Humor That Hurts: An Exploration of Jokes About Black Women with Disabilities on TikTok in South Africa

Abstract

Since the end of Apartheid in 1994, South Africa has striven to address past discrimination against members of marginalized groups such as Africans, women and LGBTQ+ individuals. Sophisticated media legislation and a vibrant civil society forged in the struggle against Apartheid ensure limited discrimination in traditional media and relatively fringe online forums. However, subtle forms of undermining signal the persistent legacy of a colonial and patriarchal past. While incidents of online racism and sexism are relatively well documented, ableism deserves more attention. Despite growing scholarship on digital discrimination, a significant research gap remains in understanding how ableist microaggressions manifest online, particularly when intersecting with race and gender. As a result of established media tropes, microaggressions against people with disabilities are somewhat naturalized and reproduced on social media, yet their intersectional dimensions—especially targeting Black women with disabilities—remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a focused case study of jokes targeting Black women with disabilities in one TikTok video and the approximately 700 comments. Considering (dis)ability’s intersections with race, gender, and socio-economic status, these media texts are subjected to a critical thematic analysis. The study also problematizes the methodological challenges associated with finding, identifying, and purposively selecting such content. The analysis reveals a set of historically and contextually rooted microaggressions expressed through humor, which, as a cultural expression, is inherently covert and thus hard to detect and regulate. This research contributes to understanding how intersectional ableism operates digitally and highlights the need for nuanced approaches to identifying subtle forms of discrimination in online spaces.

1. Introduction

TikTok is a popular social media platform in South Africa. In 2022, reports established that TikTok has experienced more growth than any other social media platform in South Africa (Data Reportal, 2023). The exponential growth in the number of its users can partly be attributed to the already widespread use of YouTube. It can also be considered a manifestation of the desire for entertainment as a potent form of stress relief (Nickl & Muller, 2023). This rapid adoption positions TikTok as a significant cultural space where South African identities, narratives, and social dynamics are increasingly negotiated and performed. The memetic and imitative nature of TikTok’s formats and affordances is based on models of resignification and cataloging that introduce new methods of narrative, interactivity and visibility for content (Zulli & Zulli, 2020; Jaramillo-Dent et al., 2022). However, these same affordances that enable creative expression also to facilitate problematic content. Hate speech on social media takes deresponsibilized performative forms due to the potential for diffusion and anonymity (Shepherd et al., 2015; Kilvington, 2021). This phenomenon strengthens the cultural roots on which the concept of difference is based, subsequently weaponizing it in society. The viral dissemination of stereotypical challenges by users, whether intentional or not, reproduces hate speech that harms specific social groups (Matamoros-Fernández, 2023).

The pervasiveness of new forms of online discrimination has led to the formulation and promotion of the ‘Social Media Charter’, published by the Human Rights Commission South Africa (2023). This educational guide formally instructs users on good practices to follow on social media and offers itself as an accessible self-education tool. It is strongly inspired by the South African Constitution (South African Government, 1996). The initiative’s significance lies in its response to the problematic nature of ordinary and constant microaggressions suffered by all vulnerable groups. South Africans with disabilities are estimated to represent 15.7% of the population (Statistics South Africa, 2022). Disability intersects with race, gender, socio-economic status, and other dimensions of diversity. However, unlike members of other vulnerable groups, the experiences of violence and victimization of people with disabilities remain largely overlooked (Wiseman & Watson, 2022). As a result of established media tropes being reproduced on social media, microaggressions against people with disabilities have become somewhat normalized, particularly when humor is used as a vehicle for such content. Despite growing awareness of digital discrimination, there remains insufficient understanding of how ableist humor functions as a form of microaggression in South African digital spaces, particularly when targeting intersectional identities such as Black women with disabilities. This study addresses the following questions (RQs):

• How does humor targeting people with disabilities manifest in TikTok’s comment sections?
• What are the dominant response patterns to such humor among South African users?
• How do these responses reflect broader sociocultural attitudes toward disability and intersectionality?

Using qualitative thematic analysis, we examine approximately 700 comments on a TikTok video from an official comedy profile featuring a joke about a Black woman with a (dis)ability. The analysis reveals two distinct macro cognitive responses to disability humor: ‘A step back to social (in)justice’ and ‘Universal judgement (but opaque) on laughter’. These findings demonstrate how humor can perpetuate established patterns of marginalization while triggering complex negotiation processes around acceptable forms of entertainment. This research contributes to understanding how intersectional ableism operates in digital contexts, offering insights into the mechanisms through which humor normalizes discrimination and the varied ways audiences engage with such content in post-apartheid South Africa.

The paper is structured as follows. It starts by proposing humor as a borderland in relation to disability, focusing on its role in the broader cultural system. This theoretical framework draws on disability and humor studies, considering moral detachment as a lens through which to observe the reception of humor in the digital environment. This helps explain the discrepancy between what we consider acceptable and unacceptable to joke about, normalizing it or not. The processes of microaggressions on platforms are then deepened in the following paragraph, taking into account the growing studies that describe how narratives of resistance and exclusion can coexist. The specific South African context is then introduced, considering the ongoing marginalization of people with disabilities in asserting their voice. In the methodology section, we present the operational strategy of the qualitative and thematic analysis conducted on approximately 700 comments. Finally, we present and discuss our findings within the sociocultural context, examining how humor can perpetuate established patterns while exacerbating social distance and triggering coping mechanism.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Humor as a Borderland for Disability

Humor can be defined as a social activity that is shared with others (Bergson, 1910/2005; Milner Davis & Hofmann, 2023). It establishes a recursive relationship with contradiction, thereby constituting a specific social construction of paradox that shapes the way actors formulate and legitimize their responses (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). This theoretical understanding is crucial for analyzing TikTok comments, as it helps us identify how users construct and justify their responses to disability humor through seemingly contradictory positions—simultaneously finding content entertaining while recognizing its potentially harmful nature. The use and understanding of humor are influenced by many cultural, historical and personal factors (Kuipers, 2011). In particular, Attardo’s (2002) conceptualization posits that the recognition of humor by the audience is contingent on the presence of contradiction, thereby highlighting the significance of juxtaposing expectations with reality. From a praxis perspective (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017), instead, the context of social interactions is shaped by the actions of actors, thereby establishing the parameters within which diverse responses can be articulated and legitimized. In this vein the concept of “metapragmatic stereotypes” (Tsakona, 2020) is useful to outline the internalized models that shape our perception of humor. Understanding these internalized models becomes particularly important when examining TikTok interactions, where users draw on deeply embedded cultural stereotypes about disability to interpret and respond to humorous content targeting Black women with disabilities.

