Social Engineering Series, Part 4

It was just a joke: the sources behind the cards.

A ten-slide series on the first move in the playbook: say it as a joke, see how it lands, then decide whether you meant it. This page has the studies, the court ruling, and every public statement the cards mention, with dates, links, and what each one cannot tell you.

Published October 10, 2026 · Emily Adams · Checked against the original studies, court opinions, and transcripts

The Cards

The full text of every card, in order, with the card itself under each one. Select a card to open it full size.

Card 01 of 09
Say it. See how it lands. Then decide if you meant it.
  • That is the move. A joke lets someone test an idea in public and keep an exit. If people laugh or agree, it stands. If they object, it was only a joke, and now you are the one who cannot take one.
SCOPE The examples ahead come from more than one party and country. Calling something a joke afterward does not prove it was serious.
All sourcesCard 1
Card 02 of 09
The move, in three steps.
  • It works the same way in a comment section, a campaign, and a living room.
  • Float it. Say the thing with a grin, a meme, or a wink.
  • Read the room. If people laugh or agree, it stands, and it is a little more normal than it was yesterday.
  • Keep the exit. If anyone objects, it was only a joke, and now they are the one with the problem.
The speaker decides what it was after seeing your reaction.
What these cards cannot tell youCard 2
Card 03 of 09
One extremist site wrote the move down.
“The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not.”
  • That is an instruction to writers, from the style guide of a neo-Nazi website. The same guide describes humor as a delivery method, like “adding cherry flavor to children’s medicine.”
SCOPE The Daily Stormer style guide, obtained and published by HuffPost, December 13, 2017. Its authenticity rests on HuffPost’s reporting.
Sources and linksCard 3
Card 04 of 09
In the Lab. After sexist jokes, men who already scored high in hostile sexism said they would give less to a women’s group. The same ideas stated seriously did not do that.
  • Phrased as a joke, a sexist remark was judged less sexist, and fewer women pushed back.
  • People who believe a joke is just a joke were more at ease with jokes at a lower-status group’s expense.
  • Readers waved off a comedian’s argument as only joking more than the same argument made straight.
SCOPE 73 male undergraduates and an imagined donation, 2008. A second experiment with 30 men pointed the same way. Small samples, and only among men high in hostile sexism.
Sources and linksCard 4
Card 05 of 09
In politics, the retreat sounds like this.
  • Six public figures, three countries, both major U.S. parties. Each explanation came after the criticism.
  • Donald Trump, 2020: said he had asked about injecting disinfectant “sarcastically.” Republican
  • Joe Biden, 2020: an adviser said his remark about Black voters was “in jest.” He apologized that day. Democrat
  • Rodrigo Duterte, 2021: called a promise from his 2016 campaign “a pure campaign joke.” Philippines
  • John Kerry, 2006: called a remark about Iraq “a botched joke.” Democrat
  • JD Vance, 2026: said the president was “posting a joke” with a deleted image. The president said it showed a doctor. Republican
  • Justin Trudeau, 2018: called his “peoplekind” comment “a dumb joke.” Canada
Some of these probably were jokes. The exit works either way. That is why the move is so hard to call out.
Sources and linksCard 5
Card 06 of 09
At the Store. A Pepsi ad showed a fighter jet for 7,000,000 points. A man sent 15 points and a check for $700,008.50. Pepsi said the jet was a joke, and the court agreed.
  • The court’s test was what a reasonable viewer would understand, not what the company said afterward.
  • In a 2010 case, a drink maker’s lawyers suggested no consumer could think its vitamin-named drink was healthy. The judge rejected that at that stage.
  • “Results not typical.” “For entertainment purposes only.”
SCOPE Leonard v. Pepsico, federal court in New York, 1999, affirmed 2000. The judge found “no objective person” could have thought a real jet was on offer. One ad, not a rule for all advertising.
Sources and linksCard 6
Card 07 of 09
At Home. People writing about a time they teased someone remembered it as funnier and less hurtful than people writing about a time they were teased.
  • “Relax, I was kidding,” said after your face falls.
  • The group chat meme that is only a joke if nobody agrees with it.
  • “You are too sensitive” as the second half of the joke.
SCOPE 72 participants each described two different incidents, one as the teaser and one as the target, 2000. Memories of separate events, not one event seen two ways. Teasers also reported more guilt.
Sources and linksCard 7
Card 08 of 09
How to answer it without taking the bait.
  • Objecting makes you the humorless one. So do not argue about whether it was funny.
  • Ask them to explain it. “What do you mean?” is hard to answer when the meaning was the insult.
  • Say what you heard, calmly. In experiments, a calm objection changed behavior as much as an angry one.
  • Do not laugh to keep the peace. The laugh is the signal that it landed.
  • Watch what happens next. A joke gets dropped. A test gets repeated.
The question to keep: who gets to back out if this lands badly?
SCOPE Czopp, Monteith and Mark, 2006: people confronted about a stereotyped remark stereotyped less afterward, whatever the tone. Those remarks were not jokes.
Sources and linksCard 8
Card 09 of 09
Your kids are soaking in this one.
  • Memes, group chats, and comment sections run on it. Give them the words before someone else does.
  • “If you would not say it without the laugh, do not say it with one.”
  • “If you have to add ‘just kidding,’ ask yourself who it was for.”
  • “You are allowed to not laugh. That is not being sensitive.”
  • “When a friend says something cruel as a joke, ask what he meant. Then listen.”
Teaching them to spot it is your job, and so is not doing it to them.
What these cards cannot tell youCard 9
Closing card
Next: heard so often it feels true.
  • Part five is repetition: why a claim you have seen ten times starts to feel like something you know, even when you know better. Every source on these cards is linked, with its limits.
Closing card

