explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:3142: (City)-Style Pizza

2025-09-16T11:43:13Z

Gmcgath: Pie

Altoona-style is listed first in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizza_in_the_United_States#Variations but that's because the list is alphabetical. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 21:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I prefer +style pizza. [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 21:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
: Not a fan of electrons as a topping then? [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure this comic is intended to be titled “<City>-Style Pizza”, as it is labeled in the HTML of xkcd.com (notably, xkcd.com itsel uses “-Style Pizza” for the <title> elements and the rss/atom feeds, but not for the visible title. (But there, the “<city>” gets swallowed by the browser)--[[User:Nleanba|Nleanba]] ([[User talk:Nleanba|talk]]) 21:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Altoona-style most literally looks like a sandwich except cheese instead of a top bun《プロキシ》(XKCD中毒者) 21:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
:Yeah, a bunch of open-faced sandwiches side-by-side. [[Special:Contributions/47.248.235.170|47.248.235.170]] 22:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)Pat
: It looks most like a heart attack in waiting. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 09:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, locally (hint: absolutely nowhere near the place mentioned), there's a business advertising "genuine New York-style bagels". The juxtaposition of the "genuine" claim and yet the acknowledgement that they are only of the given ''style'' always makes me wonder what worth the genuineness truly has, with an ocean's-width of distance between any physical manifestation of New Yorkification and what we have here. [[Special:Contributions/92.17.62.87|92.17.62.87]] 23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought he was talking about Altoona Iowa (less than half the size of Altoona Pennsylvania). Look up “Altoona Iowa pizza” and one of the top hits will tell you it’s ranked one of the worst in the nation. You see, in Iowa, they lay out the dough, put on the ‘toppings’ (ahem) then dump on so much cheese that you can’t see any of the ‘toppings’ (ahem) anymore. When I came home from college in another state, I had to teach my mother how to make good pizza. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FB91:1D15:883A:11:B0B6:84B2:3C0C|2607:FB91:1D15:883A:11:B0B6:84B2:3C0C]] 23:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well at least THIS one was about a kind of pi. I guess pi does round to 3.142. [[Special:Contributions/138.88.96.2|138.88.96.2]] 00:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Shame he missed out on Pittsburgh's 'specialty' with this... since they had the sheer audacity to call it 'Ohio Valley Pizza'... Which I hadn't even *heard* of, let alone actually seen, in 40 years of living in Cincinnati! -Edit: Turns out it originates from Steubenville, which had he named it 'Steubenville style pizza' would've put it way down on the bottom left somewhere. -Tiron [[Special:Contributions/2600:2B00:934E:6200:2186:FE87:5D5E:1AB7|2600:2B00:934E:6200:2186:FE87:5D5E:1AB7]] 01:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a way of displaying article titles that have non-standard characters in them. Could something similar be done here? [[User:Dogman15|Dogman15]] ([[User talk:Dogman15|talk]]) 04:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The article is describing the Altoona style pizza, but Randall is calling on the viewer to look it up on Google images because the picture is likely more offensive than the description. I don't know what the wiki policy is but a picture in the article would do a much better job at explaining than anything Randall may or may not like about the ingredients. [[Special:Contributions/46.144.8.194|46.144.8.194]] 06:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Surely it's no coincidence that XKCD 3142 is about pie. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2994: Númenor Margaritaville

2024-10-06T09:32:54Z

Gmcgath:

Looks like the king of island life is Ar-Pharazôn https://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Ar-Pharazôn [[Special:Contributions/172.71.146.59|172.71.146.59]]

Awww this is great. I have just watched the trilogi with my kids (their first time) over the last three weekends, watching the Return of the King over two days finishing just a few hours ago. And then first now I look on yesterdays comic, and in the explanation there is so many references to the things I have just seen right now. Specifically the line "the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise." where silver glass is in the song "into the west" at the end (which I very much like) and the swift sunrise part is said by Gandalf to Pippin during the battle in Gondor. Love this coincidence. Because I'm a big fan of LoTR and of xkcd. :-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But there's this one particular harbour / So far but yet so near / Where I see the days as they fade away / And finally disappear. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 00:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Eagles are coming! [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 09:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2771: College Knowledge

2023-05-04T15:27:11Z

Gmcgath: Improvising verses

Did anyone else learn today that "chitin" rhymes with Triton? (I've always pronounced it chitten, like a chewy kitten, but apparently it's kai-ten!) College Knowledge? More like webcomic knowledge! [[User:Mathmannix|Mathmannix]] ([[User talk:Mathmannix|talk]]) 10:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Rather than giving up because "their justifications for each visit become increasingly tenuous," I read the comic as indicating greater and greater complexity in scansion, which leads to increased difficulty in jumping rope, so the point where Ponytail is no longer able to meet the physical challenge, hence her giving up. I do feel like I'm missing something as to the ellipses and the meter in the 4th panel, though. [[User:JohnHawkinson|JohnHawkinson]] ([[User talk:JohnHawkinson|talk]]) 12:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
:I think the ellipses are the chanter pausing to think of another heavenly body and what to rhyme it with. But usually the chants are already established and everyone says them in unison -- it's hard to do extemporaneous patter in unison. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
:Betelgeuse only rhymes with Pamplemousse if you mispronounce both ... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.8|141.101.98.8]] 13:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
:: You only have to mispronounce one, but you have to mispronounce it very badly. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.30.96|172.71.30.96]] 15:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Girls go to Mercury, to build more funiculæ; boys go to Betelgeuse, to cut down their metal use..." [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.136|172.71.178.136]] 12:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

:I initially read that as "mental" and that fits with the theme, too. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.162|108.162.238.162]] 13:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The ellipses help to show that they're improvising the verses in real time. There are better rhymes for Mercury (e.g., "Marie Curie" instead of "Tim Berners-Lee"), but the players are finding it progressively harder to come up with them. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 15:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

2764: Cosmological Nostalgia Content

2023-04-19T01:13:36Z

Gmcgath: Expand on time comparison trope

{{comic
| number = 2764
| date = April 17, 2023
| title = Cosmological Nostalgia Content
| image = cosmological_nostalgia_content_2x.png
| imagesize = 316x386px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Later renouncing clickbait, Einstein called his inclusion of cosmological content in general relativity the biggest blunder of his career.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|1=Created by a z=90s KID - Needs more explanation of what the click bait in the title text refers to in the context of the Einstein blunder and why that belongs in this nostalgia comic. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Like many xkcds, this comic is a figurative {{w|Portmanteau|multimanteau}}, in this case a combination of "{{w|cosmological constant}}" (an astrophysics term to quantify the rate of expansion of the universe) and "[https://movementstrategy.com/editorial/nostalgia-social-media/ nostalgia content]" (clickbait marketing aimed at a specific age group referencing pop culture from their youth). The [https://tvtropes.org canonical examples] of nostalgia content are "[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/only-90s-kids--2 Only 90s Kids Remember...]" and "[https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feel-old-yet Feel Old yet?]". Some people of relatively advanced years like to make comparisons to others in their age group of where events that they remember fit into history; e.g., "The first moon landing was closer to the end of World War I than to today."

In cosmology, z is the symbol for {{w|Redshift|redshift}}, which is the phenomenon where photons travelling from an object that is moving away from the observer exhibits an increase in wavelength, resulting in its colour shifting towards the red end of the spectrum. Due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, objects that are further away from us are moving away from us at a faster velocity, resulting in higher redshift. As light has finite velocity, it takes a longer time for light from faraway objects to arrive at the observer.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Spaceflight_and_astronomy] So the light observed at the present must have been emitted by the faraway object further back in time. Megan is stating that only people that appear to the observer with high redshift (z=10) will have existed sufficiently further back in the past to remember when the first stars were still forming. Megan also has a red tint (she is drawn in the colour [https://www.color-hex.com/color/462424 #462424], a very dark red; here is a comparison of #462424 and black: &emsp; &emsp;), indicating that she is one such z=10 kid. This would mean that she was born around 500 million years after the universe was formed, or almost 13 billion years ago. However, the James Webb Space Telescope famously discovered fully formed, large, bright galaxies around z=10 (of which the only explanations forthcoming so far are {{w|primordial black hole}}s[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac927f/meta][https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.09391] or {{w|axion}} miniclusters[https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043502]) so Megan's nostalgia may be somewhat confabulatory.

White Hat, meanwhile, is referencing the fact that the universe has {{w|Scale factor (cosmology)|three eras}}: radiation dominated, matter dominated, and dark energy dominated. As the universe expands, the density of radiation and matter decreases due to their dilution, causing the universe, which first started off being dominated by radiation, to then become dominated by matter, then by dark energy (which does not dilute as the universe expands). Dark energy dominated era, which is when "dark energy started accelerating the universe's expansion" started around 5 billion years ago while {{w|Evolution of bacteria|bacteria evolved around 3 billion years ago}}, meaning that they evolved closer to dark energy domination than to today.

The title and title text play with the similarity in sound between 'content' and 'constant', segueing between web(page) content and cosmological constant.

The title text refers to Einstein's inclusion of the {{w|Cosmological constant|cosmological constant}} to his theory of general relativity in order to attain a static model of the universe, which he later removed, reportedly referring to it as his "biggest blunder". Cosmological constant has, today, been generally accepted as a part of the current cosmological model, relating to the concept of dark energy.

==Transcript==
:[Megan (with a red tint) holds both her arms out and up while she is talking to Cueball to the left of her. To the right of Megan White Hat is holding both arms out and down while he is talking to Ponytail to the right of him.]
:Megan: Only Z=10 kids remember watching the cool dark gas that suffused the universe being eaten away by expanding bubbles of plasma around the first stars!
:White Hat: Want to feel old? Bacteria evolved closer to when dark energy started accelerating the universe's expansion than to today!

