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.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz -4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

yeah oof i think the problem is too many layers. try starting with a meme format that just says directly what you mean to say (dont make tme tap the sign comes to mind), and adding irony and layers of humor should really only come when the audience is familiar with all sides of the material more