explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1827: Survivorship Bias

2017-04-22T01:43:52Z

Mark314159: Actual case: buying the same numbers every time, and winning!

Is "defeatest" a typo or a joke? I've never seen Randall make a typo before, but I also don't get the joke if there is one. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.2.184|162.158.2.184]] 04:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:Definitely a typo. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::At first I thought this was an unfamiliarity with the word, and was about to talk about how it's a real word and what it means, then I noticed the spelling, LOL! I KNOW I've seen such spelling errors several times before - often getting fixed in the next day or two - but I couldn't provide examples even if my life depended on it. And yeah, I'd say this is more "spelling error" than "typo", the I is nowhere near the E on any keyboard. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.88|108.162.219.88]] 05:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:::If itdoesn't get fixed, it might be some weird pun on "[survival of] the fittest". Wouldn't make a lot of sense in the context of the sentence though [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.233|162.158.91.233]] 09:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::::sometimes Randall do not fix errors, so nothing can be concluded on that (would it be survivorship bias to do so? ;-) How should the word be spelled (I'm not native English speaking), and does the word even exist? The spelling should be mentioned when someone explains the title text. I'm not up for it. And then if it is corrected later, it should go into the trivia section as a corrected error. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It has been corrected to defeatist [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Transcript's kind of done. [[User:Cardboardmech|Cardboardmech]] ([[User talk:Cardboardmech|talk]]) 05:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:I have changed the format to the usual style and added a bit more detail. But else nicely done. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than the title text, does any more work need to be done on the explanation? The Template:Incomplete param is pretty vague right now. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]]

No doubt a lottery isn't a wise investment. However, I have not heard about accepting 25% of the prize or in annual instalments for over a decade before. Is that an american habbit? Vince [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.174|141.101.105.174]] 06:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: Never heard of such things, either... [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:This is a thing that some American lotteries do. It reduces the amount that you have to pay in taxes. [[User:Mulan15262|Mulan15262]] ([[User talk:Mulan15262|talk]]) 12:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: I don't play the lottery but I have heard of this practice and I think its typical here in the states. As I remember, you have the option of accepting 50% of the prize as an immediate payment or of accepting the full amount in installments over 20 years. With a progressive tax schedule this of course will affect the actual amount received and available for use. The use of payments helps the lottery itself as well and the choices of 50% and 20 years is no accident. The lottery can take the 50% it would have paid directly and invest it. A doubling period of 20 years needs an annual return on investment of only 3.6% (approx) so it works out to be a good deal for both parties. Unless of course your life expectancy is less than 20 years! [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 00:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The title text is written in the style of an inspirational/motivational speech. Do not be deterred, you can do ANYTHING. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.58|172.68.110.58]] 07:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing the very emotional text and replace it with something a bit more "professional", as I think fits this site better. I am still not quite happy about it, as advertising jackpots without taxes and not advertising the payout time are local phenomena only applicable to some jurisdictions, and make no difference to the overall survivor bias that is the theme of the comic [[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.202|172.68.182.202]] 08:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
: I think the whole tax stuff can be deleted. Playing lottery is always stupid - even if there were no taxes on the prize. [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 08:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::I agree with Elektrizikekswerk on both issues. Lottery is just tax on low IQ we call it in my family ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
::: I've heard it called "gambling for the math-impaired." [[User:Miamiclay|Miamiclay]] ([[User talk:Miamiclay|talk]]) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Third paragraph is taken word-by-word from Wikipedia article on Survivorship Bias. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.88|162.158.92.88]] 12:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example of survivorship bias, "We grew up without bicycle helmets and 'nonsense' like that when kids and dogs ran free and '''we came out fine'''" but of course I also remember there were a lot of kids with concussions and there were a lot of three-legged dogs running around. Both cases have greatly decreased because of bicycle helmets and leash laws. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 13:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
:And don't forget all the dog bites that came out "just fine"! [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 00:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

If I may suggest, survivor bias is a special example of Bastiat's "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Unseen", aka, the Broken Window Fallacy. The logic failure lies in paying attention to only part of the results, not all of them. I'd extend this to argue for acceptance of "The Ends Justify The Means... Buy You Gotta Consider ALL The Ends, Not Just Some Of Them". Saving 100 people is one great end. But if you also kill 10,000 of them, but in the background, where they don't stand out, the ends aren't justified.
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.227|108.162.212.227]] 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There actually was a case of a man who won the lottery after buying the same set of numbers every time. Naturally, his advice to everyone was "Keep buying the same numbers every time and you'll win eventually." Of course, there's no way he could be persuaded this was nonsense. [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 01:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:1501: Mysteries

2015-03-23T01:22:28Z

Mark314159:

Here's a list of wikipedia links I compiled that will be useful for anyone wanting to update this page. http://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/2zog5d/xkcd_1501_mysteries/cpktray {{unsigned ip|‎141.101.106.155}}

And I've got a solar eclipse to see (explainable, but weird!) but I started to compile things. Haven't got any links sorted yet, and percentages are (badly) done by eye. If someone does it better, ignore it.


