explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T18:43:09Z

GotWilLeibniz:

I added a basic explanation to this comic. I also changed the incomplete to say "Needs more on the explanation". Maybe you guys can help connect the dots and extend the explanation? --[[User:JayRulesXKCD|JayRulesXKCD]] ([[User talk:JayRulesXKCD|talk]]) 14:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that he uses literally wrong, just to anger the grammar police he's mocking, it's a nice touch.[[User:Trives|Trives]] ([[User talk:Trives|talk]]) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In my eyes the 2 groups are not standing together in this comic. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
: Yeah I'd have said they were just being presented graphically, the intention isn't to display them as protesting alongside each other. [[User:Xseo|Xseo]] ([[User talk:Xseo|talk]]) 15:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there an extra joke in the Title Text, "* Mad about jorts"? If it's something which both Grammar Police and Fashion Police would find distasteful, it would add an extra layer to the assertion that they are the same people.

Incidentally, I find it ironic and probably unintentional that the Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying. Is he saying that he really likes jorts, or is he saying that he is really angered by them? If only there was some formal ruleset which allowed meaning to be more effectively conveyed, rather than being a system of glorious chaos... https://xkcd.com/1576/

I think the comment above is inaccurate: "Title Text demonstrates the importance of grammar and undermines Randall's own assertions that Grammar Police are superfluous and annoying". The "*" represents a bullet point so it is clear that "* Mad about jorts" is an additional bullet point that both groups would find offensive. The irony now is that I'm not familiar with how to structure my wiki comments. ~~dizzydan~~

Technically, the grammar police wouldn't care about jorts, since that is a spelling error, not a grammatical error. Please contact the spelling police.

Sincerely,
The Semantics Police

'''Judgemental''' A spelling of the word 'judgmental,' infrequently used in the UK (which is widely regarded to be more fashionable than the US)?

'''Deeply Arbitrary''' Internally inconsistent? Arbitrary means based on random chance or whim and as such cannot be strong or deep?

'''Appreciate . . . are . . . is ''' Subject/verb disagreement with a plural/singular shift?

'''Cool and casual''' vague use of an indefinite pronoun & a 'cool and casual' fashion choice is likely entails a significant amount of work, meaning it is not casual at all.--[[User:GotWilLeibniz|GotWilLeibniz]] ([[User talk:GotWilLeibniz|talk]]) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T18:42:08Z

GotWilLeibniz: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1735
| date = September 19, 2016
| title = Fashion Police and Grammar Police
| image = fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png
| titletext = * Mad about jorts
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Needs more added to the explanation.}}
In this comic, two groups of protesters are presented, with one group representing the "fashion police", and the other representing "grammar" police. They are both groups of people who make fun of others by saying or wearing something that doesn't meet their criteria of "good". Grammar police are people who are "sticklers" to grammar rules and get mad or contradictory if someone uses grammar incorrectly in a sentence. Fashion police are people who make fun of others who wear clothing that is mismatched, out of style or straight-up "ugly" to them. The comic explains how the two groups are similar to each other.

'''Literally''' The comic concludes with an incorrect assertion that these are literally the same people, when in actuality they merely exhibit the same traits. While this is not a grammatical error, it is a semantic error, thus bringing a third characteristic into the category.

'''Jorts''' A pair of shorts made from a pair of jeans. The fashion police would be mad about jorts for being unfashionable, while the grammar police would be mad about the word 'jorts' being an inappropriate portmanteau of jeans and shorts.

==Transcript==
[Two aggressive-looking groups of people. One holding signs with a X through a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocs Crocs] shoe and labelled "Fashion Police", and one holding signs with "Their, They're, There" written on them and labeled "Grammar Police".] 
- Judgmental and Smug 
- Angry about something deeply arbitrary 
- Strong opinions backed by style guides 
- Appreciate that the way that you're interpreted is your responsibility 
- Understand that there's no way to "opt out" of sending messages by how you present yourself, and attempts to do so send strong messages of their own 
- To seem cool and casual, pretend to ignore them while understanding them very well 
- Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class 
- Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you 
I just realized that these are literally the same people
{{comic discussion}}

1735: Fashion Police and Grammar Police

2016-09-19T18:39:11Z

GotWilLeibniz: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1735
| date = September 19, 2016
| title = Fashion Police and Grammar Police
| image = fashion_police_and_grammar_police.png
| titletext = * Mad about jorts
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Needs more added to the explanation.}}
In this comic, two groups of protesters are presented, with one group representing the "fashion police", and the other representing "grammar" police. They are both groups of people who make fun of others by saying or wearing something that doesn't meet their criteria of "good". Grammar police are people who are "sticklers" to grammar rules and get mad or contradictory if someone uses grammar incorrectly in a sentence. Fashion police are people who make fun of others who wear clothing that is mismatched, out of style or straight-up "ugly" to them. The comic explains how the two groups are similar to each other.

'''Judgemental''' A spelling of the word 'judgmental,' infrequently used in the UK (which is widely regarded to be more fashionable than the US)?

'''Deeply Arbitrary''' Internally inconsistent? Arbitrary means based on random chance or whim and as such cannot be strong or deep?

'''Appreciate . . . are . . . is ''' Subject/verb disagreement with a plural/singular shift?

'''Cool and casual''' vague use of an indefinite pronoun & a 'cool and casual' fashion choice is likely entails a significant amount of work, meaning it is not casual at all.

'''Literally''' The comic concludes with an incorrect assertion that these are literally the same people, when in actuality they merely exhibit the same traits. This is something the Grammar police would be quick to point out.

'''Jorts''' A pair of shorts made from a pair of jeans. The fashion police would be mad about jorts for being unfashionable, while the grammar police would be mad about the word 'jorts' being an inappropriate portmanteau of jeans and shorts.

==Transcript==
[Two aggressive-looking groups of people. One holding signs with a X through a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocs Crocs] shoe and labelled "Fashion Police", and one holding signs with "Their, They're, There" written on them and labeled "Grammar Police".] 
- Judgmental and Smug 
- Angry about something deeply arbitrary 
- Strong opinions backed by style guides 
- Appreciate that the way that you're interpreted is your responsibility 
- Understand that there's no way to "opt out" of sending messages by how you present yourself, and attempts to do so send strong messages of their own 
- To seem cool and casual, pretend to ignore them while understanding them very well 
- Vindictive about things that are often uncomfortably transparent proxies for race or social class 
- Fun to cheer on until one of them disagrees with you 
I just realized that these are literally the same people
{{comic discussion}}