Talk:1911: Defensive Profile
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. Gmcgath (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
- That brings new meaning to "objective truth". In the modern world it certainly seems sometimes that relativism reigns supreme. Let's see... If we all get angry at Randall, is Randall wrong? 126.96.36.199 07:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Huh. What a bizarre comment. The underlying idea that (some) people know exactly why what they are saying makes people angry and actually enjoy it. (These people are commonly called "assholes.") But I see no correlation in this and your interpretation of his freedom of speech comic. And your interpretation is very far off from what said comic said. It said that "if the best argument you have is that your comment is freedom of speech, it must be a bad argument." Freedom of speech lets you say what you want, but you still have to actually defend your argument. You don't get to just say "freedom of speech" and win the Internet. Nothing about anger making it wrong. Trlkly (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- If your entire argument is that you do not care about other peoples free speech the you just show that you are unable to even address the argument. This comic directly implies that when anybody is offended by a statement than the person making the statement is in the wrong. "i am offended by your comment and the comic itself" - so now what? By your logic that means you did something wrong. 188.8.131.52 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I don't have an account yet, but I just wanted to respond to Trlkly, actually the 1st Amendment/Freedom of Speech is the Right to NOT have the Government regulate your speech; this still actually leaves open a wide variety of ways in which your speech/conduct can be regulated by private persons and organizations. This is what is meant by 'Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence', and *doesn't* in particular refer to needing to *backup* your arguments/speech with a valid reasoning; that's a separate point of concern. 184.108.40.206 20:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Raenir Salazar.
Chrome with the official Google Translate extension allows just this kind of view translation of a selection only. 220.127.116.11 03:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The first one works, somewhat. But the second one? What does "drama free zone" and "make people sad" have to do with one another? Drama (in this sense) is about anger, not sadness. And I don't think it's necessarily a horrible thing that you aren't good at dealing with people who get angry at you. Why assume everyone is a bad person? Trlkly (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think that part refers to the "Geek Social Fallacies", one of which is that "addressing conflict" is the same as "cause drama" - failing to realize that addressing conflict is the way to SOLVE it, reducing drama in the long run. If a person thinks like that, telling them that you disagree/are offended by their comment would likely make them confused, angry and defensive, with no idea how to handle and overcome the conflict. 18.104.22.168 21:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree with the statement "Drama (in this sense) is about anger, not sadness." The term "drama" is invoked on social media for any emotional response the invoker feels is too large to be warranted by the situation. So being excessively (in the eyes of the person invoking) sad is equally "drama" as being excessively angry. The comic and explanation don't necessarily imply that it makes you a horrible person either, just that many people's attempts to avoid drama (which seems like a noble goal on the surface) are actually their inability to deal with problems they might have caused and are far less noble on close inspection. 22.214.171.124 20:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The last paragraph (relating to Donald Trump and Twitter) seems out of place. It doesn't serve to describe the comic, and fails to establish context. Thoughts on deleting it completely? 126.96.36.199 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. While I get that Randall doesn't support Trump - just look at 1756: I'm With Her. That doesn't mean that he has to be shoehorned into the description for any comic that deals with anything even vaguely political Figvh (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think it does not "fail to establish context"; the opposite actually. And therefore should be maintained. 188.8.131.52 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, this particular comic makes no reference to political views or current affairs. It is much more likely that this comment is based on personal experiences. The only links to Donald Trump are that this a comment about social media when there has been a recent news article relating to Trump and social media and that the topic is about defensiveness, which Trump is often accused of. Both are likely to be purely coincidental, given Trump has always been highly active on social media and the accusation of defensiveness could be applied to millions of people.
- Guy above, don't forget to sign your comments. Anyway, I think the fact that the comic looks like Twitter, as described in the article, makes this news item notable, especially as it provides an alternative explanation as to why Randall might want to portray "offensive" people on Twitter as insecure, as said in the article. 184.108.40.206 13:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
One should also note that the comic number is 1911, the famous handgun made by Colt adding another meaning to the term defensive profile.
This comic sadly shows the very disturbing trent that more and more people think their feelings are a valid argument in a discussion and thus any statement they disagree with should not be allowed. If you can not handle reality then that is bad luck for you, but you have no right to impeach on the rights of others. 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- I think the word you're looking for is "impede", not "impeach". Numbermaniac (talk) 05:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. The article says, "This explanation is corroborated by notable news near the comic’s publishing time (see below)." But there's nothing below that lets me know what is meant, not even in the comments. Help? Nitpicking (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)