̄.._(ツ)_/ ̄

Thank you, Miss South Carolina.

Stephanie Miller will be the new press secretary.

I'm sure they'll find someone even worse to replace her.

How does this image not convey an anti-trans message beside its main point?

I interpreted it as they are the same person. Not that its bad to become a woman.

drag ≠ trans

Here you dropped this

\

lol. Thank you.

Less than half a Scaramucci!

If that doesn't prove the White House doesn't hire based on competence, I don't know what will.

So the lettuce wins again...

Republican meritocracy in action.

How does it? If the target of a joke is bad, then any concept present in the joke is also seen as bad? Is this joke also anti-wigs?

It makes it look like there's something funny or wrong with a woman's face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.

Ridiculing a cis person for looking a bit like the opposite sex causes people to ridicule trans people as well.

I don't like the joke because it makes my life more dangerous. It steers the society in a direction that increases my risk to be beaten up or murdered.

And yes, here the joke is about unambiguity regarding what the gender of the person is. If there was a joke where the funny part is that someone is wearing a wig (here the wig is a tool for reaching the "funny" look, not the funny thing as for itself), then it would indeed endanger the well-being of every person wearing a wig. This joke here does nothing to ridicule the concept of wearing a wig. But it does ridicule the concept of a woman looking male. It's saying "this person looks trans. How funny!"

I look trans. Why is it funny to you that I look trans?

I don't think anyone's implying that miller looks feminine or that Zacharia looks masculine. To me, it says that this administration is running out of blond options and miller might have to spew his own propaganda soon. And, for what it's worth, I'm a cis woman with masculine features, so unfortunately I do have skin in this game.

It makes it look like there's something funny or wrong

You're automatically assuming funny indicates wrong. No one here who laughed at that thought of it this way. The joke here actually is that this would be unexpected. Often this is the crux of jokes. It seems like you've internalized it hard that laughing = derision.

Why is it funny to you that I look trans?

It isn't, I don't know you or feel that way about any trans person. I see no reason to think anyone else thought that was the joke either. To continue my analogy, I see no difference between your reaction and "Why is it funny to you that some people have to wear a wig?" Other than because a lot of transphobes exist, it's possible for a joke involving the concept of gender looks could be based on derision. Does not mean it is though.

For an example of trans derision masked as comedy, see Dave Chappelle. He went from my favorite comedy legend to a bigot within the span of a few "jokes". He actually did what you're claiming happened here. They weren't even jokes, and what you're claiming this was wouldn't be a joke either. Since a joke requires a setup and the unexpected twist. Both present here, neither present in Chapelle's "bits" on the matter.

Another representative of Big Peroxide.

You’re automatically assuming funny indicates wrong.

Well, either wrong or being the butt of the joke. Yes. Punching down is considered wrong. So yes, a funny thing where you punch down is a wrong thing.

because a lot of transphobes exist, it’s possible for a joke involving the concept of gender looks could be based on derision. Does not mean it is though.

Yes. And because of this, a joke involving the concept of gender gets interpreted as being based on derision by a certain part of the audience. And that means they will interpret it as "trans people are to be ridiculed". It does not matter what the sender of a message meant to say with it. What matters is how it gets interpreted by the audience. The joke was not meant to create anti-trans sentiment. It does create anti-trans sentiment in some of its viewers.
Since a sizable part of the viewers will interpret derision in it, and therefore increase their chance of attacking me, it is a thoughtless joke. Even if something whole different was meant with it.

Regarding Chappelle... I don't think I'm going to search for videos of a person making jokes that would feel bad for me to watch, sorry. You'll have to live with me not checking his videos out. But if he's an ass, may he please rot.

I never in any way implied you have to watch Dave Chappelle videos. "See" could also mean be aware of or read about. I assumed given the wild popularity of the guy you already were aware and probably already saw at least parts of the segments in question.

You just straight up made up intentions for a joke and justified it very flimsily. You ignored the context and explanations given by others which made sense, while clinging to your vague assumption that this was about someone's looks in a fake photo, which actually does not hold up to any scrutiny at all.

If you go around inventing bad intent you're going to be upset and you don't get to blame other people for that. You're actively doing it, not someone making a harmless joke. You claim this joke harms trans people but at no point did you near giving a reason why that's true, you just claimed it would because people can have feelings they cannot explain. If in the fediverse, a highly leftist and trans-friendly place, dozens of people approved and you're the singular outlier, maybe consider that you're wrong.

You just straight up made up intentions for a joke

If you go around inventing bad intent

Okay, here I can see we have a miscommunication. I have not communicated well enough if you have ended up thinking I find the intent of the joke bad. I see nothing wrong in its intent.

The only problem I have is with the result: With what the joke actually ends up being beside its intended meaning. As I said in that first comment of mine:

beside its main point

So, don't worry, we probably think much more alike than you assume. The only problems about the joke are in what it accidentally conveys, because of thoughtlessness of the person who made it. I'm not blaming its intent. The intent is, actually, pure gold.

I assumed given the wild popularity of the guy you already were aware and probably already saw at least parts of the segments in question.

We are probably from different regions. This was the first time I ever heard of the comedian's name. Over here, for example Ismo Leikola and Sami Hedberg wildly popular comedians. I've got the same reason to assume you know one of them as you do that I know Chappelle. Different comedians have gigs in different places. You really shouldn't assume a random person on the Internet knows someone merely because that person is popular in your social bubble.

