Again, people find things funny for different reasons. You prefer to focus on the _method_ of telling a joke (timing and so on). While I definitely enjoy such jokes, the jokes I find really funny are the ones that actually relate to my life (or contrast with it) -- or even more broadly the ones that make me think. That's just the kind of humour I'm into.

Here's some counter-examples:

* Most of Brazil is funny for many different reasons. Yes, it has references to 1984, and the style and acting are very necessary to make the jokes work. But everyone can relate (in some way) to the extremely over-blown life of the protagonist -- someone who is stuck in a system working a job they hate with endless bureaucracy. What makes it funny is how blown out-of-proportion it is and how transparent the internal inconsistencies are.

* Rick and Morty is a complicated subject to approach (it has many, many different layers of humour), but some of my favourite jokes come from cases where Rick or Morty reference things that I e with. For example, the whole "inception is so hard to understand" concept was part of a very funny quip where Rick tells Morty that "he doesn't have to impress him" when Morty says "inception wasn't hard to understand". There are many other instances of that.

Again, I don't understand your point. Why are you arguing about what's funny? I thought we concluded a long time ago that humour was subjective. Why are you telling me what should and shouldn't be funny?

For example, I don't think that clip was very funny. But that's just me.

> You prefer to focus on the _method_ of telling a joke (timing and so on)

No, I don't. That's something I mentioned that makes a joke good, but you're ignoring what I said makes a joke a joke: the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.

You seem determined to be right about this. Again, note that I do not claim that these kind of performances aren't funny (since that is a matter for the beholder); but that they are not jokes, and their barrier to understanding is exclusionary and elistist.

> I'm not saying they aren't funny, but they are not jokes.

You might have a different definition of joke to me. Is a joke not something that is said or done to cause amusement or laughter in the audience?

> the silliness leading to a catastrophic collapse of a pre-conceived understanding into a different but plausible model.

That sounds like a _type_ of joke, but it's quite reductionist to claim that "all jokes must be like this".

Much like claiming, "all things I find funny are jokes"