:[Caption below the panel]:
:Cosmological Nostalgia Content

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]] 
[[Category:Comics to make one feel old]]
[[Category:Comics with color]] 
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Biology]] 
[[Category:Clickbait]]

2760: Paleontology Museum

2023-04-08T09:14:15Z

Gmcgath: Additional explanation: Bony armor as "rocks"

{{comic
| number = 2760
| date = April 7, 2023
| title = Paleontology Museum
| image = paleontology_museum_2x.png
| imagesize = 485x155px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Nowadays the only ones left that do anything are turtles.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a ROCK - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, Cueball and Megan went to a {{w|paleontology}} museum and are looking at the {{w|Fossil#Permineralization|fossilized}} skeleton of a ''{{w|Stegosaurus}}''.
Dinosaurs encompassed a wide variety of species that would be amazing to see alive today. Cueball is remarking that the "bones" they are looking at [https://www.amnh.org/dinosaurs/dinosaur-bones are now actually rock], and that 'rocks' then are way cooler (e.g. shaped in a cool skeleton shale that can be displayed) than modern rocks. Alternatively or additionally, Cueball may be referring to the bony plates on a stegosaur's back as "rocks."

The title text refers to {{w|turtles}}. Their hard shells make them seem like rocks that are able to move on their own, giving the latest approximation to modern 'rocks' that do more or looks cooler than just a plain rock. In the second interpretation, the text could be generalizing the idea of bone-based armor as "rocks" to other animals.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Megan are in what is presumably a museum, and are viewing a stegosaurus skeleton.]
:Cueball: Wow.
:Cueball: Rocks used to be ''so cool.''

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]
[[Category:Geology]]

Talk:2758: My Favorite Things

2023-04-06T23:13:44Z

Gmcgath: Two Lumps reference

I like the copper veneer news link, can someone find a version not behind a paywall though? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.130|172.70.100.130]] 18:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Still no April Fools' comic? 😞 ~ Megan she/her [[user talk:megan|talk]]/[[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 23:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
:Sadly --[[User:Purah126|Purah126]] ([[User talk:Purah126|talk]]) 02:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
::guess there won't be one for this year [[User:Lettherebedarklight|youtu.be/]][[User talk:Lettherebedarklight|miLcaqq2Zpk]] 03:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

:Anyone have any news?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.131.182|172.70.131.182]] 23:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

:[[:File:Explanation length.png|Frankly, I'm worried about burnout.]] [[User:Liv2splain|Liv2splain]] ([[User talk:Liv2splain|talk]]) 10:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
::Naw, I think there's life in explainxkcders yet...
::If you mean Randall, however:
::# Complexity of necessary explanation doesn't necessarily tally with the quality of the comic (some might even say that the best comic is something real smart and yet perfectly understandable without much actual blather required by/from us),
::# There'll be more natural and immediate zeroing in on the 'ideal' explanation length with each emerging comics, whilst it becomes a conscious decision by someone to decide to revist an early comic and completely rewrite (solo, rather than as part of a crowd) to the 'latest' standards of verbosity/succinctity.
::# As xkcd lore grows, there's more back-referencing and expansion possible (c.f. "So... What's this boy in a barrel about?" vs the now established behaviour of any particular '<Colour> <Headwear>' character.
::# Everyone likes some types of comic and dislikes others.. If a new Map Of The Internet came out, some would enjoy it (and then maybe rail against a boring Cursed Thing comic, afterwards), and some others might think it derivative (yeah, they got a good Cursed thing joke, straight after, but the Map just sticks in their mind as a bad decision).
::...so I say enjoy or don't enjoy. There's a whole world of webcomics out there, and yet none of them is capable of being "every one a winner", by whatever aesthetic, metric or tally you might decide works for you. I'm probably missing some other rising (or risen, and favourably plateaued) star, by being right here, right now, but I feel happy enough to lurk here (and everywhere else I hang around). You do and think as you will. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 13:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Complexity of necessary explanation doesn't necessarily correlate with length of actual explanation either, nor length of actual explanation with quality of said explanation. There examples of near-perfect explanations that are short and succinct, and others of comincs of equal complexity/simplicity that are filled with several paragraphs of tangential repetitive waffle. If anything, I'd say that longer explanations tend to be an indication of a comic that touches on enough ideas for a number of people to throw stuff into the mix, but doesn't engage people enough to edit it down into a quality article.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.28|141.101.77.28]] 11:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::There's a few concerning things about this wiki, like the fact that the MediaWiki version's lagging behind the latest release by too far. If there's a security vulnerability who knows what the vandals will do with it... ~ Megan she/her [[user talk:megan|talk]]/[[special:contribs/megan|contribs]] 02:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
::: Vandals are capable of doing a lot. As they have done, over the last year or two, in particular (though those incidents were probably just the one idiot who is still likely around, but more subtle). The potential for security vulnerabilities is a separate issue, and there a documented reasons for how that is/isn't being dealt with, if you check. Your concerns are probably noted, they've been mentioned often enough, but I wouldn't want to speak for those with more direct influence and responsibility. I presume you all practice Safe Hex (i.e. not reusing passwords, especially in any email service you're registered with, should such stored details somehow become compromised) and that means it's 'only' an inconvenience if worst comes to worst, less so than the loss of the Forums was.
::: And this really has nothing to do with complaints about a 'decline in quality' of either comics or their explanations. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.148|172.70.86.148]] 05:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The [https://twolumps.net/comic/ea-nasir/ Two Lumps] webcomic joined in on April 5, 2023 with an Ea-nāṣir reference. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 23:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
== Table? ==

I'd like to add this table, but I'm not completely certain about it; it may be redundant to the transcript and comic itself, and just including the original lyrics would suffice.

{|class="wikitable"
! Original line
! Cueball's version
|-
|Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
|Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
|-
|Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
|Bright copper kettles leave... flakes on my mittens!?
|-
|Brown paper packages tied up with strings
|Hey, these are stone with a copper veneer!
|-
|These are a few of my favorite things!
|I've been bamboozled by Ea-nāṣir!
|}

Thoughts? Plus a version for the title text, most likely. --[[User:Jacky720|Jack]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|c]]) 15:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
:I think the transcript is fine as is. If you know the song, the way it's done in the text is sufficient. If you don't, doing it as a table won't help. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
: I think the table would look better, and be more understandable to people who have not heard of the song before. [[User:Thisfox|Thisfox]] ([[User talk:Thisfox|talk]]) 23:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

== XKCD forums ==

if you think randall munroe should bring back xkcd fourums sign this petition https://chng.it/MVYcybvVrJ and spread this link for every 10 people signing i will bother randall munroe about it [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.86|172.70.42.86]] 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

:I wouldn't presume to pressure Randall into taking on the (significant) burden of moderating forums. I'm grateful for all he's done for free to date. -- [[User:Dtgriscom|Dtgriscom]] ([[User talk:Dtgriscom|talk]]) 19:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

2759: Easily Confused Acronyms

2023-04-06T15:36:34Z

Gmcgath: Added citation for etymology of "lever" and removed a "citation needed"

{{comic
| number = 2759
| date = April 5, 2023
| title = Easily Confused Acronyms
| image = easily_confused_acronyms_2x.png
| imagesize = 557x444px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'Lever' was originally an acronym for Load Emplification by the Vimulated Emission of Radiation.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a RIGHT OMPLIFICATION BY THE BIMULATED OMISSION OF TADIATION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, [[Randall]] compared the Acronym "Laser" with various other five-letter acronyms. He first explained the "Laser" and "Maser" correctly, but the following three are simply the full name of "Laser" with the first word and initials changed. The replacement first word is correct for these acronyms, but the other words formed from changing the first letter are nonsense.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin:auto"
!Acronym !! Comic !! Actual
|-
| {{w|LASER}} || Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation || Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation
|-
| {{w|MASER}} || Microwave Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation || Microwave Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation
|-
| {{w|SONAR}} || Sound Omplification by the Nimulated Amission of Radiation || SOnic Navigation And Ranging
|-
| {{w|RADAR}} || Radio Amplification by the Dimulated Amission of Radiation || RAdio Detection And Ranging
|-
| {{w|LIDAR}} || Light Implification by the Dimulated Amission of Radiation || LIght Detection And Ranging
|-
| {{w|lever}} (title text) || |Load Emplification by the Vimulated Emission of Radiation. || ''(not an acronym)''
|}

Laser and maser are true-to-life acronyms. The remaining 3 words' true meanings are as follows: sonar is short for "sound/sonic navigation and ranging", radar for "radio detection and ranging", lidar for "light detection and ranging". (Note that these 3 each include the second letter from their first word in the acronym.)

The three false definitions simply suppose that all 5 of the acronyms follow the same model and swap out the necessary letters to fit, in a square-peg-round-hole manner.

The title text extends this to the 5-letter word "lever". This is an ordinary word (derived from the French word ''levier'', which share the same definition), not an acronym at all. Levers have been used since time immemorial (even [https://quatr.us/physics/levers-simple-machines-physics.htm animals have been known to use them)], and predates high-tech uses of radiation by millennia (it's one of the {{w|simple machines}} that {{w|Archimedes}} studied in Ancient Greece). [https://www.etymonline.com/word/lever#etymonline_v_9445 Etymonline] traces the origin of the word to the year 1300, from the French "levier."

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Easily-confused acronyms cheat sheet

:Laser

:Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation

:Maser

:Microwave Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation

:Sonar

:Sound Omplification by the Nimulated Emission of Radiation

:Radar

:Radio Amplification by the Dimulated Amission of Radiation

:Lidar

:Light Implification by the Dimulated Amission of Radiation

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category: Science]]
[[Category: Language]]

2757: Towed Message

2023-04-04T00:24:25Z

Gmcgath: Corrected explanation of 555 numbers.

{{comic
| number = 2757
| date = March 31, 2023
| title = Towed Message
| image = towed_message_2x.png
| imagesize = 613x236px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = "Hi, what you do is fly over a designated zone and detach the--" "WE'RE SORRY, THE MOBILE CUSTOMER YOU ARE TRYING TO REACH IS OUT OF SERVICE"
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an UNLANDABLE PLANE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
In this comic, an {{w|Aerial_advertising#Banner_towing|aircraft is towing a banner}}. Notably, these aircraft do not take off or land with the banner in tow, but instead have a hook and release mechanism to [https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2022/09/02/the-surprising-way-those-beach-plane-banners-get-airborne add and drop the banner in flight]. The banner ''could'' be interpreted as a recruitment ad by an aerial advertising company looking for additional pilots. But the humorous interpretation is that the banner is a distress signal – the pilot of the aircraft doesn't know how to land, and is hoping that someone will see the banner and give assistance. This makes the banner self-referential, because the presence of the banner (which makes landing difficult) is the very reason for displaying the banner. It is paradoxical, because printing and deploying the banner requires planning,{{Citation needed}} and if the pilot had anticipated that they would need assistance to land with a banner, they could have simply chosen not to deploy a banner in the first place.