These models are closely related to the fact that humor can be a tool of hatred when it targets people with disabilities, not only as a reflection of ‘popular knowledge’ or common sense, but as a serious tool for understanding social life (Bingham & Green, 2016, p. 22). Indeed, as Lockyer and Pickering (2008) have demonstrated, jokes and pranks are central features of everyday relationships and interactions. The importance of comic intent in understanding and appreciating these phenomena is well-documented (see Lockyer & Savigny, 2019 for a detailed discussion). As Meyer (2000) posits, humor serves to delineate social boundaries. This depends on its four functions: identification, clarification, reinforcement, and differentiation. This boundary-making function is especially visible in TikTok’s comment sections, where humor targeting disability serves to reinforce distinctions between ‘normal’ and ‘other,’ while simultaneously creating communities of shared understanding among those who find such content amusing. The role of humor in the reinforcement of social norms and the fostering of a sense of community is well-documented. On the other hand, the potential for humor to create divisions based on social group perceptions is also a salient factor. Lockyer and Pickering (2008) emphasize that humor exerts a significant influence at the sociocultural level, given its profound impact on relationships and interactions between individuals within and across diverse social groups. Specifically, jokes are, by their very nature, dependent on two key factors: subject matter and context. These interactions occur at the micro-level, encompassing the unconscious, the unspoken, taboos, and social boundaries. Consequently, they are revealed to be of sociopolitical significance for the examination and address of the macro-level of social ideologies (Lockyer & Weaver, 2021). In our TikTok case study, these micro-level interactions manifest as individual comments that, when analyzed collectively, reveal macro-level ideologies about disability, race, and gender in contemporary South African digital culture.

Moreover, numerous studies have emphasized the dualistic nature of the process that engenders laughter, exhibiting both destructive and constructive facets (e.g., Albrecht, 1999; Lockyer & Weaver, 2021). The distinction between laughing with and laughing at has been emphasized in numerous studies, which have highlighted the mechanism of interiorization produced over the centuries by what has been termed “disabling humor” (Bingham & Green, 2016). In accordance with the constructivist perspective, the individual, institutional and structural levels of social meaning are interrelated and reinforce each other, thereby linking micro- and macro-level processes (Adams & Zúñiga, 2016). This suggests that the prevailing negative attitudes towards disability are perpetuated daily through the continuous normalization of certain personal and societal attitudes, both conscious and unconscious. This normalization process is particularly evident in TikTok’s algorithmic environment, where repeated exposure to disability humor contributes to the unconscious perpetuation of ableist attitudes through seemingly innocent entertainment consumption.

This assertion is further substantiated by the various theoretical frameworks that elucidate the mechanisms underlying the generation of laughter, namely relief, superiority, and incongruity (for a comprehensive overview, see Meyer, 2000; Watson, 2015; Lockyer & Weaver, 2021). The relief concerns the idea that laughter is a need and allows emotional tensions to be released. Superiority drives people to laugh at others because they feel triumphant over them. When this mechanism is used, the person laughing belittles the person who is the butt of the joke to make them appear inferior. Incongruity refers to the association of contrasting meanings, as in the case of irony, which is perceived and recognized in cognitive terms (Garmendia, 2018). These three mechanisms provide a categorization for the types of responses we observe in TikTok comments, helping us understand whether users engage with disability humor through emotional release, feelings of superiority, or cognitive recognition of contradictions.

Furthermore, studies highlight how humor reflects personality traits, emotional intelligence, and psychological well-being (Taecharungroj & Nueangjamnong, 2015). These can be classified according to whether humor is used to improve oneself or one’s relationship with others. According to Janes and Olson (2000, p. 474), aggressive humor (also known as derogatory humor) is “any humor that denigrates or provides negative information about someone or something.” It is often directed at groups, such as women and political parties, or at individuals by virtue of their membership in a group, such as a lawyer or a Jew. Aggressive humor is characterized by sarcasm, derision, criticism, and ridicule. Derision is one of the most popular forms of aggressive humor. It is directed at an individual and does not openly focus on group membership as the basis for the joke (Janes & Olson, 2000). It functions as a behavior modifier, embarrassing the target for their actions or appearance. People may enjoy this type of humor when they are not the target or laugh out of a sense of discomfort. In our analysis of TikTok comments, we pay particular attention to how aggressive humor manifests toward Black women with disabilities, examining whether comments target individual characteristics or broader group memberships, and how this targeting functions within South Africa’s intersectional social dynamics.

To understand in more detail how this is possible, the theoretical dimension of moral disengagement explored by Bandura and colleagues (Bandura et al., 1996) is particularly relevant. As has already been argued, when applied to the audience’s reception of hostile humor, this disengagement becomes a form of moral disengagement (Milner Davis, 2003). This provides crucial insights into the ambiguity of humor. In fact, moral disengagement is a resource for moral justification, i.e., privileging an interpretation that minimizes, relativizes, or removes specific responsibilities for exclusion/inclusion from the way in which the discrepancy between expectations and reality is articulated in narrative and performative humorous forms. This concept proves essential for understanding how TikTok users rationalize their enjoyment of potentially harmful content, often through comments that simultaneously acknowledge the problematic nature of disability humor while defending their right to find it entertaining.

