Hm. Maybe it was too subtle? Cunk is explaining why “trolls pretending to be trans” is supposed to be a problem on Lemmy, using her usual brand of accidentally telling it like it is. Lemmy only has a “troll problem” because Lemmy users hate trans people. No trans hate, no troll problem. If everyone respected trans people, nobody would be getting called a troll. If anyone actually tried to troll that way, they’d be met with acceptance and have no power.
All drag’s friends on Discord understood the joke on their first read. Drag isn’t sure where the misunderstanding is. We’re currently in a voice call trying to figure out why anyone doesn’t understand this one. Drag’s friend suggested maybe you don’t think Lemmy is full of transphobes, but drag thinks you do, since you’ve said Lemmy is very misogynistic, and those two things go together. Maybe you didn’t understand that Cunk is supposed to be wrong about the trolls actually existing but right about what the problem the users have is?
oh okay i get it now. it’s… dense. i usually understand the more complex memes but this one is impenetrable to me. i’m not surprised others had a bad time.
Bizarre. Are you used to seeing versions of the format where Philomena is 100% right? Drag has seen plenty of memes that do that, and drag thinks they misunderstand the format.
i think the issue is the second panel is asking the audience to infer what the opposite or opposing conclusion the author intends us to come to. and with the text given… it’s not obvious.
generally, it’s not rhetorically effective to place the thesis of a work behind a distortion. a lot of the confusion i see in those comments is just struggling to figure out what the authorial intent is because it’s A) not “common knowledge” and B) deeply obfuscated by the Cunk format.
Hm. Drag thought the thesis was presented clearly in the last line. “Lemmy users are upset because they hate trans people”. Cunk starts off by agreeing with the dominant Lemmy view that the site is full of trolls, and then flips the script by telling the truth. Cunk starts off on the reader’s level, sharing their false assumptions, and then unexpectedly tells a truth the reader doesn’t know. That’s how drag understands effective communication to work, start from the reader’s knowledge and then tell them something they don’t know. Perhaps there are nuances to the format of communication that drag doesn’t understand.
Hm. Maybe it was too subtle? Cunk is explaining why “trolls pretending to be trans” is supposed to be a problem on Lemmy, using her usual brand of accidentally telling it like it is. Lemmy only has a “troll problem” because Lemmy users hate trans people. No trans hate, no troll problem. If everyone respected trans people, nobody would be getting called a troll. If anyone actually tried to troll that way, they’d be met with acceptance and have no power.
hmmm try workshopping different ways to express this thought, i’m quite lost sorry :(
All drag’s friends on Discord understood the joke on their first read. Drag isn’t sure where the misunderstanding is. We’re currently in a voice call trying to figure out why anyone doesn’t understand this one. Drag’s friend suggested maybe you don’t think Lemmy is full of transphobes, but drag thinks you do, since you’ve said Lemmy is very misogynistic, and those two things go together. Maybe you didn’t understand that Cunk is supposed to be wrong about the trolls actually existing but right about what the problem the users have is?
oh okay i get it now. it’s… dense. i usually understand the more complex memes but this one is impenetrable to me. i’m not surprised others had a bad time.
Out of curiosity, have you ever watched a Philomena Cunk show? Drag is wondering if that’s part of what makes the difference
i have seen and love her show
Bizarre. Are you used to seeing versions of the format where Philomena is 100% right? Drag has seen plenty of memes that do that, and drag thinks they misunderstand the format.
no i know the format well
i think the issue is the second panel is asking the audience to infer what the opposite or opposing conclusion the author intends us to come to. and with the text given… it’s not obvious.
generally, it’s not rhetorically effective to place the thesis of a work behind a distortion. a lot of the confusion i see in those comments is just struggling to figure out what the authorial intent is because it’s A) not “common knowledge” and B) deeply obfuscated by the Cunk format.
Hm. Drag thought the thesis was presented clearly in the last line. “Lemmy users are upset because they hate trans people”. Cunk starts off by agreeing with the dominant Lemmy view that the site is full of trolls, and then flips the script by telling the truth. Cunk starts off on the reader’s level, sharing their false assumptions, and then unexpectedly tells a truth the reader doesn’t know. That’s how drag understands effective communication to work, start from the reader’s knowledge and then tell them something they don’t know. Perhaps there are nuances to the format of communication that drag doesn’t understand.