The title text features a caller who dials the phone number from the banner and starts to explain the correct method for landing (detach the banner over a designated empty location then land the plane regularly), but the call is disconnected halfway through. Presumably the number is that of the pilot's cellphone. The call could have disconnected because the aircraft moved out of range of the {{w|cell site}} the phone was connected to and the phone failed to automatically connect to an adjacent cell; or possibly the cell network detected the call on {{w|Cellular_network#Frequency_reuse|multiple sites}} due to the phone's {{w|Mobile_phones_on_aircraft#Technical_discussion|altitude}} and disconnected it from the network; or the plane crashed and the phone was destroyed on impact.

Or possibly because {{w|555 (telephone number)|555 numbers}} are normally {{w|fictitious telephone numbers}}. The 555 exchange in all area codes is reserved for phone company services, and the only one ever in wide use was 555-1212 for information. 555 numbers are often used in movies, TV shows, cartoons, etc. to avoid publishing someone's real phone number, which might get the owner bombarded with calls.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[An airplane tows a banner. In the background, there are four small clouds and five birds]

:[Text on the banner:] Do '''''you''''' know how to land a plane that's towing a banner? Call '''555-0127''' now!

==Trivia==
* In a similar joke, a pilot used {{w|skywriting}} to write [https://laughingsquid.com/comedian-hires-pilot-to-skywrite-a-joke-over-los-angeles/ "How do I land?"] as a prank in 2013.
* A similar concept was shown in [[1897: Self Driving]].
* Banner towing is generally safe for an experienced pilot, [https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/november/pilot/imperiled-pickup though not entirely without risk].
* The comic may have been inspired by a recent article in the Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/03/22/how-hard-is-it-land-plane/] on how a person who is not a pilot is unlikely to be able to land a plane.
* The aircraft in the illustration is similar to a {{w|Piper J-3 Cub}}, which is popular for towing banners due to its low operating cost and good performance at low {{w|airspeed}}.
* Aircraft communication is usually done using {{w|radio}}. The {{w|aircraft emergency frequency}} at 121.5 MHz is reserved for aircraft emergencies including pilots in distress and needing assistance.
* Phone numbers beginning with "{{w|555 (telephone number)|555}}" are commonly used for fictional phone numbers in movies, TV shows, and other related media.
* The emphasis on the word "you" in the banner is reminiscent of ads such as the well-known {{w|Uncle_Sam|US Army recruitment poster}}.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Airplane banner]]
[[Category:Aviation]]

2756: Qualifications

2023-03-29T19:53:02Z

Gmcgath: Real life reference

{{comic
| number = 2756
| date = March 29, 2023
| title = Qualifications
| image = qualifications_2x.png
| imagesize = 265x316px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = 'So how DID you go from working at the employment records office to becoming president of MIT and CEO of IBM?' 'I guess I just have an eye for opportunities.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a 600-YEAR-OLD BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Black Hat]] used his power from his employment at the employment record office to pretend he worked there for 600 years, and then have a lot of fancy jobs. He's getting interviewed about it but his interviewers seem to be only allowed to verify the validity of the claim, not their plausibility, and the validity checking that "checks out" apparently consists simply of asking the employment record office for a copy of his records, without a consideration they were probably falsified.

Employers often encounter resumés that have implausibly padded experience claims. Most applicants try not to be this implausible, and few employers are so credulous.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[Black Hat sits in an office chair, Cueball facing him sits at his desk and Hairbun stands behind him. Cueball is holding documents in his hands.]
:Cueball: Impressive résumé.
:Cueball: It says that you have over '''''six hundred''''' years of experience at the employment records office? That can't be right.
:Hairbun: I thought so too, but it checks out.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairbun]]
[[Category:Job interviews]]

2745: Obituary Editor

2023-03-03T22:45:20Z

Gmcgath: /* Pre-written obituaries */

{{comic
| number = 2745
| date = March 3, 2023
| title = Obituary Editor
| image = obituary_editor_2x.png
| imagesize = 383x232px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = As the editor has reportedly defeated Death in a series of games of skill, no further obituaries are expected.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an AUTO-POST SYSTEM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
An {{w|obituary}} is a usually short paragraph in a newspaper describing a local person who has recently passed away. They usually offer a few words of praise and a list of a few relatives, as well as a scheduled time for memorial services to be held some time after the obituary is published.

Apparently, the editor of this newspaper's obituary has just died. However, instead of somebody writing their obituary after the fact, as is conventionally done, the editor has seemingly taken matters into their own hands and written their own obituary. They (somewhat vainly) describe themselves as cool, attractive, and universally beloved, a dubious claim at best. The following sentence reveals that the editor had pre-arranged the scheduled release of this obituary, after their death, probably {{w|Dead man's switch|entirely automatically}}. Obituaries are often pre-written for famous people, as this (not-so-famous) person has done.

Rather than the names of some close family (usually parents, a spouse, and children), the editor is allegedly survived by 8 billion people, or the current population of the entirety of Earth, who further are all heartbroken by the loss. All public spaces will now be reserved for a memorial service of the editor every single day (or, at least, the editor hopes they will be). Given that the entire population of earth is unlikely to care about one editor at a local newspaper,{{citation needed}} they are most likely exaggerating the effect which their death will have.

The title text references a common trope in culture, in which a person who has just died decides to challenge Death, or the {{w|Grim Reaper}}, to a game of skill ({{tvtropes|ChessWithDeath|usually chess}}). Apparently, it is (possibly prematurely) claimed by the editor that they have challenged death to a series of games of skill (probably most or all variations of the trope, including chess), and defeated Death in all of them. Rather than gaining themselves a "second chance at life," however, as is usually the reward promised by Death for the dead person's victory, the editor's victory over Death has been so absolute that Death itself has been nullified for all of humanity. Hence no more obituaries will ever be required, as every human currently alive (and presumably future ones) will now live forever. Randall has referenced this trope in [[393: Ultimate Game]], as a tribute to Gary Gygax, the inventor of ''Dungeons and Dragons''.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Text on the top-left corner of a newspaper page:]

:Obituaries
:<hr width="50" style="background-color:black" align="left">
:The cool, attractive, universally beloved
:editor of the obituary section has died,
:hopefully of natural causes after a long
:life. They take with them the password to the
:heretofore unrevealed auto-post system.

:They are survived by 8 billion heartbroken
:people. Memorial services will be held
:daily in all public spaces from now on.
:<hr width="50" style="background-color:black" align="left">

{{comic discussion}}

2732: Bursa of Fabricius

2023-02-02T16:44:33Z

Gmcgath: /* Explanation */ Sagan's "Broca's Brain"

{{comic
| number = 2732
| date = February 1, 2023
| title = Bursa of Fabricius
| image = bursa_of_fabricius_2x.png
| imagesize = 298x399px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = If an anatomical structure is named for a person, it means they were the only person to have it. Pierre Paul Broca had a special area of his brain that created powerful magnetic fields, enabling him to do 19th century fMRI research.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by FLYING BIRD SCIENTISTS WITH TRANSPLANTED AVIAN LYMPHATIC ORGANS - Better description of the two people looking at Fabricius and how they may represent his time era. More on what fMRI is and how it today may be used to study what Broca studied on dead people only. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The {{w|Bursa of Fabricius}} is an organ found in birds that is necessary for the development of their immune systems.

This comic claims that the 16th century anatomist {{w|Hieronymus Fabricius}} (for whom the organ was named) was able to fly because he also had that organ. However, this organ does not in fact contribute directly to flight (despite being of avian orgin). Also given that it only exist in birds, then it is doubtful that Fabricius also independently had this same anatomical feature.

But [[Randall]] asserts that, because the organ was named after Fabricius, he is the one and only human to have had this organ. And, having this avian organ, that automatically grants him the birds' ability of flight.

In the comic, Fabricius (drawn mostly bald and with a beard) is shown swooping through the air with great enjoyment, yelling ''Wheee'' as he swoops down from the sky; this being a typical outburst made by people flying/falling and enjoying it, in Randall's work, and a homorous contrast between the childlike glee and the perhaps more traditionally elderly seriousness that a bearded and balding intellectual look would typically suggest. Two persons look up at him, from the ground. A man with some form of wide-brimmed hat and a woman with a scarf over her hair and draped down behind her, probably meant to match the styles in use when Fabricius lived in the 16th century. The woman is particularly disturbed by the flying man, holding her hands up to her mouth in a pose of being shocked/surprised by his behaviour and/or abilities.

Many scientific and mathematical discoveries, including anatomical structures, are named after the people who discovered or described them. Rare diseases are often named for the first or most famous (possible even the only) person known to have had the disease. For instance {{w|ALS}} is commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease in the US because of baseball player {{w|Lou Gehrig}} having notably developed the condition. Outside of the US, it may be more known just as "amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" (alternatively "motor neurone disease") or, for simplicity, the initials ALS (or MND). In other cases, a person who identifies the specifics involved either attempts to set their own name to it, for posterity, or is later honoured in this manner by those who recognise their vital contribution to the field, such as with {{w|Parkinson's disease#History|Parkinson's disease}}.

The title text continues with the idea from the comic claiming that anatomical structures solely possessed by the human for which they are named, in another similar example. {{w|Pierre Paul Broca}}, a French physician, anatomist and anthropologist, was known for his research on what is now known as {{w|Broca's area}}, a region of the brain used for speech and language processing. The premise being that, having this feature, he was uniquely gifted with the special ability to created powerful magnetic fields, enabling him to do {{w|fMRI}} research in the 19th century.

Broca did not do fMRI research, a powerful method of non-intrusively imaging and analysing the internal structures of the living human body (amongst other things), as it was not invented in his lifetime. Nor is it likely that this ability could be 'naturally' possessed by any individual, such as he. He did, however, physically study brains of known speech-impaired patients who had then subsequently died, determining what damage (in the area of the brain which was then to be named for him) was directly related to their specific group of ailments. Today, we can safely view this area in living people, using fMRI, and directly connect what we see with the current condition of patients. This increase our knowledge of the brain, as with the mythical abilities Randall gave Broca, but also possibly even allows us to help those currently under the effects of any observed damage (not necessarily possible by any 19thC physician, even with this superpowered form of vision to assist them).

