Talk:1756: I'm With Her

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 00:56, 8 November 2016 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

The "I'm with her" and H with an arrow are CLEARLY the respective campaign slogan and campaign logo for Hillary Clinton, not some vagueness having to do with bringing a significant other. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I see it more as him endorsing voting regardless of who you vote for (as evidenced by half the comic is about "Here's how you vote" without any mention of candidates or issues) and the endorsing Clinton part is an add-on as if to say "This is how I'm voting; vote for her if you agree with me." Jeudi Violist (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has Randall endorsed a presidential candidate before? --Dfeuer (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

He supported Obama on his blog in '08, not in the comic though. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

He could have said any number of clever things about the election, and all he did was put up a campaign sign. Disappointing. Gmcgath (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

what a cuck -- 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

leaving aside the most ridiculous slur of the past few years, I don't know what else did you expect from Randall. I guess you must have stumbled upon this wiki by chance and have never heard of xkcd before.-- 17:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
AHAHAHAHA. *Ahem.* Hooray for pejorative misappropriation of a kink. /s 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I still don't get the joke even after reading the explainxkcd page 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a joke. Randall is simply encouraging people to vote. GizmoDude (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Bit disappointing...

I was hoping for a comic today. oh well. Interesting to see how he's planning to vote, though - it's a shame that there are no candidates this year in favor of strong encryption. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Funny how females outdo males in this 'comic' but in terms of frequency and of elevation. Oh well. xkcd has long been overrepresenting females, it was to be expected. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Seriously? You're whinging 'what about the men?' in a geek web comic?! 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
And there are 11 characters and they are split 5 to 6, and if Blondie represents Clinton then there are 5 to 5 M vs W supporters. ;-) --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"Overrepresenting"?! If there were too many guys you wouldn't bat an eye because it's 'accurate' to whatever demographic you think xkcd is supposed to represent, but as soon as Randall draws 'too many women' you whinge about the oppression of men. First off, even if the readership is male-dominated, that doesn't have any impact on who the comic can portray. Second, there is nothing oppressive about seeing women portrayed in equal numbers or -heaven forbid- in positions of power. 00:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The only disappointing this are comments like those two above. 18:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Females being overrepresented in comics like xkcd (but also other ones) with respect to their controlled interest in science in reality is a fact. Therefore, you are calling facts disappointing. How geeky of you. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
So, your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures, yes? Also, why are you afraid to "un-nowiki" your signature...? 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Allow me to repeat my point as you had apparently misunderstood: 'females being overrepresented'. This is something else than 'females being represented'. The more you know, the less chance there is for you to accidentally twist another person's words as misogyny/sexism. Also, identity is not relevant to discussion. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I understood you perfectly fine. My point still stands: You don't like Randall's preference for female stick figures. I never said you're being misogynic/sexist, so please don't imply I did. Thing with your "hidden" identity is that it's plain visible in the history of this page, so there's really no need to nowiki the signature, that's all. 20:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
You are extremely skilled at saying things that are false and asserting that they're true. First you confused objecting to female overrepresentation (over-presence) with objecting to female representation (presence) ('your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures'). Then you moved to confusing objecting to female overrepresentation with objecting to *Randall's* female overrepresentation. My objection does not pertain to who is doing overrepresenting, but to the mere fact of it. I would have objected identically to any other writer. Also, your attributing of opposition to female presence in comics (after doing which which you proceeded to asserting my being personally hostile to Randall) is accusing of sexism/misogyny by definition. Also, I am obviously aware of edit history; my use my signature constitutes a reminder that identity is, as I said, irrelevant in discussion. It does not serve to obscure anything. You have a remarkable record of falsehoods. ~~~~ (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

