Who falls where on the Comedy Axis?

Who falls where on the Comedy Axis?

How are your extrema diametrically opposed? This chart is dumb and you are dumb for posting it.

so the x-axis is unfunny popculture references and the Y goes from angry popculture references to zany nonsense.

This is a terrible graph.

Family guy is good for being random without a message, south park is good for sending a message
George is good for being honest. Andy is good for tricking people.

Early family guy was very good.

You're an idiot.

...

Sup Forums wouldn't be in the middle, it would be at the bottom next too "tricking people"


no one says anything real on this website

Wednesday is good for being in the middle of everywhere even space, but warm is good for being everywhere except space. Gravy is good for being well-understood, but not everybody knows adverb, so that means it's underground and cool.

Things can be good for mutually exclusive reasons.

And, different things can be FUNNY for mutually exclusive reasons.

A Vin Diagram would be better.

>MATH CAN EXPLAIN HUMOR!

>MATH IS THE ROOT OF ALL HUMOR!

That doesn't create a spectrum, genius.

...

Bill Murray was never funny.

His writers did all work he acted like he didn't give a shit.

But, the boundary conditions map a space. That space being a spectrum different things can fall on, genius.

And Tina Fey is unfunny as anything.

How do these extrema create an orthogonal set of basis vectors to define a space?

Family guy is funny for being random. South Park is funny for having a purpose.
George is good for being honest. Andy is good for tricking people.

So, The Colbert Report would fall in the lower left, and John Steward it would be in the upper left.

Where would Fox News fall?

Redefine your axes, then. Y should be "honesty" and X should be "substance".

Like this

Then place your four initial comedians/shows on the graph. The way this is laid out, you're saying that Carlin is 100% honest but isn't substantial one way or the other.

Like this?

This suggests that George Carlin falls on the graph at a point where there is no message. You think Carlin had no message? Define your axes in terms of the quantities you're measuring.

see

It implies he is equal random and message.
I'm not sure he would agree with you that he had a defined message, but many people feel he did. So, I'm not sure the middle is a bad place for him in that spectrum.

Better. Think now about where to put your four points. Carlin would shift right on substance. South Park and Family Guy would likely both shift up on honesty. Kaufman might shift right or left depending on his substance—don't know him very well.

Would Carlin agree with himself having a message?

I know I feel he did, but I'm not sure HE'D like being sifted right.

I disagree, but the point is that you're now thinking about where to place things on the graph relating to the axes, which are now defined, rather than between data points without having given any explicit relation. So it's getting better.

Eh. He's dead. I'd like people to think I have a huge dick, but when you start comparing it with other dicks... well, under peer review, we don't get to decide where we fall on the graph, do we?

You make a good point.

Thank you for the help!

>vin diagram