In reality, if Broca was the only person to have ever possessed Broca's area then this might have meant that only he had ever had the power of speech (as we understand it), which would indeed give him a very special ability; but one begging a number of other vital questions, if only anybody else could have asked them...

His brain was preserved in a museum, inspiring Carl Sagan to make "Broca's Brain" the title of an essay, included in a book with the same title. Awareness of the essay might contribute to speculation on what unusual features that brain had.

==Transcript==
:[An almost bald man with hair around the neck and a full beard, is shown flying in the top right part of the image, swooping down from the sky with arms outstretched in front of him while yelling. Three dotted lines behind him indicate his path. Two people look up at him from the bottom left corner, a man with a tropical helmet and a black haired woman with a scarf over her hair, which is hanging down behind her. She is holding both her hands up to her mouth. At the top of the panel there is text:]
:The '''''bursa of Fabricius''''' is a lymphoid organ found only in birds and in 16th century anatomist Hieronymus Fabricius, to whom it conferred the power of flight.
:Hieronymus Fabricius: ''Wheee''

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Characters with hats]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Research]]

2717: L6 Lagrange Point

2022-12-28T11:06:31Z

Gmcgath: Note on orbiting on the ground

{{comic
| number = 2717
| date = December 27, 2022
| title = L6 Lagrange Point
| image = l6_lagrange_point_2x.png
| imagesize = 399x400px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = It's difficult to orbit L6 stably due to gravitational perturbation from Akron and Toledo.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a LANDED LAGRANGE POINT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

In celestial mechanics, the {{w|Lagrange point}}s are points of equilibrium for small-mass objects under the influence of two massive orbiting bodies. Or in simpler terms, positions in space where objects can stay in the same position relative to the defining bodies. The L1, L2, and L3 points are unstable, as any drifting off the point (e.g. due to the gravity of other bodies) might quickly increase the tendency to depart the area. The L4 and L5 points can actually retain objects stably over long periods, resulting in the Sun-Jupiter L4 and L5 points capturing the {{w|Trojan (celestial_body)|Trojan Asteroids}}.

There are five traditional Lagrange points, two spaced on the same orbital path as the original object (in this case Earth), and three more colinear with the Earth and the body it orbits (the Sun). Randall claims that a sixth Lagrange point has been discovered outside of {{w|Cleveland}}, {{w|Ohio}}. This is pretty obviously farcical, as this would be part of the Earth and thus not gravitationally balanced between Earth and the Sun, and the joke [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlaceWorseThanDeath plays on Cleveland's reputation as a strange place]. The joke is that there is a different type of place named Lagrange: {{w|LaGrange,_Ohio|Lagrange, OH}} is a small (population 2,103) village outside Cleveland ([https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lagrange,+OH+44050/ map].)

The title text mentions {{w|Akron}} and {{w|Toledo,_Ohio|Toledo}}, two other large cities in Ohio. It says that their gravitational influence is the reason why orbits around the Cleveland L6 are unstable. Trying to orbit around a point on the ground would, of course, run into much more serious problems.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:Grey on white diagram of the Earth orbiting the Sun, not to scale. Earth is depicted as a circle with pale grey continents on darker grey seas, and shows a view from above the North Pole without any Arctic ice. The sun is drawn surrounded by radially symmetrical exaggerated wave pattern.
:Also in grey, approximate locations of Lagrange points 1 to 5 are marked with dots and labels: "L1" "L2" "L3" "L4" "L5".
:In black, a point on the Earth's surface within the boundary of a continent that could be North America. Also in black, an arrow pointing towards the point, and the label "L6".
:Caption: "Huge space news: Astronomers have discovered a new Lagrange point just outside Cleveland."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Science]]

2690: Cool S

2022-10-27T08:05:10Z

Gmcgath: Benzene ring allusion

{{comic
| number = 2690
| date = October 26, 2022
| title = Cool S
| image = cool_s_2x.png
| imagesize = 325x327px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Although I hear they were caught cheating off of Rosalind, who sat at a desk in front of them.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a COOL MIDDLE SCHOOL RESEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
The '{{w|Cool S}}' is a stylized drawing of the letter "S". It is a popular doodle among teenagers as it can be quickly hashed out using six vertical lines which are then connected with an appropriate pattern of diagonal lines.

Randall first draws the steps to make the Cool S. Then he draws a chain of repeats of this pattern, excluding the end caps, making something that looks like a twisted rope. Finally he separates the two strands and adds cross bars, creating something that turns out to have a visual similarity to the discovered helical structure of {{w|DNA}}. However, although the final diagram is a double helix, the chirality, or "handedness", is backwards: an actual DNA molecule winds in the opposite direction (clockwise, if you're looking at it end-on). (The tutorial at [http://realerthinks.com/correctly-draw-dna/ How to (correctly) draw DNA] describes this in more detail.)

He posits that the helical shape of DNA was originally discovered when somebody decided to doodle this extended S pattern.

Understanding the shape of the DNA molecule was an important step towards understanding how it duplicates itself and serves as a template for RNA. In real life, {{w|Francis Crick}} and {{w|James Watson}} were awarded a Nobel Prize for this discovery.

The title text is a reference to {{w|Rosalind Franklin}}, who made a material contribution to the discovery of DNA but was [https://web.archive.org/web/20160927113256/http://www.biomath.nyu.edu/index/course/hw_articles/nature4.pdf controversially not included in the Nobel Prize], although the reason was not as biased as common belief supposes. She wasn't excluded due to sexism, but because she had died in 1958, five years before the prize was awarded and as such was ineligible. Franklin's boss at the time of the discovery, Maurice Wilkins, was also named on the prize. Wilkins had shared some of Franklin's data with Watson, who then shared what he saw with Crick. None of the three men ever told Franklin that Watson and Crick had based their model on her data.

This account is reminiscent of how August Kekule said he identified the ring structure of the benzene molecule. He claimed to have had a dream in which the atoms were moving around, with the last grabbing onto the first like the classic image of a snake grabbing its tail, forming a ring of six lines.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

:[10 drawings evolving from simple dashes, to a "cool S" symbol, to a representation of DNA.]

:The structure of DNA was originally discovered by a group of especially cool middle school researchers.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

Talk:1918: NEXUS

2017-11-20T16:49:54Z

Gmcgath: Arizona Iced Tea boycott

My first idea -- this is so draft I'm not even going to submit it into the Explanation: Could Cueball be associating NEXUS with the FernGully villain Hexxus? And the Cisco company/brand of IT products with Commander/Captain Benjamin Sisko from ''ST:DS9'' and Crisco vegetable shortening? I don't have time to look into the other things referenced, and I don't immediately recognize them, but feel free to build on this if you want. Or don't; I don't have time to care right now. '''--BigMal''' // 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But Sisko saved Deep Space Nine! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.18|141.101.105.18]] 13:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ciscoes are a whitefish in the Salmonid family --13:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The "Thong Song" is sang by an artist named "Sisqo". And ''The Caballero's Way'' written by O.Henry features a character named "the Cisco Kid". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.82|162.158.150.82]] 13:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Cisco Kid went on to feature in Comics, films and a Depp Purple Song

Cisco Kid also a Sublime song. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.154|108.162.216.154]] 15:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

== a few more ==

o henry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cisco_Kid

fish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_(fish)

incan
http://emperorsnew.wikia.com/wiki/Kuzco

brak
http://brak.wikia.com/wiki/Sisto
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.202|141.101.76.202]] 13:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

----

I was really looking forward to coming over to ExplainXKCD.com and seeing the explanation "We don't get it, either." Disappointed again! [[User:Jpd|Jpd]] ([[User talk:Jpd|talk]]) 14:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

== Other Nexuses ==

I'm surprised Cueball didn't also refer to [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Nexus The Nexus] from Star Trek Generations. That's definitely something I wouldn't want to sign up for. Sure, it will speed up your travel, but that assumes you can get out in the first place. [[User:Shamino|Shamino]] ([[User talk:Shamino|talk]]) 14:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nexi*

Also - how about the Google Android phone? [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

== Broader context ==

People sometimes really engage in boycotts because of confusion that's almost that silly. In 2008, some people wanted to boycott [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boycott-arizona-iced-tea-wait-a-second/|boycott Arizona Iced Tea] over an Arizona immigration law, even though the company is based in New York. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 16:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1911: Defensive Profile

2017-11-03T21:09:46Z

Gmcgath:

This reminds me of his "free speech" comic. In both, he implies that if people get mad at you for what you say, you must be the one in the wrong. He also implies that people who make that kind of statement "don't understand" why people take offense. That makes very little sense. If they say something like that, they must understand why some people dislike them. Quite possibly they even enjoy having that effect. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

1357: Free Speech

2017-09-10T10:10:37Z

Gmcgath: /* Trivia */ SCOTUS Blog on the scope of 1st Amendment rights

{{comic
| number = 1357
| date = April 18, 2014
| title = Free Speech
| image = free_speech.png
| titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
}}

==Explanation==
Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening, or to speak louder in protest.

An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any and all consequences.

[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing anyone who has used this argument. As the comic says, just because you're legally allowed to say something doesn't mean that everyone is legally required to listen. It also does not mean that a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—is legally required to support you in spreading your message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something which others find stupid or offensive, he or she should be ready to accept the consequences of others responses, regardless of who is right, or whose idea is more popular.

The title text points out the irony of anyone appealing to free speech as a defense for their argument or opinion. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The '''Right to Free Speech''' means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

:Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone '''''else''''' has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

:Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

:Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

:Cueball: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,

:[A picture of an partially open door is displayed.]
:Cueball: And they're showing you the door.

==Trivia==
*One famous example of this is {{w|Schenck_v._United_States|Schenck v. United States}}, where the expression "{{w|shouting fire in a crowded theater}}" gave rise. The ruling went along with war hysteria to justify the conviction of peaceful protesters and had nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation or giving false information. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the ruling, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He later drastically revised his views and became a strong supporter of free speech.
*The {{w|Speakers' Corner}} at the Hyde Park in London is another example, everybody can hold a speech but there is no guarantee for a big auditorium.
*As currently construed by the courts, the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution is not limited to preventing the government from arresting people. For example, the [http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/argument-preview-the-first-amendment-public-employment-and-misperceived-political-association/ SCOTUS Blog] notes that the government may not penalize employees, with some exceptions, on the basis of their political views.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]

1357: Free Speech

2017-09-09T20:54:34Z

Gmcgath: /* Trivia */ Correcting misleading information about the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" ruling

{{comic
| number = 1357
| date = April 18, 2014
| title = Free Speech
| image = free_speech.png
| titletext = I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
}}

==Explanation==
Both on the Internet and in the physical world, people with unpopular or poorly thought out opinions may complain that their freedom of speech is being restricted because others express their distaste for those opinions. As a defense, these individuals may invoke the {{w|First Amendment to the United States Constitution}}, which provides, among other things, {{w|freedom of speech}} for any entity or person under legal jurisdiction of the U.S. More specifically, it states that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Originally intended as a restriction on the powers of U.S. federal government, which the Constitution defines, structures, and delimits, over time the First Amendment, as well as several others, were "incorporated" via the {{w|Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment}} to apply to state and local governments as well. This protection of free speech, however, does not extend to illegal activities (for example, the concept of a "clear and present danger"), and it does not compel others to listen to or acknowledge the speech. The intended targets of the speech may simply choose to stop listening, or to speak louder in protest.

An example of this is the incident involving the TV program ''{{w|Duck Dynasty}}'' in December 2013, in which television network {{w|A+E Networks}} [http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-robertson-phil/?hpt=hp_t2 suspended the host after he made homophobic remarks], causing some to comment that his rights had been infringed upon. Similarly in April 2014 [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-26895858 controversy erupted when Brendan Eich was forced to resign] as CEO of {{w|Mozilla Corporation|Mozilla}} because it was revealed he had donated money to anti-gay marriage efforts in California. In actuality, the First Amendment was never meant to provide immunity from any and all consequences.

[[Cueball]], representing [[Randall]], is addressing anyone who has used this argument. As the comic says, just because you're legally allowed to say something doesn't mean that everyone is legally required to listen. It also does not mean that a commercial or social entity—such as a TV network, a website, or its community—is legally required to support you in spreading your message, even if it had supported you in the past. If someone says something which others find stupid or offensive, he or she should be ready to accept the consequences of others responses, regardless of who is right, or whose idea is more popular.

The title text points out the irony of anyone appealing to free speech as a defense for their argument or opinion. If the only thing that someone can say in support of an argument is effectively that it is not ''illegal'', then {{w|Damning with faint praise|they are severely undermining it}} by essentially admitting that they don't have any better defense for it.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Public Service Announcement: The '''Right to Free Speech''' means the government can't arrest you for what you say.

:Cueball: It doesn't mean that anyone '''''else''''' has to listen to your bullshit, or host you while you share it.

:Cueball: The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences.

:Cueball: If you're yelled at, boycotted, have your show canceled, or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.

:Cueball: It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole,

:[A picture of an partially open door is displayed.]
:Cueball: And they're showing you the door.

==Trivia==
*One famous example of this is {{w|Schenck_v._United_States|Schenck v. United States}}, where the expression "{{w|shouting fire in a crowded theater}}" gave rise. The ruling went along with war hysteria to justify the conviction of peaceful protesters and had nothing to do with creating a dangerous situation or giving false information. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the ruling, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." He later drastically revised his views and became a strong supporter of free speech.
*The {{w|Speakers' Corner}} at the Hyde Park in London is another example, everybody can hold a speech but there is no guarantee for a big auditorium.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Talk:1871: Bun Alert

2017-08-04T00:07:41Z

Gmcgath:

I think it's about Ponytail realizing she's opened a can of worms in that she was the one who taught these people about the bun, and now everyone's infatuated with them. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.52|108.162.249.52]] 00:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This is basically the title text from 1682. Is it just me, or has Randall been running out of ideas lately? [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 13:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:In all fairness, Randall has been known to play the long game. There might be a thread to pull here. {{unsigned ip|172.68.143.186|13:44, 2 August 2017‎ (UTC)}}
::Yea, Randall has built on earlier ideas before. E.g. 1818 being built on an idea from What-If 141. It's non-indicative of a lack of ideas. But the notion that ideas are a finite resource is silly anyways. Watch the talk he gave at Google in 2007, it's on YouTube, and there's a bit in there where he talks about how he comes up with his comics. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.35|108.162.238.35]] 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No idea why he's picked bunnies specifically, maybe that will become apparent in a future strip. Considering just this standalone comic, it seems to be a parody of apps that increasingly swamp the user with notifications about pointless things that one might imagine nobody would ever care about. In this instance, it might be imagined that few people would care about notifications for bunny sightings, but in the last pane it appears that someone truly does. This might compare with notifications for rare pokemon sightings in Pokémon Go (not provided in-app but there are groups on facebook etc. that alert users to rare pokemon / legendary raids) - with the difference that bunnies are extremely common. Also, is it significant that he specifically uses the word "buns" instead of "bunnies"? There may be a connection with the observation that they are just like little hopping loaves of bread.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.208|141.101.98.208]] 14:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:I mean, that's pretty much what twitter is for.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.134.190|162.158.134.190]] 15:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:Cf. memes such as "anatomy of the bun". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.35|108.162.238.35]] 19:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:Agree with the idea that it may be reference to people overreacting to trivial things and using technology to alert others about it e.g. Starbucks unicorn locations, PokemonGo, etc. No idea about the title text though, he is basically saying people may be alerted at night? Maybe some recent trend that focuses on night gatherings? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.72|172.68.47.72]] 20:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this may just be an extended example of dadaism. If he carries on with the theme I think it is as likely to make less sense as it is to make more sense. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.189|162.158.58.189]] 15:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
:+1 Dada hypothesis. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.178.147|162.158.178.147]] 06:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Beret Guy's comment about investors and building the alert system could be a reference to [[1493: Meeting]]. Is the "loaves of bread that hop" line just a pun on the word "bun"? Is "Night Buns" a reference to something? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.46.41|172.68.46.41]] 20:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WARNING: your captchas aren't working well at all. In firefox your captcha gets crushed somehow underneath the formatting tools bar where you can do text entry when editing. I was only able to pass the captcha and get this comment posted by viewing the html source of the webpage and tracking what link the captcha was supposed to go to. I suggest you try setting up some sort of formatting on the webpage to place the captcha elsewhere on the page one sees after editing a comment-box/wiki-like page. Thanks[[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.91|162.158.154.91]] 23:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Just checked out that captcha problem since I never noticed it at work where I cant log in and now here at home the captcha is showing fine nothing hidden or combined with the format bar or the comment box this on Firefox 54.0.1 (64-Bit) current window size 1279x929 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.28|108.162.219.28]] 01:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe with each new comic I am getting lazier and lazier with editing (any editing, old or new comics). Thank God for [[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] and the rest of you. --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 13:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
:Thanks for removing this NOT FUNNY ANYMORE ''Citation needed'' templates. And please do not thank God for my few edits, I don't belief in those creatures. My first edit on this comic was more than 24 hours after release and my focus is more about standards. E.g. there is no need to add categories like ''Comics from 2017''... and the trivia is below the transcript.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
:::Maybe the more sporadic customary userbase of this site is a bit less jaded than the top editors. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.25.28|172.68.25.28]] 20:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
::::I adore the Citation needed joke, where appropriate, it must refer to a blatantly obvious phenomenon which does not need a citation. Such as, "The sky is blue" or "squirrels way less than a moose," and that statement should flow naturally and not be obviously put in there just to set up the joke. The joke comes from What If? and this seems to be how Randal uses it. --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
:It's a common colloquialism where I'm from, said without religious intentions. I was more commenting on your work on the site rather than this particular comic, though I can see why that may have been confusing. Next time I will reserve praise for your talk page. --[[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 19:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Massachusetts has an informal "French Toast Alert" system for grading winter storms. I wonder if the allusion to alerts about "loaves of bread that hop" could be related to that. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 00:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:781: Ahead Stop

2017-06-29T00:00:44Z

Gmcgath:

Reminds me of something I saw in San Diego on a pedestrian/bike path: PED TO YIELD. At first I thought it meant that pedestrians are to yield to bicyclists. But then I remembered my highway grammar.

--[[Special:Contributions/98.203.241.55|98.203.241.55]] 21:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:"highway grammar" that's a good one! [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 05:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
::"grammar highway" [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.166|173.245.53.166]] 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The phrase suffers from parallax. Being near the first words you can't read the phrase in the correct order but the words further away make more sense, so you read:
"HIGHWAY ENGINEERS THINK BACKWARD I READ".

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 17:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

In Idaho you can see signs which say:
GUBERIF
BE A
DONT

So theyre not only downside-up and backside-front, there ungrammaticle. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.36|173.245.54.36]] 22:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please do not reenact the title text. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.44}}

To save you the bother, I googled guberif and found it is firebug spelt backwards, which I should have realised for myself, and comes from a 70+ year old marketing campaign. So now you know. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.70|108.162.245.70]] 22:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the result is poetic. Last weekend I saw "BRIDGE LOW TRUCKS NO" on a highway. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1856: Existence Proof

2017-06-28T23:52:29Z

Gmcgath:

Whoever added the citation needed got more of a laugh out of me then Randall did this morning. Well done. --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.29|172.68.142.29]] 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Does the function have any special hidden meaning, or is it just some random function?
[[User:Thawn|Thawn]] ([[User talk:Thawn|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

: Yeah - I wondered that too. But I'm not sure if there is enough information to know. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

: Without knowing what the functions are, there's no way to tell. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 23:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1787: Voice Commands

2017-01-20T12:35:20Z

Gmcgath: Substituted with

http://wbic16.xedoloh.com/dvorak.html converts "svat ussupd ;dlh a kdbk" to "okay google send a text"--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.10|162.158.75.10]] 16:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
:Well that's a much easier way of converting it than my method of looking at two keyboards. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.58|162.158.255.58]] 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

:I think that's just for US keyboards. I get different results trying that on a UK QWERTY keyboard [[User:Jdluk|Jdluk]] ([[User talk:Jdluk|talk]]) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

:The opposite way of typing QWERTY on Dvorak gives the even less pronounceable "RTAF IRRIN. O.BE A Y.QY". –''TisTheAlmondTavern'', 12:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The QWERTY layout is to slow typists down is an enduring myth. In the early days there were typing competitions (with big prizes) to find the fastest typist and fastest machine. This was won by QWERTY in the English world and AZERTY in the French one. Other languages may vary.

