Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years. Upon her return her Father cursed her heavily. "Where have ye been all this time, child? Why did ye not write to us, not even a line? Why didn't ye call? Can ye not understand what ye put yer old Mother through?" The girl, crying, replied, "Dad... I became a prostitute." "Ye what!? Get out a here, ye shameless harlot! Sinner! You're a disgrace to this Catholic family." "OK, Dad... as ye wish. I only came back to give mum this luxurious fur coat, title deed to a ten bedroom mansion, plus a 5 million savings certificate. For me little brother, this gold Rolex. And for ye Daddy, the sparkling new Mercedes limited edition convertible that's parked outside plus a membership to the country club ... (takes a breath) ... and an invitation for ye all to spend New Year's Eve on board my new yacht in the Riviera." "What was it ye said ye had become?", says Dad. Girl, crying again, "A prostitute, Daddy!" "Oh! My Goodness! Ye scared me half to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant! Come here and give yer old Dad a hug!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years. Upon her return her Father cursed...', then the trigger 'Come here and give yer old Dad a hug!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
I wore a suit to work and got my supervisor soft demoted I’m posting mainly because I’m not a passive-aggressive type and I’m in disbelief that this actually worked. Ever since I started at my job a few months ago, my supervisor—we’ll call him Josh—has been micromanaging me. When I’m the subject of criticism (which is often), I try to give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him to clarify. What are your expectations? What specifically should I have done differently? Josh’s responses are always vague, often something to the effect of “Just do better.” I even had a meeting with Josh and HR to address this, but to no avail. Yesterday, Josh comes to my desk to tell me I need to dress better. Now, I work at a small company, and the vibe is unusually casual. A not-insignificant number of people come to work wearing jeans, hoodies, t-shirts, and/or baseball caps. I have never worn a hat to work, and I make a point of wearing a button-up shirt with a collar every day. This particular day I was wearing a long-sleeve button-up flannel, chino pants, and Adidas gazelles. Other days I wear loafers and dress shirts that are tucked in. So, I ask Josh to clarify. Should I be wearing dress shoes? Dress shirt? Tucked in? What specifically do you want me to change? Josh tells me I just need to dress better and that I should talk to HR for clarification. So I go in to HR and ask, what is the dress code? I get a standard answer: pants, close-toed shoes, no sleeveless shirts, etc. I ask, have I ever worn anything to work that poses a problem? HR says no, you’re fine. Because I’m mad, and because my repeated efforts to resolve this kind of problem had gone unheeded, I decided to be petty. The next day (today), I showed up to work in a full suit. It’s one I keep for events like weddings, so it’s fitted and I look really sharp in it. It’s also wildly and conspicuously overdressed for the office I work in. I had several interactions with people coming to my desk to comment on my outfit and ask what the occasion was. When anyone asked (only if they asked), I told them I had been told to “dress better.” This was always met with disbelief and incredulity. Two people even said they like the way I dress normally. When anyone asked me who the order came from—again, only if they asked—I told them it came from Josh. I was expecting to pull my little stunt for a week just to prove a point, and then go back to wearing what I had been wearing before. Word got around the office fast, apparently, because the CEO (Josh’s direct boss) came to my desk later in the day to tell me I would be reporting to him now, and that he’d be having a talk with Josh about this and other issues. It’s important to note that I was Josh’s only underling, so he effectively went from being a supervisor to just a regular employee. I’m on a bit of a high now, I think I’m going to come in to work tomorrow wearing a different one of my flannels! Edit: This blew up! Thank you for all the support. No, this isn't AI and I didn't use ChatGPT to edit for style or grammar. I genuinely like em dashes and I use them regularly in writing—I promise!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I wore a suit to work and got my supervisor soft demoted I’m posting mainly because I’m not a passive-aggressive type...', then the trigger 'I genuinely like em dashes and I use them regularly in writing—I promise!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the priest beside her, "Father, may I ask a favor?" "Of course child. What may I do for you?" "Well, I bought my mother an expensive hair dryer for her birthday. It is unopened but well over the customs limits and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through Customs for me? Hide it under your robes perhaps?" "I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you, I will not lie." "With your honest face, Father, no one will question you," she replied. When they got to Customs, she let the priest go first. The official asked, "Father, do you have anything to declare?" "From the top of my head down to my waist I have nothing to declare." The official thought this answer strange, so asked, "And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?" Father replied, "I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, which is, to date, unused." Roaring with laughter, the official said, "Go ahead, Father. Next please!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'An attractive young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the priest beside her, "Father, may I ask a favor?" "Of cour...', then the trigger 'Next please!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
My favorite joke: Everyone Knows Dave Dave was bragging to his boss one day, "You know, I know everyone there is to know. Just name someone, anyone, and I know them." Tired of his boasting, his boss called his bluff, "OK, Dave, how about Tom Cruise?" "No dramas boss, Tom and I are old friends, and I can prove it." So Dave and his boss fly out to Hollywood and knock on Tom Cruise's door, and Tom Cruise shouts, "Dave! What's happening? Great to see you! Come on in for a beer!" Although impressed, Dave's boss is still skeptical. After they leave Cruise's house, he tells Dave that he thinks him knowing Cruise was just lucky. "No, no, just name anyone else," Dave says. "President Obama," his boss quickly retorts. "Yup," Dave says, "Old buddies, let's fly out to Washington," and off they go. At the White House, Obama spots Dave on the tour and motions him and his boss over, saying, "Dave, what a surprise, I was just on my way to a meeting, but you and your friend come on in and let's have a beer first and catch up." Well, the boss is very shaken by now but still not totally convinced. After they leave the White House grounds he expresses his doubts to Dave, who again implores him to name anyone else. "Pope Francis," his boss replies. "Sure!" says Dave. "I've known the Pope for years." So off they fly to Rome. Dave and his boss are assembled with the masses at the Vatican's St. Peter's Square when Dave says, "This will never work. I can't catch the Pope's eye among all these people. Tell you what, I know all the guards so let me just go upstairs and I'll come out on the balcony with the Pope." He disappears into the crowd headed towards the Vatican. Sure enough, half an hour later Dave emerges with the Pope on the balcony, but by the time Dave returns, he finds that his boss has had a heart attack and is surrounded by paramedics. Making his way to his boss' side, Dave asks him, "What happened?" His boss looks up and says, "It was the final straw... you and the Pope came out on to the balcony and the man next to me said, 'Who the fuck is that on the balcony with Dave?'
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My favorite joke: Everyone Knows Dave Dave was bragging to his boss one day, "You know, I know everyone there is to k...', then the trigger 'you and the Pope came out on to the balcony and the man next to me said, 'Who the fuck is that on the balcony with Da...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
Once upon a time, in the magical fantasy kingdom, there lived a young monk named Sam. His order was renowned for their beautiful choral singing. They trained, hours every day, refining their voices and their art. Their song floated down the mountainside, enriching the lives and souls of the townspeople below. Sam was particularly gifted, and on his 19th birthday, in mid-song, he hit upon a beautifully intricate note of pure magic. Everyone within miles just froze in mid action, stirred to the very core of their souls by the pure bliss of the tone. And all the realm realized, instantly, that it was Sam, and Sam was the first person in history to hit one of the rumored Magical Notes that musicians had theorized must exist... yet no one before Sam had ever reached one. And on Sam's 20th birthday, it happened again. This time, the town below was so impacted that no one moved, spoke, or even blinked for several minutes after. As the golden sound finally tapered off and ceased, they knew that Sam had found the Second Note... And the next year on Sam's birthday, the town had realized there was a pattern involved. This time, all of the townspeople were present in the monastery's nave, watching in awe, as Sam hit the glorious Third Note. People cried out in pure joy as the sound grew to a glorious crescendo. Words cannot do justice to the experience. The town flourished, as Sam's notes made the people pure all the way to the core of their beings. And on it went for the next few years, the Magical Notes growing sweeter and sweeter... until, that is, Sam's 25th birthday. All at first seemed as normal... until Sam hit the Magical Note. From the start, Sam seemed very uncomfortable, and this new sound was not beautiful... it was jarring and discordant. Sam started to get very warm, and was visibly sweating onstage. He doubled his resolve and dug deeper, to get to the sweet part of the Magical Note that he knew must be there. Suddenly, to the horror of all, Sam spontaneously combusted! The two closest monks on stage were burned by the flames coming off of his body, and he ignited the stage curtains. Soon the entire monastery was aflame. By a miracle, everyone made it out, except for poor Sam. The townsfolk were left staring at the burning monastery in sad, stunned disbelief. The mayor approached the lead monk of the order. "What happened?" he asked, exasperated. The old monk shook his head sadly. "Isn't it obvious?" he said. "Sam sung Note 7." - EDIT - Wow, I came back and this really blew up! Thanks so much for the kind comments, and upvotes, and gold. I'm so glad I could give so many people a chuckle today!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Once upon a time, in the magical fantasy kingdom, there lived a young monk named Sam. His order was renowned for thei...', then the trigger 'I'm so glad I could give so many people a chuckle today!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar The first mathematician orders a beer The second orders half a beer "I don't serve half-beers" the bartender replies "Excuse me?" Asks mathematician #2 "What kind of bar serves half-beers?" The bartender remarks. "That's ridiculous." "Oh c'mon" says mathematician #1 "do you know how hard it is to collect an infinite number of us? Just play along" "There are very strict laws on how I can serve drinks. I couldn't serve you half a beer even if I wanted to." "But that's not a problem" mathematician #3 chimes in "at the end of the joke you serve us a whole number of beers. You see, when you take the sum of a continuously halving function-" "I know how limits work" interjects the bartender "Oh, alright then. I didn't want to assume a bartender would be familiar with such advanced mathematics" "Are you kidding me?" The bartender replies, "you learn limits in like, 9th grade! What kind of mathematician thinks limits are advanced mathematics?" "HE'S ON TO US" mathematician #1 screeches Simultaneously, every mathematician opens their mouth and out pours a cloud of multicolored mosquitoes. Each mathematician is bellowing insects of a different shade. The mosquitoes form into a singular, polychromatic swarm. "FOOLS" it booms in unison, "I WILL INFECT EVERY BEING ON THIS PATHETIC PLANET WITH MALARIA" The bartender stands fearless against the technicolor hoard. "But wait" he inturrupts, thinking fast, "if you do that, politicians will use the catastrophe as an excuse to implement free healthcare. Think of how much that will hurt the taxpayers!" The mosquitoes fall silent for a brief moment. "My God, you're right. We didn't think about the economy! Very well, we will not attack this dimension. FOR THE TAXPAYERS!" and with that, they vanish. A nearby barfly stumbles over to the bartender. "How did you know that that would work?" "It's simple really" the bartender says. "I saw that the vectors formed a gradient, and therefore must be conservative."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar The first mathematician orders a beer The second orders half a b...', then the trigger '"I saw that the vectors formed a gradient, and therefore must be conservative."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
A man obsessed with trains finally steals one and immediately crashes it, killing several people... At the trial, the man is found guilty of multiple murders and sentenced to death. Before he faces his sentence, he's offered a last meal, and asks for a single banana, which is given to him. The next day, he's led to the electric chair. They strap him in, pull the switch, and... nothing happens. There's never been a failure before. But because you cannot punish a person twice for the same crime, the court is forced to let him go free. Within a week's time, naturally, the man, who is obsessed with trains, goes and steals another one. He doesn't care that he can't drive it or that he failed catastrophically before; he is obsessed with trains and his only desire is to operate one. As before, he crashes it, and kills several people. Again, he stands trial, and again, he is sentenced to death, showing no remorse, only delight that he got to operate the train. His last meal request is a single banana. When he goes to the chair, the executioner pulls the switch, but nothing happens. He goes free again. The train-obsessed maniac, once more on the loose, wastes no time in hijacking a train and crashing it. His trial is speedy, because this has already happened twice, and he is sentenced to death. They ask him what he'd like for his last meal. "A single banana," he says. "Oh, no you don't, you son of a bitch. We're on to you, now. We know all about your little banana trick, and you're not escaping this time!" The guards refuse his request, and instead serve him a standard last meal of steak, potatoes, and berry cobbler. The next morning they strap him into the electric chair, pull the switch, and... nothing happens. "*Did you give him the banana?*" demands the head guard. "No, sir! He asked for the banana but we didn't give it to him, we swear!" says one of the guards. Turns out the banana had nothing to do with anything. He was just a really bad conductor.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A man obsessed with trains finally steals one and immediately crashes it, killing several people... At the trial, the...', then the trigger 'He was just a really bad conductor.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is absurdism.
