1860: "Communicating"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
peterdavidcarter
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby peterdavidcarter » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:13 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Flumble wrote:I take it you interpreted chris' joke as self-depreciating? (namely him being the egg and the long-haired one being a woman) Otherwise, how do you get to the assumption that chris is thinking the stick figure is a girl?
Self deprecating? I don't believe so. The cartoon is gender neutral other than the hair. Put the head of the guy with the black hat in the frame instead of that head with hair, and the meaning would be precisely the same. So would he have then said "Yep, that sounds like a conversation with a black hat man."? However I don't really care, I was pointing out what I consider irony.


The initial framing is of Alice, Through the Looking Glass; a framing which would be difficult to fully deny and more difficult to make a coherent case for a more strongly signifying alternate. So the framing would by logical implication be gender male ((new) Humpty) and gender female ((new) Alice). The use of traditional (fe)male signifier (long hair) in the case of new Alice seems intended to have that effect on the majority of the cartoon's target audience, at least from my perspective and it seems the perspective of some others. Do you personally believe what from my perspective appears to be a contemporaneous correlation between long-hair and gender persuasion is in some way(s) less desirable than possible alterhistorical and altercultural alternatives? Or perhaps you have other objections?
Last edited by peterdavidcarter on Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:45 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jul 09, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

Having never spent an afternoon or three reading Carroll, I leave it to you to frame it. And I offer a salute to Tub who thinks much faster than I do.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1998
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Flumble » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:24 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Flumble wrote:I take it you interpreted chris' joke as self-depreciating? (namely him being the egg and the long-haired one being a woman) Otherwise, how do you get to the assumption that chris is thinking the stick figure is a girl?
Self deprecating? I don't believe so. The cartoon is gender neutral other than the hair. Put the head of the guy with the black hat in the frame instead of that head with hair, and the meaning would be precisely the same. So would he have then said "Yep, that sounds like a conversation with a black hat man."?

That'd be self-depreciating (going by the idea that the one having the conversation with a woman/black hat man is the I) on both accounts in my book, since the egg opens the conversation with a ridiculous statement. The stick figure just jokes about it.

Showsni
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Showsni » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:07 am UTC

peterdavidcarter wrote:(Could she just steal all his stuff anyway, or perhaps that's an offense in the new Queen of Hearts' kingdom? But it's permissible to assign any meaning to words once transposed to the QoHs' new court...? That would have all sorts of odd legal ramifications...)


I'm going to ignore everything else you wrote to nitpick that the Queen of Hearts is from Wonderland, not Looking Glass.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2903
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:43 am UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:The egg is saying that when he uses a word, it means what he wants it to mean, but the listener is hearing "when I hear a word, it means what I want it to mean". I'm not sure whether this is irony or not, but it's amusing.
[slightly re-punctuated]
This, but also: isn't there a problem of double accounting, or a bootstrap issue here? That Humpty's words have arbitrary meaning is something that Ponytail is deducing by interpreting his words in the way a typical English speaker would. And yet she then feels able to assign arbitrary meaning to those very words. Or she's giving them the "normal" interpretation in spite of that interpretation itself. It's a kind of paradox.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 10, 2017 10:44 am UTC

In terms of the comic Randall pretty much beats you over the head with the meaning in the alt text. I'm too lazy to supply my own context so I'm using Randall's. Ponytail is arguing by using reductio ad absurdum, sometimes seen as sarcasm. If chrisjwmartin wishes to clarify, which the cartoon points out is his responsibility, then he is welcome to do so.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jul 10, 2017 1:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Apeiron wrote:Furthermore, not all change can be called evolution. Evolution implies improvement.
No, it doesn't.

But I shouldn't be surprised that you know as little about evolution as you do about language.