The avoid a clash reason (as users of manual machines know) is shown up by the common Left Right Left sequence of "the" and the many letter pairs in English of "er" which are adjacent left fingers and often caused me jams!

Other layouts and designs may have benefits, but will never become the default - a bit like Esperanto methinks ;-) [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 18:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

: "In the early days" typewriters would jam easily, so ''of course'' a layout that for the most part avoided that would be fastest way back then. Just because the layout ''still'' had jamming problems doesn't mean it wouldn't come out on top. Touchtyping (a more recent development than QWERTY) makes QWERTY uncomfortable to use at speed, but the pretty much random nature of the layout makes life easier for spell checking software (a more recent development than Dvorak) than Dvorak. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.16|198.41.238.16]] 23:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have only typed Dvorak since 1991, currently on a TypeMatrix 2030DV. Since I have pretty much forgotten Qwerty, I had to look at my wife's laptop to find the letters. Back and forth looking at the comic, it took me a minute to translate that in Notepad. ;-) I can do about 90 wpm in DV. Friends don't let friends type Qwerty!
[[User:TrueFalcon|TrueFalcon]] ([[User talk:TrueFalcon|talk]]) 17:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
* Dvorak? pfft. I use butterflies [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.160|108.162.245.160]] 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
* As a fellow Dvorak user, I think comments like these are the reason we keep getting comics about us. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.177|162.158.69.177]] 18:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
** I can practically guarantee it. Especially since actual studies on the subject suggest it's more ability and practice that improve typing speed rather than what layout is used. --[[User:KingStarscream|KingStarscream]] ([[User talk:KingStarscream|talk]]) 20:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
** Case in point: I wasn't born until 1988 so I have less experience than OP, but I type about 100 WPM in QWERTY. What does that say about Dvorak? --[[User:PsyMar|PsyMar]] ([[User talk:PsyMar|talk]]) 03:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The hovertext should say "vocal cords," right? Not "chords"? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.222|173.245.50.222]] 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

: I've heard there ''are'' people who can sing more than one note at a time - a real vocal chord. [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.16|198.41.238.16]] 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

:I suppose it might be a deliberate error, but, yes, "vocal chords" is incorrect: it should be "vocal cords" (i.e. strings), or even more correctly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocal_folds vocal folds]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.173|141.101.99.173]] 09:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

: A stenograph (as used by a court stenographer) is a keyboard where one presses several keys at a time, called a chord, so I think the hover text 'vocal chord' is a play on the idea of vocalising several 'keys' at once --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.126|141.101.107.126]] 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The layout was intended to reduce jams, and was likely a trial and error process in development. The layout does in effect slow down the people of the day some, as for instance so many words are typed by left hand only, but this is likely unintentional. Notice that keys like the "I" and "O" are "together", but in fact are separated by three other key linkages, "K""," and "9", so pressing those didn't cause a jam as frequently when pressed in rapid succession, but nevertheless would have been faster had they been on opposite sides of the keyboard. Another point is that keyboarding was still visual at the time, so this keyboard mechanism never took into account the touch typing method that was developed a decade or so later. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.38.10|172.68.38.10]] 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate time to mention the advantages of MessageEase? No? Nevermind then. {{unsigned ip|162.158.114.82}}

I enjoyed MessageEase until I discovered Multiling O. It’s much more customizable. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.172|108.162.245.172]] 22:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Bah. Everyone knows saying it in the original Klingon is much more efficient. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.11|108.162.238.11]] 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove that last paragraph? It seems irrelevant to the explanation - as do a few other interludes that seem to only contribute to the opinions of the authors.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.82|162.158.214.82]] 14:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
: It would be safer to say which paragraph you mean, or multiple people might follow your suggestion and remove multiple paragraphs --[[User:OliReading|OliReading]] ([[User talk:OliReading|talk]]) 00:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't use the abomination "substituted with." That's what people used when they can't decide whether A is substituted for B or replaced with B, so they split the difference. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 12:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1075: Warning

2016-12-17T21:42:08Z

Gmcgath: Older fast vehicles

And also that riding in a car is one of the most hazardous activities possible, and people don't realize this, the common view is that walking or riding in a plane is more dangerous when really being in a car is by several orders of magnitude. [[Special:Contributions/75.103.23.206|75.103.23.206]] 20:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This comic is actally a great justification for repealing all those annoying safety laws. --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the explanation (which said evolution had not prepared us for the modern world 'yet'). That implies that we are part-way along an evolutionary process that will see us well suited to motor vehicle travel in the forseeable future, which is not the case and which I don't think was intended by the comic. The sort of evolutionary adaptations required to make us fairly well suited to motor vehicle travel (as opposed to being well suited to walking around all day picking berries and spearing things, as we are now) would take at least several million years, and I think it is extremely unlikely we will still be driving around on highways in cars by then. So there will never be a successor species to the human that is adapted to motor vehicle travel. The main problems with us and cars are (1) reaction time, (2) durability in high-speed impacts and (3) a metabolism that is not adapted to sitting on our backsides whenever we want to get anywhere. For the past 3.5 billion years, none of our ancestors ever had to respond to mishaps at any faster than about 20km/h (running flat out). While our common ancestor with the chimpanzees was probably much better at surviving falls from heights than we are, surviving a collision at highway speeds is not something any of our ancestors ever had to do (at least not often enough to be adapted to it - they weren't adapted to occasional falls from very high cliffs either). Fast vehicles have only appeared in the last couple of hundred years and I would expect it to be many tens or hundreds of thousands of years before these new selection pressures make any noticable (although even then quite inadequate) difference to human physiology. So a very long-winded comment I know, but I hope it will give some perspective. [[User:Tarkov|Tarkov]] ([[User talk:Tarkov|talk]]) 09:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this comic is actually about cars (or other modes of transportation at all, really) but more about the great (and becoming greater still over time) divide between our biological evolution against our cultural, technological and governing ones and how we are not prepared to deal with this big mess that it creates in it's wake. [[User:Ragnarok700|Ragnarok700]]
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.8|108.162.241.8]] 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To be hoenst I think we'd reach a point where motor transport is as safe as we can possibly make it, or completely redundant, long before we evolve to suit it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.248.24|108.162.248.24]] 04:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Didn't it evolve box-like exoskglotons after the evolutions Airton Senior made dying?
Or was it designed to thwart any blamgamesmanship?[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 18:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed the bit talking about the "next five miles" because it didn't make sense. When that is on a sign it's talking about the area in which the sign is talking about, not the fact that the driver will be going five more miles. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 03:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vehicles fast enough to injure people crashing in them or falling off them (e.g., chariots) have existed for several thousand years. Still, that's not long enough for significant evolutionary adaptation. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2016-12-06T12:05:35Z

Gmcgath: Added a bit to my previous comment

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 have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (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)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 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)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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 {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

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}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: 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. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship.

Munroe's suggestion that views which provoke yelling or boycotting are "bullshit" is also disturbing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gmcgath

2016-12-06T11:59:18Z

Gmcgath: Created page with "My stub page."

My stub page.

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2016-12-06T11:58:13Z

Gmcgath: Corrections on Schenck and scope of free speech

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 have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (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)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 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)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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 {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

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}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: 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. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2016-12-06T11:56:12Z

Gmcgath: Corrections on Schenck and scope of free speech

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 have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (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)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 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)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 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 {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

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}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: 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. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reference to Schenck completely mischaracterizes it. The defendants were convicted of urging draft resistance, and their conviction had nothing to do with allegations that they were lying. They were convicted of opposing Wilson's war and the laws that forced people to fight in it. The expression "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since then been a popular way for censorship advocates to justify all sorts of prohibitions on speech.

Munroe is wrong. The right to free speech means a lot more than "the government can't arrest you for what you say." It means the government can't discriminate against people based on their views. It can't deny them jobs, block them from using a public forum, or punish students of government-run universities on the basis of what they say. If the only thing the First Amendment only stopped the government from arresting dissidents, we'd have all kinds of censorship. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:365: Slides

2016-11-16T11:49:13Z

Gmcgath: Alleged SIGGRAPH ban

I believe that the title text actually implies that the conference in the comic '''is''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGGRAPH SIGGRAPH].{{unsigned ip|184.41.49.246}}

And what? The organization and/or the venue the convention is being held in haven't hired security guards who ARE able to throw you out?[[Special:Contributions/121.222.232.156|121.222.232.156]] 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The conference in the comic is SIGGRAPH (Special Interest Group in Graphics). Cueball/Randall has taken the name to mean that the conference audience would be interested in graphs. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.46}}

"It is said" that he is banned from SIGGRAPH, and this comic provides all the additional evidence necessary to infer he was physically removed? I didn't think the purpose of this wiki was to spread damaging rumors. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1759: British Map

2016-11-15T11:25:08Z

Gmcgath: Aidenn

The actual location for Braintree should be Essex not North Yorkshire.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.171|141.101.98.171]] 15:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Could Highland be a reference to Highlander? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.84|173.245.52.84]] 15:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I know you removed the </nowiki> that ruined the italics there, [[User:Davidy22|Davidy]]. Don't lie to me, you troll. [[User:Jacky720|Jacky720]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]]) 19:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
:Whoops, was removing autogenerated nowiki text from another user, missed the first tag. Also, that edit was completely unnecessary. 21:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Blick could be referring to Wick , at the top of Scotland ''Please sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''

''Waterdown: Near [the actual] Grimsby'' Interestingly enough, in southern Ontario, Canada, there's a Waterdown not far from a Grimsby. Waterdown is considered part of Hamilton, and is towards its northwestern edge, while Grimsby is to Hamilton's east. --[[User:VonAether|VonAether]] ([[User talk:VonAether|talk]]) 17:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The protractor off the West coast of Scotland is a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull_of_Kintyre_test
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.215|141.101.98.215]] 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Blick could also be Oldmeldrum.
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.234.229|162.158.234.229]] 19:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't the coordinates part of the first table? [[User:NotLock|NotLock]] ([[User talk:NotLock|talk]]) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Waterdown perhaps another Watership Down reference? [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 20:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Pity there's no [[wikipedia:Towcester|Towcester]] :) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.251|141.101.98.251]] 20:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

