removed.

  20. Stanna Jun 17th 2017 at 10:00 am 20

    Ok, I’m the only one here with a filthy mind. The “it’s not you” guy isn’t , um, “bumping” the table from underneath because he finds the other guy attractive- the table is just wobbly.

  21. Mark in Boston Jun 17th 2017 at 06:41 pm 21

    So, Stanna, it’s like “No, I’m NOT happy to see you. I have a gun in my pants.”

  22. Meryl A Jun 20th 2017 at 01:45 am 22

    Okay - was 2 copies of it a joke? I am on a fairly good sized laptop and even when I click on the comic (which usually brings in the right side of long comics), I only see one copy.

  23. Mark Wadsworth Jun 20th 2017 at 06:40 pm 23

    I thought maybe the guy on the left was using a Ouija board. Look at his hand positions.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply