explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2014-04-23T03:18:37Z

173.245.56.86:

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::"Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech?" Are you implying that you think ALL other countries have similar laws, or SOME other countries have similaar laws? Saying that the local dictator sucks, or that the local religion is bullshit is certainly not protected free speech in many, many countries. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This comic has it <s>completely</s> backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. [ETA April 19: Whoops, that's wrong! The first panel has it backwards, but the third panel is perfectly correct. So my complaint is that the comic ''conflates'' freedom of speech and the First Amendment, not that it addresses ''only'' freedom of speech.] And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Who decides whether that is a right or not? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.47}}

:: Rights aren't just for governments. Any entity can grant you rights and then uphold or violate them. (Facebook actually calls its terms of service a "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", which it is, even though it's primarily their rights and our responsibilities.) So one might argue that Facebook (as a public forum intended for everybody and everything) ought to grant freedom of speech (which it kind of does, with a few exceptions, but only implicitly), while a personal blog should not (and then there are also forums that should maybe grant freedom of on-topic speech or something like that). People also consider natural rights (which is how the Declaration of Independence treats them, although free speech is not on its list), but personally I think that it's clearer to discuss what rights ''should'' be rather than what natural rights ''are''. So if somebody claims that FB (eg) is violating their right to free speech, then at best you have them on a technicality (because that is not a natural right and also not a right explicitly granted by FB), but their real point is that FB is violating their freedom of speech (which FB sometimes really does, including in ways that its terms of service does not authorize, hence various complaints from time to time like [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/breastfeeding-photos-facebook-respect-the-breast_n_1285264.html this one]). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:: On the first irony, I think this article rather misrepresents the uproar around the Duck Dynasty incident (which is mentioned in the article explanation). It wasn't just that people felt the guy's rights were violated (the merits of which argument I am not commenting on), but that A&E essentially ambushed him after he gave an opinion, in an interview, that no one should expect he didn't have. It's essentially the same issue with the Chik-fil-a incident, where people became extremely angry over an open Christian donating money to anti-gay groups, even though he was doing so for several years previously. It's not just the first amendment rights, it's that A&E, a company who is so prideful about being open minded and tolerant with the BGLT community, would drop the hammer so hard on someone who was already well-known for having opposite opinions. The point is, while A&E does technically have the right to show the Duck Dynasty guy the door, they cannot seriously do so without seriously undermining their own reasons for firing him. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship.

OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'''TL;DR''' --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A very recent article that pretty much shreds this comic. XKCD is usually on point, but this one goes a bit too far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html

I find it very disturbing that one of the most popular science-themed comics on the Internet gives a free pass to the Catholic church like this. The Catholic church is not a government, it is an international cultural institution, therefore, if the Catholic church bans people, ideas, speech, and behavior from all domains of its organizational influence, this comic clearly supports such a move. (I doubt the author needs a primer on that part of history.) The stated position that free speech only means that government can't come after you, but cultural institutions can and you just need to be quiet and leave if you disagree with that. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.85}}

:: I believe that Randall made this comic without fully thinking of the implications of the stance it takes. I mean, it certainly is a backlash against currently so-called homophobic (I have problems with this word) community, but it also essentially justifies a whole lot of other stuff this society wouldn't deem right.

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2014-04-22T22:44:51Z

173.245.56.86:

1347: t Distribution

2014-03-27T16:27:03Z

173.245.56.86: /* Explanation */ removed Gosset's obvious reason for using a pseudonym, added what makes him relevant to the comic.

{{comic
| number = 1347
| date = March 26, 2014
| title = t Distribution
| image = t_distribution.png
| titletext = If data fails the Teacher's t test, you can just force it to take the test again until it passes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Why does Cueball disapprove of the Student's t-distribution?}}
The {{w|Student's t-distribution}} is a class of {{w|probability distribution}} used in statistics to model small sample sizes. "Student" was the pseudonym of William Gosset, an employee of Guinness Brewery who discovered it. A Student's t distribution is similar to a normal (symmetric bell curve) distribution, but has "fatter tails"; thus, the one shown in the comic is roughly the right shape.

The comic is a play on the name "Student" (the pseudonym of the creator) vs. "Teacher". The idea is that a "teacher's" distribution would be more complex, and that it would be used for fitting data when the student's distribution wasn't sophisticated enough. Of course, in actuality, such a complex distribution as the one shown in the comic would have many parameters, and in practice would probably lead to overfitting and/or bias. Thus, the comic (and the title text) can be seen as making fun of the idea that more complex is always better, or perhaps of the idea that a statistician's job is to use more and more sophisticated tools to force the data to yield a "publishable" result, rather than to use the simplest appropriate tool and let the chips fall where they may.

In this comic, Cueball tries to "fit" a distribution to the data on the paper. This is the usual jargon for when a statistician is trying to model her data as coming from some underlying probability distribution, and the comic makes a pun with the physical meaning of "fit". In the second panel, Cueball decides that the Student's T distribution does not fit his data well, and decides to pull out a more complex distribution instead.

