Talk:1756: I'm With Her

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 19:48, 7 November 2016 by (talk) (Not all comics have to be humorous: new section)
Jump to: navigation, search

Instead of comic, post contained a political statement. I am not amused. I want a refund. I don't vote, and I don't even live anywhere near USA. 18:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The "I'm with her" and H with an arrow are CLEARLY the respective campaign slogan and campaign logo for Hillary Clinton, not some vagueness having to do with bringing a significant other. --[unsigned]

I see it more as him endorsing voting regardless of who you vote for (as evidenced by half the comic is about "Here's how you vote" without any mention of candidates or issues) and the endorsing Clinton part is an add-on as if to say "This is how I'm voting; vote for her if you agree with me." Jeudi Violist (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Has Randall endorsed a presidential candidate before? --Dfeuer (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC) He supported Obama on his blog in '08, not in the comic though.

He could have said any number of clever things about the election, and all he did was put up a campaign sign. Disappointing. Gmcgath (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

what a cuck -- 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

leaving aside the most ridiculous slur of the past few years, I don't know what else did you expect from Randall. I guess you must have stumbled upon this wiki by chance and have never heard of xkcd before.-- 17:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
AHAHAHAHA. *Ahem.* Hooray for pejorative misappropriation of a kink. /s 19:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the first time I still don't get the joke even after reading the explainxkcd page 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Bit disappointing...

I was hoping for a comic today. oh well. Interesting to see how he's planning to vote, though - it's a shame that there are no candidates this year in favor of strong encryption.

Funny how females outdo males in this 'comic' but in terms of frequency and of elevation. Oh well. xkcd has long been overrepresenting females, it was to be expected. ~~~~

 Seriously? You're whinging 'what about the men?' in a geek web comic?! 18:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The only disappointing this are comments like those two above. 18:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Females being overrepresented in comics like xkcd (but also other ones) with respect to their controlled interest in science in reality is a fact. Therefore, you are calling facts disappointing. How geeky of you. ~~~~
So, your real problem is that Randall likes using female stick figures, yes? Also, why are you afraid to "un-nowiki" your signature...? 19:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No. Allow me to repeat my point as you had apparently misunderstood: 'females being overrepresented'. This is something else than 'females being represented'. The more you know, the less chance there is for you to accidentally twist another person's words as misogyny/sexism. Also, identity is not relevant to discussion. ~~~~

A little disappointing to have a normally lighthearted comic dive seriously into politics, if even for one strip. Not really a fan of either candidate, but would like to see stuff like this stay above the fray.

Completely agreed. SeanAhern (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a first... comics 500 and 1130 (possibly 1131 too) were related to the election, but didn't endorse a candidate. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. 18:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here to see what the tone of the comments were going to be. I was half expecting to find an all-out flamewar in progress. I was happy to see that the comments have not devolved into the kind of attacks that one would expect to find pretty much anywhere else on the Internet. Geeks are the best people.  :) mwburden (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm very dissappointed. Randall never took sides before and - be it as it may - this comic is not a comic but plain out political campaign. Up until now I held xkcd in EXTREMELY high esteem - this comic put a serious dent in that opinion.. -- 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really torn about this one. On the one hand I feel that you HAVE to take sides in this one, if your only other option is Donald Trump... on the other hand, I never liked when web comics express political opinions. It will always end in a flame war and almost never have anything to do with the web comic itself. Randall should've just put up a "go vote becaues it's important" sign without taking sides. 19:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure there are other comics out there that would agree with your ideology. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Randall should do whatever Randall thinks he should do. Should he put up "go read about global warming" comics instead of take the side of AGW? If you think this example is an inappropriate one to use in contrasting this comic with the current political election cycle then you've completely ignored the stances of the two popular candidates. But back to the original point: if you don't like XKCD anymore because of this one comic then go find another comic or start your own. All of art is an expression of the person. Randall knew not everyone would like his beliefs when he pushed this out to the world and is obviously prepared to deal with any consequences of taking a stand on his website. I, for one, applaud him for doing so

Can you help list all the characters in the transcript? From left to right; they're Joanna (ponytail with EMP cannon) from 322; Black Hat; unknown with kite; White Hat; possibly Miss Lenhart (but his hair is somewhat different from 1519); unknown possibly Megan; cueball; unknown woman with glasses; Hairbun; Beret Guy; Cueball with toy sword from 303. B jonas (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Good for Randal. I had been noticing how many Hillary leaning artists had been pulling their punches this election, likely out of fear of trolling or loss of revenue. You want to know what courage looks like? This is is. Sturmovik (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title text hasn't been explained yet. Is it a reference to the German chancellor Angela Merkel's phrase "Wir schaffen das!'? Don't know if Clinton has a slogan like Obama's "Yes, we can!".

I find (linking to )this civicinnovation website rather questionable. They want to audit peoples address books based on who the names in there might vote for? That sounds like Erich Mielkes wildest dreams come true. Even German newspapers (where i'm from), which are 100% anti-Trump, have in the last days noted concern about the methods of Clintons supporters bullying the other side, and this is a disquieting new piece in that picture. I'll hope this is just a ploy to step up with Trump on the bad manners side. -- 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all comics have to be humorous

From [1]

The English term comics derives from the humorous (or "comic") work which predominated in early American newspaper comic strips; usage of the term has become standard for non-humorous works as well.