While these theoretical frameworks provide essential insights into the nature of humor and its social functions, understanding how disability humor operates in digital spaces requires additional consideration of platform-specific dynamics. TikTok’s unique affordances—its algorithm-driven content distribution, comment culture, and viral potential—transform how traditional humor mechanism’s function, creating new forms of “platformed humor” that amplify both the reach and impact of ableist content. The following section explores how digital platform characteristics reshape the theoretical dynamics we have outlined, setting the stage for our empirical analysis of how these forces converge in a specific TikTok video and its comment ecosystem.

2.2. Platformed Microaggressive Humor

In critical humor studies, the idea that social hierarchies and cultural identities are intertwined with humor has attracted considerable scholarly interest. Various theoretical frameworks have been employed to explore this notion, including (anti)racist humor (Weaver, 2011), disability studies (Lockyer, 2015), gender studies (Kypker, 2021), and (anti)feminist humor (Kypker, 2021). Consequently, humor’s ‘social function’ encompasses the process of establishing group boundaries and building group identity. Furthermore, it facilitates the negotiation of new meanings (Jarzabkowski & Lê, 2017). This boundary-making function becomes particularly significant in TikTok’s comment sections, where jokes about disability serve not only to entertain but to establish who belongs within the community of those who ‘get’ the humor and who remains excluded as the target of ridicule.

2.2.1. Disability Self-Representation vs. Algorithmic Discrimination

This negotiation has the potential to bring new disruptive perspectives on dominant ideologies. As has recently been highlighted, humor emerges as an everyday discursive space through which individuals living with disabilities can assert and comprehend their independence and autonomy (Milbrodt, 2022). A significant number of young people have been observed disseminating their experiential knowledge of ADHD or daily life as a visually impaired individual to enhance collective awareness within their community. This phenomenon stands in contrast to the prevailing medical perspective and content on TikTok (Todd, 2024; Leveille, 2024). This video platform is often recognized as a dynamic and influential tool for activism (see Zhao & Abidin, 2023; Cervi & Divon, 2023). Given its capacity for public engagement, it fosters the dissemination of counter-narratives and the self-representation of minority groups (see Sued et al., 2022; Foster & Pettinicchio, 2023).

However, the platform has been observed to penalize minority identities (Jaramillo-Dent, 2022). Both users and micro-celebrities with disabilities have identified the algorithm in question as having discriminatory tendencies. These individuals have reported that the algorithm often identifies their content as controversial, resulting in it being hidden (Rauchberg, 2022). Further, it exposes disabled people to subtle forms of ableist discourse and microaggressions, blurring the line between overt hate and often resulting in increased emotional distress, anxiety about posting online and self-censorship over time (Heung et al., 2022, 2024, 2025). This tension between empowerment and marginalization provides crucial context for understanding the comment responses in our TikTok case study, where reactions to disability humor reveal both progressive and regressive attitudes coexisting within the same digital space.

2.2.2. Algorithmic Amplification of Discriminatory Content

The algorithm’s role in content circulation creates additional complexities. It has been demonstrated that the algorithm tracks a variety of factors, including identity, personal interests, and even laughter, transforming these into data that enables recommendations designed to meet users’ entertainment needs (Nickl & Muller, 2023). This is particularly significant in the self-defined ‘open and non-interventionist cornucopias’ (Gillespie, 2018, p. 16) of platforms managed by private intermediaries, given their economic and cultural power in moderating public debate and social interactions.

TikTok’s (2024) guidelines explicitly prohibit hate ideology, defining such content as controversial and harmful to protected categories, including people with disabilities. However, interpretative ambiguity surrounding algorithmic recognition of ideology remains problematic. As Hietanen and Eddebo (2022, p. 451) observe, ‘In the absence of a clear and distinguishable set of suppressed perspectives or propositions, the prohibition of linguistic acts becomes inherently vague and malleable, subject to arbitrary or unpredictable enforcement.’ This ambiguity becomes particularly relevant when analyzing how TikTok users navigate the boundaries between acceptable humor and hate speech in their comments about disability, often employing coded language or implicit references that evade algorithmic detection while perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

2.2.3. Viral Humor and Unconscious Discrimination

Matamoros-Fernández (2023) highlights that algorithmic content selection on TikTok creates several problematic aspects, including the immersive presentation of content on the ‘For You’ page and the uncritical replication of viral audio and memes. The platform’s treatment of humor without considering potential stereotype reinforcement and identity harm presents significant challenges, particularly given the historically rooted power relations that underpin such communication (Siapera & Viejo-Otero, 2021).

The most problematic aspect is precisely that platform policies treat all identities as equal, failing to distinguish between historically marginalized groups and the rest of society. This creates particular challenges in viral parody challenges, where users adopt and adapt audio from other videos through memetic engagement (Kaye et al., 2021). While seeking algorithmic visibility, users may unconsciously express and normalize subtle forms of symbolic violence, such as racism and ableism, unaware that they are perpetuating these forms of harm (Matamoros-Fernández et al., 2022; Divon & Eriksson Krutrök, 2024).

2.2.4. Digital Distance and Dehumanization

Furthermore, the digital embodiment of laughter implies distance, isolation and anonymity, allowing the expression of insults and cruelty (Weitz, 2017) without real consequences for those responsible. This shift has transformed laughter into a detrimental, uncivil and offensive instrument, particularly within online comment sections (see Park et al., 2021).

Visual content produced, consumed and remixed on TikTok is accompanied and guided by filters, audio tracks and memes. This highlights how platform infrastructures, participatory cultures and audiovisual remix practices facilitate the proliferation of specific forms of humor that frequently entail the integration of discriminatory narratives into ambivalent content. These dynamics of digital distance and viral circulation are particularly evident in our analysis of South African TikTok comments, where users feel emboldened to express views about disability that might be more carefully modulated in face-to-face interactions.

2.2.5. Bridging to the South African Context

While these theoretical insights illuminate general patterns of platformed humor and discrimination, the South African context offers a unique opportunity to examine how these dynamics intersect with specific historical and cultural factors. South Africa’s complex legacy of institutionalized discrimination, combined with its ongoing struggles with multiple forms of social inequality, creates a particularly rich environment for understanding how disability humor functions at the intersection of race, gender, and class.

