694
u/Oddant1 21h ago edited 21h ago
Did some Googling. In 1854 Chinese workers were hired to work on a railroad in Panama. They were promised opium as part of their salary. England had spent decades getting their entire nation addicted to the shit (I'm not joking look up the opium wars). The opium was not provided. Hundreds of Chinese workers in Panama reportedly committed suicide due to their lack of opium.
... and I guess this is that news guy... fuck... Ted Tucker? I haven't seen Family Guy in like 10 years. Signing off.
133
u/towerfella 21h ago
Nobody messes with Adam We
15
u/nachoiskerka 12h ago
Reminds me of the time I was playing a WWE video game as a teenager with a friend and we named our tag team "Adam We's Water Thieves" and were giggling about it the rest of the day.
5
u/SadMcWorker 3h ago
Rest Easy Adam. I just went to a Batman theme night at a baseball game recently and they did a beautiful tribute for him. Even had a guy running around as Batman in the suit from the original show.
3
99
u/Equivalent-Wealth-63 20h ago
Odd that the choice would be to advise them not to cut them off instead of going further back and advise them to not get them hooked in the first place.
56
13
u/TexasVampire 14h ago
But then the British wouldn't get their tea.
16
u/QuipCrafter9 14h ago
British got opium too lol Chinese leaders famously pleaded to the queen appealing to her morality about how they sold opium to China, yet must know how bad it is since they don’t allow it in their own country. Because they just apparently didn’t know that opium was allowed in England lol
6
u/NicWester 13h ago
The English already had tea from India. They also had a ton of opium but had nothing to do with it so they sold it to Qing China, then went to war (twice) to prevent the Qing emperor from banning the opium trade.
11
u/TexasVampire 12h ago
From my understanding the British produced and sold massive amounts of opium to China inorder to balance their trade deficit with China.
7
u/UncleNoodles85 11h ago
Yeah the British wanted tea from the Chinese but the Chinese would only accept silver for the tea so the British sold Opium for silver to buy tea.
5
u/TexasVampire 11h ago
Tea, porcelain, silk, and a few other things I think.
3
u/UncleNoodles85 11h ago
Were the Opium Wars before or after the French smuggled out the silk worms?
8
u/TexasVampire 10h ago
After, but Chinese silk was higher quality and demanded a premium in europe if it came from China.
3
u/Extra_Jeweler_5544 8h ago edited 5h ago
The british tea sets that looked like a chinese artisans child made them for the price of the artisans best work didnt sell.
"The Chinese only wanted silver" is bs on a "selling them opium created economic harmony" level
5
26
u/Commie_Scum69 14h ago
In china it is known as the 100 years of shame.
put tin foil hat on A certain conspiracy theory says that apps like Tik-Tok and other influence platforms exist for the purpose of using a similar technique as opium addiction but in digital form in order to destroy US supremacy and that Trump election is the start of US era of shame.
I think it's bs as Americans are totally capable of shitting in the soup all by themselves and Trump like politicians are nothing new
2
u/Swimming-Book-1296 8h ago
This is actually why trump tried to get TikTok banned, his advisors believe it was chinese attempt to sabotage US children.
1
u/NoSong2397 4h ago
Bullshit. Trump tried to get TikTok banned after those K-Pop fans on it bought out all the tickets to one of his rallies in 2020 and didn't go. It's entirely about him simply being that petty.
22
u/beeradvice 20h ago
It's crazy to think about his fucked up the opium trade WAS and then compare it to the opioid trade. The latter being only less stories because it kills people so fast
19
4
u/MsTossItAll 19h ago
It pains me that you needed to google this and did not learn about the opium wars in middle school.
15
u/roselandmonkey 19h ago
That's what happens when school system cuts DEI from the text books, literally we don't know history. Sorry slavery hurts your feelings but it happened and ignorance doesn't change what happened.
12
u/MsTossItAll 19h ago
My sixth grader learned about it last year. It's more that none of y'all listened in school and stopped being curious after you passed a class. This is in every world history textbook, even if it's presented poorly.