Let's be careful here. Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement, so long as "improvement" is with respect to the current environment. The original meaning of "survival of the fittest" had nothing to do with pumping iron (so to speak) but rather the best fit to the environment. A species which changes in ways that make it less fit is more likely to die out. So unless you expand the meaning of "evolution" to include evolving towards extinction, you pretty much have to say that yes, evolution occurs because of improvement.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26414
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:55 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby peewee_RotA » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:00 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:We call them Nazis now because that's what they are. People arguing for the elimination of a race or other "undesirables" are not simply people I disagree with, they are Nazis.

Even if they choose to call themselves alt-right, a real example of changing labels as propaganda.


This is a wonderful example of the original point. Equivocation as the excuse for ad hominems. And a great modern day example of how linguistics are useless when intentional confusion is the point.

Back to linguistics. There is no "burden" of understanding. In a conversation you can speak and clarify and ask questions, so the original point is moot. In a speech without dialogue, the language chosen DOES mean what the speaker intended and ascribing new meaning to it is a fallacy. However, that person could just suck as a speech writer and corrections and clarifications are needed.

But this is before we enter the third class. Conversations in which the original intention is not important. Politics is a great example. This devolves into taking what people said and using it as an rope to ensnare them. Hoping at all times for a gaff to make a better noose. Not because there was ever an intention of understanding the original person's meaning. No, the entire motivation is a preconceived hate for that person or their political affiliations. All language will be used as a weapon to destroy them. And where meaning exists in their statements is not important because only when the meaning can be twisted to meet a narrative will it be recalled.

This is how I find absolutely every public discussion of religion, for example. Every side has some point to prove and never takes a moment to try to understand a religion. They only want to assert their own understanding, and will twist and break everything that ever comes about to make sure that their point hits the most vital areas. Understanding? Shah! I have an internet to argue on!
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26414
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:25 pm UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:We call them Nazis now because that's what they are. People arguing for the elimination of a race or other "undesirables" are not simply people I disagree with, they are Nazis.

Even if they choose to call themselves alt-right, a real example of changing labels as propaganda.


This is a wonderful example of the original point. Equivocation as the excuse for ad hominems.
What ad hominem? If you chant Nazi slogans and throw Nazi salutes, you might be a Nazi, and it's not fallacious to say so.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:57 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.


Their counter-examples are short-term. You might as well say that mammals born short a couple limbs are an evolutionary trait because they can survive until weaned.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Mon Jul 10, 2017 4:15 pm UTC

Reka wrote:I AM GROOT!

STATION.

gmalivuk wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.

Does this mean the word "devolution" should not exist, since it is the antonym of a misdefinition?
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26414
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 10, 2017 5:00 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:
Reka wrote:I AM GROOT!

STATION.

gmalivuk wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.

Does this mean the word "devolution" should not exist, since it is the antonym of a misdefinition?

In biology, "devolution" isn't really a thing.

As usual, scientific terms often have different connotations in general language, of course.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:57 am UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:There is no "burden" of understanding. In a conversation you can speak and clarify and ask questions, so the original point is moot.
That's an optimistic point of view. Having been party to some few conversations here I can say with some authority that your vision is somewhat flawed.
peewee_RotA wrote:Every side has some point to prove and never takes a moment to try to understand a religion. They only want to assert their own understanding, and will twist and break everything that ever comes about to make sure that their point hits the most vital areas.
I suggest that you check the state of the Religion thread before you toddle onward. And then read some history. This attitude isn't new. Nor exclusive to the US.

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 818
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby chridd » Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:10 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.

Does this mean the word "devolution" should not exist, since it is the antonym of a misdefinition?
Yes it does, and it's not really a word that I've heard.
morriswalters wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:There is no "burden" of understanding. In a conversation you can speak and clarify and ask questions, so the original point is moot.
That's an optimistic point of view. Having been party to some few conversations here I can say with some authority that your vision is somewhat flawed.
can ≠ do...
If you use words that you know mean different things to your audience than they do to you, or that you know your audience doesn't understand, then you're likely to be misunderstood. If you interpret things in a way that you know the speaker is unlikely to actually be intending, then you're likely to misunderstand. If one or both sides don't make an effort to understand and be understood (e.g., because they care more about making their opponents look bad and themselves look good than on actually having a pleasant conversation), then there will be misunderstandings.
Fortunately Humpty Dumpty was more interested in writing weird poetry that plays around with language than in discussing politics.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby GlassHouses » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:02 am UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:This is how I find absolutely every public discussion of religion, for example. Every side has some point to prove and never takes a moment to try to understand a religion. They only want to assert their own understanding, and will twist and break everything that ever comes about to make sure that their point hits the most vital areas. Understanding? Shah! I have an internet to argue on!