"Lakebottom" is equated with Lake Windermere (probably correct, largest lake in the Lake District) and the table states that many waterspeed records were set there. Arguably it is Coniston Water (same area, third largest "Lake" in the region) that is more (in) famous for speed records... Not that Randall references speed at all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.159|141.101.98.159]] 21:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Helcaraxë and Blick seem to share a single dot. Maybe Randall forgot to put a dot there, or there's some other reason? --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.112|108.162.216.112]] 22:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

since Randal Munroe wrote the comic, and he is an american, the map WAS labeled by an american[[User:Jessep13|Jessep13]] ([[User talk:Jessep13|talk]]) 00:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

‘Seasedge’ and ‘Eyemouth’ look like they should be Seahouses and Lynemouth. So far as I can tell, Seasedge is marked as a little north of Seahouses, roughly west of Lindisfarne (which suggests Haggerston; regardless, north Northumberland coast), and Eyemouth is marked approximately where Ashington should be; ‘Hairskull’ appears to be where Durham should be. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.160|141.101.98.160]] 02:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"BBC Channel 4" might also be a reference to Torchwood and other BBC Shows that were filmed in Wales (though did not necessarily air on Channel 4) [[User:Bpendragon|Bpendragon]] ([[User talk:Bpendragon|talk]]) 03:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, "Channel 4" is a channel not related to the BBC, so the reference to "BBC Channel 4" would be a mash-up between "Channel 4" and "BBC4" [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Wessex", although "obsolete" as a place name, is still in common use as a descriptive term. For example, there is both a Wessex Police Force and a Wessex Water supply company. [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 08:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I know the "Fhqwhgads" reference from the Ikea-ripoff video game Home Improvisation - always thought it was a pun in that game on Ikea's Swedish product names. Is the Homestar Runner reference older? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.162|141.101.98.162]] 09:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

"Aidenn" is an alternate form of "Eden." It's best known for Poe's using it in "The Raven." If the actual location is Merseyside, it could be a wordplay suggesting divine mercy. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 11:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1756: I'm With Her

2016-11-07T17:37:11Z

Gmcgath: Disappointed

The "I'm with her" and H with an arrow are CLEARLY the respective campaign slogan and campaign logo for Hillary Clinton, not some vagueness having to do with bringing a significant other. --[unsigned]

Has Randall endorsed a presidential candidate before? --[[User:Dfeuer|Dfeuer]] ([[User talk:Dfeuer|talk]]) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
He supported Obama on his blog in '08, not in the comic though.

He could have said any number of clever things about the election, and all he did was put up a campaign sign. Disappointing. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:992: Mnemonics

2016-11-06T17:09:33Z

Gmcgath: Correction on Marx

The most memorable resistor code mnemonics I know are not...politically correct, shall we say. But they are memorable. [[User:Blaisepascal|Blaisepascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:tell pls [[User:SuperSupermario24|Just some random derp]] 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I feel like he got lazy at the end and didn't provide an "or" to the Jesus one mnemonic. Also, why is mnemonic often pronounced "new-monic" ?

Mnemonic is supposed to be pronounced "nim-monic"; "new-monic" is rather a malapropism, given that is a correct pronunciation of "pneumonic" (meaning related to lungs or to pneumonia"), similar to how some people pronounce "nuclear" as "nu-kyoo-lar" (reminiscent of "-cular"-ending words, such as: perpendicular, particular, jocular, etc.).
:I pronounce it as written, same for "gnome" - keeps those muscles going. (Try it with "knight", you'll get an approximation of Chaucer. Seriously.) --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
:My dictionary says it's a schwa sound. Both "nim" and "new" are putting too much emphasis on the first syllable. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.202|108.162.219.202]] 06:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonics are actually counter-productive. They claim to help you remember something but, in actuality, they replace what you're supposed to remember with something useless, thus causing you to FAIL to remember.[[Special:Contributions/76.29.225.28|76.29.225.28]] 03:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Mnemonics are actually counter-productive." I disagree. They provide the '''order''' to the list of already known, or mostly known, words. They provide a little extra help.--DrMath 20:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The only one I ever learned:
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
Fucking stupid brain! (It HAS been useful, although I don't recall why at the moment. (Fucking stupid brain.))
[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 07:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Big Brother Reptilian Overlors. This aren't Raptors or Tyranosaurs?? I remmeber any 'fear' from Monroe to they -- {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.252}}
:"It's the most remarkable word I've ever seen!"[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the Order of Operations is Out of Order? Please Email Dad & Mum A Shark? - Apostrophyx ([[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.221|108.162.249.221]] 03:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
:It's not out of order, multiplication and division are one tier together. 6 x 5 / 2 and 6 / 2 x 5 have the same result. [[User:Cflare|Cflare]] ([[User talk:Cflare|talk]]) 14:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I learned "Kahn's Hot Dogs Use Dead Cow Meat" as a mnemonic for SI prefixes. Covers all the common ones, but leaves out extreme ones like Giga or Zepto.--[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.64|173.245.55.64]] 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

My favorite is for SOHCAHTOA: "Some Old Hippie Caught Another Hippie Tripping On Acid." [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.228|199.27.128.228]] 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

And this, fundamentally, is why people don't like Pluto not being a planet. Sure, it's logical, but you took away our nine pizzas and gave us only nachos in return. Who wouldn't be mad about that?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.174|173.245.50.174]] 05:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

My personal favorite for taxonomy is "Dumb kids playing catch on freeways get squashed."[[User:RedHatGuy68|RedHatGuy68]] ([[User talk:RedHatGuy68|talk]]) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Marx didn't "invent" either socialism or communism. Both terms predated him. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 17:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:662: iPhone or Droid

2016-11-06T07:36:39Z

Gmcgath: Vacuousness

The title text is outdated. [[Special:Contributions/75.69.96.225|75.69.96.225]] 01:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll get right on that for you. [[Special:Contributions/107.205.30.219|107.205.30.219]] 11:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

L. O. L. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 07:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

What is meant by the incomplete tag? I see no reference to Linux (although it is the platform that Droid is based off of, it does not seem relevant). [[User:Kyt|Kyt]] ([[User talk:Kyt|talk]]) 02:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Cueball's response is vacuous New Age-speak. That's what makes the idea that there's an "app for that" so funny. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 07:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1755: Old Days

2016-11-04T12:27:44Z

Gmcgath: C, punched cards, and a song

[https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf Reflections on Trusting Trust] (pdf), Ken Thompson's acceptance speech for the 1984 Turing Award, in which he discusses creating a backdoor in the C compiler (yes, there was only 1 when he invented the language) that itself creates a second backdoor in the login program when it is compiled. Additionally, it reproduces itself when compiling the C compiler from un-tampered-with source code, so that anyone using the binary (compiled) compiler would be unable to avoid reproducing the backdoor in all its forms. This is the sort of thing that gives security programmers nightmares. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.168|108.162.221.168]] 04:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC) (bonsaiviking)

The "4-6 weeks" thing might be a reference to high-performance computing, in particular scientific calculations, a few decades back. From what I've heard from older people in my scientific field (I'm too young to have experienced it myself), you'd prepare your program on punch cards, mail these to an institution owning a fast computer (because your group or university didn't have one), and they'd run the program and mail the result back to you. This, I've been told, took a few weeks. Maybe someone with first-hand experience can give more information. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.98|141.101.104.98]] 10:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Source Code on Punched Cards: As an undergrad at Durham Uni I remember punching PL1 source code onto cards to be inserted into a batch queue to be compiled and run on an IBM360 at the nearby city of Newcastle, overnight.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.160|141.101.98.160]] 11:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Frank Hayes' song, "When I Was a Boy": "And we programmed in ones and in zeroes / And sometimes we ran out of ones!" On a more serious note, C came out in the late seventies, and I was using punch cards as late as 1975. That's not "long" before, and I wouldn't be too surprised if there were C compilers that accepted punched card input. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 12:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:410: Math Paper

2016-10-30T22:08:30Z

Gmcgath: Poetic license

Shouldn't it say something about the whole math licence, and that you don't actually need a licence to do math? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.228|108.162.231.228]] 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Synthetica

Despite what this comic implies, the divisor function is defined over the Gaussian integers. There still is a problem, though. If a divides b, then so does -a, along with ai and -ai. The divisors will inevitably sum to zero. You could get around this by ignoring all the numbers that aren't in a given quadrant. I personally like the idea of using ones where the real part is greater than the imaginary part (although that still does become a problem with multiples of 1+i). This way, a friend of a natural number will also be a natural number (though it's only the same as what you'd get normally if all the factors are three mod four). {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.167}}
:I do not agree. Here is how it should work. You should define that a divides b if and only if there is a natural number n such that an = b. This way, natural numbers don't get new divisors when you move to the Gaussian plane. Consequently the extended sigma function gives the same value as the classical one when applied to a natural number. So, natural numbers will be friends according to the new definition if and only if they are friends according to the old definition and we are indeed allowed to say that the new definition extends the old one (Burghard von Karger). {{unsigned ip|162.158.93.28}}

Does someone care to hazard a guess about the alt text? Are there any possible papers that could have been written about those three fields? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.186|173.245.53.186]] 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think no one's noticed the "Straight man's deadpan stare" in panels 3 and 4. After being rudely interrupted in panel two, the lecturer stares silently at the person who stopped him in panel 3. Note the shape of the lecturer's head: his forehead and chin are facing towards the right as revealed by the angled features at the top and bottom of his head. In panel 4 the lecturer turns and stares at the reader and stands silent. Note the completely round shape of the head. This is the classic deadpan stare.
Also, am I the only one who assumed that Cueball himself is the lecturer and the person interrupting him is likely the proffessor of the class?[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 20:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog
:I don't know. In panel three DOES look straight at the commenter in the audience in a deadpan way, like he'd been caught unawares by the person's observation, but in panel four seems to look down, head tilted towards the floor as if wondering "aww shit, now what do I do?" Or like he felt slightly ashamed of being caught. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.76|108.162.216.76]] 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
::I thought it was pretty plainly evident that Cueball is the presenter - going along with the XKCD theme of banning/revoking Cueball's privilege due to "inappropriately" wasting people's time at an ostensibly serious event. Also, in relative agreement with 108.162.216.76, I think that Panel 3 is his feeble attempt to continue to look serious (or straight/deadpan) while thinking of a way to respond, followed in Panel 4 with a slightly defeated shoulder/head slump (giving up with trying to perpetuate his premise). Panel 5 could be viewed as a plain admission, but I prefer to see it as a final, hail-Mary attempt to maintain the graces of the audience without ''actually lying'' to them. -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 16:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:::They are probably beat panels more than anything else. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 00:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a joke among amateur songwriters that a forced rhyme or other dubious technique might lead to revoking the writer's "poetic license." [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 22:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1468: Worrying