The students T distribution relates the average of a small sample to the "true" population average (under the assumptions, unobjectionable in many contexts, that there is such a "true" value, and that the samples are independent and normally distributed with equal variance). As such, unless the data on Cueball's paper contain many small groups which radically violate these assumptions somehow, there is no way Cueball's data could falsify the t distribution. In particular, a single number (for the average of one group) or a small set of numbers (for the averages of several numbers) will never make a nice smooth curve, but an average statistician would see that as normal statistical noise that would even out over time, not as a reason to prefer a complex, spiky curve such as the supposed "teacher's" distribution. But of course, Cueball's access to a secret, cooler-looking distribution makes them more badass than a mere average statistician... or does it?

Ironically, the Teacher's T Distribution shows equal variance, itself proving the appropriateness of the Student's T Distribution.

The title text plays on the word "test". The first part of the sentence refers to a potential "Teacher t-test" which would be used in a statistical context to test for the significance of some observation, as opposed to the real "Student's t-test" which is used to determine if two sets of data differ by a statistically significant amount. On the other hand, the second part of the sentence refers to the possibility for students to take tests (or exams) until they pass. The resulting sentence may refer to statistical fallacy, or the (conscious or unconscious) action of manipulating observations or misconducting experiments to give statistical significance to a false fact.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is wobbling a bell-curved cutout labelled 'Student's T Distribution' on a piece of paper on a table]
:Cueball: Hmm

:[Cueball examines the paper]
:Cueball: ...Nope.

:[Cueball takes away the student's distribution cutout]

:[Cueball attempts to place a wider and far more complicated multi-modal cutout labelled 'Teacher's T Distribution' on the table]

{{comic discussion}}

1347: t Distribution

2014-03-27T16:24:44Z

173.245.56.86: /* Explanation */ comma mechanics and minor rephrase for concision

{{comic
| number = 1347
| date = March 26, 2014
| title = t Distribution
| image = t_distribution.png
| titletext = If data fails the Teacher's t test, you can just force it to take the test again until it passes.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Why does Cueball disapprove of the Student's t-distribution?}}
The {{w|Student's t-distribution}} is a class of {{w|probability distribution}} used in statistics to model small sample sizes. "Student" was the pseudonym of William Gosset, an employee of Guinness Brewery who did not want to reveal his real name when publishing his work. A Student's t distribution is similar to a normal (symmetric bell curve) distribution, but has "fatter tails"; thus, the one shown in the comic is roughly the right shape.

The comic is a play on the name "Student" (the pseudonym of the creator) vs. "Teacher". The idea is that a "teacher's" distribution would be more complex, and that it would be used for fitting data when the student's distribution wasn't sophisticated enough. Of course, in actuality, such a complex distribution as the one shown in the comic would have many parameters, and in practice would probably lead to overfitting and/or bias. Thus, the comic (and the title text) can be seen as making fun of the idea that more complex is always better, or perhaps of the idea that a statistician's job is to use more and more sophisticated tools to force the data to yield a "publishable" result, rather than to use the simplest appropriate tool and let the chips fall where they may.

In this comic, Cueball tries to "fit" a distribution to the data on the paper. This is the usual jargon for when a statistician is trying to model her data as coming from some underlying probability distribution, and the comic makes a pun with the physical meaning of "fit". In the second panel, Cueball decides that the Student's T distribution does not fit his data well, and decides to pull out a more complex distribution instead.

The students T distribution relates the average of a small sample to the "true" population average (under the assumptions, unobjectionable in many contexts, that there is such a "true" value, and that the samples are independent and normally distributed with equal variance). As such, unless the data on Cueball's paper contain many small groups which radically violate these assumptions somehow, there is no way Cueball's data could falsify the t distribution. In particular, a single number (for the average of one group) or a small set of numbers (for the averages of several numbers) will never make a nice smooth curve, but an average statistician would see that as normal statistical noise that would even out over time, not as a reason to prefer a complex, spiky curve such as the supposed "teacher's" distribution. But of course, Cueball's access to a secret, cooler-looking distribution makes them more badass than a mere average statistician... or does it?

Ironically, the Teacher's T Distribution shows equal variance, itself proving the appropriateness of the Student's T Distribution.

The title text plays on the word "test". The first part of the sentence refers to a potential "Teacher t-test" which would be used in a statistical context to test for the significance of some observation, as opposed to the real "Student's t-test" which is used to determine if two sets of data differ by a statistically significant amount. On the other hand, the second part of the sentence refers to the possibility for students to take tests (or exams) until they pass. The resulting sentence may refer to statistical fallacy, or the (conscious or unconscious) action of manipulating observations or misconducting experiments to give statistical significance to a false fact.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is wobbling a bell-curved cutout labelled 'Student's T Distribution' on a piece of paper on a table]
:Cueball: Hmm

:[Cueball examines the paper]
:Cueball: ...Nope.

:[Cueball takes away the student's distribution cutout]

:[Cueball attempts to place a wider and far more complicated multi-modal cutout labelled 'Teacher's T Distribution' on the table]

{{comic discussion}}