The Sources

Grouped by card. Each source has a summary of what it says, a scope line saying how far it reaches, and a link to the original.

Card 3

The Playbook

On card 3

This Is The Daily Stormer’s Playbook

Feinberg, 2017 · HuffPost, December 13, 2017

HuffPost obtained and published the 17-page writers’ guide of The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website. In a section on tone, the guide tells writers that the unindoctrinated should not be able to tell whether they are joking. It says the tone should be light because most people are not comfortable with open hatred, and it describes packing the message inside humor as a delivery method.

Scope  Authenticity rests on HuffPost’s reporting and the leaked document. The guide also contains slurs and worse. The cards quote one sentence and one phrase about humor and nothing else.
Background context

Humour and Hatred: The Racist Jokes of the Ku Klux Klan

Billig, 2001 · Discourse and Society, 12(3), 267 to 289

An analysis of three websites that presented racist humor and sympathized with the Klan. Billig looked at the disclaimers around the jokes as closely as the jokes, and concluded that the “just a joke” framing does not hold up even on the sites’ own terms.

Scope  A qualitative study of three websites from around 2000. I read the abstract, not the full paper.
Background context

“Deplorable” Satire: Alt-Right Memes, White Genocide Tweets, and Redpilling Normies

Greene, 2019 · Studies in American Humor, 5(1), 31 to 69

Greene argues that the alt-right borrows the ironic style of satire to attract and radicalize supporters while keeping deniability, and pairs right-wing and left-wing examples to show the same style used for different ends.

Scope  An interpretive analysis of selected cases, not a measurement study. I read the abstract, not the full paper.
Card 4

In the Lab

On card 4

More Than “Just a Joke”: The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor

Ford, Boxer, Armstrong and Edel, 2008 · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 159 to 170

Two experiments with male undergraduates. In the first, with 73 men, those who scored higher in hostile sexism said they would donate less to a women’s organization after reading sexist jokes, but not after neutral jokes or after the same sexist ideas stated without humor. In the second, with 30 men, those higher in hostile sexism assigned a larger share of a budget cut to a women’s student group after sexist comedy skits than after neutral ones.

Scope  Small samples from one university. The first experiment measured an imagined donation, not real money. The effect appeared only among men already high in hostile sexism; it is not a claim that such jokes change everyone.
On card 4

What Did He Mean by That? Humor Decreases Attributions of Sexism and Confrontation of Sexist Jokes

Mallett, Ford and Woodzicka, 2016 · Sex Roles, 75, 272 to 284

Women received the same sexist remark by instant message, phrased either seriously or as a joke, and their real replies were coded. The joke version made the speaker seem less sexist, and as that impression fell, so did the women’s pushback. Two experiments, with 195 and 134 women.