The post-apartheid context adds additional layers to our theoretical understanding: it demonstrates how colonial and apartheid-era hierarchies continue to shape digital interactions, while also revealing how new forms of solidarity and resistance emerge within platform spaces. By examining TikTok comments targeting a Black woman with a disability in this context, we can observe how global platform dynamics interact with local power structures to create distinct patterns of inclusion and exclusion that extend our general theoretical frameworks in crucial ways.

2.3. South African Digital Context

In South Africa, where forms of social and cultural discrimination are prohibited by law (Bhabha, 2009), expressions of hate speech are difficult to find except in veiled form (Battisti & Dalvit, 2023; Battisti & Dalvit, 2024). They can only be found in certain minority spaces, such as online forums, blogs and comments sections on social media pages (Mudavanhu, 2017). This legal framework creates a particular dynamic where discriminatory attitudes toward disability must be expressed through more subtle mechanisms, with humor serving as a primary vehicle for perpetuating ableist stereotypes.

Social media functions as a powerful decolonial and postcolonial tool in Southern Africa (Chataika, 2018), making its role in revealing common perceptions about disability particularly significant. The digital evolution of humor, with its added audiovisual elements over the past two decades, has created new opportunities for both resistance and marginalization. As Bingham and Green (2016) point out, the use of humor online is an interesting and understudied phenomenon, with users exposed to decontextualized jokes about disability that carry particular weight in the South African context.

2.3.1. Historical and Cultural Dimensions of Disability Humor

As R. Crigler (2022) argues, humor is one of the most powerful and insightful tools available to South African society for addressing the marginalization of diversity. This power, however, operates in complex ways that reflect both traditional cultural practices and colonial legacies. Sone and Hoza (2017) demonstrate historical precedent for disability humor in the Xhosa tradition, where people who are short in stature have been subjects of humor. However, this contemporary manifestation differs significantly from traditional approaches. As research has proposed (Battisti & Dalvit, 2024), disability has not always been associated with exclusion and negative connotations in traditional South African culture. Instead, it has undergone a process of hybridization that has greatly impacted collective identity (Vieira, 2019). Ned (2022) highlights this transformation, calling for the reclamation of African cultural perspectives that offer more inclusive understandings of disability.

2.3.2. Digital Spaces, Black Identity, and Marginalization

Several authors, including Hill (2018), have demonstrated that analysis of Black Twitter reveals its function as an inclusive space for expressing black identity and performing online resistance. It also functions as a ‘counter-public’ that challenges common white supremacist narratives in mainstream social media discourse. This creates a complex dynamic where spaces of empowerment for racial identity can simultaneously become sites of disability marginalization.

While research into the proliferation of Black female stand-up comedy on social media has begun (R. K. Crigler, 2024), shifting the focus from performance to the way contentious themes disseminate on digital platforms through humor reveals its potential to expose the insidious suffering experienced by disabled people. Despite their involvement in the struggle to end apartheid alongside other minorities, people with disabilities remain subordinate and invisible in post-apartheid digital discourse.

2.3.3. Intersectional Hierarchy and Digital Representation

The objective of decolonial studies is to denounce and deconstruct this situation at cultural and institutional levels (see Berghs, 2017, for details). As research asserts (Dalvit, 2025), in postcolonial contexts such as South Africa, narratives and representations in traditional and digital media reflect a hierarchical paradigm of suffering. This means that the vast majority of South Africans with disabilities who belong to the black, female and economically disadvantaged demographic are positioned at the lowest rung of the social ladder. This hierarchical positioning becomes particularly evident in TikTok’s comment sections, where jokes targeting Black women with disabilities reveal not only individual prejudices but also the broader structural inequalities that persist in South African digital culture. The intersection of race, gender, and disability creates a unique form of vulnerability that our analysis seeks to illuminate through examination of user responses to such content.

Understanding these cultural, historical, and social dynamics provides essential context for interpreting the patterns we observe in TikTok comments. The South African case demonstrates how global platform mechanisms interact with local hierarchies of oppression to create distinct forms of digital discrimination. In the following sections, we examine how these theoretical and contextual insights manifest in actual user interactions, revealing the complex ways that humor functions as both a mechanism of exclusion and a site of contested meaning-making in contemporary South African digital culture.

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopted a qualitative approach based on a single case study of a popular platform such as TikTok, enabling the investigation of humor as a covert form of aggression and its social, cultural, and political roots. A non-intrusive research method was adopted, particularly when employing comment analysis, as this can effectively capture and observe participants’ spontaneous interactions without external interference. In May 2023, the study tracked instances of offensive humor on TikTok using the search queries #funnysouthafrica and #humordisability via an anonymous account created specifically for this purpose with a South African SIM. Of the videos returned by the algorithmic selection, the case study is unique in that it was: (a) posted by an official account, (b) dealt with a sensitive subject, and (c) had a high number of views and comments (around 700). Specifically, the subject matter is a controversial joke about a Black disabled woman, representing a misrepresented target and the challenge of lazy intersectionality. This implies a tendency to reduce the concept to gender dimensions, excluding disability (Watermeyer & Swartz, 2022). The selected video belongs to a South African comedy channel and features an excerpt from a radio show in which the comedian Skhumba tells a joke about his disabled girlfriend. He says that when he first met her, he did not realize she was disabled. She has one leg shorter than the other, and when she walks, she makes so much noise that she makes dogs bark—the comedian imitates the sound—until she once put on a shoe with a thicker sole to make her legs look the same length. As Miltsov (2022) points out, purposive selection has its limitations regarding generalizability. In this specific case, the video identified does not belong to a strong narrative trend on the platform.