Scarlett Johansson and some guy were the only survivors of a shipwreck. They didn't know each other before the shipwreck, but he did know who she was... At the beginning it was hard, but as time passed, this guy learnt how to provide food and shelter, he started taking care of her, and eventually she started caring about him... after all, there wasn't anybody else in the island... He eventually built a cabin, had a functioning automatic potable water supply, and all sorts of little clever commodities, all done to make her life easier... it was the most effort any man had ever done for her, and all the hard work made him fit, she noticed this... One night after some wildlife attacked and he defended her successfully, getting a few cuts in the process, she threw herself at him and they made love, after that, they where for all intents and purposes a couple with an above regular sex life. But for some reason he started drifting away, something was bothering him. And she noticed... "What's wrong?" Scarlett Johansson asked, "Nothing..." the guy would say... She pestered him for a while eventually saying she would do ANYTHING he needed or wanted to make him feel good again, just because she really cared for him a lot, and even if he wasn't asking, she felt it was the least she owed it to him... "Really?, you'll do anything I'd like?" "yes" she said "anything!" "ok, first i want you to take off you toga and get into this pair of work jeans that somehow washed on the shore" "ok..." "now put this shirt on please, but first, "tape" your boobs so they are flat" "wha... ok, I'd say I'd do anything" she said lovingly. "ok, now, take this hat and wear it, but tuck your hair under it" She was kinda confused, but non the less, she wanted to make him happy, so she tucked her hair under the hat. "Now id like for you to grab this piece of soot and paint yourself a beard and a mustache" "ok... if this is what you want..." she muttered. "now, please, put on these sunglasses, and start walking down the beach I'll catch up to you in a bit", he said a bit excited... She started walking... wondering... doubting herself... just confused about what had just happened, maybe it wasn't her, maybe it was h... suddenly the guy grabs her by her shoulder turns her around and says: "DUDE!!! you won't believe who I've been fucking for the past 6 months!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Scarlett Johansson and some guy were the only survivors of a shipwreck. They didn't know each other before the shipwr...', then the trigger 'you won't believe who I've been fucking for the past 6 months!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Two boys in Egypt free a crocodile... In a small village in Egypt lived two orphan boys, Set and Amenhotep. They always watched out for each other, well past their years of childhood and into their time as young adults. One day, the two were walking outside the village when they saw a crocodile trapped in a poacher’s snare. The two young men, sympathetic to a creature in need, approached the crocodile and released it from the trap. Once freed, the crocodile transformed into a wispy, glowing fairy! “Thank you, young men” said the fairy, “Your hearts are truly selfless, and I will grant each of you one wish. What are your names?” “This is my friend Set, and you can call me ‘Ep’”, said Amenhotep. “Very well, Ep” said the fairy “What is the desire of your heart?” “I wish I was the strongest man in the world!” Amenhotep wished. “Very well”, said the fairy, “but you must always use your strength to help others.” Smoke gathered around Amenhotep, and when the smoke cleared Ep was 7 foot six and rippling with muscles. The fairy turned to Set “And what is your wish, Set?” Set responded “I never want to be poor again! I wish for money!” “Very well,” said the fairy. Smoke gathered in front of the two of them, and when the smoke cleared a small elf remained, bowing to the two boys. “Greetings, sirs! My name is Elmon, and I am here to serve!” “Elmon is an expert in all things money,” said the fairy, “He will help you make wise decisions and turn any business profitable, but will only help you so long as he is only asked to do good for your fellow man.” Amenhotep and Set were inseparable. True to his word, Amenhotep used his great strength to build many houses for people in need. Set helped, as well, but his comparatively small size next to the now massive Amenhotep earned him the nickname “Imp”. With Elmon’s financial savvy, the two started a non-profit dedicated to building houses for the less fortunate, and Elmon kept all their paperwork in perfect order. Years passed, and the two lived very fulfilling lives helping the homeless. Amenhotep met a girl while building houses and the two got married and had a beautiful baby boy, Josep. Ep and Set’s business expanded globally. 15 years passed and Amenhotep grew kinder and more generous, giving to people in need at any of the places he went to build houses. Set built a campus in Cairo for the headquarters of their business, and directed global efforts. Over the years, Set lost touch with the people he was helping, and became more focused on business expansion and money of the business. As all fathers do, Amenhotep wanted his son to eventually take over the business and help the next generation of needful people find purpose in their lives. He sent Josep to the the HQ in Cairo to learn business from Set. Once there, Josep was surprised to find that much of the financial success was due in large part to the financial savvy of Elmon, the elf. Josep spent months at HQ learning how to run the business. While there, Set decided that it was time to expand the company into a more profitable venture. Instead of building houses for the needy, he drafted up a plan to buy up land around urban areas and construct rental properties at expensive prices while preventing construction of new, affordable housing. He sent Josep with the proposal to Elmon to determine the financial logistics. Upon reading the proposal and its ill-nature’s effect on Set’s fellow man, Elmon keeled over and died, instantly. Josep was shocked, and ran to alert Set right away, who wailed in dismay at the loss of his financial mastermind. In a rage, he accused Josep of killing Elmon, and sent the teenager to jail. Amenhotep, hearing of the distress, caught the first flight back to Cairo to find himself neck-deep in a legal battle between him and his old friend. Without the financial and legal savvy of Elmon, Set’s case was a mess. Amenhotep, distraught, tried to reason with his childhood friend. “Come, Imp, release my boy and call off the lawsuit. Let’s use our energy to help those in need and not further what we both know is a fruitless path.” Set refused, furiously gathering circumstantial evidence to bring to the court to frame Josep for Elmon’s murder. The case was brought before the court, but Set’s claims were weak and unsupported. The judge, thoroughly disgusted with the lack of evidence from the prosecution, dismissed the case outright. Obviously, Ep’s teen didn’t kill Imp’s elf.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Two boys in Egypt free a crocodile... In a small village in Egypt lived two orphan boys, Set and Amenhotep. They alwa...', then the trigger 'Obviously, Ep’s teen didn’t kill Imp’s elf.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
A policeman was interrogating 3 guys who were training to become detectives. To test their skills in recognizing a suspect, he shows the first guys a picture for 5 seconds and then hides it. "This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?" The first guy answers, "That's easy, we'll catch him fast because he only has one eye!" The policeman says, "Well...uh...that's because the picture I showed is his side profile." Slightly flustered by this ridiculous response, he flashes the picture for 5 seconds at the second guy and asks him, "This is your suspect, how would you recognize him?" The second guy smiles, flips his hair and says, "Ha! He'd be too easy to catch because he only has one ear!" The policeman angrily responds, "What's the matter with you two?!!? Of course only one eye and one ear are showing because it's a picture of his side profile! Is that the best answer you can come up with?" Extremely frustrated at this point, he shows the picture to the third guy and in a very testy voice asks, "This is your suspect, how would you recognize him? He quickly adds, "Think hard before giving me a stupid answer." The third guy looks at the picture intently for a moment and says, "The suspect wears contact lenses." The policeman is surprised and speechless because he really doesn't know himself if the suspect wears contacts or not. "Well, that's an interesting answer. Wait here for a few minutes while I check his file and I'll get back to you on that." He leaves the room and goes to his office, checks the suspect's file on his computer and comes back with a beaming smile on his face. "Wow! I can't believe it. It's TRUE! The suspect does, in fact, wear contact lenses. Good work! How were you able to make such an astute observation?" "That's easy..." the third guy replied. "He can't wear regular glasses because he only has one eye and one ear."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A policeman was interrogating 3 guys who were training to become detectives. To test their skills in recognizing a su...', then the trigger '"He can't wear regular glasses because he only has one eye and one ear."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
I had my yard certified as a National Wildlife Habitat to spite a busybody neighbor Edit at the bottom! Our yard is wild. I mean that in the real definition of "living or growing in the natural environment". We have no "lawn". We aggressively remove and prevent invasive and noxious species of plants and ensure that what grows is native to our area and drought resistant. The wildflowers that grow are things like Lupine, Blue Flax, Spiderwort, Black eyed Susan, and Sunflowers, among others. We have natural elements like driftwood logs to retain water and we even have an elk skull in the yard to act as a shelter for critters. There are a plethora of birds, bees, bunnies, and other wildlife. More wildlife than any yard in the area, as far as I can tell. It's beautiful and alive, but definitely not a manicured lawn with perfectly cut grass and landscaping. Last summer, we got a notice from the county that our yard was in violation of some county ordinance. My husband called the number on the notice and got a very "over it" employee who let out a big sigh and said he had gotten like 30 complaints from one person for the entire strip of road that we live on. Keep in mind, you can't "batch" report an area. You have to file reports house by house. So someone had the time and energy to pull up Google maps and file a report for about 30 houses for "overgrown weeds." I checked the county ordinance and made sure everything we had in our yard was in compliance. Things like "purposely cultivated," which our wildflowers definitely were. We planted specific species of seeds and we remove whatever's not native. None of the wild plants block any sidewalks nor do they hang over onto any other properties. Now knowing that it was someone with way too much time on their hands, I did some reading and learned that my yard has everything needed and then some to qualify as a National Wildlife Habitat. So, I filled out the form, paid the fee, and got my certificate. My husband called the county employee back who said "Send me that certificate." He looked it over, thanked my husband for the new information he can use in the future, and closed our case. I now have signs on my yard that announce the property as a wildlife habitat and the birds and bees get to keep living happily in the wild. EDIT: Thank you for the overwhelming support for my little act of rebellion. I'm so so happy to see how many people are excited about wild yards! Long live the bees 🐝 That said, I'm getting some real weird hate in my inbox. IDK why this seems to have activated some negative feelings in some people. Let me clear a couple things up... The county doesn't have HOA style restrictions. They're pretty fast and loose with the ordinances. The certificate/sign simply shows that the wildness is intentional and not just a neglected yard. It offers no legal protection, and I never claimed it did. The county employee liked that he had something to show in the event someone keeps complaining. So far, we haven't had any more issues and it's been over a year. I don't really worry about resale value bc I want to live in my house in a manner that brings me joy. I can easily reverse anything we've done if I need to sell for some reason. The house is paid off tho, so not likely to do that any time soon lol I don't feel comfortable sharing photos of my yard (and someone demanded proof I own a house?). I'm really sorry, I would also want to see photos. I have just had some weird issues in the past and don't want to end up doxxing myself. I'm sure most of y'all understand 💜 I'm so happy y'all are interested in having a wild yard, as well. 🐝 🌺 ❤️
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I had my yard certified as a National Wildlife Habitat to spite a busybody neighbor Edit at the bottom! Our yard is w...', then the trigger '🐝 🌺 ❤️' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
So I took off her shirt. Then she said, "Take off my skirt." I took off her skirt. "Take off my shoes." I took off her shoes. "Now take off my bra and panties." and so I took them off. Then she looked at me and said, "I don't want to catch you wearing my things ever again."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'So I took off her shirt. Then she said, "Take off my skirt." I took off her skirt. "Take off my shoes." I took off he...', then the trigger 'Then she looked at me and said, "I don't want to catch you wearing my things ever again."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
I WANNA HANG A MAP OF THE WORLD IN MY HOUSE. THEN I'M GONNA PUT PINS INTO ALL THE LOCATIONS THAT I'VE TRAVELED TO. BUT FIRST, I'M GONNA HAVE TO TRAVEL TO THE TOP TWO CORNERS OF THE MAP SO IT WON'T FALL DOWN.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I WANNA HANG A MAP OF THE WORLD IN MY HOUSE. THEN I'M GONNA PUT PINS INTO ALL THE LOCATIONS THAT I'VE TRAVELED TO. BU...', then the trigger 'TWO CORNERS OF THE MAP SO IT WON'T FALL DOWN.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'I was talking about him! Bitmoji added a new image and it just says "soon" and it made me laugh cause to this day my...'.
A man walks out to the street and catches a taxi just going by. He gets into the taxi, and the cabbie says, "Perfect timing. You're just like Frank." Passenger: "Who?" Cabbie: "Frank Feldman. He's a guy who did everything right all the time. Like my coming along when you needed a cab, things happened like that to Frank Feldman every single time." Passenger: "There are always a few clouds over everybody." Cabbie: "Not Frank Feldman. He was a terrific athlete. He could have won the Grand-Slam at tennis. He could golf with the pros. He sang like an opera baritone and danced like a Broadway star and you should have heard him play the piano. He was an amazing guy." Passenger: "Sounds like he was really something special." Cabbie: "There's more. He had a memory like a computer. He remembered everybody's birthday. He knew all about wine, which foods to order and which fork to eat them with. He could fix anything. Not like me. I change a fuse, and the whole street blacks out. But Frank Feldman could do everything right.” Passenger: "Wow, what a guy!" Cabbie: "He always knew the quickest way to go in traffic and avoid traffic jams. Not like me, I always seem to get stuck in them. But Frank, he never made a mistake, and he really knew how to treat a woman and make her feel good. He would never answer her back even if she was in the wrong; and his clothing was always immaculate, shoes highly polished too. He was the perfect man! He never made a mistake. No one could ever measure up to Frank Feldman." Passenger: "How did you meet him?" Cabbie: "I never actually met Frank. He died and I married his wife."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A man walks out to the street and catches a taxi just going by. He gets into the taxi, and the cabbie says, "Perfect...', then the trigger 'He died and I married his wife."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is imitation.
A man is dining in a fancy restaurant and there is a gorgeous redhead sitting at the next table. He has been checking her out since he sat down, but lacks the nerve to talk with her. Suddenly she sneezes, and her glass eye comes flying out of its socket toward the man. He reflexively reaches out, grabs it out of the air, and hands it back. 'Oh my, I am so sorry,' the woman says as she pops her eye back in place. 'Let me buy your dinner to make it up to you,' she says. They enjoy a wonderful dinner together, and afterwards they go to the theatre followed by drinks. They talk, they laugh, she shares her deepest dreams and he shares his. She listens. After paying for everything, she asks him if he would like to come to her place for a nightcap and stay for breakfast. They had a wonderful, wonderful time. The next morning, she cooks a gourmet meal with all the trimmings. The guy is amazed. Everything had been SO incredible! 'You know,' he said, 'you are the perfect woman. Are you this nice to every guy you meet?' 'No,' she replies. . . 'You just happened to catch my eye.'
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A man is dining in a fancy restaurant and there is a gorgeous redhead sitting at the next table. He has been checking...', then the trigger ''You just happened to catch my eye.'' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
The year is 2020 and the United States has just elected the first woman, from Alabama , as president. The year is 2020 and the United States has just elected the first woman, from Alabama , as president. A few days after the election the president-elect calls her father and says, 'So, Daddy, I assume you will be coming to my inauguration?' 'I don't think so. It's a 16 hour drive, your mother isn't as young as she used to be, and my arthritis is acting up again.' 'Don't worry about it Daddy, I'll send Air Force One to pick you up and take you home. A limousine will pick you up at your door.' 'I don't know. Everybody will be so fancy. What would your mother wear?' 'Oh, Daddy', replies the president-elect, 'I'll make sure she has a wonderful gown custom made by the best designer in Washington .' 'Honey,' Dad complains, 'you know I can't eat those rich foods you and your friends like to eat.' The President-to-be responds, 'Don't worry Daddy. The entire affair is going to be handled by the best caterer in Washington , I'll ensure your meals are salt free Daddy, I really want you to come.' So Dad reluctantly agrees, and on January 20, 2021, the first woman from Alabama is being sworn in as President of the United States . In the front row sit the new president's Dad and Mom. Dad leans over to the Supreme Court Justice sitting next to him and whispers, 'You see that woman over there with her hand on the Bible, becoming President of the United States .' The Justice whispers back, 'Yes I do.' Daddy says proudly, 'Her brother played football for the University of Alabama .'
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'The year is 2020 and the United States has just elected the first woman, from Alabama , as president. The year is 202...', then the trigger 'Daddy says proudly, 'Her brother played football for the University of Alabama .'' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon.... A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon. As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his stethoscope and listened to the bird's chest. After a moment or two, the vet shook his head and sadly said, "I'm sorry, your duck, Cuddles, has passed away." The distressed woman wailed, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I am sure. Your duck is dead," replied the vet.. "How can you be so sure?" she protested. "I mean you haven't done any testing on him or anything. He might just be in a coma or something." The vet rolled his eyes, turned around and left the room. He returned a few minutes later with a black Labrador Retriever. As the duck's owner looked on in amazement, the dog stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on the examination table and sniffed the duck from top to bottom. He then looked up at the vet with sad eyes and shook his head. The vet patted the dog on the head and took it out of the room. A few minutes later he returned with a cat. The cat jumped on the table and also delicately sniffed the bird from head to foot. The cat sat back on its haunches, shook its head, meowed softly and strolled out of the room. The vet looked at the woman and said, "I'm sorry, but as I said, this is most definitely, 100% certifiably, a dead duck." The vet turned to his computer terminal, hit a few keys and produced a bill, which he handed to the woman.. The duck's owner, still in shock, took the bill. "$150!" she cried, "$150 just to tell me my duck is dead!" The vet shrugged, "I'm sorry. If you had just taken my word for it, the bill would have been $20, but with the Lab Report and the Cat Scan, it's now $150."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon.... A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary sur...', then the trigger 'the bill would have been $20, but with the Lab Report and the Cat Scan, it's now $150."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
The first female president The year is 2028 and the United States has elected the first woman as well as the first Jewish president, Sarah Goldstein. She calls up her mother a few weeks after Election Day and says, "So, Mom, I assume you'll be coming to my inauguration?" "I don't think so. It's a ten-hour drive, your father isn't as young as he used to be, and my arthritis is acting up again." "Don't worry about it, Mom, I'll send Air Force One to pick you up and take you home. And a limousine will pick you up at your door." "I don't know. Everybody will be so fancy-schmantzy; what on earth would I wear? Sarah replies, "I'll make sure you have a wonderful gown, custom-made by the best designer in New York." "Honey," Mom complains, "you know I can't eat those rich foods you and your friends like to eat." The President-to-be responds, "Don't worry Mom. The entire affair is going to be handled by the best caterer in New York; kosher all the way Mom, I really want you to come." So Mom reluctantly agrees and on January 20, 2029, Sarah Goldstein is being sworn in as President of the United States. In the front row sits the new President's mother, who leans over to a senator sitting next to her and says, "You see that woman over there with her hand on the Torah, becoming President of the United States?" The senator whispers back, "Yes, I do." Mom says proudly, "Her brother is a doctor." Edit: Dates (the attention to detail in the comments is amazing. Sarah Goldstein would hire you all). Edit II: 2028 -> 2029. Edit III: Glad to see most of you liked the joke! Shoutout to Heather for being my fellow old jewish mother through thick and thin, and shoutout to my awesome girlfriend on her birthday! Miss you boo :-*
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'The first female president The year is 2028 and the United States has elected the first woman as well as the first Je...', then the trigger 'Miss you boo :-*' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
A woman is walking through the park when she sees a very attractive man sitting on a park bench. He's reading a book and eating some fruit out of a Tupperware container. Slowly the woman gathers the courage to go ask the man out. So, she walks over and takes a seat next to him on the bench, turns to him and says, "Sorry to bother you. I know this may be a little forward but I would love to grab coffee with you some time." Flattered, the man responds, "Sure... but what makes you so certain you and I would get along so well?" "Well," the woman says, "A couple things, actually. I noticed you were wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt. Iron Maiden are my favourite band of all time. When they went on their reunion tour in 1999 my parents took me to see them in Cleveland. I was 12 years old, it was the first concert I ever went to. I absolutely love Iron Maiden. " The man can't believe it. "I saw them play Cleveland in '99! First concert I ever went to on my own. My best friend Jimmy Spitz and I told our parents we were sleeping at each others' houses, snuck out, took a bus into the city and saw them play at the Plain Dealer Pavillion!" Naturally, they're both shocked. "If that isn't weird enough," says the woman, "I noticed you're reading Mark Twain. I was a communications major in university and I actually wrote my thesis on Mark Twain, how he used satire as a lens to comment on current events of the time, comparing him to satirical news sources of today. He's my favourite author" Now the man is really taken aback, "Get out of here. I was an English major in university! I specialized in 19th century American literature, this is like my fourth or fifth time reading Tom Sawyer, I absolutely love Mark Twain." They both can't believe it, this has got to be a match made in heaven. "Ok," the woman says, "well, buckle up because here's the icing on the cake. I noticed you're eating a prune. Prunes are my absolute favourite fruit. When I was a kid, my grandfather lived on a farm. He had an orchard that mainly grew apples and some lemons, but he knew how much my sister and I loved prunes so he kept a couple of plum trees. Every year at the end of the summer, we'd go up and harvest the plums with him. He'd dry them and by the time we'd go back to his place for Thanksgiving he'd always have those prunes saved just for us. They're my favourite fruit! I love prunes, you're eating a prune, this has got to be fate. What do you say?" The man puts down his fruit and responds, *"It's a date."*
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A woman is walking through the park when she sees a very attractive man sitting on a park bench. He's reading a book...', then the trigger '*"It's a date."*' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is imitation.