You've even got a problem with me assuming you knew one of the biggest comedians of all time? Wow. I don't get the sense that the names you mentioned are internationally famous whereas Dave Chappelle certainly is. Not to mention that a lot of people stopped liking him specifically due to transphobia. Which I was trying to use as an example to show that not only do I agree that such "jokes" exist, but also that I condemn them.

You still never gave a single reason that this joke would've hurt anyone, intentionally or not. It doesn't. It does not make a comment on how anyone looks, and you're just an unpleasant person, unfortunately.

You’ve even got a problem with me assuming you knew one of the biggest comedians of all time?

I don't think he can be one of the biggest comedians of all time if he is not known except in some specific region. I would know about him if he was as famous as it seems in your social bubble.

You still never gave a single reason that this joke would’ve hurt anyone, intentionally or not.

For accidentally omitting this, I am of course very sorry. So, here comes a reason:

The joke makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.

Dave Chappelle is world famous, no doubt about that. Absolutely nothing to do with my "social bubble" and given that America invented standup comedy (look it up) and it's emulated around the globe, nothing much to do with my region either. I'm guessing that even in Finland Dave Chapelle is more known that those people you mentioned. It could be that you don't know about world famous comedians because you're humorless?

The joke makes it look like there’s something funny or wrong with a woman’s face looking male to a lesser or bigger extent.

You said that. The problem is that you saying something with no actual basis doesn't make it true, not in the least. People laughing at something doesn't make it A) cruel/derisive or B) for whatever ridiculous made up reason you want to pull out of your ass.

This was all explained to you repeatedly and besides being just unpleasant, I now see that you're a troll. Bye.

Ps. No one likes talking to someone who thinks their very unpopular opinion is fact, nor people who come off as 20 yo and think they know everything. Maybe get a sense of humor as well as work on those two things.

“social bubble”

Every person lives in a social bubble. You putting your in “hyphens” shows that you are just not aware of living in one. And that means that it has more effect on you than it has on people that are aware of them.

I'm guessing that even in Finland Dave Chapelle is more known that those people you mentioned.

Seriously. No, he is not. The reason is simply that he makes no shows in Finnish and we are tremendeously more able to get the full depth of jokes in Finnish than in English. Your "whole word" is just English-speaking countries. It is absolutely possible that the guy is known in England as well, but I don't think more than 2 % of people in France or Germany or Netherlands or Italy know about him. Because he doesn't have his shows in the local languages. Because he cannot.
We've got enough of very good standup comedians here. Someone in USA might be technically better but so much will be lost in translation that in the end we will be laughing more at our own standup comedians' shows. Because we understand their nuances better. And it's not even only about the language: There are plenty of small cultural aspects in USA that do not exist as such in Finland, and many references to them will be missed or misunderstood.

I like standup comedy a lot, and I would absolutely know if that guy was famous in Finland.

You said that.

Sorry, I assumed you had forgotten.

The problem is that you saying something with no actual basis doesn’t make it true, not in the least.

Well, you saying there is not basis when there is a basis is an argument. But a rather weak one.

People laughing at something doesn’t make it A) cruel/derisive or B) for whatever ridiculous made up reason you want to pull out of your ass.

It can make it, depending on what's going on in the head of the person laughing. There are many ways to laugh at things. While in many manners you do give me an impression of a moron, in many ways you are not one. There is no reason to assume you are a hillbilly idiot. I do believe you would not laugh at me in a derisive manner if you saw my face. Many others do. And those people's reactions to this joke image is what makes me feel afraid, not your reaction. And also not the intent of whoever made the image.

You know that multiple people told you a much more logical reading of the joke than the one you went out of your way to contort it into.

Congratulations, you've taken a vague feeling of frustration at people who value feeling self righteous over comedy's existence in general, and with the moron/hillbilly comments, the feeling is now that I actively hate you. What a deeply shitty way to be. I don't believe for one second you like standup comedy btw, because standup comedy necessarily contains jokes that could be twisted into something they aren't. How do I know? That's literally what the concept of humor is. You're now blocked. Thanks for making the world a worse place.

The more logical reading is sensible indeed.

That does not mean other readings cannot exist at the same time.

Also, I wonder if they understand that by blockine they don't really block me from seeing them – only themself from seeing me.

Why would they say something clearly meant for you to read if they don't understand the basics of blocking?

You've told readers here that you do not care about comedy and also that you very much want to feel victimized ("why do you think I look funny" gives that away hard). Everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobe, according to you. This attitude undoubtedly has a huge negative impact on you and those who interact with you. Which would be pitiable, except...

After reading this full exchange, I couldn't agree with them more about the issue and about you. Blocking you now myself.

Everyone who disagrees with you is a transphobe, according to you

I disagree with this sentiment, mostly. My own experience is of course that almost everyone has at least some level of transphobia, but I don't think that's meant here. And most importantly: I do not think TrickDacy is a transphobe – at least not in any sense that is relevant for this discussion. They have a blind spot where they forget that a joke can be misinterpreted by its viewers, and maybe a little lack of empathy for ignoring that I felt scared by the image's joke, but it would be unfair calling them a transphobe. Their words did hurt, but not everything that hurts is transphobia.