Similarly, its visibility is limited by variable algorithmic selection, as is the potential for user interaction. This means that authors cannot know the circumstances or intentions through which users encountered the content, nor their identity- and culture-related background. However, in accordance with the walkthrough method (Light et al., 2018), the present study explores how the materiality of the application guides, supports and constrains users’ sensitivity to humor. Furthermore, the analysis ensured that no accounts were completely anonymous or operated as bots, favoring the interpretation of spontaneous interactions to explore elusive dynamics within the South African digital public sphere. To convey the sense of easily misinterpreted written comments, particularly those in the indigenous languages of South Africa, the authors enlisted the help of two native speakers. Out of 692 comments, the authors purposively identified and selected the ambiguous and problematic ones, which they then subjected to an in-depth analysis.

Once manually downloaded, the authors anonymized them in compliance with the ethical guidelines promoted by the AoIR (Shakti Franzke et al., 2019). A thematic analysis was then conducted “to identify, organize, and offer insight into patterns of meaning across a dataset” (Braun & Clarke, 2012, p. 57). This enables us to move beyond observable material towards more implicit themes and thematic structures (Joffe, 2011). Furthermore, thematic analysis is flexible in that it enables the researcher to focus on the data in various ways, providing a deductive approach that explicitly incorporates inductive mechanisms (Mayring, 2010) and establishes a robust connection between themes and data. Following Park et al. (2021), each comment was carefully examined and classified into themes representing similar meanings.

In this way, the authors were able to undertake inductive-deductive coding iteratively (Skjott Linneberg & Korsgaard, 2019; Quan-Haase & Sloan, 2022), naming and renaming emergent codes in light of the relevant literature at the intersection between disability and humor studies. Specifically, we adopted the following categories from Bandura et al.’s (1996) moral detachment theory to interpret users’ justifying and defensive reactions and thus investigate the wide range of microaggressions: Euphemistic labeling, which makes aggressive behavior seem less severe; Palliative comparison, which downplays a bad act by comparing it to something worse; Diffusion of responsibility, where responsibility is diluted among a group; Distortion of consequences, where the negative impact of an action is minimized or ignored; Dehumanization, where victims are stripped of human qualities; Victim blaming, where victims are seen as responsible for their own suffering. Through frequent and regular consultation, the authors undertook close coding to identify recurring themes, using Microsoft Excel to create more detailed coding tables. This process unfolded in three iterative phases:

• Open coding. In the first phase, the data was analyzed to identify relevant concepts. These initial codes emerged directly from the language used by the audience, ensuring that the themes were based on the participants’ discourse rather than being imposed from outside.
• Axial coding: the open codes were contextualized using supplementary literature on African epistemologies, disability, and humor. This phase involved refining and grouping the initial codes to allow for a comparative analysis between digital narratives and existing theoretical frameworks.
• Selective coding: finally, broader, overarching themes were developed by grouping axial codes reflecting recurring patterns in the data. These themes were then examined in relation to South Africa’s specific cultural, historical and digital contexts. The subjectivity and possible bias of the coding process were discussed by the authors, who reached a shared agreement after implementing a double verification and coding phase.

4. Results and Discussion

Three main types of comment were identified: a. support for the joke, the comedian and/or the people laughing; b. excuses for the joke, the comedian and/or the people laughing; c. condemnation of the joke, the comedian and/or the people laughing. Figure 1 shows that most users (83%) support laughter uncritically, which is a form of discrimination against people with disabilities that has become normalized. Conversely, some users justified their laughter by absolving the comedian or themselves (5%). The indignant reaction of 12% of users emerges as condemnation. For the purposes of the present study, only the latter two types of comment were considered (115 in total).

The analysis of user comments revealed two distinct macro-cognitive responses to disability humor: A step back to social (in)justice (4.1, excusing) and Universal judgment (but opaque) on laughter (4.2, condemning). These contrasting interpretations can be understood through Attardo’s (2002) conceptualization of humor as emerging from expectation-reality discrepancies provides a foundation for understanding how viewers process comedic content. In our analysis, this discrepancy manifests differently among audience segments—some perceive the disability jokes as deliberately subverting norms for legitimate comedic purposes, while others view the same subversion as inappropriate boundary crossing. These divergent responses also align with what Tsakona (2020) terms ‘metapragmatic stereotypes’ of humor—internalized models determining how, when, why, and for what purposes humor should be employed.

The South African comments analyzed in this study reveal culturally specific metapragmatic stereotypes that influence whether disability humor is interpreted as acceptable social commentary or harmful stigmatization. Kuipers’ (2011) work on the variability of multimodal humor interpretation further enriches the understanding of these divergent responses, highlighting how cultural, historical, and personal factors shape humor reception. The theoretical dimension of moral disengagement explored by Bandura and colleagues (Bandura et al., 1996) provides crucial insights into the excusing responses (4.1). Comments defending the comedian or minimizing the potentially harmful effects of disability jokes demonstrate several of Bandura’s socio-cognitive mechanisms. These include moral justification (framing the jokes as promoting inclusion), euphemistic labeling (describing offensive content as “just comedy”), advantageous comparison (comparing to more severe offenses), diffusion of responsibility (suggesting “everyone” makes such jokes), and distorting consequences (denying potential harm to disabled individuals).

In this vein Milner Davis’s (2003) extension of moral disengagement theory to hostile humor reception is particularly relevant to our findings. Her work helps explain how some audience members justify potentially harmful humor as a coping mechanism or community-building exercise—a perspective evident in comments suggesting that the jokes create social bonds or normalize disability through inclusion in mainstream humor. The specific components of moral disengagement as delineated by Bandura (2016) manifest distinctly in our data. Moral justification appears in comments framing the jokes as serving inclusive purposes; euphemistic labeling occurs when users describe derogatory content as “just jokes”; advantageous comparison emerges when commenters contrast virtual criticism with “real” charity work; displacement and diffusion of responsibility arise when users suggest “all comedians” make such jokes; consequence distortion is evident in denials of potential harm; dehumanization appears in comments objectifying disabled individuals; and victim-blaming emerges when critics are labeled as “oversensitive.”

As digital content features deactivate empathy (A’Beckett, 2025), it is particularly relevant to the South African context, where the anonymous, asynchronous nature of social media comments allowed users to express views that might be socially unacceptable in face-to-face interactions. This digital disinhibition effect appeared to amplify both excusing and condemning responses, resulting in more extreme expressions of both moral disengagement and moral outrage than might occur in physical social settings. In the following, the two distinct macro cognitive responses to disability humor identified.

4.1. A Step Back to Social (In)Justice

4.1.1. Sensitivity in Post-Apartheid Society

As a result of its troubled history, South Africa’s public is generally sensitive to issues of social justice. The legacy of apartheid has created a heightened awareness around discrimination and marginalization, making South Africans particularly conscious of power dynamics in social discourse. This consciousness extends to disability issues, which exist within a complex socio-historical landscape shaped by both indigenous African worldviews and Western influences introduced during colonization. Notably, 7% of comments revealed that users feel guilty about laughing at jokes about people with disabilities. This guilt manifests in statements such as: “God forgive me for laughing”, “🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣”, “I’m scared to laugh 😂😂” and “😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 We shouldn’t be laughing.” These expressions of guilt reflect South Africa’s evolving social conscience, where traditional views that sometimes marginalized people with disabilities now intersect with progressive human rights frameworks embedded in the post-apartheid constitution. The emotional intensity captured in these comments aligns with Cervi and Divon’s (2023) observation that social media platforms are “playful and affective by design,” where performative and platformative content creation becomes an effective binding technique for expressing and disseminating the intensity of emotions, potentially triggering emotional responses and mobilizing affective publics around disability discourse.

4.1.2. Virtual Advocacy Versus Real Action

In one notable instance—“it’s Funny coz his reality he donates wheelchairs for the Disabled, unlike you acting sorry for the Disabled without doing jack about it. 😂😂 Lekke”—users who criticize the joke are accused of being hypocrites who limit themselves to virtual advocacy with little consequence in real life (see Trevisan, 2013). This comment reflects a particularly South African concern with genuine transformation versus performative allyship in a society still grappling with extreme inequality, where substantial economic and social disparities exist between urban and rural areas, affecting disability support services nationwide. The latter part of the statement also taps into a charity model of disability which has long been discredited (Retief & Letšosa, 2018) yet persists in South African society where formal disability services remain underdeveloped in many communities, especially in rural areas where approximately 40% of the population resides.

4.1.3. Rhetorical Fictionality

This is a thread with 31 responses, some claiming the person at the center of the joke is fictional: “But I think the girlfriend doesn’t exist, futhi has never existed... He just made up a story nje,” “lena alenwe meetsi this is a joke and the gf is non existant” and “You should watch more of skhumba’s videos what if he says he makes it up its not true.” The use of code-switching between English and indigenous South African languages in these comments (e.g., “futhi,” “nje,” “lena alenwe meetsi”) reflects the multicultural nature of South African discourse and highlights how disability discussions occur across linguistic boundaries. Research has established (see Ellis, 2003) that fictional representations of characters with disabilities contribute to stigma as much as real-life accounts. In South Africa, where media representation of disability remains limited and often problematic, this issue takes on additional significance. The country’s broadcasting policies and media regulatory frameworks have evolved to encourage more inclusive representation, but implementation remains inconsistent.

4.1.4. Controversial Inclusion

Some comments appear to frame joking about disability as a form of inclusion rather than marginalization: “He makes fun of everyone if you live them out then you are not treating them in a normal way” or “I think this is funny, it’s creating a comfortable environment for society to not feel sorry for differently abled people. I am disabled myself.” This perspective reflects complex negotiations around “difference” in post-apartheid South Africa, where inclusion sometimes means equal treatment (including being subject to humor) rather than special accommodation or exemption from social norms. This view must be contextualized within South Africa’s ongoing transition from a society structured around separation and difference to one built on equality and inclusion. For some South Africans, being included in mainstream humor—even potentially offensive humor—represents a form of acceptance previously denied to marginalized groups. These negotiations around fictional versus real representations of disability can be understood as coping strategies for processing what is perceived as potentially traumatic content, as Divon and Eriksson Krutrök (2024) suggest in their analysis of how individuals negotiate strategies for coping with traumatic material in digital spaces.

4.1.5. Praise for the Comedian

Some users praise the comedian’s versatility: “Skhumba is a natural. Jokes about any and everything and makes it dope. 😂😂😂 The guy is hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂😂” and “Skhumba is funny, makes jokes about anything.” Another comment states “Is comedy not personal at all,” suggesting that people with disabilities should not take offense. This reflects the complex position of comedians in South African society, where they often serve as social commentators pushing boundaries while occasionally reinforcing problematic stereotypes. However, these dynamics operate within what Noble (2018) identifies as platform logics that compound cultural discriminatory practices in humor, orienting them toward potentially dangerous outcomes by amplifying and systematizing existing biases through algorithmic recommendation systems and engagement metrics. Rini (2018) problematizes taking offense and highlights how microaggressions create a dilemma: targets need to respond, but may be labeled as oversensitive or humorless in doing so. This dynamic plays out in comments such as “Skhumba is funny guys 😂😂😂😂😂😂 who ever doesn’t find him funny needs to work on their sense of humour” and “If you catch feelings, you shouldn’t watch Skhumba’s comedy or listen to Kaya.” In the South African context, accusations of being “too sensitive” carry additional weight in a society learning to navigate post-apartheid sensitivities while maintaining social cohesion across diverse cultural perspectives.

4.1.6. The Right to Laugh or to Mock?

The contentious nature of disability humor is further evident in comments (12%) emphasizing that it is acceptable to joke about disability like any other subject. This suggests confusion between derogatory humor and legitimate satire, which has played an important role in South Africa’s political transition and ongoing social commentary. The reference to Trevor Noah—“comedians can make comedy out of everything and anything... there’s nothing personal, even Trevor Noah made a joke about deaf people”—invokes a globally recognized South African comedian who has navigated the complex terrain between humor and social commentary. Most remaining comments in this thread encourage critics to “relax and not take this seriously,” exemplified by “believe me there’s no way we can laugh because people have disabilities. relax. dont take things by heart.” This call to lighten up reflects broader tensions in South African society between addressing serious social issues and maintaining positive social interactions in a nation still healing from historical trauma. South Africa’s strong constitutional protections for freedom of expression, developed in response to apartheid-era censorship, create a legal framework that generally protects controversial humor. However, these protections exist in tension with equally strong constitutional provisions against discrimination and hate speech, creating a uniquely South African legal and ethical balancing act around offensive content.

