Most funny jokes are obvious, at least after the punchline.
I would disagree. Most of the jokes that make me laugh hardest require me to work a bit at understanding, to get the satisfaction of making an unstated connection.
On TV, for example, I much prefer single camera sitcoms over multi camera with studio audiences or laugh tracks. I don’t need things to be heavy handed about which parts are jokes.
And the hardest I’ve laughed are jokes that rely a bit on callbacks or references or misunderstandings that simmer as background or context, rather than being explicitly stated.
I’m generally aligned with the “let people enjoy things” view. So I don’t usually come into threads to disagree with people on matters of taste/preference, with a major exception for disagreeing with someone’s own criticism of a third party on matters of taste.
OP came in an posted a joke you have to work for. Someone else came in and complained about it. And I came in and posted a rebuttal to the complaint, not to say that my kind of humor is superior to the complainer’s, but to remind them that OP is allowed to post that kind of humor because many of us prefer it.
I don’t think we can get anywhere if we try to debate based on what you or I personally think is funny. That’s why I specifically mentioned “the punchline”. Since the entire point of the punchline is to say the point of the joke, which is basically to make it obvious, I thought I was cleverly avoiding replies based on personal perspective. I hoped we could all agree that if we looked at a list of jokes that is generally agreed to be funny, most of them would be obvious after the punchline.
I’m not debating whether my type of humor is funnier than your type.
I’m pointing out that OP’s humor is a specific category that others (including myself) appreciate, so I don’t think your own preferences should override how OP wants to share jokes.
You said that you disagreed with the assertion that most funny jokes are obvious after the punchline. It is the first sentence in your reply. And it is on that basis that I believed that is what you were talking about.
And like with OP’s joke, which doesn’t contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it’s fine as it is.
I’m not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you’re implicitly proposing.
I’m confused because you seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am just trying to make sure that we all understand what was actually said. Because I think if you look at what I said, and look at what you and other people said, you’ll see that there’s not much to argue about.
Here is what OP said:
It wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious.
You seem to have interpreted that to mean “It wouldn’t be as funny if it was obvious.”
Since OP said that their joke “wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious,” I thought they meant that the joke doesn’t work if they make it obvious.
A lot of double-entendre jokes are like that. But as you can probably tell from my original reply, I didn’t think this was that kind of joke. I never intended to disrespect anybody or anybody’s joke. I thought this joke was a sort of “I lost my wife” one-liner joke that Rodney Dangerfield might tell, but with the punchline played down. If it was that sort of joke, I have heard funny versions that were obvious.
It’s double entendre, deriving from certain associations with Thailand. If one is in the know, one can read the meme as implying a rather implausible story. There is a humorous twist, but it would be rather dull if spelled out. This way, one derives satisfaction from decoding the meme, and knowing oneself to belong to the in-group.
Why wouldn’t it be funny if it was obvious? Most funny jokes are obvious, at least after the punchline.
I would disagree. Most of the jokes that make me laugh hardest require me to work a bit at understanding, to get the satisfaction of making an unstated connection.
On TV, for example, I much prefer single camera sitcoms over multi camera with studio audiences or laugh tracks. I don’t need things to be heavy handed about which parts are jokes.
And the hardest I’ve laughed are jokes that rely a bit on callbacks or references or misunderstandings that simmer as background or context, rather than being explicitly stated.
Omg kids just agree to disagree. Oh wait this is the internet
I’m generally aligned with the “let people enjoy things” view. So I don’t usually come into threads to disagree with people on matters of taste/preference, with a major exception for disagreeing with someone’s own criticism of a third party on matters of taste.
OP came in an posted a joke you have to work for. Someone else came in and complained about it. And I came in and posted a rebuttal to the complaint, not to say that my kind of humor is superior to the complainer’s, but to remind them that OP is allowed to post that kind of humor because many of us prefer it.
RIPOSTE!
I don’t think we can get anywhere if we try to debate based on what you or I personally think is funny. That’s why I specifically mentioned “the punchline”. Since the entire point of the punchline is to say the point of the joke, which is basically to make it obvious, I thought I was cleverly avoiding replies based on personal perspective. I hoped we could all agree that if we looked at a list of jokes that is generally agreed to be funny, most of them would be obvious after the punchline.
I’m not debating whether my type of humor is funnier than your type.
I’m pointing out that OP’s humor is a specific category that others (including myself) appreciate, so I don’t think your own preferences should override how OP wants to share jokes.
You said that you disagreed with the assertion that most funny jokes are obvious after the punchline. It is the first sentence in your reply. And it is on that basis that I believed that is what you were talking about.
And like with OP’s joke, which doesn’t contain a traditional punchline, many would disagree with your point that explaining the joke to make it more obvious would make the joke better. I think it’s fine as it is.
I’m not asking you to like the original joke, but at least respect why OP chose to share it in the current format, and that some people in the audience may appreciate it better the way it is, compared to the way you’re implicitly proposing.
I’m confused because you seem to think I am arguing with you, but I am just trying to make sure that we all understand what was actually said. Because I think if you look at what I said, and look at what you and other people said, you’ll see that there’s not much to argue about.
Here is what OP said:
You seem to have interpreted that to mean “It wouldn’t be as funny if it was obvious.”
Since OP said that their joke “wouldn’t be funny if it was obvious,” I thought they meant that the joke doesn’t work if they make it obvious.
A lot of double-entendre jokes are like that. But as you can probably tell from my original reply, I didn’t think this was that kind of joke. I never intended to disrespect anybody or anybody’s joke. I thought this joke was a sort of “I lost my wife” one-liner joke that Rodney Dangerfield might tell, but with the punchline played down. If it was that sort of joke, I have heard funny versions that were obvious.
It’s double entendre, deriving from certain associations with Thailand. If one is in the know, one can read the meme as implying a rather implausible story. There is a humorous twist, but it would be rather dull if spelled out. This way, one derives satisfaction from decoding the meme, and knowing oneself to belong to the in-group.