Adding to the irony are the complaints from overeducated drama fans criticizing common uses of the term, assuming that "dramatic irony" is the only valid definition. Search "alanis morissette ironic misuse" for lots of fun with semantics and pseudo-intellectualism. I suspect that Randall is poking fun at the critics, rather than those who misuse the term. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.142.89|172.68.142.89]] 17:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

* I agree it's poking fun at the critics. The explanation should include correct examples of irony that even non-USA pedantics agree meet the definition.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.82|108.162.216.82]] 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Pat

Should mention be made that a possible motivation of this comic is President Trump's misuse of the word "ironic" 11 days earlier in a tweet? [https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1004693718945984512]
[[User:Heshy|Heshy]] ([[User talk:Heshy|talk]]) 18:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
: Eleven days ago seems a bit distant to be an inspiration. It's not like this comic is infrequently updated.... [[Special:Contributions/172.68.59.30|172.68.59.30]] 23:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If sarcasm is a type of irony, is this question ironic? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.82|162.158.126.82]] 20:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Since when is Canada not part of America? :) [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

;Incorrect interpretation
> The most common types of irony are sarcasm and paradox. Black Hat is using the latter

I think this interpretation misses the point. Whatever about sarcasm and paradox being examples of irony (I'm pretty sure sarcasm at least is not, paradox I'm not sure about either - irony is more about metacommentary than direct paradox), but Black Hat's statement isn't paradoxical anyway. Black Hat is using the term "irony" incorrectly, both in the comic and the title text. In the comic, be states that Cueball knows the definition of irony, implying that he, Black Hat does not. Cueball is angry that Black Hat is using "ironic" incorrectly.

Furthermore, the extra meta layer is that while Black Hat's statement is not ironic, the situation in the comic is ironic in itself: it's ironic that the Black Hat is choosing to use ironic in various statements even though he seems to imply that he knows full well that he does not know the definition of the word.

--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.4|162.158.38.4]] 06:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the paragraph 'Blackhat is deliberately using his ignorance of language to mock Cueball by stating that it is "ironic" that he is using the word "Irony" without knowing what it means, but is still the happy one. This is both the grammatically correct use of the word "Ironic" and arguably itself an ironic situation.' For one thing, if he's ignorant of the definition of Irony then he can't be deliberately using said ignorance to be ironic, but that's OK because he's not being ironic. There's nothing ironic about him being the happy one despite not knowing what irony means - I would imagine that's true of many people, whilst many irony pedants are unhappy. {{unsigned ip|162.158.155.206}}

The current explanation is incorrect. Irony can be defined as a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result. Therefore, Black Hat is using the word correctly in the comic, as Cueball's idea that being right will make him happy opposes the reality that by understanding what is correct he is only frustrated when people use the word incorrectly. In the Title Text, Black Hat uses the word incorrectly to further justify the point made above, that Cueball's expectations are subverted because knowledge only brings him frustration. {{unsigned ip|162.158.78.130}}
:I wouldn't say the explanation is absolutely correct, thus the incomplete-tag is still in there, but your definition isn't better than the current explanation. Irony is a statement, but an event can be ironic. Your third sentence overwhelms me and the title text is told by Cueball (Black Hat glares at him.) BTW: Please do not insert your comment into others and also do not forget to sign your post. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

;Probably the worst explanation here for ever
First I've moved this following sentences to this discussion (small comments by me in parentheses):
*The misuse of the word ironic when one means especially inconvenient is a common one, with a well-known example being Alanis Morissette's song "Ironic". (Not irony in many parts)
*This issue represents one that exists on a larger scale with so-called "Grammar Nazis" correcting grammar and word choice in ways that do not affect the overall meaning. (This not about Grammar Nazis)
*In the comic, Blackhat misuses the word ironic by saying that it's funny, because even though he didn't use a word correctly, he is not upset about it. (Slightly still in the explanation)
*The title text then continues the joke by misusing the word 'ironic' as if it were a feeling. (Cueball just misspells something)
Then I've written a first draft, please help. And one more: It's ''ironic'' that a German native speaker has to figure out how the humor at this comic works. I'm sure I don't cover all. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

