Difference between revisions of "559: No Pun Intended"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Explanation: I agree with the commenter, this explanation is adequate enough. To write more would be to add in pointless fluff.)
Line 21: Line 21:
{{comic discussion}}
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:My Hobby]]

Revision as of 21:16, 31 January 2014

No Pun Intended
Like spelling 'dammit' correctly -- with two m's -- it's a troll that works best on the most literate.
Title text: Like spelling 'dammit' correctly -- with two m's -- it's a troll that works best on the most literate.


"No pun intended" is an idiom meaning that something just said wasn't meant to be a pun, implying that the preceding statement could be interpreted as one. As done in the comic, following a non-pun with "no pun intended" breaks this implication and confuses listeners.

The title text elicits a similar confused reaction, as the most literate people will be more likely to want to spell out "damn it" rather than using an abbreviated form with morphed spelling.


My Hobby: Appending "no pun intended" to lines with no pun in them.
[Cueball is talking to Beret Guy.]
Cueball: I think he's internalized his girlfriend's attitudes - no pun intended - and so...
Three hours later:
[Beret Guy is thinking.]
Beret Guy: "Internalized?" Lied? Analyzed? Or is it "attitudes"? Dammit.

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


To be fair, internalising anything from a girlfriend... or a girlfriend internalising anything from a boyfriend.... could have some implications. Which wasn't intended here I'm sure. 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that's not a pun. That's a double entendre in the strictest sense. Anonymous 05:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs an incomplete flag. --Mynotoar (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So, just give us a reason. --Dgbrt (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the title text needs explanation, and I think it needs more detail, especially as it doesn't really explain the punchline. --Mynotoar (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The incomplete tag is set. I did copy your remarks. --Dgbrt (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the fact that this explanation is set as incomplete ironic? Surely the point of this post is that there IS no punchline - the victim is searching the sentence for humour that does not exist. As the alt text explains, the more literate the victim, the more they will agonize over potential wordplay which is simply not present. 07:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Inserting "if you'll pardon the pun" into a phrase with no pun is a recurring joke on "A Bit of Fry and Laurie". (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

A great comeback to this, if you're quick enough to realize it, comes courtesy of the Get Fuzzy comic strip: "No pun... implemented." 18:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Krkn

Why are there two "citation needed"? I can see no way this would be true in the first case and there is a citation in the second case (P.S. did I do this right? First time using the discussion feature) 14:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the explanation of the title text (at least the last part) isn't entirely relevant. The point is that literate people are likely to (over)correct "dammit" to "damn it" and respond to the troll, wasting time. Just like highly literate people will spend time worried about the pun they're supposedly missing. People who don't care won't waste time in either case. Making people waste time is the definition of successful trolling, so in these cases the trolling works better on literate people. A relatively uncommon regional contraction in the United States (South?) isn't really part of the issue. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Poor Beret Guy. SilverMagpie (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)