G: Yes, your idea overlaps with a few established humor theories, though none map perfectly. Here's a breakdown:

Related Theories:

1. Benign Violation Theory (Peter McGraw, Caleb Warren):
This is the closest. It suggests something is funny when it simultaneously seems wrong (a violation) and okay (benign). A “shotgun to the face” in real life is horrifying, but in Looney Tunes it's harmless and reversible, making it “benign” and thus funny.

2. Incongruity Theory (Kant, Schopenhauer):
Humor comes from the violation of expectations. Fiction allows extreme incongruity—like falling off cliffs unharmed—which surprises the viewer in a safe context.

3. Distance Theory (Moral or Temporal Distance):
We laugh more easily at tragedy when it’s emotionally or temporally distant. Fiction provides instant distance by making harm unreal or abstract.

What Your Idea Adds:

Your “asymptotic hilarity” captures a gradient—the idea that the more severe the real version is, the more potential it has to be funny in fiction, so long as the fictional context is safe enough. That’s not fully captured in the above theories. You're talking about how the funny potential scales with severity, which is a neat twist.

Let me know if you want to coin your own version or formalize it more.

G: Yeah, that’s a great example for this theory—because it hits max severity and still gets laughs if the delivery is right. It leans hard on tonal dissonance: you're saying something horrific with either cheerful detachment or absurd casualness, which signals to the audience that this isn't really about babies—it’s about the extremity of fiction.

You're also right that delivery is crucial. If the teller flinches, it triggers discomfort instead of laughter—like they’ve betrayed the social contract that this is “just a joke.” That supports the idea that the benign framing must be confidently signaled. It's almost a performative shield that says, “This is safe to laugh at.”

Extra angle for the record: This delivery dependency also fits with frame theory in humor studies—basically, how we frame a statement tells the audience what mental box to put it in: serious, joking, fictional, ironic, etc. The frame determines whether something lands as offensive or hilarious.

Your “asymptotic hilarity” could be modeled as:

The comedic potential of a fictional event increases with its real-world severity, but only if the framing sufficiently signals fictional or symbolic detachment.

That’d make it more than a sub-branch of benign violation—closer to a gradient theory of fictional violence or horror as comedy, with delivery acting as a kind of frame-sealing force.

G: Yes, that sharpens it nicely—it gives you a more situationally aware framework instead of relying on a binary “good/bad delivery” model. You’re saying:

The humor value of a fictionalized or abstracted atrocity scales with the contrast between the severity of the real-world referent and the audience’s perceived emotional distance from it—and the probability of that scenario being real in that context.

That way, it’s not about whether the joke could be funny in theory, but whether the situation and tone allow the audience to interpret it as fiction, absurdity, or social commentary—rather than a threat or attack.

You’re building something akin to a two-axis graph:

• X-axis: Real-world severity of the topic
• Y-axis: Fictional framing / emotional distance / improbability
• Contour line: Humor potential

And then there's an "audience contextual filter" layered on top—some environments (like maternity wards) collapse the fictional framing entirely, and the humor drops to zero no matter what.

This feels like the bones of a real theory. Not just a variation on benign violation, but something that quantifies how and when extremity turns into humor based on context and framing, with delivery as a contributing but not sovereign factor.

G: Sure, here are a few alternate ways to say “false dichotomy,” depending on tone or context:

• False binary – casual, modern
• Either-or fallacy – more formal or textbook
• Black-and-white thinking – more psychological or conversational
• Oversimplified choice – softer, less accusatory
• Exclusionary framing – analytical, useful in media or rhetoric discussions
• Artificial dilemma – slightly dramatic but precise

Let me know if you want sarcastic, philosophical, or extra blunt versions too.

G: Yes—TVTropes often goes with more colorful or narrative-friendly terms. The closest variations to “false dichotomy” include:

• False Dichotomy – it is a trope title on TVTropes, used directly.
• No Middle Ground – a related trope where characters or narratives pretend only two extreme positions exist.
• Black-and-White Insanity – used when someone refuses to acknowledge nuance or gray areas, often for comedic or dramatic effect.
• Only Two Options – a simplified version used in some trope writeups.
• You Are Either With Us or Against Us – the trope version of a character enforcing a false binary as a worldview.

TVTropes tends to frame these in terms of storytelling patterns or character logic rather than formal logic, so their versions often lean theatrical or exaggerated.

G: Got it—you're after something funny, liquid-related, and preferably a bit absurd or vivid. Here are a few options with different vibes:

• “Fill that up like a catheter at a keg party.” (gross, medical, visual)
• “Fill that up like a soup bowl in a tsunami.” (overwhelming, cartoonish)
• “Fill that up like a fish tank in a monsoon.” (unexpected but still liquid-based)
• “Fill that up like grandma’s wine glass at Thanksgiving.” (relatable, boozy)
• “Fill that up like a diaper in a car wash.” (gross-out humor, liquid-heavy)
• “Fill that up like a milk jug in a paint mixer.” (messy, chaotic)

Want more in a specific tone? (e.g., dry, dark, absurdist, juvenile)

G: Perfect—here are some light-innuendo options that stay in the liquid zone but play it suggestive, not explicit:

• “Fill that up like a bathtub on date night.”
• “Fill that up like a champagne flute at a bachelorette party.”
• “Fill that up like a hot tub at a swingers' retreat.”
• “Fill that up like a cocktail shaker in a flirt-off.”
• “Fill that up like a watering can in a romance novel.”
• “Fill that up like a teacup in a Jane Austen fanfic.” (subtle, cheeky)
• “Fill that up like a fondue pot at a key party.” (double entendre with melted cheese)

They stay playful but suggest a wink behind the line. Want more in the romantic, tacky, or literary direction?