Boss accused me of bullying so I requested punishment Years ago I worked in a semi-public sector job as part of a successful team helping make life easy for local businesses. Our team boss took a good job in the private sector and a new boss was recruited from a decent organisation similar to ours in a different part of the country. She worked compressed hours Monday-Thursday and was off on Fridays. A month or two in, and although the new boss was quite particular about things being done her way and had upset a couple of my colleagues by criticising their work, I'd had no problems with her. We had a team meeting where the boss said that our performance wasn't good enough (we were arguably the best in the country) and that she wanted to be more involved in what and how we did everything to ensure better quality and so we should copy her to every client email so she could comment as needed before we sent another reply. Although this seemed inefficient, nobody argued and I just asked her if I should wait until Monday for her to comment on any client emails received on a Friday. I can't remember exactly what she said, but at the end of the meeting she asked me to stay behind and then told me in a heated tone that my question was "bullying behaviour", that it was "unprofessional" to ask the question in front of the team, and said that my actions were the sort of thing that HR would see as grounds for dismissal and that I should be "very careful" in future. I told her I understood and we returned to our desks where I wrote up every single detail of the entire meeting and interaction and sent it to the Head of HR with the explanation that as bullying was very serious and may not be reported by the victim, I felt duty-bound to report myself. I also laid it on pretty thick about being appalled by my unprofessional behaviour and the fact that my career was likely at risk and I clearly had a desperate need for training and discipline to fix my dangerous ways. I also copied in my union rep. Within a day me, my union rep, and my boss were with the Head of HR who, being a 'by-the-book' professional, could find no indication of bullying or justification for my fears of being an unprofessional bully in need of re-education. I was asked to leave the meeting. My union rep stayed in and I don't know what was said but within 6 weeks my boss was gone and that same week my (weak and ineffective but likeable) big boss called me in to thank me as he had wanted to get rid of her but hadn't known how.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Boss accused me of bullying so I requested punishment Years ago I worked in a semi-public sector job as part of a suc...', then the trigger 'My union rep stayed in and I don't know what was said but within 6 weeks my boss was gone and that same week my (weak...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
A problem when you tell jokes is that some people take everything you say literally. But I have a friend who takes everything figuratively. Like the other day I told him that cats always land on their feet and he said, "I don't know about that man, there are a LOT of homeless cats out there." James Etchison @jamesetchison
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A problem when you tell jokes is that some people take everything you say literally. But I have a friend who takes ev...', then the trigger '@jamesetchison' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'Thanks for the responses and votes everyone! Rather than try to reply individually I'll just say I'm trying to get a...'.
Gay people: I support your movement, but if you wanna take advice from a negro: Pace yourself, these things take a while. Just cause they passed the law, doesn't mean they're gonna like you. ...Cuz Brown vs Board of Education was in 1955- Somebody called me a "Nigger" in traffic last wednesday. It takes a minute. -Dave Chapelle
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Gay people: I support your movement, but if you wanna take advice from a negro: Pace yourself, these things take a wh...', then the trigger '-Dave Chapelle' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is wordplay with incongruity-resolution. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'Chapelle is amazing and this post doesn’t violate any rules. /r/standupshots requires content be credited, but it doe...'.
YOU CAN I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A RESTAURANT US IF IT'S A FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT RIGHT NEXT TO CHIK-FIL-A Com W YORK A VERSI AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE OPEN ON SUNDAYS #coticome y f THE OTHER SIX DAYS IT'S A GAY BAR theloose.co1 #catchusityouc IT'LL BE CALLED DICK-FIL-A
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'YOU CAN I HAVE AN IDEA FOR A RESTAURANT US IF IT'S A FRIED CHICKEN RESTAURANT RIGHT NEXT TO CHIK-FIL-A Com W YORK A V...', then the trigger 'IT'LL BE CALLED DICK-FIL-A' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'Dick-fil-a sounds painful; like a late-life circumcision clinic.'.
"All modifications must be restored to the original." I told this story to a friend. She suggested I share it here. My family and I moved into a house in 2008 - 5 bedrooms, 3,200 sq ft, $1,600 a month. It was a decent price in 2008, and the rent stayed the same for many years. Since I'm reasonably handy, I would fix things myself rather than bother an old man. I lived there so long that I also made quite a few upgrades. In 2024, the owner passed away, and his son inherited the property. A week later, he gave notice of intent to inspect the property. During the inspection, he kept trying to open drawers and look through my belongings, which isn't legally allowed, and was rude when I stopped him. As he left, he handed me a notice that my rent was increasing to $4,000 monthly, about $1,000 over market value. I would have paid higher rent if it had been reasonable, but I wasn't paying that much. My month-to-month lease was worded to require three months' notice to raise the rent. I pointed out this fact, then gave him notice that I would be moving out at the end of that three months. A few days later, I was served with an eviction notice. The month-to-month lease also required three months' notice to evict me without cause, so he tried evicting me with cause. He claimed I had made "unauthorized modifications" to the house and cited the back door with a dog door installed. I still had the original door in the garage and the previous owner's permission, so it was neither unauthorized nor a modification. Regardless, the judge decided I needed to move out within 30 days, or he would grant the eviction. Additionally, he explicitly ordered that all modifications be restored to the original. This is where the malicious compliance comes in, and I'm sure you already see this coming. All the "Smart House" additions I made were removed. The tool shed in the yard was removed. The pond was filled in. Closet organizers were torn out. Garage organizers were removed. The updated appliances were replaced with basic models. Every update I made was removed, and then I moved out. He sued me for removing everything. His lawyer cited a law that says any changes to the property become part of the property, and it's illegal to remove them when vacating the property. However, my lawyer pointed out the order from the previous judge, stating, "All modifications must be restored to the original." I provided receipts for all the things I had removed, proving I had added them and was required to remove them. I won the case, and he had to pay my legal fees. A few months later, I got a call from his sister. Some of my mail had not been forwarded, and she wanted to ensure I got it. We had a short conversation about the entire ordeal. She told me the house was actually inherited by four siblings. Her brother had lied to everyone. First, he had raised the rent, knowing I would move out. He already had a deal to sell the house to one of those big rental companies. He told his siblings the house had negative equity and nobody would get anything from the sale. In reality, the house was paid off and worth about $700,000. They had made an offer on the house, which included all the stuff I later removed. He couldn't afford to replace everything, so they took him to court over the sale. Since all four siblings were listed as owners, all were named in the lawsuit, which is how they learned the truth. In the end, the house sold for $550,000. In exchange for not pressing fraud charges against him, his three siblings split the proceeds, and he got nothing. **Edit:** A lot of people asked the same questions. Rather than respond to them individually, I will post them here. **Q. How did everything happen so fast after the landlord died?** A. I guess my wording wasn't clear. I don't actually know when he died. I only talked to the guy once or twice a year. This all started about a week after I was notified of his death in February of 2024. I moved out in early June. We went to court over the removals in September, and I spoke with his sister in December. Everything I posted happened over the span of nearly a year. **Q. Why did I rent for 17 years instead of buying a house?** A. I moved into the house during my divorce in 2008. Buying a house during a divorce is not easy. I chose this house because it was large enough for me and three kids and close to their schools. By the time they moved out, I was set in my ways. I planned to buy another place at some point but was in no rush. **Q. How did his siblings not know what he was up to?** A. I don't know. Everything involving me was my firsthand experience. Everything that happened after that was secondhand information I got from his sister. I can't confirm what she told me; I can only share what she said. **Q. Why did I do so many upgrades in a rental?** A. I wasn't tearing out walls or replacing floors. Everything I did was reversible and done to make my life easier. Also, the landlord was re
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward '"All modifications must be restored to the original." I told this story to a friend. She suggested I share it here. M...', then the trigger 'I don't know if he told them this, but it's not far-fetched to believe a house has negative equity.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
MY FRIENDS AND I EXPERIMENTED SEXUALLY DURING HIGH SCHOOL Cor W YOR NIVERSI IT SOUNDS COOL, #colicome y f theloose.co1 #catchusityouc BUT I WAS THE CONTROL GROUP @WYATTFEEGRADO
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'MY FRIENDS AND I EXPERIMENTED SEXUALLY DURING HIGH SCHOOL Cor W YOR NIVERSI IT SOUNDS COOL, #colicome y f theloose.co...', then the trigger '@WYATTFEEGRADO' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'I like it. Clever'.
I should cancel on my end? no problem! I booked accommodation 2 months in advance for St Patrick’s weekend in Dublin. It was a fairly ancient b&b but for €115 it was a place to sleep and cheapest option for the busiest weekend of the year in Dublin. It was one double bed for me and a buddy to share. It was pay on arrival. 3 weeks before the stay, the accommodation manager messaged me on the app I booked the stay on telling me there’s a problem, I can no longer stay and to cancel on my side immediately. No apology let alone help offered by them. This was followed by multiple phone calls daily, along with text messages in a harassing nature saying I need to cancel now so I can get my money back (once again, it was pay on arrival). I didn’t answer the calls or messages telling me to cancel. Something felt off, so I checked the listing for the night I was supposed to stay and it just so happens the accommodation had been listed again for double the price. Likely the manager realised St Patrick’s weekend was a cash grab. Maybe not immediately but at the property manager’s request, I simply rang booking.com, and told them I’d like to cancel my booking. The customer service rep asked why I was cancelling. I explained in detail all the above to her and things took an unexpected turn for the property manager. Ultimately the rep agreed the property was acting in an unfair manner and the solution was that booking.com would find me accommodation within 1km (originally they tried to get me to stay waaaaay outside of the city but I wasn’t having it) of where I intended to stay. The original property would then be liable to cover any difference in cost. Here’s the good part - finding accommodation 3 weeks before St Patrick’s Day in Dublin is about as difficult as trying to light a fire with flint and steel in the rain, near impossible. Everything within a 1km range was booked out except for a well known 4 star hotel. The room alone cost 350€ per night, and had 2 double beds, much bigger room and in a nicer location. The customer rep had to get it cleared by her team lead, so I just sat on hold doing chores for 25 minutes. Eventually they came back and said it was all signed off on and they’ll send me a special link. What a treat, I gladly accepted their compromise. This in turn meant the property owner that tried to force me to cancel on my end was now indebted €235 and we got a massive upgrade for the same price we originally had! I had to pay the €350 upfront and had to keep receipts and show proof of payment to the booking partner after our stay but got my refund of €235 the following week. TLDR: property demanded I cancel my booking on my end, they ended up having to pay an extra €235 and I got a free upgrade
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I should cancel on my end? no problem! I booked accommodation 2 months in advance for St Patrick’s weekend in Dublin....', then the trigger 'TLDR: property demanded I cancel my booking on my end, they ended up having to pay an extra €235 and I got a free upg...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
Boss said I must use my vacation before month end but also “no one can take time off”, so I read the policy Company sends a shiny HR email, subject line all caps, USE IT OR LOSE IT. We had to burn our remaining PTO by the 30th or it evaporates into the sun. Same day, my manager announces in standup that due to quarter end “no one can take time off until the 1st.” I asked how to reconcile that, he shrugs and says talk to HR. HR says talk to your manager. Cute loop. So I opened the handbook, because I am a petty librarian when annoyed. Page 14 has this little sentence I never noticed. “PTO requests not explicitly denied in writing within 48 business hours are considered approved.” There is also a note that partial day PTO is allowed in 1 hour blocks. Thank you, legal team. I submitted ten separate requests. Two hours every morning next week, two hours every afternoon the week after, a random Friday 3 to 5 to watch a plumber, and one full day to visit my mom. I sent the requests in our HR portal, which auto emails the manager and CCs a shared mailbox nobody watches. Then I went back to my tasks and set reminders. Forty eight business hours pass. No denial. The portal changes each request to approved, green checkmark, confetti gif. Monday comes and at 9.58 I put a cheerful note in the team chat. “Heading out, see you at noon.” Manager pings me to hop on a client call, I reply with a screenshot of the policy and the portal approval. Silence. Then three dots typing, then nothing. By Wednesday our calendar looked like cheese. Half the team remembered they also had PTO sitting around and started filing it in little blocks. Meetings kept colliding with green bars. Finance realized that if we did not use the days now, they would be paid out at separation later, which they hate. HR wrote a new post saying we should “coordinate” but that approvals already granted stand. My manager called a huddle to ask why productivity dipped. I said we are following HR’s instruction to use PTO. He said he meant in November. I sent him the original email timestamped this month. He sighed and said he never thought anyone would actually read the handbook. I used every hour, took my mom to lunch, and my plumber fixed the cursed sink at 3.40 while I drank tea. Next week a new policy appeared. PTO must be requested in full day increments during quarter end, and managers must respond in 24 hours. Thanks for clarifying, truly.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Boss said I must use my vacation before month end but also “no one can take time off”, so I read the policy Company s...', then the trigger 'Thanks for clarifying, truly.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is absurdism.
I have Christians come up to me and say "you'll do jokes about Catholics and Protestants, but you won't do jokes about the Muslims, will ya? You're not that brave" To which I always say, "There are two reasons I don't do jokes about Muslims: A: I don't know a fucking thing about Muslims And B: Neither do you."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I have Christians come up to me and say "you'll do jokes about Catholics and Protestants, but you won't do jokes abou...', then the trigger 'And B: Neither do you."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution. A top Reddit comment highlighted the same pivot: 'this is supposed to be funny?'.
4 million of these people enter our country every year. They are uneducated, unskilled, and contribute nothing. They are a burden to honest, hardworking Americans and our government is doing nothing to stop them, not to mention they're dirty and they smell bad. THEY DON'T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!! Man, I hate babies. EDIT: Paraphrased from an old Doug Stanhope joke. [Check him out](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaFZrxlPwWs), he's a great comic. One of the greatest.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward '4 million of these people enter our country every year. They are uneducated, unskilled, and contribute nothing. They...', then the trigger 'One of the greatest.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
My sister asked me to take off her clothes So I took off her shirt. Then she said, "Take off my skirt." I took off her skirt. "Take off my shoes." I took off her shoes. "Now take off my bra and panties." and so I took them off. Then she looked at me and said, "I don't want to catch you wearing my things ever again."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My sister asked me to take off her clothes So I took off her shirt. Then she said, "Take off my skirt." I took off he...', then the trigger 'Then she looked at me and said, "I don't want to catch you wearing my things ever again."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
On his 74th birthday, an old man received a gift certificate from his wife... The certificate paid for a visit to a medicine man living on a nearby reservation who was rumored to have a wonderful cure for erectile dysfunction. After being persuaded to go, he drove to the reservation, handed his ticket to the medicine man and wondered what he was in for. The old man handed a potion to him, and with a grip on his shoulder, warned, "This is a powerful medicine. You take only a teaspoon and then say '1-2-3'." When you do, you will become more manly than you have ever been in your life and you can perform as long as you want." The man was encouraged. As he walked away, he turned and asked, "How do I stop the medicine from working?" "Your partner must say '1-2-3-4,'" the medicine man responded, "but when she does, the medicine will not work again until the next full moon." The man was very eager to see if it worked so he went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine and then invited his wife to join him in the bedroom. When she came in, he quickly took off his clothes and said, "1-2-3!" Immediately, he was the manliest of men. His wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes as she asked "What was the 1-2-3 for?" And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a dangling participle.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'On his 74th birthday, an old man received a gift certificate from his wife... The certificate paid for a visit to a m...', then the trigger 'And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A Blonde Woman Asks For A $5000 Loan A blonde woman walks into a bank in NYC before going on vacation and asks for a $5,000 loan. The banker asks, "Okay, miss, is there anything you would like to use as collateral?" The woman says, "Yes, of course. I'll use my Rolls Royce." The banker, stunned, asks, "A $250,000 Rolls Royce? Really?" The woman is completely positive. She hands over the keys, as the bankers and loan officers laugh at her. They check her credentials, make sure she is the title owner. Everything checks out. They park it in their underground garage for two weeks. When she comes back, she pays off the $5,000 loan as well as the $15.41 interest. The loan officer says, "Miss, we are very appreciative of your business with us, but I have one question. We looked you up and found out that you are a multi-millionaire. Why would you want to borrow $5,000?" The woman replies, "Where else in New York City can I park my car for two weeks for only $15.41 and expect it to be there when I return?"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A Blonde Woman Asks For A $5000 Loan A blonde woman walks into a bank in NYC before going on vacation and asks for a...', then the trigger 'expect it to be there when I return?"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A guy applies for a job with the L.A.P.D. Inspector says "These are the best qualifications I've ever seen, just one more test before you get the job. Take this gun, go out and shoot six black guys and a rabbit." Guy replies "Why the rabbit?" Inspector says "Fantastic attitude, you've got the job!" Edit: Thanks for the my first Reddit gold!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A guy applies for a job with the L.A.P.D. Inspector says "These are the best qualifications I've ever seen, just one...', then the trigger 'Edit: Thanks for the my first Reddit gold!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Why did the Mexican take anti-anxiety medication? For hispanic attacks
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Why did the Mexican take anti-anxiety medication?', then the trigger 'For hispanic attacks' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Support kept using voice messages, so I gave them a taste of their own medicine Hi. I am a 35 year old IT manager for a small family run sales company. We recently moved from a very old ERP to a new platform that is modern, intuitive and much more efficient. Technically it is a great produt. The problem is support. Their in app support is fairly fast but they reply almost only using voice messages. I stopped listening to voice notes years ago because they break focus and force you to replay things just to get basic info. Text lets me read, search and solve. Audio just slows evrything down. I asked them many times to stop using audio and even told them I was hearing impaired. They ignored it. Yesterday the point of sale systems were not communicating with the local server, even though they were all online. I did my part and contacted support because it was beyond my pay grade. As usual the first reply was an audio message. When they asked for the remote access ID I sent it back as audio. Then I sent the password as audio too. Suddenly they switched to text. They asked for screenshots. Then they needed the admin credentials and I sent the long messy password with numbers, uppercase and lowercase letters via audio. From that point on everything was done in text, including todays follow up. Turns out they know exactly how annoying voice messages are. They just do not care until it becomes their problem.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Support kept using voice messages, so I gave them a taste of their own medicine Hi. I am a 35 year old IT manager for...', then the trigger 'They just do not care until it becomes their problem.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A woman is walking through the park when she sees a very attractive man sitting on a park bench. He's reading a book and eating some fruit out of a Tupperware container. Slowly the woman gathers the courage to go ask the man out... So, she walks over and takes a seat next to him on the bench, turns to him and says, "Sorry to bother you. I know this may be a little forward but I would love to grab coffee with you some time." Flattered, the man responds, "Sure... but what makes you so certain you and I would get along so well?" "Well..." the woman says. "A couple things, actually. I noticed you were wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt. Iron Maiden are my favorite band of all time. When they went on their reunion tour in 1999, my parents took me to see them in Cleveland. I was 12 years old and it was the first concert I ever went to. I absolutely love Iron Maiden." The man can't believe it. "I saw them play Cleveland in '99! First concert I ever went to on my own. My best friend Jimmy Spitz and I told our parents we were sleeping at each others' houses, snuck out, took a bus into the city and saw them play at the Plain Dealer Pavillion!" Naturally, they're both shocked. "If that isn't weird enough..." says the woman. "I noticed you're reading Mark Twain. I was a communications major in university and I actually wrote my thesis on Mark Twain and how he used satire as a lens to comment on current events of the time, comparing him to satirical news sources of today. He's my favorite author." Now the man is really taken aback, "Get out of here! I was an English major in university! I specialized in 19th century American literature and this is like my fourth or fifth time reading Tom Sawyer, I absolutely love Mark Twain." They both can't believe it...this has got to be a match made in heaven. "Ok..." the woman says. "Well, buckle up because here's the icing on the cake. I noticed you're eating a prune. Prunes are my absolute favorite fruit. When I was a kid, my grandfather lived on a farm. He had an orchard that mainly grew apples and some lemons, but he knew how much my sister and I loved prunes so he kept a couple of plum trees. Every year at the end of the summer, we'd go up and harvest the plums with him. He'd dry them and by the time we'd go back to his place for Thanksgiving he'd always have those prunes saved just for us. They're my favorite fruit! I love prunes, you're eating a prune, this has got to be fate. What do you say?" The man puts down his fruit and responds, *"It's a date!"*
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A woman is walking through the park when she sees a very attractive man sitting on a park bench. He's reading a book...', then the trigger '*"It's a date!"*' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is imitation.
