Talk:2551: Debunking

feels like we should address the factual accuracy of the headlines in this comic, ie point out which actual headlines/claims are being referred to by each, if any? - Vaedez (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If CNN comments on Santa's skin situation, doesn't that implicitly mean they are claiming Santa to be real (Spoiler alert: he isn't)^{[citation needed]}? 162.158.88.103 08:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

or else they're simply avoiding "giving away the secret" to younger readers; though yes, in that case why publish the counterargument at all? - Vaedez (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

i'm sorry I seem to have lost my place Arachrah (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In the table it is mentioned that normal offices do not have microwave radiation. However, mobile phones use frequencies in the microwave band for communication. The same holds true for wireless networks (2.4 or 5 GHz is microwave radiation). 162.158.92.183 10:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the 'number of microwaves' in the headline a reference to intensity of electromagnetic oscillations, or is it intended to be short for 'microwave ovens'? I had totally assumed the former (especially given the context). The idea that it could be referencing an appliance did not occur to me at all until reading the suggestion in the table that there would normally be "zero, with perhaps one or two in a break area," which took me a few beats to process. Personally I'm more fond of my original interpretation, but I'm starting to feel that it could be, uhm, debunked (although I suppose with digital technology and the right junction bandgap 'microwave photos' could be a thing).

The Dorito debunking may be related to a rumour you can find via the search term dorito-powder-hoax. 162.158.90.161 10:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking the headline would be along the lines of Doritos, the company, intentionally making powder that somehow defies gravity in order to cause irritation to consumers of the chips, in some kind of exotic mass social experiment about people's addiction to chips vs their exposure to unpleasant hygiene. I'm betting that most of the headlines here are some kind of 'extremification' of existing conspiracies. 172.70.114.105 11:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity here to tie this into the Real Name of the Bear comics - refuting a conspiracy theory about bears while simultaneously refusing to name the theory or the animal involved. 162.158.75.97 11:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Pat

Is there any reason why the Peppa Pig/Zuckerburg headline is cut off? Kvarts314 (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem cut off to me. Fabian42 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

In the table with the possible original claims that are debunked162.158.90.161 15:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Probably to not make that row of the table too high. You can edit it, if you want. Fabian42 (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah, i was aiming to fit the headline on a single line; i wasn't sure how else to abbreviate it other than ellipses - Vaedez (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Pff, it's easy to put it on two lines even! "'TT:MZuckHasOnlyNeutr.feel.tow.PeppaPig,whoHe u-st.isAFict.char.&heBl.t.cor-v.pand.onOth.factors." Totally understandable! Fabian42 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see these kinds of headlines all the time recently: "Corona vaccine does not cause higher probability of [random obscure side effect I've never heard about]" Fabian42 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this comic was published in December 2021, "Dec 12th" is probably intended to refer to 12 December 2021, which I suspect might be a reference to 21 December 2012, the reported "end date" of the Mesoamerican Long Count (see 2012 phenomenon on Wikipedia). I wonder if someone's source had "21/12/12" or the like and this was misinterpreted... --172.68.246.57 05:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)