Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
"Affect" and "effect" can each both be noun and verb, share the sense of influence, and are often confused. (See the usage note under "Affect".)
"Effect" is usually a noun, meaning a result, and "affect" usually a verb, meaning to act upon. "Effect" as a verb has the slightly different meaning to bring about. Cueball says that the foreign policy causes the situation, not, as the "grammar nazi" thinks, that it changes the situation.
The title of the comic translates to bring about an effect, which is just what Cueball does!
The title text refers to a practice common among fighter pilots in a war zone. Fighter pilots that score a "kill" on an opposing aircraft will have a silhouette of the downed plane painted on the side of their plane as a way of keeping track of kills. In this sense, Cueball "shot down," figuratively speaking, an online (grammar) nazi, and would mark it by painting a silhouette on the side of his computer.
See also 1429: Data.
add a comment! ⋅ refresh comments!
- MY HOBBY:
- Using the more obscure meanings of "affect" and "effect" to try to trip up amateur grammar Nazis.
- Cueball: I think that our foreign policy effects the situation.
- Computer: You mean "affects".
- Cueball: tee hee hee
Can someone explain the title text, thanks! –St.nerol (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd like to see that get added as well. I kind of assumed it was like taking a kill-count; one painting for each victim. I'm not sure what it specifically refers to, or what the origin of the term is. 188.8.131.52 05:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- seen the silhouette images of enemy planes painted next to the pilots canopy on mid 20th century fighter planes? its a reference to that. i've only seen it in films but presumably where there's smoke there's fire. *edit for improved explanation: the images are painted by the pilot to show how many 'bogies' he's shot down,much like how cueball will paint the grammarian on his desktop as another victim. Xseo (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- "mid 20th century fighter planes"?? As opposed to what? Late 18th century fighter planes?184.108.40.206 02:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- As opposed to late 20th and 21st century fighter planes perhaps? St.nerol (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- And assuming "mid 20th century" refers to World War II of 1939-45 (less years for Americans, arguably more so for some other countries), there were already gun-attached 'fighter aircraft' in WWI and onward (though often technically called "scouts" or "pursuit" aircraft, in English and American terminology, respectively... other countries/languages having their own varients). Maybe not from the very start of the 1914-18 conflict, as opposing aircrews were apparently quite friendly to each other for a while until some air-reconnaissance pilot took a pistol up with him (or perhaps it was originally a solution against airships, leastwise those that they could get high enough to attack). And then some people had the idea to hard-attach various projectile weapons to the planes. And, oh boy, they had fun for a while trying to mount them to fire through their own front propellers, didn't they? ;)
- Anyway, the concept definitely had become engrained before the 'mid' 20thC, by whatever name. Did the Red Baron paint kills on his triplane? Did Biggles (fictionally) do so? Someone ought to actually research this. ;) 220.127.116.11 16:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Effects effecting affects affect effects effectively. Also, Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --naginalf 18.104.22.168 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but really, if an effect can effect affects effectively, how many affects can an effect effectively effect? Brettpeirce (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)