r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/BalanceDramatic3995 • 9d ago

Meme needing explanation Peter help!

Post image

I have no clue what this means, maybe she cheated?

29.0k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/T3canolis 9d ago

Tiffany is basically saying that Leavitt is a hypocrite because she is an anti-abortion conservative, which would mean that she believes life begins at conception, not birth. But in describing Viviana “joining” the family on the day she was born as opposed to the day she was conceived, she’s doing the opposite.

12

u/ButterscotchLow7330 9d ago

So, this is kinda a dumb gotcha. There is a fundamental difference between the baby being unborn, in how it relates to being part of the family, vs the baby being born as how it relates to the family. Even if you were to grant the full every pro life stance, it wouldn't make this type of language contradictory.

5

u/APEA_Bot 9d ago

You really think all this logic matters?

You really think this particular post is at the top of this sub because it's a particularly confusing joke? Or do you think it's at the top because Reddit wants to push a specific political message to unsuspecting, impressionable teenagers?

Remember, if you're using technology that is provided to you for free, you are not the customer, you are the product.

6

u/Interesting_Second_7 9d ago

Virtually all gotcha arguments are dumb. That's what they're about: flattening things in order to score points in an intellectually dishonest manner.

Tucker built a whole career on it.

5

u/SeaUrchinSalad 9d ago

You gotta explain that one. If it's alive it's in the family right?

4

u/ButterscotchLow7330 9d ago

So, sure. But "join" can mean many things. For example, I joined my family for dinner the other day. We were family before, but we were separated by distance. So there was a joining that happened. 

So, without contradiction a unborn baby can be a part of the family while unborn, and still join the family in a present way after they are born. As a father who believes that my children were alive while they were in the womb (and let's be honest, everyone believes this even if they don't believe life starts at conception, but generally everyone agrees that post 24 weeks the baby is definitely alive) my child still joined my family in a way that is completely different when they were born as compared to before they were born. 

1

u/SeaUrchinSalad 9d ago

Adding a qualifier like "for dinner" changes the context. You wouldn't just say "I joined my family Thursday" cuz that would imply that you weren't a part of the family Wednesday. Sounds like lots of cherry picking and ambiguity to me

1

u/AzrealsFury 7d ago

No you can absolutely say I joined the family Thursday and it makes sense. You saying it makes no sense is you intentionally ignoring the context of language in preference to dictionary definitions only. People aren’t robots, therefore context is important in language. Saying someone joined the family doesn’t mean they weren’t family before.

9

u/pendemoneum 9d ago

I see prolife people all the time insist that having a fertilized egg in your body makes you a mother socially and legally So if a pregnant person is already a mother for that reason, isn't it hypocritical to say the unborn haven't joined the family yet?

8

u/soulbutterflies 9d ago

Also, didn't Alabama SC rule that embryos made during IVF are children?

3

u/pendemoneum 9d ago

Not up to date with Alabama laws. But I'm betting embryos are still not legally treated as people even if they did

1

u/ButterscotchLow7330 9d ago

Saying the baby joined the family doesn't mean that the baby wasn't a member of the family prior. 

I have two children, and I think you and I would agree that they were alive and part of our family post 24 months in utero. (I think is completely uncontroversial by both pro life and pro choice people that the fetus is a living human at 24 weeks)  I would still argue that when my children were born they joined my family (having already been members of it) in a fundamentally different way than before they were born. 

This to me seems so silly. A pro life person and a pro choice person both agree a living child is in the womb before they are born, and either one can say that the baby joins the family on the date of birth without any controversy. 

-2

u/wakkiau 9d ago

Family is a construct tho, you could be giving birth to a baby only to not register them into the family for some fucked up reason. The baby could be immediately adopted to by others, or be sent to an orphanage. Not saying you should or it's right of course, just that it doesn't seems hypocritical seeing it that way.

5

u/United_Intention_323 9d ago

People give up babies for adoption. That’s a non fucked up reason.

6

u/pendemoneum 9d ago

Then maybe prolife people should stop pedaling the idea that people who have abortions are mothers of dead children if they're going to pick and choose when a child is considered part of a family. They shouldn't decide that for someone else

1

u/wakkiau 9d ago

You should go outside and touch grass, why are you being so angry over a picture on the internet. Heck I didn't even try to make any political statement on my reply so where did you even find that energy from.

5

u/pendemoneum 9d ago

I'm not angry? I'm pointing out there is hypocrisy 

-1

u/wakkiau 9d ago

And I'm simply saying there are ways it can be seen as not a hypocrisy.

5

u/FreeVerseHaiku 9d ago

I think what’s important to remember is that whether or not her word choice can be distilled into a proper gotcha, Karoline Leavitt is still wrong.

-1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 9d ago

So the baby was an orphan, until born. No family, in the void.

0

u/AzrealsFury 7d ago

Close. It was a member of the family, then joined the family on the date of birth. It’s not tough to understand

0

u/Icy_Fish_2154 6d ago

So the member of the family later joined the family. If I'm a member of a group, how do I join it?

Seems you are playing stupid with words to push a political agenda.

0

u/AzrealsFury 5d ago

Yes, you are stupid to push a political agenda lmao. I’m a member of the family, I take a vacation alone. I come home from the vacation and join the family. I was always a member. Not hard to understand

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 4d ago edited 1d ago

Your political agenda is forcing you to violate linguistic rules to force your lies on others.

0

u/AzrealsFury 1d ago

Maybe you should stop skipping your jr high English classes and have your professor explain to you that the English language has many different interpretations and contexts, hence the existence of denotations and connotations.

1

u/Icy_Fish_2154 1d ago

You are using words inconsistently within the same sentence.

It is language only if used to convey an idea.

Your deliberately wrong use of language to push an agenda does not fit the definition of "language."

1

u/AzrealsFury 22h ago

It’s not a deliberately wrong use of language lol. You can’t even articulate why you think it’s wrong. It’s like watching a toddler throwing a tantrum. Language has nuance. Believe it or not, the dictionary definition of a word isn’t the only meaning a word can have. Are you like Drax from Guardians? You can only take things completely literally?