;Major cleanup
Okay, I've pretty much reworked the page, hopefully in a satisfactory way. I think the incomplete tag can go pretty soon. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 18:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
:At the title text Cueball replies to Black Hat who glares at him as shown in the picture. I'm still convinced he says ''ironic'' when he means ''iconic''. In this interpretation the sentence "It makes me feel really ironic" makes much more sense because Cueball is annoyed by Black Hat pursuing him. And unless someone explains why this view is nonsense it should be added to the explanation. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
::Your view doesn't really make sense because it (1) doesn't really fit with the comic and (2) is a real stretch. As for the first point: the joke of the comic is that Black Hat is intentionally misusing the word "ironic" to annoy Cueball, who presumably has been pedantic about this. So it makes sense that this joke would be continued in the title text, with Black Hat misusing the word in an even more absurd way. As for the second point: Nobody uses the word "iconic" like that. It doesn't fit with the joke of the comic and it's a ridiculous usage that Cueball, presumably as an "ironic" pedant, wouldn't use. Furthermore, Cueball is shown in the comic to be upset and/or angry (with the little black line thing over his head). The word ''glare'' connotes staring at someone angrily, which Cueball would be at Black Hat for his crimes against the word "ironic", but Black Hat would not be angry at Cueball. He's just being his typical, sadist, classhole self. So, your view is totally ruled out by {{w|Occam's Razor}}, because it relies on a change in the joke, a character behaving uncharacteristically, and extremely unusual usage of 2 separate words. I'm sorry, Dgbrt, but your view really doesn't make sense. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 16:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
:::There are not always ''correct'' explanations. But there are no crimes in this comic, Black Hat is just annoying Cueball while looking at him and not vice versa. The phrase "stop glaring at me" is a meme which also should be explained. Nonetheless: Black Hat glares at Cueball, I can't see anything else in the picture. An alternative view at the explanation should be valid.
:::Maybe irrelevant but funny, the are glasses called [https://www.abbaopticalusa.com/catalog-1 Ironic Iconic]. I'm not a native English speaker so maybe there is something more I do miss.
:::BTW: I've moved the current title text section to the bottom. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
::::It's true that we can't always find the 100% correct explanation that captures exactly what Randall intended in every way. That said, I think this one is actually fairly clear-cut. In the comic, Black Hat is annoying Cueball by misusing the word "ironic". In the title text, then, it would make sense for this joke to continue. As to "crimes", there are no ''literal'' crimes in this comic. I was using an idiom there, though it's understandable if you didn't get that. As to who is looking at who, it's true that Black Hat appears to be looking at Cueball as they walk. However, he is not ''glaring''. The word "glare" in this context could only refer to the definition, "to stare with a fiercely or angrily piercing look" or similar. Black Hat isn't angry. He's having a great time bothering Cueball. Cueball is angry. It's entirely possible that between the comic and title text, Black Hat passed in front of Cueball, or that the comic is actually an angled view of BH and Cueball walking side-by-side, or even that Cueball just turned around to glare. I don't know that "stop glaring at me" is a meme; an internet search for the phrase found nothing particularly memetic. If you can provide a good alternative explanation, then feel free, but I don't think many editors would agree with the one you gave previously. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 14:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
:::::Sadly no one else has an opinion here.
:::::Furthermore I've to apologize for not saying thanks to your major cleanup; I typically say thanks before I criticize minor parts. Sorry for that.
:::::But for the title text you still didn't convince me. Assuming that "Black Hat passed in front of Cueball" is a guess not shown or even hinted in the comic, meaning, this assumption has to be mentioned. Which still brings me to the view that Black Hat is looking at Cueball after he finished his talking, Cueball is irritated and annoyed and shouts back. But, gulled as he is, he used a phonetic similar word. But I assume you still fully disagree...
:::::--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
::::::It's no problem at at all! The page badly needed a cleanup, and I had some time to kill. We're all just here to make the wiki better. ^_^
::::::But yes, I really do have to disagree with your interpretation of the title text. It's contingent on an odd use of the word "glare" and an even more odd usage (and misspelling/mispronunciation) of the word "iconic". I know you're not a native English speaker, but nobody I know who is one would ''ever'' say that someone glaring at them "makes me feel really iconic". Take the [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/iconic Webster's definition of "iconic"]. None of these definitions are things that someone you know and are on a walk and in conversation with would feel if you glared at them. And again, how would this even continue the joke? I think your interpretation is oddly convoluted; it's certainly not something I would have ever thought of upon reading it, and I don't think most editors here would have, either.
::::::On the other hand, the interpretation that it is Black Hat speaking makes more sense because (1) it continues the joke that was made in the comic, (2) it is within character for Black Hat to continue pestering Cueball by misusing the word "ironic", (3) it better fits the definition of the word "glare" (as Cueball is shown to be angry, and BH is not), (4) the only odd word usage involved is that of the word "ironic", which, again, continues the established joke and is thus expected, and (5) the only real potential problem with it is easily resolved. It is true that Cueball appears to be in front of Black Hat, which would make it odd for him to looking at him. But I offered 3 possibilities above that resolve this (Black Hat could have walked ahead, it could simply be an angled shot of them walking side-by-side, Cueball could have looked back at BH), none of which are particularly unparsimonious or unlikely.
::::::If we could get another editor to chime in, that would probably helpful. --[[User:Sensorfire|Sensorfire]] ([[User talk:Sensorfire|talk]]) 20:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2008: Irony Definition

