Editing 1982: Evangelism

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
==Explanation==
 
==Explanation==
−
In this comic, [[Randall]] presents a line plot where causes are listed, in increasing order, by the intensity of the evangelism of their advocates. {{w|Evangelism}}, in {{w|Christianity}}, is the commitment to or act of publicly preaching of the {{w|Gospel}} with the intention of spreading the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. The notion of spreading the faith by preaching is both historically and doctrinally deeply rooted in Christianity, so the notion of persistent and committed Christian missionaries is a well-known phenomenon. Over time, the term “evangelism” has come to be used more generally for zealous advocacy of anything, with the implication that the commitment to spread their message is similar to religious evangelism.  
+
{{incomplete|Need a citation for primates opening bananas from the "other end". Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
  
−
The first punchline is that religious proselytizers are unexpectedly the ''least'' zealous of all the groups mentioned on this chart, despite being the origin of the term.  
+
{{w|Evangelism}}, in {{w|Christianity}}, is the commitment to or act of publicly preaching of the {{w|Gospel}} with the intention of spreading the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. Many people are frustrated with door to door evangelism like {{w|Jehovah's Witnesses}}, for whom {{w|Jehovah's_Witnesses#Evangelism| evangelism}} is a big part of their religion, but the frustration goes in general to all kind of {{w|missionaries}}.
  
−
As the graph moves from left to right, the issues at stake have less and less impact on the life of someone who “converts”, but the intensity and fervor of those spreading the cause increases. This is counterintuitive, which is the joke.
+
Evangelism has a second definition as any zealous advocacy for a cause, religious or not. So in this comic [[Randall]] presents a line plot where causes are listed in order from advocates who are least intense to most intense going left to right, and the joke is that the religious proselytizers are much less intense than those that advocate for opening bananas from the other end, which is also the subject of the title text. The reason for this, and why the comic came out on this day, is likely that it was the official [https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/banana-day/ Banana Day] in the US the day the comic was released (although this day was not (yet?) on this {{w|List_of_food_days#United_States|list of food days in the US}}).
 
   
 
   
−
Below, each of the points on the chart, as well as the title text, is discussed.
+
Below each of the points on the chart as well as the title text is discussed.
  
−
;Religious proselytizers
+
;''Religious proselytizers''
−
{{w|Proselytism|Religious proselytizers}} are the best known evangelists, and the term “evangelism” originally applied only to them. Christian faith remains roughly as popular as ever, but Christian ''evangelism'' has become less common and less accepted in the public sphere in recent decades, and often only practiced in specific venues. Randall contrasts them in this strip with four other groups which he finds to be more intense in their “evangelism”.
+
{{w|Proselytism|Religious proselytizers}} are, of the groups on this list, most known for intense evangelism in popular culture, yet Randall contrasts them in this strip with four other groups which he finds to be even more intense in their "evangelism".
  
−
;People who want the US to switch to metric
+
;''People who want the US to switch to metric''
−
Unlike most of the world, the US uses {{w|United States Customary Units|US Customary units}} instead of {{w|metric units}}. The vast majority of the world population (and many within the country) wish for the US to change. In truth, {{w|Metric Conversion Act|federal law}} has declared the metric system to be the preferred system in the US since 1975, but includes no mandates for enforcement, meaning that social and economic inertia keeps customary units in general use. Though the US now uses SI units in many areas, particularly in technical and scientific settings, most Americans deal more with US Customary units in their day-to-day lives. Many advocates (both in and out of the US), argue that the metric system to be more logical and usable, and consider it to be unreasonable that the world's largest economy remains out of step with what has become the global standard for measurement.  
+
Unlike most of the world, the US uses {{w|United States Customary Units|US customary units}} instead of {{w|metric units}}. Some people wish for this to change.
  
 
Randall has made a conversion chart for helping US people with the confusing metric units: [[526: Converting to Metric]].
 
Randall has made a conversion chart for helping US people with the confusing metric units: [[526: Converting to Metric]].
  
