I am a big fan of satire and dry humor. I don't really like "screwball comedy" I guess it's called (I'm not sure if that's actually what it's called). I would describe screwball comedy as people falling down, getting hit on the head, making stupid jokes- the kind of humor that happens in cartoons. I don't like things that are obviously funny; I can appreciate humor that isn't as obvious where it is almost like an inside joke.
I always like humor that plays on what you know. I enjoy things that feed on your experiences. For example, you have to know about the topic to really appreciate the joke.
I think this meme is really funny because it's so true. I've experienced this so many times when you put on socks because you're freezing, but then an hour later, you're sweating while laying in bed.
What is the rhetorical value of humor?
Humor can be very persuasive. If you can get your audience to laugh, you can get them to do almost anything. However, scientific study hasn't really backed this idea up. From my personal experience, though, I've found this to be true. Also, it can get your audience more interested and engaged with your message.
Are there any drawbacks to using humor?
Humor can be very rhetorically effective, but only if your audience gets it. If your audience understands your humor, they will be automatically engaged with your message and remember it very well. If your audience doesn't get it or doesn't think it's funny, your message will fall flat, and the audience will probably feel awkward. This is way the speaker/author must be very aware of his audience, and that goes back to the idea of always keeping the audience in mind with every piece you create.
Like I talked about in my keywords presentation, if your audience doesn't get humor, your message will fall flat. For example.....
If President Bush would have told this joke at his address to the union after 9/11, his audience would have totally missed the humor in the joke.
