* With the JustBugsMe pages for comedy shows, it says to consider whether or not the bugging issue can be answered with RuleOfFunny. Well, isn't RuleOfFunny, by its very nature, subjective? What one person might find funny might not be what the next person finds funny. Ergo, my point is that if something bugs you about a show/movie/book/etc., you should be able to say so without worrying about RuleOfFunny.
** RuleOfFunny isn't about whether something is ''actually'' funny. It's about whether an incongruous plot point is justified by being an attempt at humor. It doesn't ''have'' to be successful in that attempt to qualify.
*** Fair enough, I guess. But if that's the case, why should people worry about RuleOfFunny if something in a show bugs them? I mean, if an attempt at humor can be RuleOfFunny even if it isn't successful, and it's lack of success bothers someone, it shouldn't matter if it was an attempt at humor or not. It won't necessarily bug them any less.
**** It's because JustBugsMe is about FridgeLogic, not whining.
**** RuleOfFunny also suggests that the creators are at least aware that what they're doing could conceivably be FridgeLogic -- however, because they are intentionally trying to make a joke, and because jokes frequently don't operate according to standard logic, RuleOfFunny allows for the possibility that it's deliberately ''intended'' to be illogical or nonsensical, rather than just the creators messing up. For example, the obvious objections to a joke that revolves around a horse going into a bar and ordering a drink is, of course, that horses cannot talk, do not commonly drink alcohol and do not use human drinking establishments, but because it's clearly a set-up to a joke and not intended to be a logically and factually accurate state of affairs, all but the most joylessly pedantic are more likely to be willing to let it slide in order for the joke to function whether they find the resulting joke funny or not. The joke doesn't have to be funny for the premise to still be clearly intending to set up a joke.

* People are always using RuleOfFunny to justify bizarre occurrences in movies and such. However, doesn't this rule also cover up things that aren't funny? Like, SeltzerandFriedberg movies make no sense and everyone calls them stupid, but can't everything in those movies be justified by RuleOfFunny? If so, how can there ever be such a thing as bad comedy if everything in comedy is automatically justified by the RuleOfFunny?
** Rule of Funny is about breaking with reality or continuity in the name of comedy. It's values neutral, and not a justification but a property of the comedic genre. ''But there can be bad comedy'' - if the use of such reality-bending fails to produce humor, it is a bad comedy. But, conversely, a comedy is not bad for playing with the laws of physics or by bending its own continuity for the sake of a laugh. Basically, in a pure madcap comedy, humor is the top priority. SeltzerAndFriedberg movies are bad because they are unfunny, and poorly written, acted, and directed, flaws which are NOT justified by the Rule of Funny.
** In short, the Rule of Funny trope is about ''motivation''. So yes, Seltzer and Friedberg movies were motivated by an attempt at humor. The fact that they utterly failed in this endeavor does not change the fact that they were ''intended'' to be funny, which is the point of RuleOfFunny.