Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Cueball doesn't want to hang out with people who badmouth others who aren't present. He leaves this conversation and gets into one about giant squids (a topic peculiar enough for Megan and Beret Guy). Although this topic may even be considered childish or socially awkward, this is still better than the social group that he was in.
The title text hints that the second conversational group isn't any nicer, by badmouthing the giant squid, who obviously, is not present. This would eventually cause a loop where Cueball goes back and forth between the two groups.
In the first panel originally the word "friends" was misspelled as "frends".
- Every time someone says something negative about a person who's not in the room, I scoot my chair back a few inches.
- [Cueball, Ponytail and two other people are sitting at a table drinking.]
- Person: He's not so bad, but his friends...
- [Cueball scoots away from table.]
- Scoot scoot
- Ponytail: His band is never gonna take off if...
- [Cueball scoots further away.]
- Scoot scoot
- [Megan, Beret Guy, and Harry come into view.]
- Off-screen: Yeah, his sister is even weirder.
- Off-screen: Did you see she had...
- Scoot scoot
- Beret Guy: ...and there's a video, but it's blurry...
- [Cueball turns around and leans his arm on his chair.]
- Cueball: What're you talking about?
- Hairy: Giant squid!
- Cueball: Mind if I join you?
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
Seems pretty straight forward. The more a group talks badly of a person who's not present, a bad habit, the less Munroe wants to be associated with it. Therefore, he slowly scoots away, until he eventually reaches an other group, who, hopefully, won't have said bad habit. 22.214.171.124 05:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much more to say about this one. Alpha (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's much more to say about it, actually. The comic is pointing out that it is the nature of groups to talk about those not present. The scooting from one to another (doing the same thing, even when the subject is something like squid), is to show that there's no escape from gossip.126.96.36.199 15:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
One can make assuptions about the age of those in the first group because of the shape of the beverage vessels. A wine or champagne glass might be used for it's name sake. Suggesting that they are older than the legal drinking age. Though the conversation seems like one expected in high school or college. -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Is this actually this simple or are we missing something? Maybe it's just a bit crappy? 184.108.40.206 14:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was actually expecting it to proceed to some sort of equilibrium situation where the various groups slowly force him into some stationary position at a distance from each group relative to their various levels of behind the back talking.Schmammel (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was expecting the same thing--Dangerkeith3000 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was expecting the first group will start talking about him, when he's away. 220.127.116.11 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- They will. But that doesn't affect him, because he doesn't want to be associated with them anyway. It might be the reason why he doesn't want to associate with them. As the conventional warning against indulging in gossip goes: "Be wary of people that say things about others behind their backs, because they might do the same about you." Of course, the real reason we ought not to engage in gossip is beyond niceties. Contrary to what most people believe, it isn't about with-holding all criticism. It's about fair representation, and accurate communication. However, given umwelt, it's not like everyone will have the same viewpoint anyway. Still, understanding that and being non-judgmental involves no slagging-people-behind-their-back, or consigning them to inferiority or incapability. Even if you do it to their faces 18.104.22.168 12:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Is that person actually called Harry? 22.214.171.124 16:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it was made up in 1028: Communication to describe generic male characters with hair. Alpha (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Technically, by scooting away, they are free to talk badly about him, as he is no longer present. 126.96.36.199 02:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- What can we learn from this?
I've learned that talk shows don't work, unless they allow the person they are talking about to represent their point of view. If you see someone doing this on purpose, switch the channel as you are not missing much. - e-inspired 188.8.131.52 19:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- A dissenting view
Evidently Randall is not familiar with the concept of "Minnesota Nice". Criticizing people in their presence leads to acromony; not criticizing them at all is a good way to make yourself burst from repression. Trash-talking people while safely outside their presence is a perfectly reasonable pressure-release valve; the only sin is indiscretion, and the only crime is allowing the "victim" to learn that they were "attacked". 184.108.40.206 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)