What's to understand about religion? It's all about taking things on faith, and being discouraged or downright forbidden from questioning. To the extent that there is anything to understand there, it's how bad memes can prey upon human insecurity to cultivate ignorance and blind obedience, and clothe it in a sense of smug moral superiority.

Did I miss anything?

White Flare
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:42 am UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby White Flare » Tue Jul 11, 2017 4:45 am UTC

All I could think when reading this comic was Bill Clintons famous "it depends what your definition of is, is"
I LOLed.

User avatar
Moose Anus
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Moose Anus » Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:57 pm UTC

chridd wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:
cellocgw wrote:Strictly speaking, evolution does imply improvement

No, strictly speaking, it does not.

Does this mean the word "devolution" should not exist, since it is the antonym of a misdefinition?
Yes it does, and it's not really a word that I've heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fww4Md5pKQ8
Lemonade? ...Aww, ok.

User avatar
Znirk
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:47 am UTC
Location: ZZ9 plural Z α

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Znirk » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:00 am UTC

chridd wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:Does this mean the word "devolution" should not exist, since it is the antonym of a misdefinition?
Yes it does, and it's not really a word that I've heard.

Political term, not directly connected to evolution. I understand it as something like a selective version of subsidiarity: it's also about decentralising power, but ad-hoc rather than as a general principle.

For a British example, Scotland as a former separate country (one of the kingdoms that ended up being United) has a devolved regional government with authority over certain decisions within its borders. England has no such thing: the central government with power over the whole United Kingdom is located there, but there's no similar intermediate level of government with authority over all of but no more than England.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3391
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:21 pm UTC

To different levels, the other 'nations' are devolved within the British system. Northern Ireland1 and Wales have "Assemblies" that are state-level governments roughly along the line of the Scottish parliament, with different bespoke complements of devolved powers.

There's also a London Assembly that has a devolved-power role (sitting between Westminster (British) and the traditional next-layer-down local government of 30-odd Councils, as a coordinating/representation level). And there's not-seriously-pursued (by and large, but still considered, and yet rumbling away with some vocally prominent advocates) movements to demand devolution (or more!) for Cornwall and Yorkshire. (Yorkshire is roughly as populous as Scotland and, if dealt with as a separate country, famously was 12th in the national medal-table list at the 2012 Olympics. And anything up to 14th in 2016, depending on how you count it. The slip was jet-lag, probably. Or relative lack of whippets, black pudding and bitter.)

And there's various and varying levels of support for an English Assembly (something once proposed by Winston Churchill, pre-WW1, while the whole Irish Free State issue was being bashed out), but the current usual public/political will is just to ask non-English MPs in Westminster to not cast votes on England-only issues, letting Welsh MPs join in on England+Wales issues. Epitomised by the "West Lothian question". At least for those for whom the question isn't "Where the hell's West Lothian?" ;)


(Maybe I should not have tried to explain all that. That and The Rules Of Cricket are two of the prongs of our future Nuclear Deterrent, I hear.)


1 Currently suspended for local reasons, not "we're taking our ball back" from Westminster.

User avatar
Cougar Allen
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:49 am UTC

Re: 1860: "Communicating"

Postby Cougar Allen » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:14 am UTC

The political meaning of the word is irrelevant. People who imagine evolution is progress from "lower" to "higher" forms, with themselves as the highest, often also imagine organisms can also degenerate or "devolve" to a "lower" form (less like themselves).


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests