Talk:2410: Apple Growers

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 22:54, 12 January 2021 by Herobrine (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search


I think this is the first strip to refer to Trump by name. Can anyone confirm that? Captain Video (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Negatory. 2137: Text Entry is one I remember. 172.69.63.173 06:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The earliest I'm aware of is 980: Money from 2011 (so before he'd held elective office). It's almost unfindable in the giant image. Trump is mentioned in the lower right corner of the "Billionaires" box, inside the very large "Billions" section. 108.162.237.64 06:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
And, of course, 2383: Electoral Precedent 2020.
I was sufficiently interested in this question to actually look it up with the search function. Turns out the transcripts are actually useful for something!
As far as I can tell, these are the only nine comics (inclusive of this one) that use the name "Trump", and there are only four occurrences of "Donald Trump", including this. So it's not unknown, but Randall does seem to be avoiding it. 108.162.237.238 06:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea to take the lack of masks on the spokesfolks as evidence of their mental state? It seems to me that Randall often draws characters without masks when they're not directly topical, even in these days of Covid precautions, and the reporters aren't wearing masks either. It's unlikely that either group is made up entirely of family members who share the same residence [citation needed], so I would count it more likely that they can all be assumed to be masked in the same way that they can be assumed to have eyes and mouths despite lack of any visual indicators of such. --108.162.245.216 07:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do remember that they also has no close on, so unless the masks are important for the topic, then you can assume they have masks just as you can assume they have clothe on. (Or if you like, you can assume Megan and Ponytail doesn't, as I always do :-p ) --Kynde (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Specifically they don't have faces so... [email protected] 162.158.155.42 10:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the state is Washington. Washington's pretty well known for apples, and the Cosmic Crisp variety mentioned in the title text was developed by researchers at Washington State University. 108.162.245.40 08:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

According to a quick Wikipedia search, the title text's "we have SO MUCH to say" could be a reference to the fact that promotion for cosmic crisp was apparently the largest campaign in apple industry history. If anyone has the time to check and confirm that, we should add it to the explanation. Bischoff (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Right now, "Pink Lady" is splurging an ad (basically a 'facetime filter'-type graphics enhanced thing) over here in the UK. Though the classic from my youth was the ¿Golden Delicious? brand doing a Bugsy Mallone-spoof ("le Crunch Bunch"). But I don't follow apple brands (there's a cooking-apple tree in a garden, that I pick from, been there 40-50 years - but now no idea what cultivar it is, etc) and I'm not particularly exposed to US news on apples, only its politics. Just so you know. 162.158.155.138 08:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody agree that "Uh, apples are great. Best fruit. Everyone should buy 1,000 of them" is a reference to Trump-style way of talking in speeches? Reisbein (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes already added this to the explanation. --Kynde (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

