Miles Adkins, among the first wave of rioters to breach the Capitol on Jan. 6 is sentenced to 12 consecutive weekends in jail but he says he will not resign from his role on a Virginia school board.
Yes, but asking “What does Mark Wahlberg’s fake penis have to do with anything” would let readers know that I’m in on the joke, thus ruining the comedy.
You see, in this example, I’m playing the archetype of the buffoon in which I’m feigning dual confusion: first that John Holmes was a fictional character portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, and second that I believed Mark Wahlberg’s penis in the movie Boogie Nights was real.
Had I used a descriptor noting that Mark Wahlberg’s penis was a prosthetic, I’d be showing more intimate knowledge of the film Boogie Nights, from which one could more easily assume that I also know that John Holmes and Mark Wahlberg are, in fact, two different people.
Perhaps I could have said something like “prosthetic pp” which would have the comedic values of alliteration and immaturity. Certainly, that could have evoked a positive response from viewers, but the role of the buffoon is often not completed until compared to a more anchored character. “Prosthetic pp” would have made my delivery both the comment and the punchline, but by portraying the role of the buffoon and simply referencing “Mark Wahlberg’s penis,” I left the dialog open for someone else to provide comedic input by responding. This means that I not only get to share the limelight with another user, but that readers get to enjoy even more humor by reading the next comment.
For example, @[email protected] chose to put a button on the joke by referencing Mark Wahlberg’s wife, Rhea Durham. This humorous comment could be seen as the final note in our humorous exchange, which began with a humorous retort by @[email protected] to @[email protected] correction of @[email protected] common misuse of the word “hung” instead of “hanged.” Although, Viking’s response also left things somewhat open-ended by saying “presumably” and using a shrug emoji; this opening means someone could continue the humor, such as using a classic improv response format of “yes and.” Perhaps another user would like to reply to Viking with something like “presumably nothing, gimme that fat dick!”
Referring back to the archetypes of comedy, you can see how your response would most likely fall under that of the anchor, the neurotic, or the cynic. In this scenario, you’re probably playing the role of the neurotic or the cynic as @[email protected] anecdotally mentioned his father, making him either the anchor or the innocent.
You’ll note that this current response to your comment is unlikely to be found on the archetypes of comedy list because I’m currently breaking the fourth wall and am just an asshole. If you’ve read this far, I’m sorry.
I wasn’t trying to win. I’m sorry for sucking the fun out of the joke getting hung up on details. I didn’t know Dirk Digler was based on John Holmes, so thanks for teaching me something new!
What does Mark Wahlberg’s penis have to do with anything?
Presumably not much, unless you’re Rhea Durham 🤷
That was a prosthetic.
Yes, but asking “What does Mark Wahlberg’s fake penis have to do with anything” would let readers know that I’m in on the joke, thus ruining the comedy.
You see, in this example, I’m playing the archetype of the buffoon in which I’m feigning dual confusion: first that John Holmes was a fictional character portrayed by Mark Wahlberg, and second that I believed Mark Wahlberg’s penis in the movie Boogie Nights was real.
Had I used a descriptor noting that Mark Wahlberg’s penis was a prosthetic, I’d be showing more intimate knowledge of the film Boogie Nights, from which one could more easily assume that I also know that John Holmes and Mark Wahlberg are, in fact, two different people.
Perhaps I could have said something like “prosthetic pp” which would have the comedic values of alliteration and immaturity. Certainly, that could have evoked a positive response from viewers, but the role of the buffoon is often not completed until compared to a more anchored character. “Prosthetic pp” would have made my delivery both the comment and the punchline, but by portraying the role of the buffoon and simply referencing “Mark Wahlberg’s penis,” I left the dialog open for someone else to provide comedic input by responding. This means that I not only get to share the limelight with another user, but that readers get to enjoy even more humor by reading the next comment.
For example, @[email protected] chose to put a button on the joke by referencing Mark Wahlberg’s wife, Rhea Durham. This humorous comment could be seen as the final note in our humorous exchange, which began with a humorous retort by @[email protected] to @[email protected] correction of @[email protected] common misuse of the word “hung” instead of “hanged.” Although, Viking’s response also left things somewhat open-ended by saying “presumably” and using a shrug emoji; this opening means someone could continue the humor, such as using a classic improv response format of “yes and.” Perhaps another user would like to reply to Viking with something like “presumably nothing, gimme that fat dick!”
Referring back to the archetypes of comedy, you can see how your response would most likely fall under that of the anchor, the neurotic, or the cynic. In this scenario, you’re probably playing the role of the neurotic or the cynic as @[email protected] anecdotally mentioned his father, making him either the anchor or the innocent.
You’ll note that this current response to your comment is unlikely to be found on the archetypes of comedy list because I’m currently breaking the fourth wall and am just an asshole. If you’ve read this far, I’m sorry.
10/10 response to being asked to explain a joke. Somehow you made the joke explanation even funnier than the original joke.
If I had a dollar for every time people have said those exact words to me…I’d obviously still be broke.
Yes, but you’d be a few bucks richer and your obese friend, Richard, would have worsened insecurities!
Poor Fat Dick… 😔
Except you didn’t write Mark Wahlberg’s fake penis, or Eddie Adams/Dirk Digler’s penis. You wrote Mark Wahlberg’s penis.
In contrast, John Holmes was a porn star who was famously well-endowed.
FUCK! Good catch! I totally forgot that Mark Wahlberg’s character was only inspired by John Holmes. You absolutely win.
I’d offer you a victory prize such as my last shred of dignity, but I think I lost that in my previous comment.
Damn, you’re good, great job!
I wasn’t trying to win. I’m sorry for sucking the fun out of the joke getting hung up on details. I didn’t know Dirk Digler was based on John Holmes, so thanks for teaching me something new!
You didn’t suck the fun out of anything. I don’t always agree with you, but I always enjoy our discourse.
And if we’ve learned anything, the correct word is “hanged.” Only John Holmes and @[email protected]’s dad are hung. And any prosthesis, obviously.
Agreed. I always seem to leave a conversation with you having learned something. It’s always appreciated.