−
;People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit
+
;''People who want the US to switch to metric but keep Fahrenheit''
−
Pro-metric people who wish to keep the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale rather than change to {{w|Celsius}} are ranked as slightly more evangelic. A common argument for keeping the Fahrenheit scale is that is roughly matches the range of habitable temperatures for humans (0°F equating to “really cold” and 100°F to “really hot”) and is therefore more intuitive when discussing weather. Fahrenheit also has smaller degrees than Celsius, so temperatures can be cited more precisely while still using whole degrees.
+
Pro-metric people who wish to keep the {{w|Fahrenheit}} scale rather than change to {{w|Celsius}} are ranked as slightly more evangelic. A common argument for keeping the Fahrenheit scale is due to 0°F equating to "really cold" and 100°F to "really hot" when talking about weather. It could be argued that making the shift only partly would be very silly, but these people argue even more vehemently than those that wish to shift entirely. Probably because this makes no sense and thus needs more convincing.
−
 
 
−
To many people, making the shift only partially may seem inconsistent—and yet the people arguing for this are even more ardent than those that wish to shift entirely, perhaps precisely because of this apparent strangeness.  
 
  
 
Fahrenheit versus Celsius has been the topic of [[1643: Degrees]] and [[1923: Felsius]].
 
Fahrenheit versus Celsius has been the topic of [[1643: Degrees]] and [[1923: Felsius]].
  
−
;People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind
+
;''People who threw away their socks and bought all one kind''
−
Since socks are generally worn in matched pairs, both socks in a pair have to be located before they can be worn. When socks are separated (which commonly happens when washing, drying and sorting them), locating both can be an annoyance, and losing one renders the other useless until it is located. People who lose one sock are usually unwilling to throw the other out, in case its mate is located, leaving them with a collection of unmatched socks to deal with. This is a common enough problem [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/154000/20160427/science-reveals-why-you-always-lose-your-socks-in-the-laundry.htm to have been researched by scientists].  
+
The reason to do so, is that any two socks in your drawer will match, and you will never end up with an unmatched sock, or a whole stack of them in your drawer. This is a problem that [http://www.techtimes.com/articles/154000/20160427/science-reveals-why-you-always-lose-your-socks-in-the-laundry.htm science has researched].
  
−
This problem can be solved by buying only one type of sock, with a uniform design and pattern. Because socks can usually be worn on either foot, this makes sorting socks after washing unnecessary, since any two socks form a pair, and losing one is less vexing, since you can never end up with more than one unmatched sock (and losing another one just evens the numbers again). To many people, though, this solution is unappealing. Many people find it aesthetically boring to always wear the same color of socks, and it risks having to either wear socks that don't match the rest of your clothes, or stick to a much more limited color palette for your whole wardrobe.
+
But it is also quite boring to always wear the same color socks/clothing. But those that do, recommend it to all their friends, according to Randall. These kind of people are thus listed as even more evangelic than the pro metric people.  
  
−
Randall previously referenced this idea in the xkcd survey (see [[1572: xkcd Survey]]) from September 2015. It included this question:
+
Randall previously used this in the xkcd survey (see [[1572: xkcd Survey]]) from September 2015. It included this question:
  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
Line 42: Line 40:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
−
;People who open bananas from the other end
+
;''People who open bananas from the other end''
−
The most evangelical group Randall includes are the people who open {{w|bananas}} from the "other" end. The majority of people peel bananas by using the stem as a lever to open the peel, then pulling the peel back by sections. And alternate method is to pinch the calyx and separate the peel into two halves.
+
The most evangelic people Randall can think of is the people who open {{w|bananas}} from the other end! Some people prefer to open bananas from the bottom (small end) instead of the top (stem end). This thought is continued in the title text.
−
 
 
−
An [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2713696/Is-banana-peeling-method-WRONG-Video-demonstrates-squish-free-monkey-way-upside-down.html oddly committed subculture] has grown up, insisting that opening the calyx is the "right" way to eat bananas, using an assortment of arguments in an attempt to back up their point. These arguments don't appear convincing enough to change the habits of the banana-eating public at large, but that doesn't appear to make advocates less committed to this extremely low-stakes topic.
 