May I question that "Nothing in modern American history resembles this"? Possibly nothing in the national Capitol's modern history resembles this precisely, but the Capitol in Michigan was invaded last May, Tennessee had an incident of this kind in 2001 while trying to debate state income tax, and there was that thing at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, in Oregon. And there was Black rioting in Washington and in most other places and machine guns at the Capitol when Dr Martin Luther King was murdered, does that count as modern? And President Reagan was shot in Washington. Presidents and the White House are shot at all the time. The President's personal militia attacking other branches of the government is less usual, or is it? Robert Carnegie [email protected] 141.101.107.82 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In the sense of an attempt to overturn fair election results and prevent the orderly transition of power by attacking the Capitol, yes. It's not the "important buildings were attacked/threatened" part, it's the context and meaning behind the actions that's unprecedented. The incident was an unprecedented attack on democracy—it has been described by some as an attempted coup d'état in the United States, and a lot of congressmen and House members, plus the Vice President were close to being seriously harmed/killed during the incident. Herobrine (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I take issue both with your description, Herobrine, and the fact that in some circles, this wasn't looked at as a coup attempt at all, but as an attempt to PROTECT democracy from treasonous congressmen and house members. But I do have a question for you. Exactly what words did the president use in his speech on January 6 to "incite a riot"? Please use direct quotes in your answer.Seebert (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Went through the transcript of the speech and noted that I misunderstood one section that my statement was based on when I read it two days ago. Whether he was responsible for inciting the event is debatable, but since there is no definite statement in the transcript, I have removed the section from my comment and the explanation. As for the coup attempt part, give me a sec and I'll reply later. Herobrine (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "described by some as (lawmakers, media, etc.)" to avoid misunderstanding. But honestly, I do not think that this was an attempt to protect democracy—I think that they were trying to overturn a fair election and prevent the orderly transition of power. Herobrine (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The election results are disputed, and around 75% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are willing to start a civil war over it. In what way can this be considered a fair election if all audits of the voter registration are blocked?Seebert (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Claims of election fraud have been rejected as totally meritless by numerous state and federal judges, state and local election officials, governors, the Justice and Homeland Security departments, and the Electoral College. I do not see how this the election was unfair. As for the "results are disputed" part, that is primarily the result of the president's efforts to overturn the results of the election and unwillingness to concede and admit his loss. Also, please reply with your quotes and sources, thanks. (Will reply again in a few hours, busy now) Herobrine (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
People who do not trust the government to run a fair election- are not going to trust numerous state and federal judges, state and local election officials, governors, the Justice and Homeland Security departments and the Electoral College, or for that matter the president to self-audit. These are all GOVERNMENT officials, and we're talking about people who have a profound distrust of the government. Why would you think ANY of those people can be trusted to tell the truth? All you've proven is that you are incapable of fairly looking at people who disagree with you. This isn't about evidence- because neither side has actually presented any believable evidence. The government has yet to produce an audit of voter registration changes, and the people disputing the voter registration only have graphs that indicate pay-for-vote scams. Without an audit by a third party- say some private accounting firm- there can be no faith in your "fair election".Seebert (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Seebert, by that token, the people who dispute the fairness of the election claim that the fraud was SO widespread that ALL of these people—numerous state and federal judges, state and local election officials, governors, the Justice and Homeland Security departments and the Electoral College—have committed concerted fraud on an unprecedented scale in the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all these people from both parties? You're accusing Herobrine of being incapable of fairly looking at people who disagree with you, but doesn't that claim seem far-fetched enough to you as to seem outlandish? When Clinton lost against Trump in what was also a hotly debated election, the electoral margins reported were far less important than in this election. Yet there was no fraud outcry. The big difference here is that Trump is crying fraud relentlessly. Now if a third party would intervene to audit the election, would that be proof enough for the people who back him? Would that settle it? Or wouldn't they claim that said third party was bought off, or was biased from the start anyway? Where does this end? In the meantime, we can see where it has led: to gallows being put up in front of the Capitol by a bunch of would-be executioners.A new user (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
"All you've proven is that you are incapable of fairly looking at people who disagree with you." I take issue with that statement. Exactly how have I been unfair when discussing this? When you pointed out parts of my statement that were incorrect or potentially misleading, I rechecked my sources—and removed and clarified those erroneous sections, both in my comment and in the explanation. And even if a third party audits the election and does overturn the election results, what's to stop the Democrats from rejecting it? If the results hold true, will the Republicans accept—or will the president still call the results fraudulent, just as he did in 2012 and 2016? Adittionally, how would you trust a third party, and how could you guarantee that they fairly audited the election? You say we cannot trust the government—composed of thousands of officials from both major political parties and other parties, independents, etc.—but we're supposed to trust a third party to remain truly impartial when dealing with something of this magnitude? Herobrine (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Also I feel like there's no point in continuing this discussion any further. My original comment was a reply to another user discussing something in the explanation which has since been removed (and the entire explanation has been edited to be a lot more neutral and unbiased, anyways). Meanwhile our discussion has increasingly veered off on an a tangent, and I'm pretty sure that we will continue to disagree no matter how long this discussion drags on—in fact it's likely to just become more acrimonious while accomplishing nothing. At the end of the day, this is just a comment section for discussing the explanation of an xkcd comic, and there's no need for it to devolve into an endless argument about politics—we've already had enough of that back in 2016. Let's just agree to save the political arguments for other political forums, and end this discussion. I will try to remain neutral and avoid political bias when writing explanations in the future to avoid a similar situation from repeating. Herobrine (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If the interpretation of January 6th is some armed citizens interfering with the franchise of other citizens... that isn't a new idea in America either, is it? It's just usually done at polling stations. Robert Carnegie [email protected] 162.158.159.142 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
True, but I think that magnitude of the events of January 6th was on a completely different scale. But other editors have already removed that section from the explanation (and made it much more neutral), resolving the issue, so I think there's not much point in continuing this discussion anyways. Herobrine (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well this is certainly going to be a very controversial comic for a good while. I'm personally under the belief that the election was not rigged and Trump should resign, but I feel we should create a much more neutral explanation than it is currently.--172.69.33.119 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever wrote that explanation should resign. They're not even trying to be neutral, it is pure ideological soapboxing being shoveled down the throat of anyone reading. I vote that the first couple of paragraphs be deleted and reworked completely. Or else, this website can abandon any claim it might have had to objectivity and neutrality.172.68.37.44 17:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the explanation is hilarious. To me, this strip is about everyone having abandoned doing what they are supposed to know how to do and instead wasting everyone's time sharing their opinion on the subject that is neither their expertise nor purview. The audience's clear disinterest in apple growers' opinion about Trump is conveyed by "Do you have any apple-related announcements at all?" remark. The current explanation just needs a similar remark along the lines of "Do you have anything xkcd-related at all?" to underscore the irony lest someone takes it seriously, and it will be perfect :) 141.101.69.113 18:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, I deleted a lot of the article that was filled with useless information irrelevant to the actual comic. Feel free to add more if you want.108.162.245.82

Removing bias

When you add or remove from this explanation, please keep your political biases out of this. This is a webcomic explanation page, not a political discussion forum. 162.158.107.219

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2410:_Apple_Growers&oldid=204517"