Fishermen hate him—you'll never guess this one strange item he uses to catch more fish than anyone else Click bait
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Fishermen hate him—you'll never guess this one strange item he uses to catch more fish than anyone else', then the trigger 'Click bait' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A doctor, a priest and an engineer go golfing... After only a few rounds, they get caught behind the worst group of golfers they've ever seen. After growing impatient from waiting for them to finish their holes, they go into the clubhouse to complain. "Let me explain," says the manager. "You see, those men all used to be firefighters, some of the best our city has ever seen. There was a fire here at the clubhouse about five years ago. Those heroic men saved our clubhouse from the fire. However, most unfortunately, they all lost their sight in the terrible fire. Since then, they are welcome to use our facilities for life; it's the very least we could do." The priest, looks forlorn and says, "I'm so sorry to hear it! I will hold a prayer service this Sunday dedicated to these men." The doctor says, "what an awful thing! I know a highly-regarded optometrist who has done some research that might be able to help them, I'll arrange for them to meet as soon as I can!" The engineer thinks for a moment and says, "why can't they golf at night?"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A doctor, a priest and an engineer go golfing... After only a few rounds, they get caught behind the worst group of g...', then the trigger 'The engineer thinks for a moment and says, "why can't they golf at night?"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Boss took credit for my work, malicious compliance occurred A few years ago I was hired as a manager to create the contracts department of a tech start-up. My boss was on an opposite coast as me and we barely spoke. About a year in the company hired consultants to overhaul depts except for contracts because it was running so smoothly. I was truly proud of this. The company sent me on a paid trip to the Bahamas as a thank you. After I got back from vacation I asked for a raise to director level. My boss said I just “wasn’t there.” I asked for a list of what I would need to do to be director. He sent me a list which was everything I was already doing and basically admitted that if I was director he would no longer be able to take credit for my work. Friends told me I needed to either leave or put up and shut up. Instead, I chose to kill with kindness. I wholeheartedly apologized to my manager for “overstepping,” and said that I am going to step back into the manager role. I printed out the manager responsibilities and posted them to my desk. Things went south quicker than I could have imagined. We started missing sales targets. Product said my boss agreed to a term in an agreement that would completely destroy their budget and product roll out. My boss didn't know commission agreements and let sales manipulate contracts so we were paying commission on contracts with termination clauses. I only interjected once to stop a contract amendment from being approved because my boss was unknowingly letting a VP artificially inflate sales numbers. The controller and CFO had to get involved. Eventually the CEO was called in. Stories started circulating about my boss holding stress balls and cursing in meetings. I was more relaxed than ever and during my new found free time at work I studied for and obtained professional certifications. I would also leave work early to get to the gym before it got busy. About a month after I unloaded my added responsibilities my boss gave me a 7% bonus. It was unspoken but I could tell he wanted me to take back on the director responsibilities without the title, but I continued to follow the manager description to a T. 6 months later, after taking 10 days of my unlimited PTO, I was included in layoffs. Took three months off and then got another job at a 35% salary increase. While I am happy to be making more money, I truly loved the company and people I worked with, and it's defeating to watch someone continually take credit for your work.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Boss took credit for my work, malicious compliance occurred A few years ago I was hired as a manager to create the co...', then the trigger 'While I am happy to be making more money, I truly loved the company and people I worked with, and it's defeating to w...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
Pretty woman sneezes At a hotel restaurant, a man sees an attractive woman sitting alone at the next table. Suddenly, she sneezes, and a glass eye comes flying out of her eye socket. It hurls by the man, and he snatches it from the air and hands it back to her. "This is so embarrassing," the woman says, and she pops her eye back in place. "I'm sorry to have disturbed you. Let me buy dinner to make it up to you. May I join you?" He nods. The woman is a stimulating conversationalist, stunningly pretty, and the man finds they have a lot in common. He gets her phone number and asks, "You are the most charming woman I've ever encountered. Are you this nice to every guy you meet?" "No," she replies. "You just happened to catch my eye."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Pretty woman sneezes At a hotel restaurant, a man sees an attractive woman sitting alone at the next table. Suddenly,...', then the trigger '"You just happened to catch my eye."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon. As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his stethoscope and listened to the bird's chest. After a moment or two, the vet shook his head and sadly said, "I'm sorry, your duck, Cuddles, has passed away." The distressed woman wailed, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I am sure. Your duck is dead," replied the vet.. "How can you be so sure?" she protested. "I mean you haven't done any testing on him or anything. He might just be in a coma or something." The vet rolled his eyes, turned around and left the room. He returned a few minutes later with a black Labrador Retriever. As the duck's owner looked on in amazement, the dog stood on his hind legs, put his front paws on the examination table and sniffed the duck from top to bottom. He then looked up at the vet with sad eyes and shook his head. The vet patted the dog on the head and took it out of the room. A few minutes later he returned with a cat. The cat jumped on the table and also delicately sniffed the bird from head to foot. The cat sat back on its haunches, shook its head, meowed softly and strolled out of the room. The vet looked at the woman and said, "I'm sorry, but as I said, this is most definitely, 100% certifiably, a dead duck." The vet turned to his computer terminal, hit a few keys and produced a bill, which he handed to the woman.. The duck's owner, still in shock, took the bill. "$1500!" she cried, "$1500 just to tell me my duck is dead!" The vet shrugged, "I'm sorry. If you had just taken my word for it, the bill would have been $50, but with the Lab Report and the Cat Scan, it's now $1500."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A woman brought a very limp duck into a veterinary surgeon. As she laid her pet on the table, the vet pulled out his...', then the trigger 'If you had just taken my word for it, the bill would have been $50, but with the Lab Report and the Cat Scan, it's no...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
I brought the company to a standstill to make a point I worked in the engineering department of a smaller manufacturing company (around 70-80 employees). My responsibility among other things was to handle any design changes; edit part and assembly drawings, bills of materials, etc. Previously this was all handled by putting together a packet of actual paper documents that had to be shuffled from engineering to manufacturing, sometimes ping ponging back and forth if we were doing something complicated that required input from various people within those departments. Eventually the company started to implement a software-driven procedure that was supposed to eliminate the stacks of paper that would sometimes get lost on someone's desk. The problem was that our bare bones staff didn't really have time to learn all of the ins and outs of the software, and refine the process to be truly efficient. Basically it was left so that if an item was entered into an engineering change order, it was locked down so that no one could build one, but also a customer couldn't even order one, or any machine that this item happened to be a component of until the change process was completed. Sometimes this could take weeks. I tried explaining several times that if we ever had to work on some item that is used in several of our products, this would bring everything to a screeching halt. My manager at the time understood this but could never get all of the people who needed to work on the software procedure to sit down and finalize everything. One day I was tasked with changing the design of a hardware component that was used in EVERY machine we built. I told my manager that as soon as I started the process, no one in sales would be able to enter an order for any customers until the process would be completed. He shrugged and said "do it", knowing that I was right. Within 30 minutes of getting started, a salesman came to my desk asking why he couldn't enter an order. I explained what was happening. He left, and soon after the VP of the company was at my desk asking what needed to be done. So I told him he needed to corral everyone needed to hash out how the software was supposed to work properly instead of the half-assed "just lock everything down" deal they left off with. He immediately called in whoever was on that list. It took a few days as I recall, and the component in question was expedited to be approved within the week. To this day I use this story in interviews whenever I'm asked one of those questions, like "Give me an instance where you had to solve a major problem in the workplace".
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'I brought the company to a standstill to make a point I worked in the engineering department of a smaller manufacturi...', then the trigger 'To this day I use this story in interviews whenever I'm asked one of those questions, like "Give me an instance where...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Access Removed - Here’s allllll my work I work in a role where I ‘own’ a portion of the software. I don’t work in IT but I do system configuration for the portion I manage. I had admin access until one day IT removed it without warning and without notice. They claimed ‘risk’ and ‘board decisions’ Of course I could rampage and get my access back because it saves the company a significant amount of money each year as we don’t need to use external contractors. There’s also no one else in the company that knows my part of the system or how to create business rules, scripting and coding for this particular system. While people know JavaScript they would need to become familiar with the system which will take time. Instead- fine; sends a list of alllll the things they now need to take over so the work still gets done. Noted there can be no delays in turnaround time despite there being an extra step. Noted that I will still need to approve every change and configuration. The list totalled to approximately 30 hours per week. It also requires 6am starts at points through the month. I made sure to also confirm they would also be required to come with me for all meetings regarding the system or data because I won’t be repeating myself or duplicating my effort. Within 30 minutes the decision was reversed and I had my access back. I don’t think that’ll be changing back any time soon. Not when we work under separate budgets and their team always cry time and cost poor
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Access Removed - Here’s allllll my work I work in a role where I ‘own’ a portion of the software. I don’t work in IT...', then the trigger 'Not when we work under separate budgets and their team always cry time and cost poor' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Why didn’t 4 ask out 5? He was 2^2 Edit: wow, this stupid joke is at the top of the hot posts somehow (at the time of this edit), rip to my Reddit notifications lol, thank you all, happy groaning.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Why didn’t 4 ask out 5? He was 2^2', then the trigger 'Edit: wow, this stupid joke is at the top of the hot posts somehow (at the time of this edit), rip to my Reddit notif...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
My 10 Year Old "Dad Joked" Me This Weekend He walked into my room and says, "Hey dad, can you take a picture of me?" I thought it was a weird request, but said, "Sure." As I'm reaching for my phone, he pulls out a framed picture of himself from behind his back he had taken off one of our shelves, hands it to me, and says, "Ok, thanks!" and walks out without even cracking a smile. I stared at that picture for a few seconds in proud silence. \*edit/update\* Wow... I woke up this morning and noticed a ton of notifications. This made my 10 year old very happy so thank you. And thank you for the awards as well. Totally unexpected and unnecessary but very appreciated.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My 10 Year Old "Dad Joked" Me This Weekend He walked into my room and says, "Hey dad, can you take a picture of me?"...', then the trigger 'Totally unexpected and unnecessary but very appreciated.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Which is faster, hot or cold? Hot, because you can catch a cold.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Which is faster, hot or cold?', then the trigger 'Hot, because you can catch a cold.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Getting Married in Heaven On their way to get married, a young Catholic couple is involved in a fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven. While waiting, they begin to wonder: Could they possibly get married in Heaven? When St. Peter showed up, they asked him. St. Peter said, 'I don't know. This is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out,' and he leaves. The couple sat and waited, and waited. Two months passed and the couple are still waiting. While waiting, they began to wonder what would happen if it didn't work out; could you get a divorce in heaven. After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking somewhat bedraggled. 'Yes,' he informs the couple, 'you can get married in Heaven.' 'Great!' said the couple, 'But we were just wondering, what if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?' St. Peter, red-faced with anger, slammed his clipboard onto the ground. 'What's wrong?' asked the frightened couple. 'OH, COME ON!', St. Peter shouted, 'It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a lawyer ?
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Getting Married in Heaven On their way to get married, a young Catholic couple is involved in a fatal car accident. T...', then the trigger 'Do you have any idea how long it'll take me to find a lawyer ?' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
How my Husband and I Terrified a Taxi Driver My husband and I were dressed and ready to go out for a lovely evening of dinner and theatre. Having been burgled in the past, we turned on a 'night light' and the answering machine, then put the cat in the backyard. When our cab arrived, we walked out our front door and our rather tubby cat scooted between our legs inside, then ran up the stairs. Because our cat likes to chase our budgie we really didn't want to leave them un-chaperoned so my husband ran inside to retrieve her and put her in the back yard again. Because I didn't want the taxi driver to know our house was going to be empty all evening, I explained to him that my husband would be out momentarily as he was just bidding goodnight to my mother. A few minutes later he got into the cab all hot and bothered, and said (to my growing horror and amusement) as the cab pulled away. "Sorry it took so long but the stupid bitch was hiding under the bed and i had to poke her ass with a coat hanger to get her to come out! She tried to take off so i grabbed her by the neck and wrapped her in a blanket so she wouldn't scratch me like she did last time. But it worked! I hauled her fat arse down the stairs and threw her into the backyard....she had better not shit in the vegetable garden again." The silence in the taxi was deafening.....
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'How my Husband and I Terrified a Taxi Driver My husband and I were dressed and ready to go out for a lovely evening o...', then the trigger 'The silence in the taxi was deafening.....' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
Coworker didn't like my friend and I quietly chatting while working, made it her problem See Edit 3 for a finishing note!! I (21F) work in a pharmacy as a pharmacy technician along with my friend. We were both chatting about next semester and what classes we were taking while filling medications when my older coworker (41F) loudly shouts "Let's play the quietly game with just you two, and see who can go without talking for 25 minutes" very rudely. All of my other coworkers were shocked as our talking was not bothering them and we had no patients at the time. So I decided to comply, but in her rigorous standards. I stopped talking to her. Period. I only respond if talked to first and only if it is about work. I also do not talk to her once clocked out as she complains about "fratenizing with higher members of management outside of work hours." She is a lead tech, so she is higher. She hates it. Keeps trying to talk to me but I only respond with "is it about work?" And move on. She is the only one I do it to. It's fun. This coworker has a streak of being rude and overly harsh and not apologizing. It's nice to give her a taste of her own medicine. MOST PHARMACIES CALL THE PEOPLE THEY HELP "PATIENTS". ITS A POLICY. YOU CAN ASK MOST AND THEYLL AGREE. Thank you. Edit: I think some of you guys are misinterpreting this. Our pharmacy is a "loud" one. We talk a lot, and so does she. She is a chatterbox just like the rest of us. That's why me not talking to her is pissing her off, even though she is the one who wanted it. Our patients love us talking and joking around, and know that we are serious with patient care. Also, a lot of our bad reviews are because of her and another older coworker. She is a hard worker but is rude to both patients and coworkers alike. Edit 2: Y'all are missing the point, this coworker is rude to EVERYONE, not just me. That includes patients and coworkers. She also talks A LOT. And our pharmacy would not have as good of ratings as it does if we weren't a talkative and joyful pharmacy. I was speaking quietly, to the point that it shocked MY OTHER COWORKERS when she called me out. Edit 3: I have responded to all I could but thank you to those who actually understand that this was a last resort for her to be nicer. I genuinely love my job. The people that I see at my job (mostly) are so amazing. Most of my coworkers are so fun, the patients are kind, interesting, and funny, the pay is great, and so is the scheduling with my classes. I have worked my ass off to try and keep it that way, fun and inviting. I am hoping to have a one on one with her soon to try and, for the last time, get her to see reason. I love my job and I don't want the happiness of the others to tank due to her. (I really don't understand how people don't know what a "loud" pharmacy looks like. Is your local one dead or something? Many of my coworkers, rude one included, joke around and talk a ton! I've seen them almost piss themselves from laughing. The patients enjoy our shenanigans.)