  
−
The comic’s release date on April 18th, is likely correlated with this days assignment as the official [https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/banana-day/ “Banana Day”] in the US. (However, at the time of release of this comic, this day was not mentioned on the Wikipedia {{w|List_of_food_days#United_States|list of food days in the US}}).
+
;''Title text''
 +
The title text is a fictional argument that apparently somehow tore apart Europe between the two factions ''Other primates open them from the  small end'' and ''But the little bit of banana at the small end end is gross''. It continues the most evangelic point in the chart about how bananas are supposed to be opened from the "right" end. It seems absurd that this could have actually happened, but such {{w|schisms}} in religion, like {{w|Catholic}} vs {{w|Protestantism}} did split Europe in two with the {{w|reformation}}, and many (non religious people) would argue that the difference between the two versions of Christianity are of the same order of importance as which end the banana is opened from...
  
−
;Title text
+
The supposed argument ''stems''<sup><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[No Pun Intended|Pun Intended]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> from a disagreement over the suggested ease of opening a banana from the bottom, versus the idea that the small bit at the base of a banana is unappetizing.
−
The title text categorizes the two sides of the banana conflict by their most common arguments. While {{w|primates}} [http://uk.businessinsider.com/wild-monkeys-do-not-eat-bananas-2016-6?IR=T do not eat bananas in the wild], in captivity, some have been observed to open them away from the stem, so "OTHER PRIMATES OPEN THEM FROM THE SMALL END" is advanced as an argument for why this method is 'correct'. "BUT THE LITTLE BIT OF BANANA AT THE SMALL END IS GROSS" is the most common retort. Opening a banana from the small end typically leaves part the flower tip embedded in piece of mashed fruit, which many consider to be "gross". This is obviously a subjective judgment, but is sufficient reason to find the method unappealing.  
 
  
−
Satirically claiming that wars between these factions "consumed Europe for generations" likely refers to the wars between {{w|Catholicism|Catholic}} and {{w|Protestantism|Protestant}} factions, which did, in fact, consume Europe for generations. This ties the dispute back to the original meaning of "evangelism", suggesting that this issue ignites a fervor usually reserved for religious belief. At the same time, it's likely intended to satirize those wars themselves. The notion of going to war over such a trivial and fundamentally unimportant issue is clearly ridiculous. From an outsider's perspective, the notion of going to war over which faction of Christianity would have greater influence could easily seem similarly trivial.  
+
In the wild {{w|primates}} have been observed to open bananas{{Citation needed}} from the bottom end away from the stem, as one of the two factions refer to. Less force is required to open a banana at the bottom than at the stem, causing less bruising of the fruit and generally making it easier to open. However, if not done carefully, this can result in the fruit getting squished and making a mess on the person's fingers. Opening bananas from the stem end offers no practical advantage, yet appears to be the predominant habit of most banana-eating humans in Randall's sample. One explanation is that opening using the stem as a lever makes for greater ease of opening and thus less damage in practice.  (Bananas grow with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banana_farm_Chinawal.jpg the stem at the bottom]).
  
−
The entire "correct banana end" discussion could be a reference to the wars between the Blefuscudians, who opened their eggs at the big end, and the Lilliputians, who broke their eggs at the small end, as told in {{w|Jonathan Swift|Jonathan Swift’s}} epic novel ''{{w|Gulliver’s Travels}}''. This in turn is the origin of the terms {{w|Endianness#Etymology|"Little Endian" and "Big Endian"}} which were much debated in circa 1980's computer architectures — which may also have been on Randall's mind.
+
The entire correct banana end discussion could be a reference to the wars between the Blefuscudians who opened their eggs at the big end, and the Lilliputians who broke their eggs at the small end, as documented in {{w|Jonathan Swift|Jonathan Swift's}} epic novel {{w|Gulliver's Travels}}.
  
−
Randall’s thoughts on the problems with opening bananas could also explain why this fruit, which many find very easy to peel and consume, is listed in the middle of the easy/difficult scale in the [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] chart.
+
Randall's thoughts on the problems with opening bananas could also explain why this fruit, that many find very easy to peel and consume, is listed in the middle of the easy/difficult scale in the [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] chart.
  
 
==Transcript==
 
==Transcript==
Line 73: Line 69:
 
[[Category:Charts]]
 
[[Category:Charts]]
 
[[Category:Rankings]]
 
[[Category:Rankings]]
−
[[Category:Religion]]
 
 
[[Category:Food]]
 
[[Category:Food]]

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page:

Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1982:_Evangelism"