2018-10-12T14:10:16Z

Sensorfire:

Talk:2008: Irony Definition

2018-10-10T16:14:21Z

Sensorfire: Continuing discussion

2018-05-14T16:09:46Z

Sensorfire:

{{comic
| number = 1993
| date = May 14, 2018
| title = Fatal Crash Rate
| image = fatal_crash_rate.png
| titletext = Fixating on this seems unhealty. But in general, the more likely I think a crash is, the less likely one becomes, which is a strange kind of reverse placebo effect.
}}

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

This is the second recent comic on the subject of the dangers of cars.
It combines general statistical correlations between age and safety improvements with fatal crashes. Randall worries that he will eventually be involved in a fatal car crash unless self driving cars, if they take over quickly enough, will eliminate th

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[Graphs are shown inside of a panel.]
:[Graph 1:] My fatal car crash probability based on my age
:[Graph 2:] Overall US fatal crash rate per mile traveled
:[Graph 3:] My miles traveled by car per year
:[Graph 4, below the previous graphs:] My estimated lifetime probability of being in a fatal car crash
:[Caption below the panel:]
:It feels weird to look at car crash statistics and wonder whether we'll all be able to stop driving before I'm involved in a fatal crash.
{{comic discussion}}

1993: Fatal Crash Rate

2018-05-14T16:06:11Z

Sensorfire:

1982: Evangelism

2018-05-10T17:39:02Z

Sensorfire: Removed incomplete tag, cleaned up a bit.

{{comic
| number = 1982
| date = April 18, 2018
| title = Evangelism
| image = evangelism.png
| titletext = The wars between the "OTHER PRIMATES OPEN THEM FROM THE SMALL END" faction versus the "BUT THE LITTLE BIT OF BANANA AT THE SMALL END IS GROSS" faction consumed Europe for generations.
}}

==Explanation==
In this comic, [[Randall]] presents a line plot where causes are listed, in increasing order, by the intensity of the evangelism of their advocates. {{w|Evangelism}}, in {{w|Christianity}}, is the commitment to or act of publicly preaching of the {{w|Gospel}} with the intention of spreading the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. “Evangelism” is also defined as any zealous advocacy for a cause, religious or not.

The first punchline is that religious proselytizers are unexpectedly much less intense than advocates for such things as opening bananas from the other end—which is also the subject of the title text. The comic’s release date on April 18th, is likely correlated with this days assignment as the official [https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/banana-day/ “Banana Day”] in the US. (Hoverer, at the time of release of this comic, this day was not mentioned on the Wikipedia {{w|List_of_food_days#United_States|list of food days in the US}}).

As the graph moves from left to right, the issues at stake have less and less impact on the life of someone who “converts”, but the intensity and fervor of those spreading the cause increases. This is counterintuitive, which is the joke.

Below, each of the points on the chart, as well as the title text, is discussed.

;'''Religious proselytizers'''
{{w|Proselytism|Religious proselytizers}} are the best known evangelists, and the term “evangelism” originally applied only to them. Christian faith remains roughly as popular as ever, but Christian ''evangelism'' has become less common and less accepted in the public sphere in recent decades, and often only practiced in specific venues. Randall contrasts them in this strip with four other groups which he finds to be more intense in their “evangelism”.

;'''People who want the US to switch to metric'''
Unlike most of the world, the US uses {{w|United States Customary Units|US Customary units}} instead of {{w|metric units}}. The vast majority of the world population wish for the US to change, to the point that the US Congress already passed the {{w|Metric Conversion Act}} that U.S. President Gerald Ford signed into law on December 23, 1975. Though the US now uses SI units in many areas, especially professionally, most Americans deal more with US Customary units in their day-to-day lives.

Randall has made a conversion chart for helping US people with the confusing metric units: [[526: Converting to Metric]].

;'''People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit'''
Pro-metric people who wish to keep the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale rather than change to {{w|Celsius}} are ranked as slightly more evangelic. A common argument for keeping the Fahrenheit scale is due to 0°F equating to “really cold” and 100°F to “really hot” when talking about weather. Fahrenheit also has smaller degrees than Celsius, so temperatures can be cited more precisely, if necessary, without the need to include fractional degrees. This also gives Fahrenheit the advantage that “decades” of temperatures are more useful as in saying the weather is in the 40s or the 70s, for instance. Because the Celsius degree is larger, the range of temperatures within any decade is wider and saying the temperature is in the 10s may not be as useful as it is a wider range of temperatures, compared to Fahrenheit.