4.2. Universal Judgment (But Opaque) on Laughter

4.2.1. Public Censure and Defense of Boundaries

The previous feelings of guilt are reinforced by a significant portion (15%) of comments stressing that disability is no laughing matter. For example, users commented that “The moment I saw the caption I knew it’s not a joke. A ‘joke’ about disability is not a joke,” “This is not a Joke but a huge point that you truly undermining physical challenged people, well Skhumba thanks for your honesty” and “nothing funny here 😳 how can make jokes about disabled people.” In the South African context, these statements reflect ongoing efforts to establish and maintain boundaries around appropriate discourse in a young democracy still working to implement its constitutional ideals of dignity and equality for all. Additionally, 18% of comments indicate users did not find this joke funny. Examples such as “Is not funny though 😏” demonstrate how it is not always clear if this rejection stems from the sensitive topic or the joke’s inherent quality. This ambiguity highlights the complex negotiations that occur in South African public discourse when determining acceptable humor in a multicultural society with eleven official languages and diverse cultural norms.

4.2.2. Traditional Beliefs and Cultural Context

The comment “That’s not funny coz it’s not like she had a choice” deserves particular attention within the South African context. While implicitly blaming those who laugh, the second part of the statement relieves people with disabilities of the supposed “guilt” for their condition. The underlying assumption is that disability is potentially something to be ashamed of. This perspective must be understood in light of some African traditional beliefs about disability as a curse by the ancestors (Ngubane-Mokiwa, 2018), which remains influential in parts of South African society where traditional healing practices exist alongside Western medicine. This is the only comment in which the target of the joke is mentioned directly. Lack of voice and being shaped by someone else’s narratives is recognized as a crucial issue in disability research (see Smith-Chandler & Swart, 2014). In many South African communities, particularly in rural areas and townships, traditional beliefs about disability as spiritual punishment or ancestral displeasure continue to shape attitudes and behaviors. This cultural framework sometimes positions disability as something shameful or as divine retribution, contributing to stigmatization despite constitutional protections against discrimination. The persistence of these beliefs alongside progressive rights frameworks creates a uniquely South African tension in disability discourse. Other comments reinforce the exceptionality and undesirability of disability: “But do you think anyone would want to be like that” and “I know but it’s not funny at all.... Coz I believe if one had a choice they wouldn’t wanna be born with disabilities.” These statements reflect persistent negative attitudes toward disability in South African society, where access barriers, limited accommodations, and inadequate support services make disability particularly challenging. In a country with significant resource constraints and competing social priorities, disability rights often receive insufficient attention and resources.

4.2.3. Voices of People with Disabilities

The video attracted comments from at least six people directly or indirectly with disability. One user shared: “😳😳😳 I am also living with the same disability he made a joke with so this is not funny 😏😏😏😏😏😏😏 at all always enjoy skhumbas jokes but this.” This represents an important intervention in a South African context where disability advocacy organizations have worked to center disabled voices in public discourse, challenging a historical pattern where disabled South Africans were spoken about rather than listened to. Stereotyped representations affect people with disabilities and their families (Stamou et al., 2016), as suggested by comments like “Until u have a daughter like dat.” In South Africa, where family members often serve as primary caregivers due to limited formal support services, the impact of stigmatizing representations extends beyond individuals to entire families and communities. Comments such as “I felt offend by this joke” and “I’M STILL HERE, I’M NOT DEAD YOU SKHUMBA, UZONYA STRUUn” display confrontation without revealing if users are directly affected. The latter comment, mixing English with isiZulu expressions, demonstrates how disability discourse in South Africa crosses linguistic boundaries, reflecting the country’s linguistic diversity.

4.2.4. Immaturity and Intelligence

Laughing at disability jokes is considered immature or unintelligent by at least 17% of users, who made statements like “I’m sorry I don’t care who says what you gotta be Heaven if you laughed at this 🤦” and “it’s funny when u guys makes a joke about disability... u need to grow up man 😏.” This framing of inappropriate humor as immature reflects South African social expectations around respectful discourse in public forums. Negative comments question the intelligence of both the joke’s audience (“jokes for smallminded ppl, it didn’t hit the spot for me”) and the comedian himself (“Comedian for people with a low IQ”). Some comments question the comedian’s mental state: “but really, we need a commission of enquiry into skhumbas mental state. there is no way he is normal.” The concept of “normality” remains controversial in Disability Studies (Shakespeare, 2007). This comment potentially accuses the comedian of having an intellectual disability, ironically reinforcing the stigma underpinning such accusations as offensive (Caton & Chapman, 2016). Others express disapproval through statements like “this guy is really irritating.”

4.2.5. Threats and Religious Sanctions

In stark contrast with the intended light tone, six comments contain actual threats. Some invoke divine punishment: “That’s not funny at all making fun ngabantu abane disality hayi he will never see heaven God will punish him” and “This man won’t see heaven.” These religious references reflect South Africa’s deeply religious society, where approximately 80% of the population identifies as Christian, with strong religious influences on moral and ethical standards. The link between religion and disability has been extensively explored internationally and in South Africa (Imhoff, 2017; Mugeere et al., 2019). Other threats range from legal consequences (“Skhuma will be arrested”) to cryptic warnings (“Skhumba that one is a debt that u must pay kopa askies while u still hv time cos it will come back to u en u will feel it. Funny when is distance”). In extreme cases, the comedian faces threats of violence: “Do not walk alone at night” and “laugh at the cripple from the grave.” These violent comments must be understood within South Africa’s troubling context of high violence levels, both physical and symbolic, extending to social media (Pieterse et al., 2018). With one of the world’s highest rates of violent crime, threats often carry more weight in South African discourse than they might elsewhere. The South African Constitution (Act 106 of 1996) explicitly prohibits discrimination on disability grounds while also making advocacy for violence illegal, creating legal tension when offensive content provokes violent responses. This analysis reveals how disability humor in South Africa operates within a complex intersection of constitutional rights, traditional beliefs, post-apartheid sensitivities, and ongoing social transformation, making it a particularly rich site for understanding evolving social norms in this developing democracy.

