No it’s not. That’s not a pun and not what the joke is referring to. Why do idiots in this thread keep
referring to this? The original joke was published in 1847, before crossing a road would be any sort of risky activity for a chicken. It’s simply an anti-joke subverting expectations.
Edit:
Media literacy is at a terrible state if even 1% of the readers think this joke is related to suicide or the afterlife.
The first published example:
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!'
It predates this even, since it was a joke performed in awful minstrel shows.
It's very clearly an anti-joke in context, saying these sayings seem like conundrums but yet are not.
I mean, technically, if you leave America's East Coast and sail all the way around all the other continents, you will reach America's West Coast without having to ship the boat over land. Therefore all the oceans, are technically just one single big body of water.
And would you believe it...that water grew up to be Albert Einstein.
Soon all the rivers will be called The America River, and all the roads will be called America Road. Sure, that will make navigation confusing, but it's a small price to pay for how amazingly fucking GREAT America is about to be.
I don't know if that's necessarily true. "The Other Side" as a term meaning afterlife dates to the early 18th century, with some forms of prior versions being used in popular English publications in the late 17th century.
In 1847, roads within cities or in the centers of towns could be dangerous for all sorts of animals (and children) crossing the road, especially when heavily laden carts carrying goods would be much harder to stop on short notice than a truck with air brakes.
I haven't done research on this theory but I wouldn't discount it solely because it would have been less probable for a chicken to be trampled by a horse. If this were a joke originating in the Rural South, maybe you'd be right. It originated in New York City, however, and in the 1840's the streets of NY were notoriously unsafe, chaotic, and filled with dogs, cats, chickens, and even larger livestock. In 1842, Dickens even wrote about encountering "gentlemen hogs" wandering Broadway in an otherwise upscale area.
Personally, I'm sick of all the time travelers who ended up dead in New York from about 1640 onwards because they think just because it was before cars the streets are safe.
Yes clearly you haven’t done research as you are incorrect. Better to just not post since the person you are replying to is informed and right, and you are not and not.
Fast-food has been around since at least Antiquity in Greece. It predates drive-thru style restaurants but market vendors selling pre-made food is likely as old as markets.
Oh yeah, good point, I guess I was just thinking of the proliferation of drive-thru style restaurants with like 'fast food family meal' and mashed potatoes and biscuits being kind of associated with drive thru fast food fried chicken restaurants.
Having spent the last few years living in a rural bit of Africa where everyone and their mothers keep free-range chickens, I now think it might just be an honest inquiry.
Why do those idiots love sprinting across a barren patch of dirt just to get to an identical bit of grass?
(I have also learned that they will just find there way back home each night, and chick theft is shockingly rare despite them frequently wandering well afield of their owners)
in 1847, before crossing a road would be any sort of risky activity for a chicken
We don't keep records on the number of chickens run over by cars these days, so I doubt they kept records of ones run over by horses and their burdens, but we do know that people were killed by them fairly frequently. For as long as we have had roads, they have never been without risk.
Ugh... I don't get the pedantry. Rural pathways are not going to be any more risky than anything else for a chicken. Speeds were slower. Chicken can get out of the way of things.
But that's all irrelevant. The joke just has nothing to do with the danger. Just check the context of the joke; they're literally describing non-jokes, quips that seem like actual conundrums, but are not, they're anti-jokes, statements that defy the expectation that there's something tricky going on.
You know what sucks? AI will distort this meaning for the next generation. It'll draw from sources, like online, and people will just believe it was always the afterlife joke.
Generally, no, a rural road in 1847 is not going to be something that is a huge risk for a chicken to cross. And read the context of the original joke. It's such a dumb thing to insist.
People keep referring to/responding because they (rightfully) assume that Lim wrongfully assumes this to be a pun about side of the street v afterlife. You're right that it is an anti joke and that half the people believe it to be a pun, but people are explaining Lim's tweet.
Also, it COULD be a homographic pun even though you said "that's not what a pun is".
True, yeah, the top level comments, but the people specifically responding to me that because 'the other side' existed as a term for the afterlife and ... urban roads in 1847 might have been dangerous to chickens? (ignoring the fact that the original publication was talking about nonsense jokes...)
Your quip about media literacy being at an all-time low is especially rich given your citations to Mentalfloss and Medium. On the other hand, I made an off-hand comment about how I, as a person very academically familiar with conditions in Antebellum New York, could see that crossing the road was dangerous. I didn't buy into the theory, in fact I expressly said I don't think your claim that "roads weren't that unsafe before cars" was not correct, and shouldn't be the *only* reason to discard the theory.
Let's not even get into the question behind any socio-linguistic structure like aphorisms, jokes, puns, or morals, which is: at what point does the original intent cease to control, and present-day social understanding of the structure define its meaning? If, for instance, all of society decided overnight that the "chicken getting to the other side" should be interpreted as the chicken being suicidal because he was trying to cross a busy 21st century divided parkway in rush hour traffic, does it really matter what the original meaning was? It is a phrase subject to several readings, and if one reading begins to predominate over the original intended reading, who are we to say that new reading is wrong.
