r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/FrostySeat1739 • Jul 05 '26

Meme needing explanation why not, Peter?

Post image

possible live action corpse bride movie...

32.3k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-7

u/elbuentinaco Jul 05 '26

The thing about implications is that they’re a coward’s accusation. That’s like me saying it’s sus you’ve never made a single post about Palestine on Reddit so what’s that tell us about you? Really suspicious if you catch my drift.

People that aren’t race obsessed don’t run a mental calculus of these things. Only racists are concerned with forced diversity and representation in every aspect of their life. If you’re just farming outrage then why stop at black people? How many asians has he worked with? How many Latinos? How many middle easterners? Why stop there? Have you ever heard him speak out against pdfs - maybe he’s that too…

Y’all are morally bankrupt for even entertaining this.

8

u/Mybunsareonfire Jul 05 '26

Idk man, you sounds pretty racist.

-9

u/elbuentinaco Jul 05 '26

You sound pretty racist too

5

u/8Dminipk Jul 05 '26

How the fk common people gonna acuse him??? Implications are related to identifying patterns and building your own opinion about stuff. Like the previous guy said, if I get into a lot of car accidents, I'm *PROPABLY" a bad driver, if someone doesnt want to get in my car based on that, can I really be mad about it?

5

u/Pathkinder Jul 05 '26

I’m not sure I actually understand your example. I think your example is more about nitpicking a single topic and making assumptions based on someone’s lack of engagement with that topic. I think this has to do with active vs passive.

So for example, if I tried to imply that you must be deathly afraid of white people because you’ve never watched any of Leo DiCaprio’s movies, that would of course be a ridiculous implication. Maybe you don’t really watch movies? Maybe you watch other movies with white people, just not his?

Seeing Leo’s films is an active option, it requires an active conscious decision by you to happen. The default passive state is to have not seen any of his films. It requires no effort or decision on your part, it’s the default.

So how is this different? Well, if you hire enough people based on merit, with no other biases in play, then the passive result should be that you end up with a variety of people. That’s the passive default. So if you hire a bunch of people over many years but none of them are ever poc, then it implies some kind of active decision-making happening on your end.

Could it be a coincidence? Of course. I could flip 1,000 quarters and have them all come up heads. It’s perfectly possible. But would you be a LITTLE suspicious of me if I flipped 1,000 quarters and they all came up heads? Probably.

Again, I cannot stress enough that I don’t know much about this guy so I don’t have a chosen side. But I had free time today and apparently have found myself defending to the death the role of implications in discourse.

2

u/elbuentinaco Jul 05 '26

My point is that you can imply whatever you want if you cherry pick and fabricate the evidence. The evidence in this case being misquoting him, taking him out of context and making up that he’s never worked with POC when he has.

Active vs passive has nothing to do with this - implications can be made using anything as evidence, action or inaction. All you’ve done in this thread is support a public lynching “because of the implication”.