Okay, thank you for the explanation, I think I understand the structure now.
It’s a non-sequitir with an extra step, and despite the setup only making sense preceding non-sequitirs, the setup is used constantly with things people commonly talk about, are obviously popular or easy to get.
I think the knock knock setup makes sense because it very clearly sets the audience in a framework, encouraging you to inquire about the situation that you interrupt by subverting expectations via a punchline.
The no one line seems more like gilding a lily, a hat on a hat, superfluous.
It doesn’t add much to a joke or non-sequitur, it’s just pointing out that this thing from left field is from left field, while of course if the statement was from left field then you wouldn’t need to explain that it was from left field.
Weird.
I understand it better now, and I appreciate your explanation, but I’ll keep cropping these as I see them.
The no one line feels too much like a kindergartener rubbing their hands together like “I have a joke for you! My joke is a statement!”
I understand that it’s somehow being used incorrectly, but I’m not sure I understand that a correct usage of it would be.
Isx the joke here supposed to be “nobody has ever said girl’s hands are cold”?
Because that’s a common trope in TV shows, novels, regular conversation.
If the joke is that girl’s hands are cold, why would you need “no one”, and if the joke is that nobody would talk about girls hands being cold, then clearly that’s incorrect.
I appreciate the long explanation, I just do not understand it yet and I’ve received so many different explanations of what “no one” is supposed to mean without getting any closer to what the joke is.
And I completely agree that whatever the original meaning was is essentially lost in people just put the phrase “no one” in front of any image pretending it is a setup to a joke that it is not.
That’s why I crop these images, because there doesn’t seem to be anything semantically or comedically gained from “no one”.
Adding more lanes does not “magically create more cars on the road”, but it does mundanely create more traffic, so that increasing traffic lanes provides diminishing returns of reduced congestion.
You have to factor in how many cars are acquired every year, how many people are driving, how they are driving where, and when.
Every year people are buying new cars and the old cars don’t just disappear, more people move to where more people already live, and adding new lanes only invites more drivers to where everybody is already going.
A simple, related and more accessible example is adding parking spaces into a downtown area. This does not lessen congestion but increases congestion as more people drive downtown and everyone drives around looking for a parking space rather than walking an extra 7 minutes from a less congested area.
A similar thing happens with highways, and research backs it up.
It’s definitely the egg, since the chicken was the road and the egg(traffic density) increases after adding another highway or lane to a “super highway”.
Before that highway or lane was added, there was less congestion.