This has become a common trope in social justice circles, but I consider it an extraordinary claim that requires similarly extraordinary (or indeed any) evidence.

Unconscious blind spots? Sure. We all have those. Deep seated bigotry that even the person who holds it isn't aware of? No. I don’t think so.

I mean, how would that even work in practice? I believe I support a community. I have friends within that community who I love and respect. But somebody who’s never met me is able to identify that I actually hate that community deep down (something I hadn't even recognised myself), because of their interpretation of a comment I made? That sounds like a convenient way of insisitng on your interpretation of somebody's comments despite all evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of which, you keep insisting that Dave has refused to engage with criticism. But this is also not true. First, as I think we've agreed, the criticism has been so unreasonable and hyperbolic that there's not really anything to engage with, but secondly, from the horse's mouth, Dave is willing to engage with criticism and has listened to feedback from the trans community. You seem far too ready in this particular case to accept assertions that have no basis in fact. You're just assuming intentions and beliefs and running with them.

I'm not sure what you mean by the next pargraph. What woke trap am I in danger of falling into? Dave doesn't say black people can't be racist (my feelings on that idea are hopefullly clear). I didn't say it was just about "feelings", I said that poeople's interpretations can be wrong. I'm saying that claims of harm need to be substantiated.

Even here, you say that "ranking oppression" joke "can actionably have very real-life ramificatinos in actual people's lives". But what are they? How do you draw a line from this joke to those ramifications? Simply saying it can happen isn't enough for anybody to understand the point you're making. And if the point you're making can't be understood, it can't be engaged with.

I am averse to cancel culture. But that's not what this is about. Giving the benefit of the doubt (otherwise known as "presuming innocence until proven guilty") is the foundation of all reasonable discourse. I'm not going to assume ill intent when there's substantial evidence that Dave doesn't have any.

I agreed immediately that this joke was bad because I already thought it was. And I think we broadly agree on why it was bad. But I disagree with the way you're using this joke as a jumping off point for a whole bunch of other assertions without evidence (ignoring all evidence to the contrary within the show as you do so).