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Coworker didn't like my friend and I quietly chatting while working, made it her problem See Edit 3 for a finishing n...', then the trigger 'The patients enjoy our shenanigans.)' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Masturbating An 8-year-old choir boy catches the priest masturbating. He said, "What are you doing father?" "It's called masturbating," the priest replied. "You'll be doing this soon." "Why father?" he asked. "Because my wrist is killing me," the priest replied.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Masturbating An 8-year-old choir boy catches the priest masturbating. He said, "What are you doing father?" "It's cal...', then the trigger '"Because my wrist is killing me," the priest replied.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Was told to work my contract hours. Damage ensued. Teacher here in inner city . Found myself coming in at 7::12-7:15 for a week or two, supposed to be there for 7:10. My Daughter’s daycare is getting construction done so had to park across street and drop her off. Got reprimanded and a mark on my file for not working during contractual hours; “you’re paid for working 7:10 to 2:22.” Fine. Once school is out at 2:02 I usually open up the weightroom and let athletes workout, give some advice (I was a college athlete and lifted a lot), and I watch them until about 3:15 when their coaches get there. Kids love it, I love it, coaches love it, never asked for pay. But my contracts done at 2:22. One day. Only one day. I posted on our webpage that I wasn’t going to be there. What happened? That same day numerous phones stolen from locker room so cops came, weightroom door broke open, kids running through halls and ran into a teacher sending her to Urgent Care. Admin calls me in asking why I wasn’t watching them. “I was told to work my contractual hours, I’m only paid until 2:22. I did this for fun, and it was unofficial.” Next day whole district gets an email for a job posting “Afterschool Weightroom Coach.” Admin asked me to apply. Now it’s costing them money. Edit: since some of you seem to be butthurt that this isn’t real and “how could they post a position so quickly” here’s my response to a comment below; It’s a long story, we actually used to have a dedicated strength and conditioning coach. He quit last year because, you might guess, was sick of dealing with my admin. They posted the position but no one wanted it and I wasn’t qualified (needed a CSCS). So I unofficially took over because kids wanted to work out which I applaud them for. The new position posted was a revised posting with lowered qualifications so I could take it
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Was told to work my contract hours. Damage ensued. Teacher here in inner city . Found myself coming in at 7::12-7:15...', then the trigger 'The new position posted was a revised posting with lowered qualifications so I could take it' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A boy goes into confession... The boy tells the priest, "Father I'm afraid I've been with a loose girl." "Hmm, ok son, what was the girls name?" "Oh I can't say." "Was it Mary Jane?" "No Father." "Adalina Mozarelli?" "My lips are sealed." "How about Cindy King" "I can never say." "Oh come on boy, I'll find out soon enough. It was Tina King wasn't it!?" "No." "It has to be Tracy Cummings though!" "Father I will never tell you." "Ok fine, but for your sin you can't be alter boy for four months." "Ok, Father" The boy leaves and his friend asks, "So what'd you get?" The boy responds, "Five good leads, and a four month vacation!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A boy goes into confession... The boy tells the priest, "Father I'm afraid I've been with a loose girl." "Hmm, ok son...', then the trigger 'The boy responds, "Five good leads, and a four month vacation!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Customer always found a mistake - so we complied This goes back to around 1990s. I was an independent designer for a few different printing businesses in the South suburbs of Chicago. Back then computers were fairly new and print shops were still old school. Those inserts you found in newspapers? They were still hand lettered back then!!! I'd design brochures and flyers, laser-print proofs, scan photos (a 150 dpi HP scanner was $1200 - that's like $5K today!) and so on. Anyway, one of the print shops had a customer that ALWAYS found an error, would demand a new proof, and not authorize the job until he signed off on the new proof. Every. Single. Time. "This line is crooked" "This word is too dark" and so on. So we came up with a solution. I'd do two proofs. One was the original, accurate one. The other has an obvious intentional mistake. He'd catch the "mistake" and ask for a new proof. He'd be told to come back in an hour (it was usually a day or two.) He'd come back and be shown the 2nd proof. He approved it every time. Demand that there's always a mistake? Here you go!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Customer always found a mistake - so we complied This goes back to around 1990s. I was an independent designer for a...', then the trigger 'Here you go!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
A 13 year old boy has difficulty with mathematics, failing in public school. His parents were not religious but after a friend's suggestion they felt a private Catholic school may be more effective. His grades began to rise dramatically after this switch. Asked what has helped him so much, he responded "When I saw the guy nailed to the plus sign I knew they meant business!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A 13 year old boy has difficulty with mathematics, failing in public school. His parents were not religious but after...', then the trigger '"When I saw the guy nailed to the plus sign I knew they meant business!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I’ve been with a loose girl. The priest asked, "Is that you, little Joey Pagano?" "Yes, Father, it is." "And who was the girl you were with?" "I can't tell you, Father. I don’t want to ruin her reputation." "Well, Joey, I’m sure to find out sooner or later, so you may as well tell me now. Was it Tina Minetti?" "I can’t say." "Teresa Mazzarelli?" "I promised not to tell." "Nina Capelli?" "My lips are sealed." "Cathy Piriano?" "I’m really sorry, Father. I can’t." "Rosa DiAngelo?" "I’m not saying." The priest sighed. "Well, Joey, I admire your honesty and loyalty, but you’ll have to take a little break from altar boy duties - four months." Joey returned to his pew. His friend Franco leaned over and whispered, "What’d you get?" Joey grinned. "Four months off… and five great leads."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. I’ve been with a loose girl. The priest asked, "Is that you, little Joey Pagano?...', then the trigger '"Four months off… and five great leads."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Accused of stealing/embezzling electricity from employer For almost two decades I worked security in office buildings, night shift, so I could work on my novel drafts. At work, in the idle hours between rounds and other security duties, I wrote on an iPad with bluetooth keyboard and I had connected their chargers to the electric outlets in my security reception desk. \[I get a lot of comments on how I shouldn't write at work and that was why I was singled out. These commenters are wrong. They do not understand that my work was 'guarding' an empty office after hours between 23.00-07.00 hours. This involved a maximum of two hours of actual work (walking rounds, checking if all the keycards had been returned, answering phone calls), leaving six hours to pass the time and stay awake. Most of my coworkers filled that time with non-productive activities like watching TV, playing games, filling out crossword puzzles. Others were college students who studied for their exams or wrote on their thesis. And I knew this beforehand, which is why I chose a low paying job way below my level specifically because I would have hours to read books and write on my novels. They could only fire me if I fell asleep or didn't follow up on alarms, but not for spending the 'idle hours' writing.\] I had a manager who had a personal problem with me and tried to get me fired. Since I performed my duties above average, he had to find a way to get me on something else. So, one day, I was called to HQ for a meeting with my manager and ~~a floozy from HR~~ a young female intern from the Human Resources department who spent the whole meeting flirting with my idiot manager (who was married to the company owner's daughter). I was accused of theft. Stealing electricity for my laptop. I told them that if they wanted to accuse me, they had to do it properly. I hadn't committed theft. I had committed embezzlement, since the electricity was part of my reception area and under my supervision. Therefore, embezzlement is a vastly more insidious crime and they should send me home and gather the disciplinary committee to judge whether I should be fired for this crime and I would confer with my union rep. They immediately retracted their accusation and stopped bothering me with their nonsense. All my colleagues charged their devices from company outlets, so their accusation would mean every employee could be arrested for electricity embezzlement. Then the irate manager hung up a sign in the security area that nobody was allowed to charge their personal devices. So I took a typewriter to work, so I didn't need to charge my writing implements. Also, I had a Nokia that would hold a charge for several days, but my coworkers had smartphones that needed juice, so they got angry at management for signs about not being allowed to charge their phones and that complaint spread to other locations, forcing the management to remove the signs and allow people to charge their phones again, and I could hook up my iPad+BT keyboard again. Addendum: The 'stealing electricity' was just a rage-bait excuse to provoke me to get into an emotional outburst to my manager, so he could fire me for insubordination. Instead, my response made him escalate to posting signs about the petty electricity rule that angered my coworkers with management. Commenting on the cost of electricity misses the point - it was never about the theft of electricity. The accusation was intentionally ridiculous to provoke a quarrel. Also, in the Netherlands the novel that I write is my intellectual property and there is no legal clause in our contracts that the company should get financially compensated for part of the novel been writing 'under company time'.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Accused of stealing/embezzling electricity from employer For almost two decades I worked security in office buildings...', then the trigger 'Also, in the Netherlands the novel that I write is my intellectual property and there is no legal clause in our contr...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is absurdism.
THE WINE TASTER At a winery, the regular taster died and the director started looking for a new one to hire. A drunkard with a ragged, dirty look came in to apply for the position. The director of the winery wondered how to send him away. He gave him a glass to drink. The drunk tried it and said, “It's a Muscat, three years old, grown on a north slope, matured in steel containers. Low grade, but acceptable.” "That's correct", said the boss. Another glass... “This is a Cabernet, eight years old, a south-western slope, oak barrels, matured at 8 degrees. Requires three more years for finest results.” "Correct." A third glass... "It's a Pinot Blanc Champagne, high grade and exclusive,'' the drunk said calmly. The director was astonished. He winked at his secretary, secretly suggesting something. She left the room, and came back in with a glass of urine. The alcoholic tried it. "It's a blonde, 26 years old, three months pregnant and if I don't get the job I'll name the father."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'THE WINE TASTER At a winery, the regular taster died and the director started looking for a new one to hire. A drunka...', then the trigger '"It's a blonde, 26 years old, three months pregnant and if I don't get the job I'll name the father."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
If Larry Likes You, You're Good! Years ago, I worked for a large newspaper when they acquired a lot of the assets of another large paper that went out of business. I was a temp in the HR office. It was sad to see so many people come in from the dead newspaper to try and work for the other paper. My job was to gather the resumes, give them a handout of job resources, and to direct them where they could apply for all the benefits that they may be eligible for. When my boss, Larry saw me waiting outside the building in the morning, they asked why I was there so early. I explained that I took the bus, so I could either take the bus that got me there early, or the one that would get me to work 90 minutes late. I opted to be early. Larry agreed, and they changed my hours to allow me to arrive earlier and leave earlier. It worked well, because I could get a lot done for the office before people arrived. When I left in the afternoon, a second temp was there for all the processing needs from the day. It was seamless. Larry called my agency and extended my contract from 6 weeks to 6 months. They wanted to make me permanent, but there was a process to be followed. Larry sent a memo to everyone concerning my schedule, explaining my schedule needs. A manager above Larry, a man named Jack told him that he couldn't show favoritism to me, and I needed to comply with the assigned schedule, or be replaced. Jack then told Larry that there were no allowances for scheduling special needs of employees.The next day, my boss, Larry told me all this and asked if I could get a ride in the morning so that I could be in 'on time' versus early. I tried my best. I was unable to do so. He told me to just keep coming in early, but don't clock in until time. As for the afternoon, he asked if I could stay until normal time and clock out. I agreed, even though it would make me now having to wait a long time in the evening for the bus. My first day on the new schedule, the very boss that refused my schedule modifications, Jack, walked up to my desk. "I need these photocopies in triplicate." Before I could answer, Larry did. "She's not on the clock for another 20 minutes. She can do it after she clocks in between her regular duties." Jack said "She's on the clock. She can work." Larry replied ever so sweetly. "No. She's not. You said no schedule modifications. She would have been on the clock, but she's not, now." Jack asked to see Larry in the office. Larry agreed and I could hear raised voices. I kept reading my book, quietly, but watching the time. Just before I was to sign in, Larry called me in. "Effective today, you're to go back to your schedule that was modified." I nodded, clocked in, and made the copies before people began arriving. Larry would eventually climb the ladder there, taking over the position Jack held. I wish more bosses were as awesome as Larry! ❤️
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'If Larry Likes You, You're Good! Years ago, I worked for a large newspaper when they acquired a lot of the assets of...', then the trigger '❤️' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?" "No, but I know exactly where I am" Heisenberg replies. The cop says "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts "Great! Now I'm lost!" The cop thinks this is suspicious and orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?" "We do now, asshole!" shouts Schrodinger. The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Ohm are in a car They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him "Do you...', then the trigger 'Ohm resists.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Two beggars are sitting side by side on the street in Rome Two beggars are sitting side by side on the street in Rome. One has a cross in front of him, the other a Star of David. Many people go by, but only put money into the hat of the beggar sitting behind the cross. A priest comes by, stops and watches throngs of people giving money to the beggar sitting behind the cross, but none give to the beggar sitting behind the Star of David. Finally, the priest goes over to the beggar behind the Star of David and says: "Don't you understand? This is a Catholic country. People aren't going to give you money if you sit there with a Star of David in front of you, especially if you're sitting beside a beggar who has a cross. In fact, they would probably give to him just out of spite!" The beggar behind the Star of David listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: "Moshe, look who's trying to teach the Goldstein brothers about marketing!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Two beggars are sitting side by side on the street in Rome Two beggars are sitting side by side on the street in Rome...', then the trigger 'The beggar behind the Star of David listened to the priest, turned to the other beggar with the cross and said: "Mosh...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
My girlfriend spent two years telling me I say yes too much and then asked me to dog-sit for a week This requires a tiny bit of context. I am, by nature, someone who agrees to things. Not because I'm a pushover exactly, more that I just find it easier to say yes and adjust than to push back and deal with the fallout. My girlfriend Claire found this genuinely frustrating. For roughly two years she made it her personal mission to get me to say no more often. "You're allowed to have preferences." "Stop agreeing with things you don't actually want." "Just say no sometimes, it costs you nothing." She meant it kindly. She brought it up maybe once a month, sometimes more. She even framed it as personal growth, said it was something she admired in people who could do it cleanly without guilt. She was so consistent about this that it started to actually rewire something in me. I began to notice, then question, then occasionally decline things. Small stuff at first. I said no to a friend who wanted to borrow my charger for three days. I told my cousing I couldn't make it to his thing. It felt strange but Claire was genuinly proud every time I reported back. Then in late February her friend needed someone to watch her dog for eight days while she visited family. Claire asked me if I could do it. And I want to be clear that I thought about it for a real amount of time. I considerd the dog, the eight days, the fact that I don't particularly enjoy dogs in my space for extended periods, and the two years of dedicated coaching I had received on this exact type of moment. Then I said no. Calmly, without guilt, no long explanation, just "I don't think that works for me." There was a pause. Claire stared at me. I watched her go through several expressions in about four seconds. She started to say something, stopped, and then said "that's not what I meant." And I said, very gently, that I understood, but that she had been a really excellent teacher and I wanted her to know the lessons had stuck. The dog went to a kennel. Claire has not brought up the saying no thing since February.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My girlfriend spent two years telling me I say yes too much and then asked me to dog-sit for a week This requires a t...', then the trigger 'Claire has not brought up the saying no thing since February.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
10 Catholic priest all die in a bus accident When they arrive at the pearly gates, St Peter Acknowledges them. He sees that they're all priests and immediately says "If any of you a pedophiles, there's no point waiting here. You might as well fuck off straight to hell right now!". 9 of the priests turn around and begin to walk away. St Peter calls after them. "AND TAKE THE DEAF BASTARD WITH YOU TOO!"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward '10 Catholic priest all die in a bus accident When they arrive at the pearly gates, St Peter Acknowledges them. He see...', then the trigger '"AND TAKE THE DEAF BASTARD WITH YOU TOO!"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
My eight year old nephew said he had a joke: “What did the ant say to the other ant?” “I dunno, what?” “Nothing, ants communicate using pheromones, not speech.” “Yeah, that’s not really a joke kid.” He was quiet for a moment, and looked at the ground. “It’s an ant-y joke, asshole.”