A little disappointing to have a normally lighthearted comic dive seriously into politics, if even for one strip. Not really a fan of either candidate, but would like to see stuff like this stay above the fray. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Completely agreed. SeanAhern (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Completely agreed 2. At first I though it's some kind of a romance statement ("be with her"). And from explainxkcd I have learnt that it's an US campaign ad. 22:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Lighthearted? Try to read the comics in the Category:Politics and Category:Climate change. Also there are many other comics that are not at all light hearted. You must have mistaken this with some other web comic? :) --Kynde (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a first... comics 500 and 1130 (possibly 1131 too) were related to the election, but didn't endorse a candidate. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think Randall is pretty much just saying OH GOD PLEASE DONT VOTE FOR TRUMP GizmoDude (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If Randall was saying that, he'd also be bringing up third party candidates (honestly surprised he didn't endorse Jill Stein considering she's more pro-science than Hillary. And before anyone says "anti-vax", check snopes. Jill Stein is so pro-vax [she's volunteered time vaccinated children and is on record saying she wants to increase vaccination rates], pro-addressing-climate[she's green party who has that as a primary platform], and wants to replace the people with business degrees on the panels of the FDA with people with science degrees. Jill is so pro-science and that it makes Hillary look like a flat-earther.) -- 21:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Jill Stein's stance on nuclear energy is an unscientific as it gets. 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No no no. If Randal just wish that Trump should not become president there is only one way to achieve this and that is by making Hillary win. This is not even saying that he likes her, he just dislikes the alternative more. Voting for anyone else might just help Trump. --Kynde (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Also, it looks like minutephysics has done a similar thing. 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see what the tone of the comments were going to be. I was half expecting to find an all-out flamewar in progress. I was happy to see that the comments have not devolved into the kind of attacks that one would expect to find pretty much anywhere else on the Internet. Geeks are the best people.  :) mwburden (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very dissappointed. Randall never took sides before and - be it as it may - this comic is not a comic but plain out political campaign. Up until now I held xkcd in EXTREMELY high esteem - this comic put a serious dent in that opinion.. -- 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really torn about this one. On the one hand I feel that you HAVE to take sides in this one, if your only other option is Donald Trump... on the other hand, I never liked when web comics express political opinions. It will always end in a flame war and almost never have anything to do with the web comic itself. Randall should've just put up a "go vote becaues it's important" sign without taking sides. 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure there are other comics out there that would agree with your ideology. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Randall should do whatever Randall thinks he should do. Should he put up "go read about global warming" comics instead of take the side of AGW? If you think this example is an inappropriate one to use in contrasting this comic with the current political election cycle then you've completely ignored the stances of the two popular candidates. But back to the original point: if you don't like XKCD anymore because of this one comic then go find another comic or start your own. All of art is an expression of the person. Randall knew not everyone would like his beliefs when he pushed this out to the world and is obviously prepared to deal with any consequences of taking a stand on his website. I, for one, applaud him for doing so (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Randall did a comic about global warming a while back, which was very interesting. Because I heard the "earth has warmed up before" argument before and even used it myself at least once. The difference about the global warming comic is that he backed it up with scientific facts, which is well within the scope of this comic. Political opinions aren't (or did the slogan change to A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language and politics?). Yes, of course he can do with his web comic whatever he wants to. But readers can express their opinions about what he does with it. It's called "freedom of speech", you know? 20:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a comic for that. 21:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Randall has endorsee Obama in 2008 and it is his comic and he can use it to endorse anyone he likes. I'm pretty sure he believes that he will only loose a few real fans of xkcd over this comic, because those who really enjoys all his comics in spite of for instance climate comics would really not like to see Trump as president. And would thus be happy if this comic helped in any way to avoid that. --Kynde (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you help list all the characters in the transcript? From left to right; they're Joanna (ponytail with EMP cannon) from 322; Black Hat; unknown with kite; White Hat; possibly Miss Lenhart (but his hair is somewhat different from 1519); unknown possibly Megan; cueball; unknown woman with glasses; Hairbun; Beret Guy; Cueball with toy sword from 303. B jonas (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not Miss Lenhart. Blondie. They are listed now. --Kynde (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for Randal. I had been noticing how many Hillary leaning artists had been pulling their punches this election, likely out of fear of trolling or loss of revenue. You want to know what courage looks like? This is is. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title text hasn't been explained yet. Is it a reference to the German chancellor Angela Merkel's phrase "Wir schaffen das!'? Don't know if Clinton has a slogan like Obama's "Yes, we can!". (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I find (linking to )this civicinnovation website rather questionable. They want to audit peoples address books based on who the names in there might vote for? That sounds like Erich Mielkes wildest dreams come true. Even German newspapers (where i'm from), which are 100% anti-Trump, have in the last days noted concern about the methods of Clintons supporters bullying the other side, and this is a disquieting new piece in that picture. I'll hope this is just a ploy to step up with Trump on the bad manners side. -- 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all comics have to be humorous

From [1]

The English term comics derives from the humorous (or "comic") work which predominated in early American newspaper comic strips; usage of the term has become standard for non-humorous works as well. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
The problem is that this isn't a comic, this is a campaign ad. 20:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Could we please just NOT get politics involved in the comments, guys?

Just... please? Papayaman1000 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious. What had you expected :-) This is the most loaded comic of all time. It will even take down 388: Fuck Grapefruit, even though it beat his blog about his Obama endorsement. --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Randall has taken a side in a political Argument before: Not counting the near-invisible easter egg, comic 1005 consists solely of Randall taking a stance on something political and providing links to show how you can help. That wasn't too long ago, but no one freaked out about a serious, political strip back then. CJB42 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Policy to candidates is not an apples to apples comparison. People get much more up in arms when the topic is either a candidate or policy that goes against religious text or teachings. SOPA and PIPA were neither (well, unless you count GNU as some kind of internet religion). Zernin (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's sad to see a guy who is so smart in some areas, yet can not see Hillary Clinton for the terrible president she would be. (Granted, part of the reason we only have a few other choices is because of our messed up voting system.) (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I agree with you that Hillary may be worse than almost any one else from the Democrats. But Trump is sooo much further out on a limp, and I'm sure this might be the only reason Randall makes this comic. He is seriously afraid of what woudl happen to the US and the rest of the world if Trump wins --Kynde (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of comic, post contained a political statement. I am not amused. I want a refund. I don't vote, and I don't even live anywhere near USA. 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A refund? For what? You pay to read this comic? Zorlax the Mighty'); DROP TABLE users;-- (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Darn right you better be with her. If you say anything else, you will "commit suicide". Just ask Vince Foster or Seth Rich if you think I'm crazy. 21:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What, Randy does not say "Bernie or Bust"? I feel cheated now. :P -- 22:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Poor Bernie. Poor America. Poor world. 23:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Just good luck America (and the rest of the world where I belong), whatever happens tomorrow. But I'm hoping Randall can help his candidate win! --Kynde (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm with her... unfortunately : (. I just didn't think it made sense to donate to a billionaire. 00:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)