[[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 09:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

:(Whoops, pasted the flatfile format version by accident, in my rush, rather than the more Wikifriendly one that I discarded. Commenting it out until/unless I redo it. But you should still be able to see the details via the Talk Edit pages if you're bothered. Oh, and there was really too much cloud to see the eclipse for what it was. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

::I dropped the image into our CAD system and plotted the point co-ordinates. I've filled in the resulting percentages, which should be somewhere about right with a little rounding. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 10:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

:::Exactly right. (Although I didn't read the zero/zero crossing point is supposed to be maybe 50% on both scales, but instead ±zero. Still, doesn't matter. And perhaps displays/sorts better.) And looks like I don't need to recover my formatted notes after all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.63|141.101.98.63]] 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.176|199.27.128.176]] 09:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) XKCD has explained the Voynich Manuscript before: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/593:_Voynich_Manuscript

:XKCD has also 'explained' DB Cooper before ([[1400: D.B. Cooper]]) if that is worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.167|108.162.250.167]] 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Randall has ever seen http://keithledgerwood.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using and if so, whether he simply doesn't believe it. Not to sabotage his 100%-100% example if he wants to keep it there, but I'd put it at only 50% weird and 10% unexplainable. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.27|199.27.133.27]] 14:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
: Oh lawdy, the tinfoil hat brigade has arrived. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]]

;Carly Simon

The Carly Simon explanation includes the text "This sets up a paradox in which the song is and isn't about the vain person." This isn't correct. The song is definitely about the person. Carly is thus asserting that the subject's vanity will lead him to a correct interpretation of the song. Going to change the explanation. [[User:EverVigilant|EverVigilant]] ([[User talk:EverVigilant|talk]]) 14:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this is on Randall's chart. The Wikipedia article is all the explanation the world needs. And Warren Beatty's reaction to the song simply seals it for me. No Big Deal. Move On. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''

;WOW signal

It now says "This is the strongest evidence to date of extraterrestrial radio signals.", which is technically incorrect. We observe radio signals from outer space all the time, they originate from young stars, Big Bang, active galaxies, and so on. This should probably be rephrased to something about extraterrestrial intelligence, but I'm not sure if it deserves to be called "evidence". [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:Regarding the "evidence" bit, I'd go so far as to say that it's a single signal that can't actually be tied down (even in the light of further study) to: a) receiver error/interference; b) terrestrial(/orbital) origin; c) natural universal processes. (In the latter case, especially, c.f. Pulsars, which were ''tentatively'' blamed on "Little Green Men" at first, but are now understood for what they are.) Maybe if we'd have had some more WOWs (or longer to listen to the one that we had) we could have analysed it, but it remains a mystery because neither is true. Pretty much everything else has been explained as "not evidence for aliens" (definitively, or on the balance of probability there's a better working theory that it's not) leaving this as... an anomoly. Not 'evidence', but not ''explained'', either. For now! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.192|141.101.98.192]] 20:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

;Dyatlov Pass Incident

Um, Wikipedia regards avalanche as most plausible explanation of the Dyatlov Pass incident, and it appears to be most widespread and down-to-earth explanation that doesn't involve the supernatural or secret soviet weapons test, things like that. Shouldn't we include mention of the avalance then, perhaps? I mean, with such high "explainability" rating it's pretty clear that Randall probably assumes avalanche, since if he assumed other, less widespread theory he probably would downgrade the "explainability" to account for the fact that it's more disputed version. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.89.222|141.101.89.222]] 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
:The Key points of the accident were: hypothermia, fatal injuries from strong force, tent that ripped from within, traces of wandering, weird tan, lost tongue, lack of clothing. The most scientific and easiest explanation I know was: Avalanche that accounts for fatal injuries; Snow glare that accounts for weird tan; paradoxical undressing and hypothermia that accounts for lack of clothing and signs of wandering; and Scavenging animals that accounts for the lost tongue and ripped tent. [[User:Kagakujinjya|Kagakujinjya]] ([[User talk:Kagakujinjya|talk]]) 02:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia really seems to suggest secret USSR military tests both parachute mines and nuclear missile related. Beyond being between two test facilities, the soviet conspiracy would imply secret operations, if it were just an avalanche, the USSR wouldn't have covered details up. It's not that extreme to believe the USSR did some secret testing, because it's more or less fact. Therefore, the idea secret testing was involved isn't *that* strange or unreasonable. Occam's Razor, given the difficulty for some of those things, like the tent being torn from the inside out, or the tan.
Also ball lightning is worth mentioning in your quest for not Secret Soviet test or supernatural in nature.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.26|173.245.55.26]] 04:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
:Though I can't say anything about supernatural nature of the incident because I don't have proof,(well, I don't have any proof at all because the incident was happened in 1959) I think I can give you an argument about the weapon test and the cover up. Occam's Razor. I mean, weapon test normally done in secured military area, not out in public area. All the more reason if you want to test a secret weapon. Basically, there's no point of doing weapon test there. Furthermore, 1959 was a time when government very sensitive about data, I'd say that they would even declare the recipe of a pie as a national secret. And since we probably read the same source that is Wikipedia, I don't know where they suggest the weapon test theory since the first sentence under the subtitle 'theories' unambiguously say that "avalanche damage is considered one of the more plausible explanation for this incident". Then, about the ball of lightning and (if I may) radioactivity, since I'm pretty sure that none of that stuff turns up in the original documents from the incident, I'll argue that those were added later by people who just can't resist making things spookier than the incident actually are. [[User:Kagakujinjya|Kagakujinjya]] ([[User talk:Kagakujinjya|talk]]) 06:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

