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.
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.
Removed by mod
hmmm try workshopping different ways to express this thought, i’m quite lost sorry :(
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
i have seen and love her show
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod