Difference between revisions of "Talk:1911: Defensive Profile"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Add comment to 1911)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
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? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 08:54, 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? [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 08:54, 4 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? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.69.211|162.158.69.211]] 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:32, 4 November 2017


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? 198.41.238.40 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)

Chrome with the official Google Translate extension allows just this kind of view translation of a selection only. 172.68.253.221 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)

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? 162.158.69.211 18:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)