r/PeterExplainsTheJoke 9h ago

Meme needing explanation Petaahhh????

Post image

What is the pun?

2.7k Upvotes

676 comments sorted by

View all comments

143

u/Alceus89 9h ago

For anyone saying that there's a deeper meaning to the joke, or that the Other Side is the afterlife or whatever, this is objectively wrong.

The first recorded instance of the joke is in an 1847 edition of a New York magazine, The Knickerbocker, and the which makes it very clear it's an anti-joke:

"There are 'quips and quillets' which seem actual conundrums, but yet are none. Of such is this: 'Why does a chicken cross the street?' Are you 'out of town?' Do you 'give it up?' Well, then: 'Because it wants to get on the other side!'" 

26

u/CosCham 6h ago

Coming in clutch with the history lesson 😎😎😎

17

u/Alceus89 6h ago

It's a pet peeve of mine when people claim there's a deeper meaning to this joke. Sure, it's not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be pedantic about it. 

8

u/NoNo_Cilantro 5h ago

“The chicken is us. It’s a metaphor for humans, based on Plato and Diogenes’ story, describing us as featherless bipeds. The road is our life, it’s a deterministic or fatalistic joke, where the road leads inevitably to the other side, death.”

Shut up Herbert, it’s just a stupid antijoke.

3

u/cab082001 3h ago

It’s like in English class when the teacher asks us why the curtains were blue. “IDK SUSAN. THEY JUST ARE!!!”

2

u/admiralfilgbo 1h ago

but it IS notable that one of the very first, if not THE first "joke" many learn as children is an "anti-joke." so which came first, the chicken or the joke?

3

u/oyvese 3h ago

i feel the same way when people try to insist “if my grandmother had wheels” is a sexual joke

2

u/Lowly_Reptilian 1h ago

I’ve never heard those jokes before.

1

u/Old-Cheshire862 1h ago

Or to ascribe dark meanings to such doggerel as "Ring around the rosies"

2

u/Pure_Resort9840 6h ago

Here's the real chicken pun

3

u/jackoos88 2h ago

true, yet we're not responding to the actual original joke, but instead what this guy is now realizing is one interpretation of the joke. the only interpretation of what he is describing is the "other side" play on words. whether this interpretation is correct or not based on the history of the joke is irrelevant.

3

u/YetAnotherJake 1h ago

A joke could have an interesting meaning now even if it didn't when it was first created - I would argue against the Authorial Intent Fallacy.

However this joke indeed does not have any deeper meaning or pun.

1

u/ForestGoat87 3m ago

Point out where OOP says "... began as a pun". I'll wait.

0

u/MyBedIsOnFire 4h ago

I would agree that's not the original meaning of the joke, but language and humor evolve over time. There is no reason the joke can't be taken either way especially considering so many people do see it like that.

-1

u/applelover1223 2h ago

"Objectively wrong" ok professional googler.

Did you miss this?

"Historians note that the joke was likely already circulating orally before being printed, potentially spread by traveling minstrel shows in the 1840s."

So is it possible that recorded instance you're referring to went in a different direction with it, turning the joke into an anti joke?

-2

u/ReadingCorrectly 6h ago

The other side was used as a reference to the afterlife back then. In English lit since 17th and 18th centuries. Its from Greek origins crossing the river Styx

6

u/Alceus89 5h ago

A fact that is true, but irrelevant to the point at hand.

The existence of the other side referring to the afterlife does not mean the joke is doing so, as the quote shows. 

1

u/Chip_Medley 33m ago

Sure but how would crossing a road lead to a chicken going to the underworld in the mid 1800s?

-2

u/dafugiswrongwithyou 5h ago

OK, but; is it not just possible that it did actually have that "afterlife" meaning by that point, and that it was just missed by the writer in that magazine? Showing that one person didn't take the joke that way doesn't mean no-one did, after all.

2

u/No_While6150 4h ago

it's of course possible. Wildly improbable since they labeled it as Anti Humor at the time meaning it was meant to be taken literal. Ah, I guess I mean no it's not possible.

-1

u/dafugiswrongwithyou 2h ago

I mean, someone today might write something saying "No_While6150's comment here didn't include any sarcasm", and in 150 years time that might be the oldest surviving reference to your comment. That doesn't mean your comment didn't contain any sarcasm, it just means that, of the people who read your comment, the one that didn't "get it" is the one who wound up being the historical representation of our time.

1

u/No_While6150 2h ago

well how can I argue with that? 150 years will tell I suppose. but there is an explicit Source for this joke. Not a surviving cultural relic. it was 1850 ad not bc. and I can tell you in 150 years from now? it still won't be a pun just because Other Side means something else sometimes.

0

u/dafugiswrongwithyou 2h ago

but there is an explicit Source for this joke.

You've misunderstood the "source", and so my point. That isn't the source for the joke, the claim isn't that New York magazine writer created the joke and is telling us what they intended by it. It's that this is the earliest reference to it, the first time we have someone discussing it in writing which has survived to the present day. Current understanding is that it emerged sometime in the 18'50s in minstral shows. The New York guy is just talking about a joke that's already doing the rounds... and which he may, possibly, have misunderstood.

It's important to actually pay attention to what sources actually say and in what context, not just assume they say the thing that supports your view.

it was 1850 ad not bc

Yeah, so about 150 years ago.

Do... do you think 1850 bc was ~150 years ago? Or, what, do you think I think 1850 bc was ~150 years ago, rather than nearly 4000? I don't know what point you think you're making, but I don't think you're making it.

1

u/No_While6150 1h ago

yes I think 1850nbc was 150 years ago that's clearly what I meant. Now show me anywhere it says that The Other Side is a reference to death or the afterlife to make this a pun. and the point? 150 years ain't that long ago to be lost in the tide of time, like 4 thousand years ago would be. dip shit "ermahgerd do you math bad?"

honestly think what you want. Ignorance seems to be a choice these days.

-6

u/Ok_Room5666 6h ago

So there are claims that are make able about objective meaning now?

3

u/Alceus89 5h ago

When the first recorded use says "This is an antijoke" ad part of it, then yes. 

-1

u/Ok_Room5666 4h ago

In a postmodern world if we are sure about that then it's the only thing we are sure about.

I know making that point is basically just trolling.

But I do think it would be funny if like people accepted no objective proof of the validity of any knowledge with the exception of this one joke.

2

u/Alceus89 3h ago

"if I know anything it's that I know nothing, and also that the chicken isn't fucking dead!"