;Off the chart up and to the right

How the Universe came into existence (the physics and math behind "Why is there something rather than nothing?") is far weirder with less of an explanation than anything on Randall's chart – scientists' claims, which redefine "nothing," notwithstanding. And then how life started and evolved (the chemistry and biology – and quantum physics? – at the transition point between inanimate amino acids and cells and the subsequent arrival of ''homo sapiens'') is almost as strange as the Big Bang. ''– [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)''
:Yep. And how to make a star. And how to make a planet. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.158|108.162.249.158]] 11:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

;Inaccurate explainability rating

I've read the Russian wikipedia article on Dyatlov Pass Incident and not only it's incredibly weird (much more details than condensed English article), but also no plausible explanation is provided that would account for all the incredibly weird stuff going on. I have no idea how that could be awarded 96% explainability.

UVB-76, on the other hand, is a pretty easy to explain as one-time-pad encrypted military broadcast, with buzzing to occupy the frequency and discourage others from using it. How is that just 23% explainable, I have no idea. That's what I've found in Russian sources, anyway.

Also, the Toynbee Tiles mystery is pretty much solved if you trust "Duerr, Justin. Resurrect Dead: The Mystery of the Toynbee Tiles" as a source.

There are even more inconsistencies pointed out above. At first I've suspected that the scale is accidentally inverted, but D.B. Cooper story is pretty poorly explained, so it's more like the whole thing is just randomly messed up.
--[[User:Shnatsel|Shnatsel]] ([[User talk:Shnatsel|talk]]) 19:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

;UVB-76

Is it seriously that hard to explain the "UVB-76" thing? I've been listening to this thing for a year now and even have explained how it works from the innards a few months back. Besides, it's not even called UVB-76, it was a mishear of UZB-76, and it's not even that callsign anymore. The callsign has changed to MDZhB and it is a marker to occupy the frequency of the "Codename Vulkan" communications channel. The way this thing works is that it is a bunch of gears that control a buzzer, when the Buzzer goes down you can hear it winding down and the repairmen screwing in some things when they come in.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.9|108.162.219.9]] 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Obvious: one of at least three such stations used by the Russian military(see also the pip and the squeaky wheel)
The less obvious: the purpose being either secret communication, time synchronization, measuring ionosphere changes, emergency Russian military mobilization with a dead man's switch style of constant commmunication to keep the frequency clear of other users as well as in case Moscow (or in this case Pskov [crazy side note: sister city of Roanoke, Virginia]), or something else
Unclear: other things about it
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.26|173.245.55.26]] 05:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

;Lost Colony

Before the Roanoke colonists left, they carved "Croatan" into a post. The Croatan were a small native tribe living on the coast, who'd had friendly relations with the colonists. They disappeared along with them. A generation or two later, a completely new tribe called the Lumbee were found living further inland, with some caucasian features and using European farming techniques. It's pretty obvious what happened. [[User:Shanek|Shanek]] ([[User talk:Shanek|talk]]) 19:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

; MH370

I had no idea that *'''nothing'''* of MH370 was ever found (or at least so far). Reading up on the wikipedia article makes me even more confused: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MH370_initial_search_Southeast_Asia.svg this map] shows the plane going westward basically towards india but then [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MH370_SIO_search.png this map] shows the searches *'''west of Australia'''* and going *'''down to Antartica'''*! WTF?? What the hell happened to that plane?! It's now been a *'''year'''* and *'''nothing'''* was found at all. Totally weird and unexplained. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 23:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

: ... and here's the explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_search_for_MH370.png. Still freaking mind-boggling if you ask me. That thing could as well be in Khazakstan for all we know. Terrifying. --[[User:Anarcat|Anarcat]] ([[User talk:Anarcat|talk]]) 00:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

; sort order

The arrangement of entries in the table seemed random to me. I moved them around so the weirdest entries are at the beginning and the most easily explained are at the end. Thus the joke entry is last, as a punch line. [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 01:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

; The Taman Shud Case

This is one of the weirdest mysteries I've come across. I'd be surprised if Randall hasn't heard of it, though. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case Wikipedia]. [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 01:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2014-04-19T15:14:40Z

Mark314159:

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This comic has it completely backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
::Who decides whether that is a right or not?

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)