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My eight year old nephew said he had a joke: “What did the ant say to the other ant?” “I dunno, what?” “Nothing, ants...', then the trigger '“It’s an ant-y joke, asshole.”' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
Something added in my contract to restrict me was something I later used to help me! When I first joined a particular company, they had a number of offices in the nearby city. Because they wanted to, essentially, force us to work in whichever office they wanted, they added a line to my contract saying that I could work anywhere in the city. Years later and those offices have gone - there's just the one. That clause is removed from contracts for anyone else starting at the company. Then our department gets outsourced to another company. As part of a UK law, which makes transfer of people between companies easier, they have to take my contract as-is. Which they did. They then decided to re-allocate many of the people to other parts of their company, throughout the country, expecting you to commute sometimes hours away. Except me. That part of my contract, still present, meant that they could only send me somewhere in the local city. And they had no other offices there. So I stayed. Years later, I'm insourced back and the company tries to send me the other side of the country for a few days to work. I tap on my contract once again. There's something refreshing about being able to use a contract clause, initially added to force me to do something for them, against the company!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Something added in my contract to restrict me was something I later used to help me! When I first joined a particular...', then the trigger 'There's something refreshing about being able to use a contract clause, initially added to force me to do something f...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
You want to review every client interaction? Perfect, your Inbox is about to blow up I've been working at this small marketing agency for just over a year now. It's my first "real" job after college, and I've been thrilled to have actual clients and responsibilities. Well, I was thrilled until we got a new account manager, Debbie (not her real name, obviously). Debbie came from one of those corporate mega-agencies where apparently they micromanage the living daylights out of everyone. From day one, she had "concerns" about my communication style with clients. Mind you, I'd been praised by these same clients for being responsive and helpful. Last month, after I sent what I thought was a perfectly normal email to our biggest client about a small scheduling change, Debbie called an emergency meeting. "From now on, I need to approve ALL client communications before they go out," she announced with that fake smile managers use when they're being unreasonable but pretending they're helping you. "Everything. Emails, phone call notes, text messages, meeting agendas. Send them to me first for review." When I pointed out that this would slow down our response times, she just waved her hand dismissively. "It's about quality control. Better to be right than fast." Fine. You want ALL communications? You got it. I started that very afternoon. Every. Single. Thing. If a client asked what time a call was scheduled, I drafted an email response and sent it to Debbie. "Awaiting your approval on this time confirmation." If a client texted asking for a quick file, I'd screenshot it and email Debbie. "Please approve my response to this text message." I even created a special folder in my drafts called "Awaiting Debbie's Approval" and set up an automated counter. By the end of day one, I had sent her 17 approval requests. By the end of week one, it was over 100. The best part? I stopped answering my phone when clients called. Instead, I'd let it go to voicemail, then email Debbie: "Client X called about Y. My proposed response is attached. Please approve." After about two weeks, Debbie was drowning. She'd fallen behind on approving my communications, which meant clients weren't getting responses. They started escalating to her directly, which doubled her workload. The breaking point came when our biggest client emailed both of us complaining about delays. I responded to the client with: "I've forwarded your concerns to Debbie for approval of my response. Once approved, I'll get back to you promptly." The next morning, Debbie stopped by my desk looking exhausted. "I think we need to adjust our approval process," she said, trying to maintain her corporate dignity. "Moving forward, just use your judgment for routine communications. Only send me things that involve project scope, timeline changes, or budget discussions." "Are you sure?" I asked innocently. "I have about 30 draft responses waiting for your review right now." She visibly cringed. "That won't be necessary anymore." I've been happily sending emails without approval for two weeks now. Debbie barely makes eye contact in the hallway, and honestly, that's fine by me. The best part? My quarterly review is coming up, and all those approval emails are documented proof that I've been trying my absolute best to follow company protocol. Sometimes malicious compliance is the best teacher.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'You want to review every client interaction? Perfect, your Inbox is about to blow up I've been working at this small...', then the trigger 'Sometimes malicious compliance is the best teacher.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
You want me to provide a good reason for why I want to use my vacation days? Time to trauma dump So I work in a pretty low stress job, which makes it absolutely hilarious that my boss demands that whenever we take our paid time off we "give a good reason" Like, dude, why do I need to give you a good reason to take my vacation days? They're mine, I'm entitled to take them to dedicate the time to my new hobby of staring at the ceiling, it ain't none of your business. Well I had planned to take a few days off to recharge after a (very relatively) intense work week. Unfortunately the boss thought this was a great time to send out a "reminder" email that if we intend to take time off we need to provide a reason & have it approved. This was a mistake on his part. I went into his office, head hanging low, and started talking about my dad's cancer, how intensive chemotherapy was, I didn't make myself cry but I was putting that theatre class I took in college to good use, I might have even hit him with "and I'm just so used to seeing my dad as this strong, invulnerable guy, but... he's just human, y'know? And soon he might be gone... how do you even deal with something like that..." Now by this point my dad had been cancer-free for years, so this was purely performative, but my boss just looked so uncomfortable, it was great. I wish I could say this caused the boss to send out an email saying we no longer needed to give a reason for our time off, but no such luck, instead I just kept coming up with other traumatic life experiences to justify my vacations. I think my grandma died 3 times these past few years, poor woman. I may have to come up with something new for when she actually does die. My boss still gets visibility uncomfortable whenever I come to ask for time off in person instead of via email, it's kind of hilarious to me.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'You want me to provide a good reason for why I want to use my vacation days? Time to trauma dump So I work in a prett...', then the trigger 'My boss still gets visibility uncomfortable whenever I come to ask for time off in person instead of via email, it's...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
Look for other jobs and see how much they offer? Sure thing boss I spent a few years at this company. The pay there is not as competitive and we all got measly 2–3% raises each year, nothing close to inflation levels. I had been in a starter position and still studying on the side, so I agreed with my boss already a couple years ago that I'd get a promotion once I graduated. Well, last September I graduated, and asked for my promotion. I had looked over the worker union's salary statistics and the median would be around a 18% bump for me. I didn't expect to get that much because, besides them being a cheap AF, the economy was bad and they had just downsized like 15% of the staff in July. Luckily I had gotten myself into a strong position of being one of the only ones left with some unique skills, so I survived the downsizing. Anyhow, I show my boss a copy of the statistics and ask for the median. Boss scoffs and proceeds to fight as hard as he can to justify lowballing me. He says several things baffling to me, not limited to: * *“damn, you’re rich bro”* about my salary (no dude, I'm really struggling in this economy) * *“If I give you more, you’ll just spend more”* (not your concern what I do with my well-deserved money). * *“no one at that level makes that much here”* and that the statistics must be wrong. (I later went around the office to find colleagues in that level. First co-worker I ask? **Earns exactly what I asked for**.) * Brought up some concerns about my 'communication', petty things like me not replying to a colleague's email for like 3 days (3 days during which I was off-site to give a course somewhere). But my favourite thing he said was: *“You can go look for other jobs to see how much others are offering, you’ll see it's not going to be any better”*. He lingered on my salary adjustment until December, *"negotiating with HR"*, and then finally offers me 11%, which is around what I actually expected. But, there's a catch… next year I would not get the usual 2-3% salary adjustment like everybody else. WTF. I told him: *"deal"*. You see, I had taken his advice (or rather called his bluff) and was already getting quite far in interviews. Come January, I land an offer from the top company in our field (think Google, Apple) offering me what would have been a 35% bump. I hit my boss with the news, he promptly panics. Says they want me to stay, they need me, my performance and development have been great, etc... but they can’t match that offer because *“not even top management makes that much”*. I obviously didn't believe him, but I said *"I understand it's not fair that I earn more than everyone else, just do your best"*. He runs to the top boss' office and somehow, within 30 mins, they magically found budget for a 30% raise. Perfect, now I had leverage to negotiate an even better offer from my future boss. After all, I had already made up my mind to leave long ago.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Look for other jobs and see how much they offer? Sure thing boss I spent a few years at this company. The pay there i...', then the trigger 'After all, I had already made up my mind to leave long ago.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
Angry boss refuses expense claim and tells me to read the policy for guidance. England, 2015. I was sent on a week long mandatory training course through work. I already knew the subject backwards but my boss wanted me to get the certificate to prove to upper management that his team was 100% certificated. I was told that a train ticket would be booked, as would a hotel - Bed and Breakfast only. I'd have to pay for lunch and evening meals but I would be able to claim up to £5 per day for lunch and £11.72 per day for evening meals. It was a really strange value, but I could eat easily within that limit. On the last night at the hotel, my food bill was £11.75 - 3 pence more than allowed, however seeing as on the other nights I'd barely spent £10, I chanced that I could talk the finance people into approving it as the total spend would still be less than allowed for the week. The monday I returned, I completed the expense form with the receipts and handed it to my boss for approval. An hour later, I was summonned to his office. He flatly refused to sign off on the expenses as I had overspent. When I tried to explain that it was by three pence, and that on the Monday night I had actually underspent by £2.50, I was lectured as to the reason that the limits were there, and to "read the policy". He sent me back to my desk and told me to resubmit. Cue malicious compliance. I read the policy regarding expenses, then I read the staff handbook, and then my contract. As it turned out, I could claim for the following: * Reasonable costs for calling my family in the evening - no receipt required. * £5 per night for being away from my family - no receipt needed. * One off £30 for being more than 3 hours travel - offered as an incentive. * Regardless of time spent on course, It was equivalent to 40 hours - my standard was 37. * Travel to and from the venue was classed as being in work. That was overtime as it was out of hours and double for the sunday. * Friday, as I was late home, was considered an overnight stay. I resubmitted, making the adjustments and highlighting the sections of the policies. Where I had expected around £75 in expenses, with the extras in the policies I claimed for an extra £100, then filled in the timesheet for the travel overtime which granted me an additional £150 or so. The boss called me back into the office and tried to tell me that he wouldn't sign off on it, but I referred him to the policies and simply told him that if he refused, I'd go above him and maybe submit a formal complaint about him. I did take great satisfaction in reminding him that if he hadn't have told me to "read the policies", then I'd have never found about all the extras. Yes, I did inform every one of my work friends. Yes, I did get all the claimed funds in my next paycheck. tl,dr; Boss refuses expenses over £0.03, I resubmit costing them more money
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Angry boss refuses expense claim and tells me to read the policy for guidance. England, 2015. I was sent on a week lo...', then the trigger 'tl,dr; Boss refuses expenses over £0.03, I resubmit costing them more money' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
A man goes to see the Pope. "Your Holiness. I work for KFC, and we'll offer you ten million dollars to change the reading of the Lord's Prayer from 'Give us this day our daily bread' to 'Give us this day our daily chicken.'" The Pope is aghast. "I can't just go changing God's word for money!" The man says, "Fifty million! Now, think of all the good the church could do with all that money, Your Holiness!" The Pope in unimpressed. "I already told you. I just can't do it. I'm sorry." So the guy says, "Okay, final offer - $100 million. Take it or leave it." The next day, the Pope calls all the leaders of the church together and says, "Gentlemen, I have good news, and I have bad news. The good news is we've raised $100 million for Catholic Charities." The room erupts in cheers! The Pope waits for the room to settle down, and then says, "And now for the bad news: We lost the Wonder Bread account."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'A man goes to see the Pope. "Your Holiness. I work for KFC, and we'll offer you ten million dollars to change the rea...', then the trigger 'The Pope waits for the room to settle down, and then says, "And now for the bad news: We lost the Wonder Bread account."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
My Jacket Isn’t corporate approved? Neither are any of the other ones here. ETA: wow I didn’t really expect this to blow up! Me and my partner thank you for all the updoots. I woke him up this morning telling him his story got 1,500~ (at the time) upvotes and he was confused, then laughed after I explained it. This is my boyfriend’s story, not mine full disclosure but he gave me permission to put it up, he’s just too lazy too and doesn’t have Reddit. He framed this story by proudly telling me his boss learned who not to be petty with today. While working in the back of the store, my partner was wearing his personal sweater; he was between a break room and a freezer and couldn’t be seen by any customers. His manager who’d just got there immediately got on his case. He tried to explain reasonably, he’d have it on for maybe fifteen minutes max and remove it before going back out onto the floor. The manager refused, and begins pestering him and telling him he needs to remove it immediately, under the reasoning it “Wasn’t corporate approved.” Cue* malicious compliance. The jackets they use for their coolers? Not corporate approved. The gloves they use in the same coolers? Not corporate approved. The communications system they use to talk amongst themselves in the store? Not corporate approved. An hour or so later my partner is going about his janitorial and stocking duties, having to work in the cooler to restock; every five to ten minutes, he’d come out of the freezer, shivering and trying to warm up. After about twenty minutes of this, the same manager wandered over to them critically. “What are you doing?” “Stocking the freezer, but it’s pretty cold in there.” “Well why don’t you go grab a jacket and some gloves?” “Oh, because if you actually read our employee book surrounding our uniform, these technically aren’t corporate approved either!” The manager grumbled and wandered off, only coming to find him in another hour and a half. “I’ve been trying to reach you over the commutations system for the last twenty minutes, why aren’t you responding?” “Oh! That’s because they’re actually not corporate approved unfortunately!” “You’re really going to be this petty?” “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m just following corporate standards!” It went like this for his entire 7 hour shift. At the end of his shift, the manager wandered up to him with an exasperated look. “I get it. Okay. I need to know how to pick my battles.” “You absolutely do.” -if I didn’t know him personally I probably wouldn’t have believed he actually said that to them, but he almost certainly does. He cares very little what anyone thinks lol.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My Jacket Isn’t corporate approved? Neither are any of the other ones here. ETA: wow I didn’t really expect this to b...', then the trigger 'He cares very little what anyone thinks lol.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
Smokers Get More Breaks? Hold My Beer. This goes back about ten years ago. Worked for a large telecommunications company as a call center supervisor. Most of my peers were smokers and with the way schedules were setup, there were large chunks of the day where only two or three of us were on at the same time. Our manager insisted one of us always be “visible” on the call center floor while also performing our regular duties: performance reviews, call monitoring, escalations and weekly 1:1s with our team. I also had the largest team with consistently over 20 reporting to me. All this to set the stage. I noticed that I seemed to be the only supervisor actually doing my time being visible but every time I tried to carve out an hour or two for the rest of my job, they were always out smoking. It got to the point that I was working after hours just to stay caught up. I brought it up to my manager thinking she would discreetly monitor it. She didn’t. Instead in a supervisor meeting she announced to the entire group that she knows we have a busy job and sometimes it seems imbalanced (understatement) but that really the smokers were just taking their lunch hour in short smoke break intervals instead so it all worked out in the end. Cool. The next day I came to work with a pack of cigarettes in my bag ready to go. The second I saw one of my peers going out to smoke, I went out with them. Timing the breaks. Lit cigarette in my hand the entire time. It was a revolving door. They were going out to smoke almost more than once an hour and usually out there for a solid 20 minutes each time. By the end of the first day doing this, I had timed one supervisor at nearly two hours worth of smoking breaks. I well exceeded my own lunch hour. So I started doing it every day. Packed small snacks to munch while out instead of taking my entire lunch. One day my manager saw me heading out and seemed surprised. I just shrugged and said yeah I’d decided to start smoking. She couldn’t say anything because if she timed mine she would have to time theirs as well. This went on for roughly a month before she announces to our management team that we would be required to start coordinating breaks among the team to make sure we had coverage. I gained not only the well earned smugness from ruining things for all my lazy peers but also a bit of relief from constantly floor walking.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Smokers Get More Breaks? Hold My Beer. This goes back about ten years ago. Worked for a large telecommunications comp...', then the trigger 'I gained not only the well earned smugness from ruining things for all my lazy peers but also a bit of relief from co...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Ok let’s call the park officer This happened July 4th weekend. I am a member and have a place in a self contained camp community. Nice quiet place with a lake and pools and a restaurant and things like that. I love it because my kid can be a kid like I was and go wander with friends and disappear until dinner time and I don’t have to worry. Our place is on a small cul de sac that is grassed in and we use it for kids to play and set up cornhole and all that. Because it’s July 4th a bunch of people have guests so the park is more full than normal, and a guest of someone on the circle parked at the edge of the grass. Well my kid and another kid were playing catch and one of the kids missed the ball and it hit the parked car. Owner of the car comes out hot and going at the kids. Me and the other kid’s parent both go over to calm the situation. Obviously if there’s damage we’ll take care of it because it’s from our kids. But this guy starts going off about all these dents and this big scratch and a crack in the windshield and all this is the kids’ fault. I was willing to be reasonable but when you start saying you want a ton of extra work done trying to blame my kid I get a little less reasonable. So we’re going back and forth and then he says the magic word that if we aren’t willing to pay for everything he’s going to call the park safety office to come deal with it. Knowing where this was going I smiled and said yes ok let’s do that. So the officer comes out and to no ones surprise but this guy the area his car is parked is a no parking area, so not only does the officer tell him to deal with it because if he had followed the rules and parked in an actual parking zone this wouldn’t have happened, and because they guy told him he’d been parked there for 2 days with no issues before now, he got a nice fat ticket and order to move his car. He turned bright red but didn’t say another word and moved his car and we didn’t see or hear from him the rest of the weekend.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Ok let’s call the park officer This happened July 4th weekend. I am a member and have a place in a self contained cam...', then the trigger 'He turned bright red but didn’t say another word and moved his car and we didn’t see or hear from him the rest of the...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
You Want Me to Follow the Test Script Exactly? Sure Thing. So I work in game QA (Quality Assurance), which basically means I get paid to break games and then write a detailed essay about how and why it broke. One day, our lead sends out a message: “From now on, stick strictly to the test script. No deviations. No exploratory testing. Just follow the document as written.” Now, this goes against the golden rule of QA exploratory testing is where you catch the truly nasty bugs. But hey, they wanted strict compliance? Fine. Let’s play that game. The next day, I’m testing a new patch for a third-person action game. The script says: “Step 12: Jump on the platform and pick up the health pack.” So I do exactly that. I don’t move left or right, I don’t run into any nearby enemies, and I certainly don’t check what happens if I fall off the platform. I just jump, grab, pass. Later, a developer gets a bug report from another tester about a soft-lock (where the game becomes unplayable without restarting) if you pick up the health pack after aggroing a nearby enemy. It turns out it’s a critical bug ,one that happens to 1 in 5 players who aren’t robots following a script. The dev asks why I didn’t catch it. I just forward the manager’s message back: “No deviations. Just follow the document as written.” Next thing I know, we’re in a meeting, and suddenly the tone shifts to: “Okay, from now on, feel free to do exploratory testing where appropriate.” Uh-huh. That’s what I thought.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'You Want Me to Follow the Test Script Exactly? Sure Thing. So I work in game QA (Quality Assurance), which basically...', then the trigger 'That’s what I thought.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Teenage sex My teenage daughter came home in a rage. ‘I’ve just done sex education in school today, Dad! You lied to me! You told me if I have sex before my sixteenth birthday, my boyfriend will die!’ I put down my paper: ‘Oh, he will, sweetheart, he will.’ ”
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Teenage sex My teenage daughter came home in a rage. ‘I’ve just done sex education in school today, Dad! You lied to...', then the trigger 'I put down my paper: ‘Oh, he will, sweetheart, he will.’ ”' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Islamic terrorists makes no sense . Commit suicide and might get 72 virgins ? Become a Catholic priest and get them now
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Islamic terrorists makes no sense . Commit suicide and might get 72 virgins ?', then the trigger 'Become a Catholic priest and get them now' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is relief with benign-violation.