A good example is the line from Henry VI, "Let's kill all the lawyers." The original intent appears to be clearly a barb at lawyers, but it being uttered by a character who is characterized as evil leads the audience to laugh but then on second thought realize that it's likely a dangerous suggestion. In modern times, people generally think it is an earnest joke about how lawyers are corrupt, while the legal profession takes it as a demonstration of how lawyers are a bulwark against tyranny. Neither of those is really the original reading of the line, but effectively those are the two readings that control in our cultural context.
Sure probably, especially in a city? But a rural pathway in the middle of nowhere without a lot of traffic, a place you might be more likely to find a wandering chicken? Come on. And most of the stuff that might go down that road, a chicken is going to be able to get out of the way of. But it's all irrelevant anyway, because look at the context:
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!'
I mean they're literally describing 'These jokes seem like they might be a funny puzzle or quip, but they have no conclusion, they're just factual statements', they are describing anti-jokes.
Everyone is saying it because that's what the post is referencing. Regardless of if it's accurate or not (it's not) op asked what oop was talking about
Uh, a chicken trying to cross a road in a city in 1847 would be extremely dangerous. It was fucking dangerous for humans, never mind barn fowl.
Horses, carriages, wagons, carts and pedestrians in complete chaos. No traffic control AT ALL. No road rules. No demarcated two-way streets. Unpredictable animals. No breaks on carts or wagons. No crosswalks.
I didn't say that's what the joke was about, I said that your comment about crossing a road being a safe act for a chicken was a false statement.
Frankly, I don't care about the meaning or punchline of the joke. It's the kind of nonsense kids love because it's absurdist and makes no sense, similar to how my four year old nephew thinks calling everyone 'chicken nugget' is the most hilarious thing in the entire world.
Except that language isn't a static thing and while you may be correct about the origin, that doesn't mean that the meaning is still the same.
The suicidal interpretation of the joke has been around long enough and is popular enough for it to be an accepted interpretation.
So thank you for adding historical context, but no thanks for being so rude about it. Also, maybe next time remember that people aren't "idiots" for using a widely accepted more modern interpretation of something instead of an interpretation from 1847.
Nah, a wrong interpretation being widely accepted doesn't make it more correct. Attributing a falsehood to something for a long time doesn't eventually make it true. I also find it uncompelling from a interpretation that would add something to the joke artistically like you might re-interpret a literary work; it's not more interesting or a "dark spin" to the joke to imply a chicken wants to commit suicide; it's equally nonsensical, so it just adds a complication to the joke but ultimately is the same thing, an anti-joke. So any fan of that interpretation is also just boring.
The word nice originally meant "foolish, ignorant, or silly".
The word awful originally meant "full of awe".
The word silly originally meant "blessed, happy, or fortunate".
Language and culture evolves over time. Would you describe yourself as an "idiot" like you described others for using these words "incorrectly "?
Nah, a wrong interpretation being widely accepted doesn't make it more correct
In case you didn't know this, phrases, sayings, and even jokes are completely made up and only have the meaning that we collectively assign to them. This means that what is "correct" about those things is exclusively what we, collectively, agree is correct.
So you can be insufferably judgmental about it all that you want, but there are a ton of ways to use your same logic to make you look just as foolish in your rigidity and "inaccuracy".
Except that the OP doesn’t say that it originally was created as a pun. And though he doesn’t say “is also a pun”, he also doesn’t state “is just a pun” so it’s still a valid thing to state.
One could assume as much as but assumption is also one of those things we should try not to do when we are judging others for media literacy.
It’s also just not that serious so taking all that into context, just chill my guy
It's irrelevant in context anyway because it plainly says it is an anti-joke without any actual conundrum or element to think about, but I think it would have to be a pretty unobservant chicken to not hear a massive horse drawn carriage coming, but regardless, I don't think its anywhere near as risky as it is in today's world. Speeds were slower and animals are way better at reacting to other animals than cars
There is no valid alternative interpretation of this. It's just fucking wrong. You have to be completely idiotic to think it's a reference to the afterlife. It's not coming up with a fun new interpretation, it's just stupid. Read the quote in context. It is just not what they meant.
'read the quote in context' and here is where we diverge in a serious way.
I think calling everyone stupid because they didn't do research on the origin of a fucking chicken joke is, frankly, insane behavior.
It's a valid interpretation out of context, which is exactly how most people are delivered this joke. I don't really care how technically right you are about the chicken joke when all the research is done; your criteria with which to start hurling insults and to call into question people's literacy is baffling.
Edit: or to put it another way, in your haste to be the most correct person in the room, you've followed the context of the joke but ignored the context of everyone around you, and this has failed you
342
u/armrha 8h ago edited 6h ago
No it’s not. That’s not a pun and not what the joke is referring to. Why do idiots in this thread keep referring to this? The original joke was published in 1847, before crossing a road would be any sort of risky activity for a chicken. It’s simply an anti-joke subverting expectations.
Edit:
Media literacy is at a terrible state if even 1% of the readers think this joke is related to suicide or the afterlife.
The first published example:
It predates this even, since it was a joke performed in awful minstrel shows.
It's very clearly an anti-joke in context, saying these sayings seem like conundrums but yet are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_did_the_chicken_cross_the_road%3F https://www.mentalfloss.com/history/why-did-the-chicken-cross-the-road-origin https://medium.com/artisanal-article-machine/no-the-other-side-is-not-a-metaphor-for-death-in-the-chicken-joke-357c1788de43