The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone.

Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent.

Either do the "joke" style or the "angry rant" style, not both. The joke can be explained calmly if there is a need to.

>The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone.

The original criticism I wasn't objecting to wasn't making this distinction, and so this is a different argument. I wasn't defending the angry tone, only the existence of a section, "if you didn't get it, here's the point".

>Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent.

Okay, now it seems like you're saying the section would be bad even with a calm, non-angry tone, in which case my point about the need for a non-joke section applies.

In any case, the standard of "what if this were real life" is a bad one to use. An internet post is not an in-person interaction, and it optimizes for different things. You might as well object to footnotes on the grounds that, "hey, in real life, you wouldn't go on all these tangents because that's distracting".

If you already got the point, by the time you got to the rant, and don't need the explanation, you can (and should) stop reading there. It's not relevant to you. It's supplemental information for anyone who didn't get the point. You know, the ones you don't think deserve the same level of understanding as you, the ones who weren't elite enough, like you, to get the reference.