Talk:1246: Pale Blue Dot

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 20:55, 10 December 2013 by Dgbrt (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

To call this a "simple call for funding for space exploration" completely misses the point of the Ba'al theology with which it is intertwined.

I think it completely misses all the points of the comic. --Kronf (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
This comic makes philosophical claims that cannot be falsified. Randall can't be serious about the soul eater. That's so dark. Theology? Sort of. But quite undeveloped. More like mythology. Does make one wonder: Why is there really something rather than nothing? — tbc (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Took at shot at adding something on this. (Long-time reader, first-time editor. Will create account at some point.) --173.13.203.241 14:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(I wrote the following this morning, before anyone else had made any Talk/Discussion points, but then rushed out without saving it properly. Probably now not relevent, but here you are anyway...)
"This is a simple call for funding of space exploration."??? I'd say that (whatever Randall, and I, think about the importance of funding space research) it's more an affectionate parody of the "Consider this pale blue dot..." speech, which it subverts by suggesting that arguably the most intellectually interesting image of the planet is indistinguishable from a manufacturing error in a LCD array (presumably in a computer projector) or from the kind of photo you get when you don't take the lens-cap off of a digital camera. Or so my take on it, is... 178.98.215.19 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I did a deeper explain later, but Ba'an connects to this sentence. So that has to be explained, too. But in general you are correct.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Randall is talking about Stargate and the character Ba'al (Stargate). This even does make more sense on the last sentence at the title text. While we have two theories on this the comic is incomplete.--Dgbrt (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't believe Ba'al from Stargate was ever called "Ba'al the Annihilator" or "Ba'al, the Eater of Souls". I think Randall's just making up it up. 76.64.65.200 17:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree, though the description as stands is currently incorrect. "Ba'al" is not a specific deity in the Northwest Semitic pantheon, certainly not one "associated with demonic or otherwise evil forces", it's a title that had been used for several different deities. However the name is often included in Jewish and Christian demonology where it probably got its "evil" connotation. 69.28.44.231 18:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree to you. Randall calls the US Congress for a higher budget, just to enhance our level on space technology. This really does not map to historical religions. And: Ba'an at Stargate is also a Lord. My two NASA budget cents.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
My disagreement with your suggestion didn't owe anything to the objections I raised about the historicity of the term "Ba'al". I don't think that his reference was to any specific deity in any particular pantheon, fictional or otherwise. The whole point of the alt-text is an ironic context for the motivation for space exploration; Sagan especially was an advocate of space exploration for the sake of knowledge and human progress, so the quasi-religious/mystical and nihilistic mantra here is in stark contrast to that (expected) rationale for exploration, and I think it's fitting given the initial premise: the insignificance of Earth against the cosmos. I really don't see the clause "to join with Ba'al" having anything to do with 'leading humans to the same technology level Ba'al' since it assumes Ba'al is a technological entity which only stems from the Stargate interpretation. 69.28.44.231 20:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
^ +1. About Stargate, I can't claim to know what happens in season 9 and 10, but I've seen every episode in 1-8 and I've never seen him referred to as "Ba'al the Annihilator" or "Ba'al, Eater of Souls". I grant that the Ba'al from Stargate is a System Lord, and a pretty badass one, but how does that help you prove your point? If Randall was trying to allude to Stargate, I think it would be much more obvious, like "Lord Ba'al" or something. The name "Ba'al" has been present in mythology long before Stargate used it. 76.64.65.200 01:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"Annihilator" and "Eater of Souls" is an invention by Randall, it also does not really match to your mystics. Further more the last sentence of the title text is not about a god, it's about technology we do not have right now. OK, the very last sentence is: Thank you. My 1337 NASA budget cents.--Dgbrt (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like you are admitting that the only grounds for attributing the reference to Stargate is your interpretation of the penultimate sentence, which as I said before [your interpretation] only makes sense if you believe the reference is to Stargate. I don't find that very convincing. 69.28.44.231 21:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
First: Sign on here, so I can talk to you!
Second: I do focus on science, like Randall does, looking for a NASA budget for real exploration.
Randall is frustrated, like me, about the current funds and policies on space exploration.
If you don't know Voyager, I can help. My 18 billions NASA budget hell.--Dgbrt (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
We are talking. Yes, I agree that Randall is an advocate for space exploration (though I don't think that's his point here) and I know all about the Voyager program, but I don't see how any of this makes your Stargate interpretation any more valid. 69.28.44.231 23:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
God shave the Queen, I lost my cents. --Dgbrt (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

On a completely different track, as is often the case, the main text can work in a contemporary way, as well as with knowledge of the historical reference: In this case, the publication by NASA of shots of Earth from Saturn and Mercury, in a conscious homage to the original "blue spot" picture. Eg [1] --FractalgeekUK