To many people, making the shift only partially may immediately seem very silly—and yet the people arguing for this are even more ardent than those that wish to shift entirely, perhaps precisely because of this immediate strangeness. Also, if someone is being an SI purist, supporting a full shift to SI units, one could argue they should be advocating a switch to {{w|Kelvin}} as the unit of thermodynamic temperature, even though Celsius has the status of an {{w|SI derived unit}}.

Fahrenheit versus Celsius has been the topic of [[1643: Degrees]] and [[1923: Felsius]].

;'''People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind'''
The reason to do such a thing would be that any two socks in your drawer will match, saving time since they don't need to be matched or rolled/folded. It also reduces the likelihood of ending up with an unmatched sock—or a whole stack of them—in your drawer. This is a problem that [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/154000/20160427/science-reveals-why-you-always-lose-your-socks-in-the-laundry.htm scientists have researched].

To ordinary people, it immediately seems quite aesthetically boring to always wear the same color of socks or other clothing. But it will be easier to find matching socks, so time is saved and there will be reduction in cost as no unmatched socks will have to be discarded. For those reasons, people that do this will recommend it quite ardently to all their friends, and, at least according to the comic, even more so than the pro-metric advocates.

Randall previously referenced this idea in the xkcd survey (see [[1572: xkcd Survey]]) from September 2015. It included this question:

<blockquote>
Have you ever thrown out all your different pairs of socks/underwear, bought a bunch of replacements that were all one kind, and then told all your friends how great it was and how they should do it too?
</blockquote>

;'''People who open bananas from the other end'''
The most evangelic people Randall includes are the people who open {{w|bananas}} from the “other” end. Some people prefer to open bananas from the bottom (small end) instead of the top (stem end). This thought is continued in the title text.

;'''Title text'''
The title text describes a fictional argument that apparently somehow tore apart Europe between the two factions ''Other primates open them from the small end'' and ''But the little bit of banana at the small end end is gross''. It continues the most evangelic point in the chart about how bananas are supposed to be opened from the “right” end. It seems absurd that this could have actually happened, over such a trivial issue. However, major {{w|schisms}} in religion, such as that between {{w|Catholicism}} and {{w|Protestantism}} (which did, in fact, split Europe) may seem similarly trivial to the non-religious.
The supposed argument ''stems''<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[No Pun Intended|Pun Intended]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> from a disagreement between those that find it easier to open a banana from the bottom and those that find the small bit at the base of a banana unappetizing.

Though {{w|primates}} [http://uk.businessinsider.com/wild-monkeys-do-not-eat-bananas-2016-6?IR=T do not eat bananas in the wild], in captivity, some have been observed to [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2713696/Is-banana-peeling-method-WRONG-Video-demonstrates-squish-free-monkey-way-upside-down.html open bananas from the bottom end] away from the stem, as one of the two factions refers to. Less force is required to open a banana at the bottom than at the stem, causing less bruising of the fruit and generally making it easier to open. However, if not done carefully, this can result in the fruit getting squished and making a mess on the person’s fingers. Opening bananas from the stem end appears to be the predominant habit of most banana-eating humans (in Randall’s sample). One explanation is that using the stem as a lever makes for greater ease of opening and thus less damage in practice. (Bananas grow with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_farm_Chinawal.jpg the stem at the bottom]).

The entire “correct banana end” discussion could be a reference to the wars between the Blefuscudians, who opened their eggs at the big end, and the Lilliputians, who broke their eggs at the small end, as told in {{w|Jonathan Swift|Jonathan Swift’s}} epic novel ''{{w|Gulliver’s Travels}}''. This in turn is the origin of the terms {{w|Endianness|"Little Endian" and "Big Endian"}} which were much debated in circa 1980's computer architectures - which may also have been on Randall's mind.

Randall’s thoughts on the problems with opening bananas could also explain why this fruit, which many find very easy to peel and consume, is listed in the middle of the easy/difficult scale in the [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] chart.

==Transcript==
:[A chart is shown with a line drawn from left to right with five markers on it. Each marker has a line going to it from a labeled below the main line. Above this there is a title and right below that a label above an arrow pointing to the right.]
:<big>People by intensity of evangelism</big>
:More intense

:Religious proselytizers
:People who want the US to switch to metric
:People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit
:People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind
:People who open bananas from the other end

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Charts]]
[[Category:Rankings]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Food]]