@elduvelle @kordinglab it took me a while. This meme is a riff on the "motte and bailey fallacy", which states that often people will publicly pronounce a controversial statement (the bailey) and when challenged on it will retreat to an uncontroversial statement (the motte), and claim that the challengers are against the uncontroversial statement. Once the challengers disappear, the controversial statement is broadcast again.

This meme takes this idea and gives topical examples. In this case, OP is comparing the logical operator ∀ ("for all") as the bailey and ∃ ("there exists") as the motte.

The idea is arguments often start out with someone arguing for a general phenomenon (e.g. "Nuclear power is unsafe!"), and when challenged will retreat to a specific case (e.g. "Chernobyl killed a lot of people. Are you saying we shouldn't care about those people?").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DThe_motte-and-bailey_fallacy%2C%28the_%22bailey%22%29.?wprov=sfla1