2016-10-30T21:53:49Z

Gmcgath: Nosebleed

My first transcript and more-or-less complete explanation. :) Hope I'm not stealing anyone's thunder... [[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]] ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) 07:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
:The original "transcript" is more like another explanation. It should be changed. Try to see one for another chart comic. [[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::I have now made the changes my self and created the table under the explanation --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 13:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Breaking news being important in movies had already been discussed in xkcd #1387

http://xkcd.com/1387/

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.128|173.245.49.128]] 09:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

"Being in the same vicinity as oranges" should be way right on the "Very worried" axis for movies because of The Godfather. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.206}}

The heart has 2 atria, one on each side. The wound to the left side of the chest is considered worse because the left ventricle so more of the heart is on the left side {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.78}}

One of the most serious movie situations is entering a bathroom. [[User:Mark31415926|Mark31415926]] ([[User talk:Mark31415926|talk]]) 03:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:Like the movie Cast-Away? Can't even take a pee without a jet engine soon sucking in seawater and exploding near you. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.94|108.162.215.94]] 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the nosebleed thing is a reference to The Ring. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.106|108.162.212.106]] 22:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
:I'm of the opinion that nosebleed as something to be worried about is pretty universal in movies. In animes, though, it's just a sign that there are attractive people nearby... [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Attila the Hun is traditionally supposed to have died of a nosebleed. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 21:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1714: Volcano Types

2016-10-28T13:20:04Z

Gmcgath: Waffle cones

Actual antlions, not to be confused with the antlions from Half-Life 2. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.62|173.245.52.62]] 15:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I think pedant's bane actually has them labelled correctly. It's just that the picture is upside down and you've reversed the figure and the ground in your mind. Were it right-side-up, you'd see It's actually a drawing of a teeny pool of underground magma at the bottom of an antlion's trap, spouting up a fountain of lava. {{unsigned ip|199.27.133.107}}
:I can't tell if you're joking or not. A pedant is someone who cares (maybe too much) about being technically correct. The bane of a volcano pedant would be people who mix up lava and magma. This is why the labels are reversed in the figure. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.62|173.245.52.62]] 16:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
::Exactly. But what's the description going on about? "''Pedant's Bane is therefore impossible by definition but if it were possible, then a pedant correcting someone's description of it would be wrong.''" What is all that rubbish supposed to mean? The explanation is not supposed to require explaining! If the terms refer to the same material but in different situations then they're wrong in the two situations illustrated, and thus should be corrected, especially by a pedant. Where does "impossible by definition" come into it? [[Special:Contributions/198.41.238.32|198.41.238.32]] 22:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Who here was hoping for Harry Potter???? [RedstoneIngot] [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.60|173.245.56.60]] 20:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Made a very small change, but sarlacc is not supposed to be capitalized (checked both Wikipedia and Wookieepedia). [[User:Spaceside|Spaceside]] ([[User talk:Spaceside|talk]]) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The explanation of "Doot Cone" makes no sense. The "Skull trumpet" Know Your Meme page does not discuss the word "doot" at all, only shows it in some pictures. It doesn't seem to be a significant part of the meme, as it doesn't feature in the animation or its early variants. It just happens to be the first hit when you Google "doot." It makes just as much sense to assume that it's a play on "[https://www.amazon.com/Florida-DOT-Approved-Traffic-Cone/dp/B009RUTKZA DOT cone]," as in the orange cones used by the Department of Transportation (which are sometimes stenciled with "DOT.")
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.142|199.27.128.142]] 01:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Doot Cone

"Doot" is actually a significant part of the skull trumpet meme -- meant to represent the sound in the original skull trumpet video. It's strange the KYM page doesn't refer to "doot" specifically. See a relevant reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/39xnk2/what_is_this_doot_thing_with_the_skeletons/cs7jdsa

However, I'd agree that the evidence is not strong for the doot cone being a reference to this.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.10|108.162.219.10]] 01:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
:Before I read the explanation (and the KYM entry) in my imagination the sound was more like that of a foghorn or a ship's horn. I've never heard of that meme before. And even now I feel it hard to imagine a BIG volcano making the comparatively high pitched sound of a trumpet. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
::Whereas it's perfectly easy to imagine a waffle cone or an inverted volcano :-) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.90|141.101.98.90]] 10:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
::: Exactly ;) [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 13:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It would look out of place next to the profile drawings, but <big>☻</big> is Kilauea's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8PuMOsdwm0 Watchmen crater]. [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 12:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

For the ghost vent - is this actually a reference to the ghost generators in Gauntlet? Andrew Williams {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.100}}

Does the metasomma volcano remind anyone else of an HNMR spec?[[User:Killerbeez|Killerbeez]] ([[User talk:Killerbeez|talk]]) 21:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I just thought that the "Doot Cone" was just supposed to be a stupid sound. {{unsigned ip|108.162.241.43}}

It's common, at least in my area, for ice cream cones to be served upside down in cups. Randall lives in New England like me, so he'd have encountered this even if it's just local. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 13:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:697: Tensile vs. Shear Strength

2016-10-25T20:23:38Z

Gmcgath: Burma Shave comment

Does anyone know the tensile vs. shear strength of nanotubes? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User
talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"but it can be cut with a simple pair of pruning shears (also a pun on shear strength)" - I don't know the precise etymology of the word shears, but I would assume they are called such precisely because they operate on a shearing principle. While it is fair to assume that the use of the words 'pruning shears' is intentional (rather than 'scissors' or similar) , I wouldn't call it a pun (exploiting multiple meanings of words). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (Retroactively signed)

I agree, it's not a pun. I'm going to change that.
[[User:Spiral phi|Spiral phi]] ([[User talk:Spiral phi|talk]]) 19:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't immediately think of any other rhyming comics. Are there any others? --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:At least [[206: Reno Rhymes]], [[491: Twitter]] and [[805: Paradise City]], and probably others. [[User:Pelosujamo|Pelosujamo]] ([[User talk:Pelosujamo|talk]]) 17:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Though the thing would have buckled before all this could even have a chance to happen [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.71|108.162.254.71]] 16:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

:Buckling is specifically a failure under compressive load. I'm assuming we are looking at a cable under tensile load caused by centrifugal force. (The old swinging a bucket on a rope trick). Wikipedia has an interesting {{w|Space Elevator}} article. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Aargh! The first line lacks a syllable... E.g. THEN after countless engineers...[[User:Mumiemonstret|Mumiemonstret]] ([[User talk:Mumiemonstret|talk]]) 10:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 3rd line's been changed; when I first read it, it ended with either "turns to tears" or "ends in tears". Can anyone confirm? [[User:Promethean|Promethean]] ([[User talk:Promethean|talk]]) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

More accurate to refer to punched holes in terms of being stress concentrators than in terms of cross-section reduction. Sharp corners can reduce stress to failure massively while only marginally reducing cross-sectional area [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.18|108.162.216.18]] 16:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

In reality, I believe that any space elevator would be nearly perfectly balanced, to the point that it would not even need to necessarily be connected to the ground. That is of course why a space elevator in and of itself is possible and why a material with great tensile strength is needed, as it would be perfectly balanced. {{unsigned ip|108.162.245.170}}

I'm pretty sure you guys missed the reference to Burma Shave. The setup of the text is identical to the "burma shave" campaign (4 rhyming lines + "Burma Shave"). In this case Pruning Shears is used instead of Burma Shave which sounds quite similar (this is why he choose that over "scissors" or similar). See comic 491 for another reference. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.102.169|188.114.102.169]] 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC) msx80

The Burma Shave connection is weak. The signs used only three or four syllables per line and just one rhyme (e.g., "Ben met Anna / Made a hit / Neglected beard / Ben Anna split"), and the "Burma Shave" was on a fifth, separate sign, not part of the rhyme. [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 20:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1013: Wake Up Sheeple

2016-10-22T20:40:27Z

Gmcgath: Sheep Marketing Ploy

This one is my favorite comic. That is all, nothing constructive to add here. just praise. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 05:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Waking up of ancient creatures may be a reference to "The Cabin in the Woods", the movie that Randall, a fan of Firefly, is likely to have watched. [[Special:Contributions/62.105.129.252|62.105.129.252]] 10:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::Considering the comic came out a month before the movie, it's somewhat unlikely. [[Special:Contributions/192.138.72.196|192.138.72.196]] 13:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

"Oh God Oh God Oh God!" should bring some help!--DrMath 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Sheeple are a race? I thought that it was just one giant monster (using the royal "we" in its speech). --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.97.219|141.101.97.219]] 11:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
: I agree - there is no indication that there are more than one Sheeple, but the trees(?) in the background and the loud baaa indicates that the one shown is a giant. Also the zoom in on the mega eye goes that way. I have corrected the explain acordingly.[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I dissagree. "Ten thousand years '''we''' slumbered..." ~ ~ ~ ~ {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.72}}

Aren't they goats? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.75|173.245.48.75]] 04:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sheeple is a plural word, if it were just the one you'd have to call is a sheeperson. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.135|173.245.48.135]] 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

:Both sheep and people have a singular sense so it is not impossible that sheeple has too. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 01:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
::But "people" as a singular is a ''collective'' noun. A people is a group such as a nationality or race, not a single individual member [[User:CVictoria|CVictoria]] ([[User talk:CVictoria|talk]]) 19:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed the following paragraph:
<pre>This comic may also be a view on Randall's actual political views; the awakened monster in the comic actually represents all the "sheeple". Thus, Randall may be saying that if the "sheeple" wake up and realize that the government is controlling them, without an authority figure (i.e. the government) the sheeple would go wild and pandemonium would ensue.</pre>
It seems to be wild speculation, and unless there is something to back it up, I think it should remain removed from the explanation. [[User:Suspender guy|Suspender guy]] ([[User talk:Suspender guy|talk]]) 13:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There may be a connection to Tom Smith's song, "Sheep Marketing Ploy." The song describes a series of imaginary horror movies about "Fenton, the Death Sheep from Hell," who has a deep and ominous "Baaa." [[User:Gmcgath|Gmcgath]] ([[User talk:Gmcgath|talk]]) 20:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)