Scope  The chain of effects appeared only among women who at least moderately endorsed hostile sexism themselves.
On card 4

A Joke Is Just a Joke (Except When It Isn’t): Cavalier Humor Beliefs Facilitate the Expression of Group Dominance Motives

Hodson, Rush and MacInnis, 2010 · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 660 to 682

Across three studies in Canada, people who more strongly preferred group hierarchy reacted more favorably to jokes about a low-status group, and that link ran almost entirely through the belief that a joke is just a joke.

Scope  Mostly correlational, with Canadian samples and jokes about one group. I read the abstract; a correction to one table has been published.
On card 4

All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages

Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne, 2007 · Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29 to 54

Undergraduates read comedians’ monologues on social issues, or serious versions of the same arguments. The funny versions were dismissed as “just joking” more often, even though readers thought about them just as much.

Scope  One condition in one study showed a delayed persuasive effect a week later, which the authors call a hint. The cards do not rely on it.
Card 5

In Politics

On card 5

Donald Trump: Remarks of April 23 and April 24, 2020

The White House, 2020 · Official transcripts, archived Trump White House site

At a briefing on April 23, 2020, after an official described disinfectant killing the virus on surfaces, the president asked whether something like that could be done by injection. The next day, asked to clarify, he said he had been asking the question sarcastically.

Scope  He put it as a question to officials and did not tell the public to inject anything. Later in the same briefing he said it would not be through injection.
On card 5

Joe Biden on The Breakfast Club, May 22, 2020

NPR, 2020 · NPR Politics Podcast transcript, with reporting by Al Jazeera and theGrio

On a radio show, Biden said that voters who had trouble choosing between him and his opponent were not Black. A senior adviser said the same day that the comments were in jest. That afternoon Biden said he should not have been such a wise guy.

Scope  The “in jest” wording is his adviser’s. Biden apologized himself and did not personally call it a joke.
On card 5

Rodrigo Duterte: The Jet Ski Promise, May 10, 2021

Philstar, 2021 · Philstar, May 11, 2021, with reporting by ABS-CBN News

As a candidate in 2016, Duterte said he would ride a jet ski to disputed islands and plant the Philippine flag. In a taped address five years later, under criticism of his policy toward China, he said the promise had been a pure campaign joke.

Scope  His remarks were in mixed Filipino and English, and English wordings differ slightly between outlets.
On card 5

John Kerry: The “Botched Joke,” October 30 to November 1, 2006

ABC News, 2006 · ABC News, November 1, 2006, with agency reporting

Kerry told students that if they did not make an effort in school they could get stuck in Iraq, which was heard as a slight on troops. He said he was sorry about a botched joke, and aides said he had fumbled a prepared line aimed at the president.

Scope  Here the joke explanation had support: a prepared text. It is on the card as an example of the explanation being offered, not as proof it was false.
On card 5

JD Vance and Donald Trump: The Deleted Image, April 12 and 13, 2026

CBS News, 2026 · CBS News, April 13, 2026, with reporting by EWTN News

The president posted an AI-generated image of himself as a robed healer and deleted it the next morning after criticism from Christian conservatives. He told reporters he had thought it showed him as a doctor. The vice president said the same day that he thought the president was posting a joke.

Scope  The vice president’s remark was read in a news report of a television interview, not a transcript. The two explanations are different, and the card gives both.
On card 5

Justin Trudeau: “Peoplekind,” February 2018

Global News, 2018 · Global News, February 7, 2018, with reporting by the Associated Press

At a town hall, Trudeau interrupted a woman who said “mankind” to suggest “peoplekind.” After several days of ridicule he said he had made a dumb joke.

Scope  Low stakes, and it may well have been a joke. It is on the card because the retreat is the same shape.
Card 6

At the Store

On card 6

Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.