OK - I won't answer my old staff's questions and help them ... Before I retired I was manager and programmer in a department located in the US. I would program, manage, assign projects, create timelines, answer questions that my staff had, etc. The company I worked for decided to consolidate the US and UK programming departments and the new boss decided have only managers in the UK oversee the programmers in the US. This meant that I was only supposed to keep programming (I had the most experience among all the US/UK programmers) and no longer needed to do the management side of things (but I still got the same pay I used to). Due to a 6 hour time difference between the US and UK that meant that there were only 2 or 3 hours each day that we overlapped. This left the rest of the day for my old staff to either wait until the next day to ask their new boss or come to me and I could answer immediately. The latter made more sense so they could keep working - but eventually the UK managers complained to US/UK boss that the US staff wasn't coming to them to help and were still coming to me - which the UK managers were having a conniption about. My boss told me to stop helping my old staff when they asked me questions and that they needed to ask their new manager. So it was time for malicious compliance... I went back to only programming and when my old staff came and asked me questions (usually in the afternoons US time since the UK was done for the day). I told them I was told to no longer help them and they should ask their new UK manager the next day or send their UK boss an email with their question. I told them it was time for malicious compliance - since the US programmers knew exactly what would happen. So my old team started deluging their UK bosses with questions, problems, etc. and then had to wait until the next day or 2 to get answer. Within 2 weeks the US team was missing deadlines, etc. and the UK managers had to answer for why their team was missing deadlines. After a couple more weeks my boss and the UK managers came to the realization that due to the 6 hour time different there should be manager in the US (which is exactly what I told them weeks ago). Finally my boss asked me if would like to be a manager again and I told her I was happy just programming and didn't need the other work. They ended up giving me a raise in order to get me go back to managing the US programmers.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'OK - I won't answer my old staff's questions and help them ... Before I retired I was manager and programmer in a dep...', then the trigger 'They ended up giving me a raise in order to get me go back to managing the US programmers.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
Video Attendance Is Required. We’re still mostly remote at work, with more and more of the coordination done over chat. Meetings are mostly audio and shared screen. One unpopular program manager has begun to make it a point to ask everyone to turn cameras on “for better communication”. He called me out today and I discovered a lovely bit of maliciousness. I turned my camera on, and we immediately discovered why TV announcers dress simply. I was wearing a golf polo with fine horizontal stripes. Every time I moved, a moire pattern danced across the screen. It was the most obnoxious, attention grabbing thing I’ve ever heard. Cue five minutes of razzing me about my shirt. I spent the rest of the meeting fidgeting in my chair. I can’t wait for next week’s meeting. I have several more shirts with similar patterns.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Video Attendance Is Required. We’re still mostly remote at work, with more and more of the coordination done over cha...', then the trigger 'I have several more shirts with similar patterns.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
"What's your name, boy?" Cop asked the young man. "P-p-p-pet-pet-Peter, Sir" He replied. "Do you have a stutter?" Asked the Cop kindly. He answered "No sir, my dad has a stutter but the guy who filled out my Birth Certificate was an asshole."
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward '"What's your name, boy?" Cop asked the young man. "P-p-p-pet-pet-Peter, Sir" He replied. "Do you have a stutter?" Ask...', then the trigger 'He answered "No sir, my dad has a stutter but the guy who filled out my Birth Certificate was an asshole."' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
1 dollar for dirty joke I was in Venice Beach in January and there was a homeless man with a sign that said “1 dollar for dirty joke.” Seemed like a good investment to me so I gladly handed over a dollar. Homeless man: “Alright sir whats your name? Me: “asstasticbum” Homeless man: “So asstasticbum, there is black rooster alright? How many legs does that chicken have” Me: “two?” Homeless man: “Right, now how many wings this black rooster got?” Me: “two?” Homeless man: “Right, now how many eyes this black rooster got?” Me: “two?” Homeless man: “Right again, now there is this white cat walking around how many hairs are on that white cat?" Me: “I don’t know? A lot?” Homeless man: “Well asstasticbum, why do you know so much about black cock and not enough about white pussy.” Credits to /u/asstasticbum. He is the owner and OP of this story. Im just retelling it. Front page whooo hooo!! First time this has happened for me :D Im estatic :) Edit:: Please dont gild this post. If any of you feel so strongly, go to /u/asstasticbum and gild him Sorry for not adding link earlier. I had saved this post on my ColorNote app and i found it today. Apologies to people who are whining i did this for karma (TEXT post gives NO KARMA) Link to original story HERE:: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/1rwb5t/i_paid_a_homeless_lady_in_nashville_1_for_two/cdrqcwl?context=3
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward '1 dollar for dirty joke I was in Venice Beach in January and there was a homeless man with a sign that said “1 dollar...', then the trigger 'Link to original story HERE:: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/1rwb5t/i_paid_a_homeless_lady_in_nashville_1_fo...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Threw away over $1000 worth of candy and got a raise In the early 1990s when I was in my 20s I worked at a grocery store in the Midwest whose name rhymes with herbs that was owned by the chain Kroger. After working days for about six months I was eventually move to working the 11 to 7 or 10 to 6 overnight shifts and found that I really preferred them both for the clientele and for the different pace and not having to deal directly with the clueless general manager. One of the duties of the lone overnight checker was to restock all of the candy and snacks at the multiple checkout lanes. The candy was stored in the stairwell giving the only access to the second floor office near the front of the store (which was an obvious fire hazard). Just picture \~10 opened cardboard boxes stacked along a not particularly wide stairwell and you could imagine how messed up the whole thing was. A lady who worked in the morning who inventoried the candy remaining on the shelf was a different person than the afternoon lady whose job it was to occasionally(read never) inventory remaining candy in the stairwell. Then, daytime checkers who were supposed to fill the lulls between customers by cleaning their check stations and restocking candy would just grab whatever was handy at the bottom of the stairs, including opening brand new packages to take out the individual sale packages inside to top up their aisles displays meaning that over time those \~10 large cardboard boxes of candy each had a bunch of partial boxes and loose pieces inside of just random candy with no organization. Because I worked as the overnight checker I was constantly getting notes attached to my time card from the general manager (who only had his job because he was golf buddies with the district manager and had never worked in a grocery store before three years before that) reminding me to sort out the mess by stocking the candy. One of the banes of my existence was the ordering lady in the morning ordering a bunch of Cherry Nibs. Apparently it was part of a discount deal to buy a bunch of them yet we barely sold any of them. There were unopened and partial boxes of them in every one of the larger boxes that held candy as well as the mad assortment of other candy. Finally after about a dozen notes attached to my time card over the course of a month I decided to act. One night I pulled all the boxes down off of the stairs and told the night manager that I was going to sort it all out for good and he said fine. He was actually a cool guy who let me get work done and ran a very relaxed yet efficient shift. I sorted all the candy into chocolate, gum, suckers, basically by category labeled about six of the boxes, put all the stuff back in their proper boxes, and then put all the rest of the candy in a cart along with the trash that it was my job to take out from the registers at night. I then proceeded to throw what I can only estimate was $1000 or more worth of candy, including 90% of those damn Nibs, into the trash compactor in the back of the store with all of the trash on top of it so the next person who used it wouldn’t notice a bunch of crushed candy and report me. The next night when I clocked in I was pleasantly surprised to find that instead of being fired there was a note on my time card letting me know good job, and that I would be getting a $.25 an hour raise starting on my next paycheck. Let it be known that nothing containing chocolate went into the trash as I am not a heathen!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Threw away over $1000 worth of candy and got a raise In the early 1990s when I was in my 20s I worked at a grocery st...', then the trigger 'Let it be known that nothing containing chocolate went into the trash as I am not a heathen!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is absurdism.
An engineer, physicist, and a statistician in a hotel room... So an engineer, a physicist, and a statistician are all sleeping in a hotel room when suddenly an outlet catches fire. The engineer wakes up first and says to himself "this is an electrical fire, water won't work!" And runs to grab a fire extinguisher. The physicist wakes up next and thinks to himself "we have to cut the electricity off!" And runs to the power panel in the basement. The statistician wakes up and looks around, he then screams "we need more data!!" And he sets the curtains on fire.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'An engineer, physicist, and a statistician in a hotel room... So an engineer, a physicist, and a statistician are all...', then the trigger 'The statistician wakes up and looks around, he then screams "we need more data!!" And he sets the curtains on fire.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Africa's education grew fast Nowadays they have to work for 2 years for their masters Earlier it was 70
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Africa's education grew fast Nowadays they have to work for 2 years for their masters', then the trigger 'Earlier it was 70' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is relief with benign-violation.
Fuck cheesy chat-up lines, we need better break-up lines: Hey baby, are you being followed? Because I've been seeing people behind your back. Is it hot in here, or are you just suffocating me in this relationship? I didn't know angels flew this close to the ground. Maybe that's because this angel's gained a little weight since we started going out. You and me love, we're like six balls in cricket. OVER! I'm leaving you on religious grounds. I've decided to become a Jew, and you're a fucking pig.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Fuck cheesy chat-up lines, we need better break-up lines: Hey baby, are you being followed? Because I've been seeing...', then the trigger 'I've decided to become a Jew, and you're a fucking pig.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
On his 74th birthday, a man got a gift certificate from his wife... The certificate paid for a visit to a medicine man living on a nearby reservation that was rumored to have a wonderful cure for erectile dysfunction. After being persuaded, he drove to the reservation, handed his ticket to the medicine man, and wondered what he was in for. The medicine man slowly, methodically produced a potion, handed it to him, and with a grip on his shoulder, warned, 'This is powerful medicine. It must be respected. You take only teaspoonful, and then say '1-2-3.' When you do that, you will become manlier than you have ever been in your life, and you can perform as long as you want." The old man was encouraged. As he walked away, he turned and asked, "How do I stop the medicine from working?" "Your partner must say '1-2-3-4,'" he responded, "but when she does, the medicine will not work again until next full moon." The old man was very eager to see if it worked so he went home, showered, shaved, took a spoonful of the medicine, and then invited his wife to join him in the bedroom. When she came in, he took off his clothes and said, "1-2-3!" Immediately, he was the manliest of men. His wife was excited and began throwing off her clothes, and then she asked, "What was the 1-2-3 for?" And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a dangling participle.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'On his 74th birthday, a man got a gift certificate from his wife... The certificate paid for a visit to a medicine ma...', then the trigger 'And that, boys and girls, is why we should never end our sentences with a preposition, because we could end up with a...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
The worst joke I can remember [nsfw] Warning: this joke is long and terrible A woman was driving through a remote section of desert at night, thoroughly lost. Suddenly, a coyote ran into the road ahead of her! Slamming on the brakes, the woman was astounded to see a man come running from out of the darkness toward the coyote. In one smooth motion, the strange man took his pants down, grabbed the coyote by it's back legs and began furiously sodomizing the poor creature. Shocked beyond words, the woman went around the man as quickly as possibly and drove on. Speeding toward some lights in the distance, she discovered a bar with a sheriffs car parked outside. "It figures", she thought, and resolved to go inside and file a complaint. On a rocking chair near the door, an old man was sitting and masturbating openly. Horrified, she stomped into the bar and straight away went up to the sheriff, who was sitting at the bar. She shouted at the sheriff: "What sort of town are you running here?! You've got people running around the desert fucking coyotes, and- and just outside there was an old man masturbating openly! How can you explain this?!" The sheriff sipped his beer and said, "Ah well, you can't expect him to catch a coyote at his age"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'The worst joke I can remember [nsfw] Warning: this joke is long and terrible A woman was driving through a remote sec...', then the trigger 'The sheriff sipped his beer and said, "Ah well, you can't expect him to catch a coyote at his age"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is meta-humor with incongruity-resolution.
You want me to stop logging bugs? Okay, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Hi long-time lurker, first-time poster. This happened a couple of years ago when I was working as a QA analyst for a mid-sized software development company. Thought some of you might enjoy it. I was part of a scrum team working on a new feature for a large enterprise client. Our team was made up of the usual suspects: devs, a scrum master, a product owner (PO), and myself as the sole QA. Now, I’m a pretty thorough tester. I take pride in not just finding bugs, but documenting them clearly with steps to reproduce, screenshots, logs—you name it. Some devs loved me for it, others… not so much. One dev in particular (we’ll call him “Mike”) really hated having bugs logged against his code. He had this passive-aggressive attitude where any issue I found was “user error” or “not a bug.” The guy had a serious ego problem and believed his code was flawless. We were getting close to a deadline, and I was logging a lot of issues—nothing catastrophic, but enough to warrant attention. Some were cosmetic, others were functional, but all were valid. Mike didn’t like that I was “slowing things down.” During a sprint planning meeting, Mike went on a mini rant about how QA was “bogging the team down with unnecessary bugs” and how we “shouldn’t waste time logging minor issues that don’t block functionality.” Surprisingly, the PO (who was also feeling the deadline pressure) sided with him. The decision was made: “From now on, only log critical/blocker issues. Everything else can be reported informally or ignored.” I clarified: Me: “So you want me to stop logging non-blocking bugs? Even if they’re reproducible?” PO: “Exactly. Let’s focus on shipping.” Me: “You got it, boss.” For the next two sprints, I only logged blockers—like, the app crashes or data corruption level stuff. Everything else? I kept to myself. No documentation. No Jira tickets. Nada. The release went live… and all hell broke loose. Users were finding: * Buttons overlapping on mobile * Broken tooltips * Form validation failures * Inconsistent date formats * Slow load times on certain views None of it was technically blocking, but it made the experience feel amateurish.Cue a VERY uncomfortable post-mortem with the client. The PO asked why none of these issues were found during QA. I just smiled and said: “They were found. But per your instruction, I didn’t log them.” Silence. Mike tried to chime in, but the damage was done. Upper management got wind of the fiasco and mandated that all issues, regardless of severity, must be logged going forward. Mike was moved to a different team shortly after (not just because of this, but it didn’t help), and I got an apology and a “thank you” from the PO. TLDR: Told to stop logging “non-critical” bugs because they were slowing down development. Complied. Product shipped with a bunch of “non-critical” bugs that pissed off the client. Suddenly, logging all bugs became important again.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'You want me to stop logging bugs? Okay, but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Hi long-time lurker, first-time poster. This...', then the trigger 'Suddenly, logging all bugs became important again.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
She thought I was working that day. I was-just not at that store. This is pretty complicated so sorry it’s going to be long. TLDR at the bottom. In the early years of being a pharmacist, jobs in my city were hard to come by. I managed to get full time hours by working for a couple of pharmacist friends at both of their stores. They would work out my schedule together and put an X on my schedule on the days I was at the opposing store. One store was downtown and one was in the suburb I lived in. At the suburb pharmacy I had a coworker “Dee” who could just not wrap her brain around the fact that if there was an X by my name I was in fact working… just at the other store. Multiple times I would have call after call on my cell phone and hang ups on my answering machine at home because she wanted me to cover her shift at the suburb store when I was already working downtown. Worst thing was my cell phone charged me for every single call so after the second time of her pulling this I would get downtown and immediately pull the battery off my phone. This made her angry at me for “ignoring” her and we had a tepid relationship after that. Time went on and the suburb store started expanding their nursing home operation so I was able to work there full time instead. I still had a great relationship with the downtown store and they had me keep the keys in case of emergencies. They would occasionally come up and the X would be on the schedule by my name. Sadly Dee became the assistant manager and now thought she was “the boss” of me. Now downtown pharmacist’s daughter was getting married and suburb pharmacist was invited to all the festivities. I got scheduled to work the Thursday before at the downtown store. The X went by my name on the suburb schedule. I was also going to the wedding -I was good friends with the daughter but missing the Mendhi party on the Thursday I was working for her mum. I was on the phone with her on my break one time and she was saying how sorry she was I was missing it and I said “don’t worry I’ll just doodle brown sharpie all over my hands and pretend I was there when we aren’t busy”. Now at that exact week we were getting new pharmacy software downloaded. Nursing homes are run on a batch system where all the labels are run about 5 days before and then all the bubble packs are made up during that time and then the actual billing is done on the Thursday for the meds to be delivered Friday. Dee decided that she did not want the batch to be done and just wanted everything to be processed and made up on the Thursday for just this first week. My technician was freaking out so I just told her to make up the usual drug cards (Lipitor, aspirin 81, multivitamin, Altace etc) without any patient data just to help speed things along. Dee overheard and told the tech that she wasn’t allowed to do that and “this younger generation is just scared of hard work”. I panicked a bit because I was the only one of my age (gen X) as all my coworkers were boomer aged or older. I went and checked the schedule… yep there’s an X by my name…. I won’t be there for the sh*tshow but somehow Dee thinks I am? Why should I tell her any different. Thursday rolls around and at 12:30 my cell phone starts blowing up. It’s in my purse in the safe because I don’t get a lunch break (only pharmacist) and everyone can hear it. Out comes the battery. I get home after work and there’s screaming and swearing on my answering machine. A locum pharmacist worked the morning shift and wasn’t instructed to do anything so everything was left for Dee when she arrived at 12:30. She had to work late to finish over 500 prescription drug cards. I come in the next day and she’s still furious. “You said you were working! I heard you talking about the effing mendhi thing”. I told her I was working just not at that store as evidenced by the X by my name. I learned then that she could eavesdrop on the break room from one place in the pharmacy when she herself was the only pharmacist working at the time. All my breaks were taken in my car after this. TLDR Co-worker tried to make my day absolutely hell by trying to make me do 5 days of work in one day…. a day that I wasn’t working so she had to do it.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'She thought I was working that day. I was-just not at that store. This is pretty complicated so sorry it’s going to b...', then the trigger 'a day that I wasn’t working so she had to do it.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation with superiority.
