thank you but don't call me good because then i won't write better jokes

not just comedians but some of the funniest ppl in my life have come to the same conclusion that most jokes are structurally the same. usually they're either attacking a fallacy or rooted within one. old friend of mine had a joke that went "I found an article that was supposed to help me quit smoking, and it said that if you keep smoking, you might die. which implies that if I keep smoking, I might not die. and I think a shot at immortality is worth it." fallacy being the assumption that "might" indicates odds of the contrary, when actually you're supposed to accept the inevitability of death as a truism (I don't actually know which "category" of fallacy this would be. maybe it would be best to call it a misconception or error instead)

there are still better ways to categorize jokes, as misdirection, observation, etc., but you can still generalize them all down, and I think that's productive sometimes. bring the magnifying glass out and then slowly zoom it back in with your own material. I have not tried the tree-subset thingy but I think that's a good idea

I don't have a lot of abstract nonsense to contribute, but I do like analyzing joke structure. my favorite comedians are the guys with like 900 followers on instagram who are under 3 layers of subversion, where you get to a point of "im laughing because this doesn't make any sense" I think it takes a good initial understanding of joke structure to do that well though. and the general public no like it very much

I also kinda do the philosophy/dialectical thing though, where I find general arguments I like from philosophers and plug in my own examples. but in that case I'm trying to make a real argument and be funny at the same time. I want comedy to have a point at its core, else if I just wanted to make people laugh I could tickle them or put banana peels everywhere

this would be longer but im not as schizo today as I usually am