U.S. District Court, 1999 · 88 F. Supp. 2d 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Judge Kimba M. Wood; affirmed 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000)

A Pepsi commercial showed a Harrier fighter jet with the caption 7,000,000 Pepsi Points. John Leonard sent in 15 points and a check for $700,008.50 and asked for the jet. Pepsi replied that the jet was fanciful and included to make the ad humorous, and its ad agency called it clearly a joke. The court ruled for Pepsi, finding that no objective person could reasonably have concluded the commercial offered a real jet.

Scope  A contract ruling on one plainly exaggerated ad. The court judged the joke by what a reasonable viewer would understand, not by what the company said afterward, and it does not say a company can always disown its advertising.
On card 6

Ackerman v. Coca-Cola Co.

U.S. District Court, 2010 · E.D.N.Y., Memorandum and Order of July 21, 2010, Judge John Gleeson

In a lawsuit over the marketing of vitaminwater, the judge wrote that at oral argument the defendants suggested no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking the drink was a healthy beverage, because its sweet taste puts consumers on notice that it contains sugar. He rejected the argument at that stage of the case. The case settled in 2016 with label changes.

Scope  This is the judge’s summary of an argument, not a quotation of the company, and the defense was that consumers were on notice, not that the marketing was a joke. It is on the card as a company distancing itself from its own advertising.
Card 7

At Home

On card 7

“I Was Only Kidding!”: Victims’ and Perpetrators’ Perceptions of Teasing

Kowalski, 2000 · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 231 to 241

72 participants each wrote two accounts: one of a time they were teased and one of a time they teased someone else. In the teaser role, people described the event as more humorous and less damaging than people did in the target role. Teasers also reported more guilt.

Scope  Each person described two different incidents, so this compares the two roles, not two views of one event. The accounts are memories, and people chose which incidents to recall.
Card 8

How to Answer It

On card 8

Standing Up for a Change: Reducing Bias Through Interpersonal Confrontation

Czopp, Monteith and Mark, 2006 · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784 to 803

In three experiments, people who were confronted after making a stereotyped inference were less likely to give stereotyped responses afterward, regardless of who confronted them or how hostile the confrontation was. Hostile confrontations drew more negative feelings toward the person objecting.

Scope  The remark confronted was a racial stereotype in a lab task, not a joke, and the follow-up was short term. I read the abstract.
Background context

Gender Differences in Using Humor to Respond to Sexist Jokes

Woodzicka, Mallett and Melchiori, 2020 · HUMOR, 33(2), 219 to 238

164 participants read scenarios in which someone answered a sexist joke. People who answered with humor were rated more likeable but less effective than people who answered seriously.

Scope  Imagined scenarios and observer ratings, not real confrontations.

What These Cards Cannot Tell You

A retreat is not a confession. Calling a remark a joke afterward does not prove it was serious. Some of the people on card 5 were probably joking. The card shows that the exit exists and that all kinds of people use it.
The public figures were chosen for balance. Two Republicans, two Democrats, and two leaders from other countries. Each explanation is reported as theirs, with the date and a link.
The lab studies are small and specific. The main experiment involved 73 male undergraduates and an imagined donation, and its effect appeared only among men already high in hostile sexism. It is evidence that a joke can loosen behavior for some people, not that it changes everyone.
No study here tests the fix directly. The evidence that calm objection changes behavior comes from experiments about stereotyped remarks, not jokes. The advice on card 8 follows from that research and from the studies showing that a joke frame discourages objection, but nobody has tested it on a joker.
The court ruled for Pepsi, and the jet was a joke. That card is not an example of a company getting away with something. It is there for the test the court used: what a reasonable viewer would understand, not what the speaker says afterward.
The lines for kids are mine. The four sentences on card 9 are things I would say at my own table. They are not findings.

Why this is the first move.

I started the playbook here because this is the move my kids see most. It runs through memes, group chats, and comment sections, and it almost never looks like manipulation. It looks like fun.

What makes it work is the exit. Say the thing as a joke and you get to watch the room before you decide whether you meant it. If people laugh, it stands. If they object, they are the ones with the problem.

I do not think the answer is to stop joking, or to treat every joke as a test. The court in the Pepsi case used a standard I keep coming back to: not what the speaker says afterward, but what a reasonable listener understood at the time.

So that is what I want mine to carry. Do not hide behind a laugh, and do not laugh to keep the peace.