Want us to keep working? I'll make the entire workday null and void Worked as a supervisor for a blood bank many years ago. We would travel to set up local blood drives in various towns/locations. Went to a community center about an hour away and found out their HVAC system was broken. It was supposed to be a hot day, somewhere in the mid 90's. FDA regulates the blood donation/collection industry, and they have strict rules in place. One of them is that the temperature in the collection area at a blood drive cannot exceed a certain amount. This is to prevent bacteria growth in the blood collection process, and to prevent donors from having a bad reaction during/after donation (fainting, vomiting etc.). I called our manager (Jess) and said "hey, there's no AC in this building and it's already getting close to the cutoff temp. I think we should cancel and reschedule." ABSOLTELY NOT. Jess thinks we're just trying to get a day off work. Like we didn't already load all the equipment up and drive out here to waste our time, but whatever. She gets in her car and drives out to the site. She then takes the QC thermometer, which was already out of range by the time she got there, and places it on a window where a fan was blowing. After a minute or so, the temp drops just below the threshold. "It's fine, set up the rest of the site and continue with the blood drive." "Well, the temp needs to be taken in the collection area, not on the other side of the building by a window." "The temp is fine; you all need to stay here and do your job." She gets in her car and leaves. Ok, let's do the blood drive then. She's the boss! After each unit of blood collected, I quarantine the units and fill out the proper paperwork per SOP guidelines. We get back to the blood bank that evening and I hand off the coolers of quarantined blood to the lab. They ask me if I really quarantined an entire blood drive and I say "yep." So, they document and incinerate each unit of blood. A 10-hour workday with travel expenses, medical equipment, staff, etc. all thrown out the window. Not to mention wasting the time of all the people that donated. The next day, the site director calls me into her office, I assume to chew my ass. She was actually confused and wondered if something happened at the blood drive that caused every unit to be quarantined. I told her the reason, and about Jess. Not sure how the conversation went afterwards but unfortunately, she was able to keep her job for a few weeks before being fired. Don't make a set of rules if you don't expect people to follow them.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Want us to keep working? I'll make the entire workday null and void Worked as a supervisor for a blood bank many year...', then the trigger 'Don't make a set of rules if you don't expect people to follow them.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
Deaf Sex Two deaf people get married and during the first week of marriage they find that they are unable to communicate in the bedroom with the lights out since they can't see each other signing, or read lips. After several nights of fumbling around and many misunderstandings, the wife figures out a solution. She writes a note to her husband: 'Honey, Why don't we agree on some simple signals? For instance, at night, if you want to have sex with me, reach over and squeeze my left breast one time. If you don't want to have sex, reach over and squeeze my right breast two times. The husband thinks this is a great idea. He writes back to his wife That if she wants to have sex with him, reach over and pull on his penis one time. If she doesn't want to have sex, pull on his penis two hundred and fifty times.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Deaf Sex Two deaf people get married and during the first week of marriage they find that they are unable to communic...', then the trigger 'If she doesn't want to have sex, pull on his penis two hundred and fifty times.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Timmy is in second grade studying subtraction when the teacher asks, “Timmy, if I have 5 cats and give you 2, how many cats do you have?” Timmy, “3.” Teacher, “no Timmy, if I have 5 cats and give you 2, I have 3 left. 5 minus 2 is 3. What if I have 5 cats and give you 3, how many cats do you have?” Timmy, “4.” Teacher, “no Timmy, that’s not right. What of I have 5 cats and give you 5 cats, how many cats do you have?” Timmy, “6.” Teacher, “that’s not correct, I only gave you 5 cats.” Timmy, “yes it is, I already have a damn cat.”
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Timmy is in second grade studying subtraction when the teacher asks, “Timmy, if I have 5 cats and give you 2, how man...', then the trigger 'Timmy, “yes it is, I already have a damn cat.”' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
Making them cold just seemed like the right thing to do. I used to work in a retirement village with a communal restaurant/dinning room. There was this awful family who despite being only a 15 minute drive away from the village would almost never visit their mother, we can call the mother Sam. Sam was kind. Sam's family were constantly neglecting to provide items such as clothing and most of Sams valuables had in my opinion been stolen by them. As they were the power of attorney for financial, personal and health matters nothing legally could be done apparently... Fast forward to a hot Australian Christmas day. The village is hosting a Christmas lunch for the old people who didn't manage to go out for the day. Family's were welcome but you had to book ahead. The invitation clearly said to "bring a jumper" as the AC was very cold to cater for the constant opening of the dinning room doors with guests coming and going. Naturally Sam's family failed to book a seat and had to be accommodated last minute. Naturally they were the only ones without a jumper. I got the privilege of finding them a place to sit so I dressed Sam in an extra warm nice outfit and set up the table under the big main AC vent. 10 minutes later Sam's annoyed son and daughter in law approached me and asked "can you please turn down the air conditioning it is too cold." "Yep no problem I can do that" I said. And I did. I turned that AC down and extra 4 degrees (I think to 16 degrees Celsius if memory serves). Sam's family left earlier than any other family and Sam was able to spend the rest of Christmas with people who spoke to her like she was a human being. Edit: Jumper = sweater or jersey. We also used jumper cables to warm up the old people until the age care commission decided it was a crime 😉
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Making them cold just seemed like the right thing to do. I used to work in a retirement village with a communal resta...', then the trigger 'We also used jumper cables to warm up the old people until the age care commission decided it was a crime 😉' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
The Irish Prostitue An Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years. Upon her return, her Father cursed her heavily. 'Where have ye been all this time, child? Why did ye not write to us, not even a line? Why didn't ye call? Can ye not understand what ye put yer old Mother through?' The girl, crying, replied, Dad... I became a prostitute.' 'Ye what!? Get out a here, ye shameless harlot! Sinner! You're a disgrace to this Catholic family.' 'OK, Dad... as ye wish. I only came back to give mum this luxurious fur coat, title deed to a ten bedroom mansion, plus a 5 million savings certificate. For me little brother, this gold Rolex. And for ye Daddy, the sparkling new Mercedes limited edition convertible that's parked outside plus a membership to the country club ... (takes a breath) ... and an invitation for ye all to spend New Year's Eve on board my new yacht in the Riviera.' 'What was it ye said ye had become?' says Dad. Girl, crying again, 'A prostitute, Daddy!.' 'Oh! My Goodness! Ye scared me half to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant! Come here and give yer old Dad a hug !!!
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'The Irish Prostitue An Irish daughter had not been home for over 5 years. Upon her return, her Father cursed her heav...', then the trigger 'Come here and give yer old Dad a hug !!!' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Company has an asinine travel policy, costs them extra A few months ago, I had to travel for work. Some cost savings measures had been implemented recently and I was required to have a funding letter from the financial department so they could allocate funds appropriately, even though my travel was authorized by my supervisor and required for the company business. Ok, I'll jump through this hoop, whatever. I get a funding letter and travel a couple hours to my home away from home. Halfway through my trip, my work schedule opens up I have a few days off, but I know I'll be working more the following week. Since I'm only a few hours from home, I decide to check out of my hotel, drive home to spend the weekend with my family, then drive back the following week when I actually have work to do. Saves the company paying a few days for a hotel room and per diem, I get time with family; win-win right? Wrong. When I submit my travel claim to financial, it counts as two separate trips. The problem is I have one funding letter, which covers the dates of my travel, but doesn't cover two trips, even though both trips are inside the travel window in the funding letter. This blows up and takes about a month and a half to get sorted out, during which time I had to pay off my company credit card for the travel expenses incurred using my own funds. Eventually, the money was all properly allocated and I got reimbursed for my interest free loan to the company, but I learned my lesson. Another trip comes up and I am issued one funding letter. I drive up again and work for a few days. Sure enough, my schedule opens up and I have some days off. This time, instead of checking out of my hotel, I just leave, drive home, and now I'm sitting on my couch typing this while the company pays my per diem and pays for an empty hotel room. Pretty sure the bean counters will get a raise for their fine work. Cheers to them.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Company has an asinine travel policy, costs them extra A few months ago, I had to travel for work. Some cost savings...', then the trigger 'Cheers to them.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
You want me to resign? Well, good luck without me! Disclaimer 1: On mobile and English is not my first language, so apologies for any mistakes and bad formatting. Disclaimer 2: Labor laws in my country probably differ from labor laws in your's, so I'll try to explain them when they are important to the story. It is going to be a long one, sorry about that For the last 10 years I've been working from home as automation engineer for a relatively small company what produced custom-built industrial gas treatment units (industrial chillers, compressors stations, that sort of thing). My job was to write algorithms for PLCs, design HMI, and setting up data transfer for customers SCADA systems. Basically I was the person who told machines what to do. I was getting significant below market pay for such position, but with only 4-5 project per year and each taking me 2-3 weeks to complete, I wasn't arguing, since I was getting paid for mostly doing nothing and I was fortunate enough to have considerable passive income thanks to lucky investments of my inheritance. Everything was great until couple years ago, when owner decided to retire and sold the company. So here comes new managment with new policies. In my country every worker entitled to at least 4 weeks of paid vacation time per year all unspent vacation is rolled other to the next year, but you have to take at least 2 uninterrupted weeks per year, so if you only take your mandatory vacation, you accumulate 14 additional days per year. Given how much free time I actually had I rarely used more than mandatory 2 weeks per year, always making sure what there be no commissioning or maintenance planned during my vacation (During these events I would remotely access maintenance engineer's laptop to make neccessary adjustments to the algorithms, so everything works perfectly in real working conditions). But one of the first policies new managment implemented was schedule based vacations. So now O had to decide when I take my 2 weeks at the start of the year. I chose first weeks of April. In early March I get a call from manager of the development team who asks me to come on a quick 3 day work trip to help maintenance engineer switch plc and upload new project. Apparently thanks to new maintenance team manager a lot of maintenance engineers quit and they are short stuffed and the only one they can send atm is bad with computer. "Where isn't much for me to do, since we had identical station going through the same plc switch month prior, so I'll just fly there, chill, until electrical panel is rewired, new plc is installed, when I just upload new project to plc and fly home" - I thought for myself and agreed to go. Apparently maintenance engineer not only bad with computers, but also knows nothing about electrical work, so I had to do everything myself which I am not actually qualified to do, but at this point I don't want to disappoint client, who turned out to be a bunch of really nice people, so after a week and with only 3 burned down fuses I finished. After returning home I inform my manager what I am not going to any more business trips since I don't get paid enough to also do maintenance engineer's work. First say of my vacation comes and I get another call. Despite my poor judgment I decided to answer: - Hey, we need tou to go on another business trip starting next Monday, it will just take a week, it for *this project* - I'm not familiar with that project, it was done while I was on paternity leave (in my country either parent can take paternity/maternity leave up to 3 years and after first 6 months my wife asked me to switch). - Yeah, we had to contract a specialist to do that project while you are on leave, I'll send it to you along with documentation right away. *disconnects* I check recieved project and it is huge - 7 PLC's, 6 HMI panels, everything has to work as a single system, and project is a total mess, nothing would work, you just has to do everything from scratch, will probably take me close to a month to finish. And that is with doing everything from comfort of my own home where I am more productive. So I call back: - Yeah, I looked at this project and that's a mess, it's not in the working condition and no way to finish it in a week. I'll do what I can do, but as I said last time, I'm doing it remotely, as always, I won't go on another business trip, especially now, I have to many things planned for the next few weeks, I can't go. - But reception on site is terrible, you won't be able to access it remotely. And we already missed all deadlines on this project, client is pissed and we are looking at huge fines. CEO is breathing down my neck, we need it fixed yesterday. - Then I'll email maintenance engineer project with changes each eavning once he is in hotel with decent reception and he can email me list of things what need fixing, it's not the first time we done it that way. - Ok, I hear you, I'll have to speak with CEO abo
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'You want me to resign? Well, good luck without me! Disclaimer 1: On mobile and English is not my first language, so a...', then the trigger 'I still haven't recieved my compensation for my 120 saved vacation days.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is benign-violation.
Catholicsthenics
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Catholicsthenics', then the trigger 'Catholicsthenics' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is wordplay with incongruity-resolution.
My boss, who is a fit woman, caught me in the shower room after work. She said to me "Would you mind taking my blouse off?" I replied, "Certainly," and took it off. Then she turned around and said, "Would you take my skirt off too?" So I removed that as well. Then she finally asked me to take her underwear off, so I did that too. Then she looked at me and said, "If I ever catch you wearing my clothes again, you're fired"
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'My boss, who is a fit woman, caught me in the shower room after work. She said to me "Would you mind taking my blouse...', then the trigger 'Then she looked at me and said, "If I ever catch you wearing my clothes again, you're fired"' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is superiority.
Regardless of the circumstance if you did ‘it’ you should get punished… ok Most of these events happened years ago. A few of the details I only found out about recently. So there was a soldier we’ll call ‘Jo’. Jo and I were in the Army together. Jo was late for formation and unfortunately, other people had been late earlier that month so the chain of command was looking for someone to make an example of. Our Sergeant Major always said, “Regardless of the circumstance if you did ‘it’ you should get punished”. SGM would go on about even if other people didn’t get caught or punished if you got caught you should be punished and eventually it would catch up with the other people… He would tell us this in formation all the time. So Jo ends up with extra duty and looses about $2,000 in pay. What I only found out recently and thought was karma turned out to be Jo’s malicious compliance. Turns out the Sergeant Major was having an affair with a woman in town who just so happened to be Jo’s cousin. Jo’s cousin sends Jo incriminating texts and pictures and Jo sends them to the Sergeant Major’s chain of command and wife. Adultery being a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Sergeant Major was forced to retire, career ENDED, finical loss projected at approximately half a million in retirement to the ex-wife. But in the end Jo followed Sergeant Major’s direction that, “Regardless of the circumstance if you did ‘it’ you should get punished”.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'Regardless of the circumstance if you did ‘it’ you should get punished… ok Most of these events happened years ago. A...', then the trigger 'But in the end Jo followed Sergeant Major’s direction that, “Regardless of the circumstance if you did ‘it’ you shoul...' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
So my Irish friend decided to tell his community he's an atheist... One man in the crowd then yelled "Yes, but is it the Catholic god you don't believe in or the Protestant one?" (Wow this exploded. Front... *wow*. Gotta say, I like the (current) top comment's version more.)
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'So my Irish friend decided to tell his community he's an atheist... One man in the crowd then yelled "Yes, but is it...', then the trigger 'Gotta say, I like the (current) top comment's version more.)' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
As told to me by an 85 year old shriner clown. Little 8 year old Susie is in her back yard digging a hole. Her neighbor Mr. Johnson peeks over the fence and says "gee Susie, what's going on?" Susie says "I'm digging a hole, it's pretty obvious." Mr. Johnson asks "why are you digging a hole?" Susie replies "I'm burying my gold fish." Mr Johnson laughs and asks "Why is the hole so big?" Susie replies "Because my goldfish is inside your fucking cat". Edit: He will be happy to know you liked it! Not sure he would get the whole reddit front page thing though.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'As told to me by an 85 year old shriner clown. Little 8 year old Susie is in her back yard digging a hole. Her neighb...', then the trigger 'Not sure he would get the whole reddit front page thing though.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is incongruity-resolution.
More than 6+ million people may die around the world due to suffering to the complications of COVID-19, surpassing the death toll of the holocaust. Therefore... We can then deduce to the bare minimum and logically designate this era in time as... The Holocough.
Why is this funny? (Comedy Stack Analysis)
The setup points the reader toward 'More than 6+ million people may die around the world due to suffering to the complications of COVID-19, surpassing th...', then the trigger 'The Holocough.' forces a reinterpretation. The main mechanism is relief with benign-violation.
More Topics
Want to understand why these are funny?
Our Comedy Stack Analyzer dissects any joke into its humor mechanism, script opposition, and quality scores.