Oh, yeah. I am sure Randall was inspired by this pictures.--Dgbrt (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the last sentence again which refers to the author calling for the government of the United States of America to increase funding for their space program as part of the explanation of the comic. There is no such text in comic. Some editors of this page have insisted that the author has written this comic to propose or support policy change regarding actual funding for space exploration. Raising awareness for the subject of space exploration may be a motivator for the author to write this comic but I have not spoken with him on the matter and cannot claim to explain his motivations. Without any direct statement from the author regarding his intent I propose that discussion of the author's possible desire for increased spending on actual space exploration be contained here in the discussion page. The explanation as written clearly explains the information contained in the comic and the reader can make their own inference regarding the author's position on space exploration. -- Mrarch (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Collapsed content
Randall says:
  • "I therefore call on Congress to fully fund space exploration, ... Thank you."
So, what's the problem? Randall is, like me, just annoyed about the current US space policy. NASA budget was 4.41% of the entire US Fed Budget in 1966, but today it's only 0.48%. That's the tenth part of the maximum in 1966. At that time NASA did build the Up Goer Five and today NASA has to build the SLS, which is simply not possible. Space exploration needs some money, even when it is still a small part at the US Fed Budget. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is the ellipsis (...) that handy quoting tool that you think lets you reinterpret the quote however you want. The omitted portion clearly places that comment within the framework of the joke and not as a real world call for funding to NASA or any other operating space program. Whatever your feelings are about the state of funding for any portion of the U.S budget; this comic makes no mention of it. In fact it does not reference NASA or The U.S. at all. There is a generic space exploration program requesting funding that is under review by an unspecified congress. I feel you have projected your interpretation of the author's intent too strongly by including any statement about this in the explanation and are attempting to present your opinions as if they were those of the author. I don't know the author's opinion on space exploration funding and unless you can show me a notarized transcript of the conversation you had with him regarding the subject; I don't believe you know his opinions either. Please feel free to express YOUR opinions on the state of the U.S. budget in any appropriate forum. Mrarch (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't express my feelings, I just cite RANDALL: "I therefore call on Congress to fully fund space exploration, ... THANK YOU."--Dgbrt (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Since we are such fans of quoting here are a few to consider.
"I don't express my feelings ..." -dgbrt
compare to
"Randall is, like me, just annoyed about the current US space policy" - dgbrt
"I do focus on ... looking for a NASA budget for real exploration." -dbgrt
"Randall is frustrated, like me, about the current funds and policies on space exploration." -dgbrt
Thank-you also for taking the time to discuss this with me instead of mindlessly repeating your point without further explanation or supporting arguments. I am very interested in learning more about the reasoning behind your point of view and humbly ask for further clarification. could you please explain to me why you feel this is referring to NASA and why you keep omitting the portion of the quote that supplies the context? Mrarch (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Holy crap, my feelings (you don't like) are just a real SMALL sidestep here. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE COMIC, NOT ME!!!--Dgbrt (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We have explained the comic. I consider it complete. If you will not defend your inclusion of the sentence insisting that this comic is an attempt to influence the budget policy of the U.S. to provide more funding to NASA then please do not continue re-adding it and we can consider the matter closed.Mrarch (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"We have explained the comic", but not me but you. GREAT TROLL! You have to know that I'm working on many other issues here, not only explains and I'm patient to listen on criticisms, I'm doing this discussion seriously, but I'm stopping to talk with trolls. Sorry, my patient comes to an end at this discussion here. --Dgbrt (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm stepping in here now that this discussion is getting personal. With the agreement of the both of you, I can delete everything within the collapsed area, or remove the bounds if a civil discussion can be maintained. This also counts as a warning to Dgbrt; name-calling is not conducive to meaningful discussion, and further offenses will be met with a short block. Davidy²²[talk] 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right Davidy22. we have gone outside of the area of discussing the comic and I apologize for my part in the matter. dgbrt, I had meant to include you in the we I mentioned earlier as I do recognize that you are an active and valued member of this community and that you have contributed to this explanation as well as other areas of the site. I was simply frustrated that you did not seem to be answering my questions or respond to my suggestion to keep the discussion of the author's intent to the talk page. I am still willing to hear an explanation of your point of view, if you would care to provide it, or we can agree to have a discussion of the author's intent in the talk page. I think that removing the text regarding our personal disagreement from this forum is for the best as it does not show either of us in our best light. Mrarch (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Davidy22 and Mrarch, I did extend the collapse area. If Mrarch agrees too that content should be deleted.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
"I therefore call on Congress to fully fund space exploration..."

I did add the incomplete tag because this part of the title text still has to be explained.--Dgbrt (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:1246:_Pale_Blue_Dot&oldid=54937"