5. Conclusions: Reframing Humor as Digital Boundary-Making

This South African TikTok case study fundamentally extends existing theoretical frameworks on humor and digital discrimination in several key ways. Our analysis reveals that Meyer’s (2000) classic functions of humor—identification, clarification, reinforcement, and differentiation—operate with intensified complexity in algorithm-mediated environments. The dual response patterns we identified—‘A step back to social (in)justice’ and ‘Universal judgement (but opaque) on laughter’—demonstrate that digital platforms do not simply amplify existing humor dynamics but create entirely new forms of contested boundary-making where users simultaneously participate in and resist discriminatory practices.

While the existing literature conceptualizes microaggressions as normalized forms of discrimination (Adams & Zúñiga, 2016), our findings reveal a more dynamic process in digital spaces. The South African context illuminates how microaggressions through humor become sites of active negotiation rather than passive reception. Users do not merely absorb or reject ableist content; they engage in complex meaning-making processes that reflect broader struggles over post-apartheid social hierarchies. This challenges linear models of microaggression impact and suggests instead a recursive model where discrimination and resistance co-evolve within the same interactive space. Bandura’s concept of moral disengagement, as applied to humor reception (Milner Davis, 2003), requires significant revision in the context of algorithmic platforms. Our data reveals that moral disengagement is not a static psychological process but a sociotechnically mediated performance. TikTok users employ sophisticated strategies to maintain plausible deniability while participating in discriminatory humor, suggesting that platforms create new opportunities for what we term “algorithmic moral distancing”—the use of platform affordances to obscure individual responsibility for harmful content circulation.

Our findings fundamentally challenge Gillespie’s (2018) notion of platforms as “open and non-interventionist cornucopias.” The South African case demonstrates that TikTok’s apparent neutrality actually amplifies existing inequalities through algorithmic mechanisms that treat all identities as equivalent. This creates what we identify as “intersectional erasure”—where the specific vulnerabilities of Black women with disabilities become invisible within platform governance frameworks designed for generic harm prevention. This study extends scholarship on counter-publics (Hill, 2018) by revealing how spaces designed for resistance can simultaneously perpetuate marginalization. Black South African digital spaces function as sites of racial empowerment while maintaining ableist hierarchies, creating “hierarchical counter-publics” where liberation for some groups occurs at the expense of others. This complicates romanticized notions of digital spaces as universally democratizing and highlights the need for intersectional approaches to platform analysis.

5.1. Decolonizing Digital Humor Research

This study makes crucial methodological contributions to critical humor studies by demonstrating the limitations of Northern-centric theoretical frameworks when applied to Global South contexts. Our analysis reveals that humor functions differently in postcolonial contexts, where “weaponized nostalgia” for pre-colonial cultural practices intersects with contemporary digital discrimination in complex ways. The South African case illuminates how colonial histories create specific forms of “layered marginalization” that require new analytical tools.

Our findings question the universal applicability of incongruity, superiority, and relief theories of humor (Meyer, 2000; Watson, 2015). In the South African context, humor operates through what we identify as “historicized superiority”—where contemporary jokes draw power from centuries-old hierarchies of oppression. This suggests that humor theories must account for how colonial legacies shape digital interactions in ways that transcend individual psychological processes. This study also offers the concept of “platformed intersectionality”—a framework that explains how digital platforms intensify and transform offline inequalities through algorithm-mediated interactions. Unlike traditional intersectionality theory, platformed intersectionality accounts for how technological affordances create new forms of discrimination that exceed the sum of individual identity-based oppressions. Our South African case reveals three key mechanisms of platformed intersectionality:

-

Algorithmic Amplification: Platform algorithms do not simply circulate content but actively reshape social hierarchies by determining which forms of discrimination gain visibility.

-

Viral Normalization: Memetic circulation transforms individual acts of discrimination into community-wide practices, creating what we term “distributed complicity.”

-

Resistance Fragmentation: Digital platforms simultaneously enable resistance while fragmenting collective action through individualized user experiences and echo chamber effects.

5.2. Toward Intersectional Digital Justice

This South African case study demonstrates that achieving digital justice requires more than content moderation or policy reform—it demands fundamental transformation in how we theorize, design, and govern digital platforms. Our findings reveal that humor is never “just humor” but always a mechanism through which power relations are negotiated, maintained, and potentially disrupted.

The theoretical frameworks we have developed—platformed intersectionality, algorithmic moral distancing, hierarchical counter-publics—provide tools for understanding how digital technologies intensify offline inequalities while creating new possibilities for resistance. As digital platforms increasingly shape global communication, the lessons from South Africa’s complex negotiation of humor, disability, and digital power become essential for scholars and practitioners worldwide. This study ultimately argues that critical humor studies, disability scholarship, and platform studies must converge to address the urgent challenges of digital discrimination. Only through such interdisciplinary collaboration can we develop the theoretical and practical tools necessary for creating more equitable digital futures.

Several crucial avenues for future investigation are still open, for instance: How do other Global South contexts reveal different patterns of platformed intersectionality? Comparative studies across African, Asian, and Latin American digital cultures could illuminate how colonial legacies shape platform interactions differently. Future research should examine how recommendation algorithms specifically target marginalized users with discriminatory content, requiring new methodological approaches that combine computational analysis with ethnographic insight. Critical future work must center disabled users’ own experiences and resistance strategies, moving beyond analyzing discrimination toward supporting community-led platform alternatives. This research points toward the need for “intersectional platform design” that accounts for multiple, overlapping forms of marginalization rather than treating discrimination as a series of discrete problems.