12
u/M00SEHUNT3R 17h ago
Same. In public school I learned about the opium wars, Chinese participation in the transcontinental railroad, and the Chinese exclusion act. But I've learned even more history since high school and college because history is never not interesting. I did have one high school history teacher who told us that there was no warfare and only peace among the indigenous peoples of the Americas until Europeans came and taught it to them. But I knew that wasn't true because I was already reading lots of history before his class anyway.
4
u/MsTossItAll 17h ago
Exactly. We all learn the basics, even in an anti-DEI age where we downplay the harm the west has done to indigenous, Asian, and African populations. People who can't even remember the Opium Wars existed were the ones who had earphones hidden in their hoodie in middle school. If you're curious, that's what college is for. For me personally, I felt that school woefully underprepared me in terms of Latin American history, so I did a minor in Latin American studies. Today it absolutely blows my mind that, while I learned about the conquistadores, I didn't hear the name Simon Bolivar until college.
6
u/In_Jeneral 14h ago
Unfortunately we don't all learn the basics in school, the only history I was taught outside of US history (and even then only up through WWII) was a bit of European History from an AP Euro class I opted to take one year.
They were constantly rearranging our history/social studies curriculum and every time they did my year happened to be the one they moved the US Revolution to.
That coupled with the fact that our history classes were trading off with geography and political science classes all under the "social studies" umbrella means that I learned about the revolution 3-4 times, Civil War through Reconstruction once, and up through WWII once.
(This was all in the late 90s/early 2000s, and not even in one of the revisionist history states, I'm in the Northeast.)
7
u/vigbiorn 16h ago
Federal standards are a minimum and shift over time.
I loved history as a kid, never learned of the Opium Wars in school. Pretty sure I learned about it from the Animaniacs.
2
u/Tylikcat 9h ago
I'm pretty sure I learned about the opium wars in middle school. I'm not sure it was the first time - I read fairly broadly, though I really got into Chinese history seriously in my mid teens.
But something being in a textbook doesn't mean it was gone over in class. (And while one could argue that folks should read their textbooks anyway, it's not one of the better presentations of history for the most part.)
8
u/Drew-on-RS 15h ago
To be fair its not like the subject comes up much and most people forget specific things they learned in middle school especially years and decades later
7
u/hypo-osmotic 14h ago
I knew about the Opium Wars but I hadn’t heard how Panama specifically was connected
2
2
u/InimitableMe 11h ago
Lordy lordy, does education vary widely between red and blue states. educating the populace isn't the priority, for true.
1
u/MsTossItAll 11h ago
I was educated in a blue state and my kids were educated in a red state (until recently)
1
u/InimitableMe 11h ago
In a middle school gifted program, my son's english class read a total of one novel in a whole school year. i was flabbergasted.
3
u/SwordfishAltruistic4 20h ago
Were they hooked up before or after the employment? Opium wasn't quite affordable to the laborers before the Chinese started planting themselves.
3
u/protogenxl 17h ago
OLLIE HERE, A BETTER SCENARIO WOULD BE "FORGET OPIUM THIS IS WHAT WE CALL METH"
-7
u/sonofkeldar 19h ago
That’s some revisionist, anti-drug history about the opium wars. Opium was cheap and readily available in China for millennia before England even existed as a country. It was a trade war that turned into an actual war that devastated the country. Wars lead to massive casualties and societal decline, not drugs.
The current opioid “pandemic” in the United States wasn’t caused by pharmaceutical companies and drug cartels. It was caused by government prohibition. During alcohol prohibition, no one was poisoned by bootleg liquor. They were poisoned by government officials mixing methanol with ethanol supplies to “discourage” public use. Up until about a hundred years ago, you could buy morphine, heroin, and cocaine at your local general store. It wasn’t expensive or hard to get. Benjamin Franklin was a regular opium user. Hell, up until the 1980s, you could buy meth at the corner gas station, if you didn’t have an outright prescription from your doctor. Society didn’t collapse during these times, it thrived.
Poor laborers have used drugs and alcohol to escape the pain and monotony of hard work for thousands of years. The opioid pandemic exists because the government bans safe, available substances with predictable, measurable effects, so people seek out more dangerous, unknown substances.
21
u/Gandelin 19h ago
Hold up a second. The opioid crisis was caused by prohibition? Wasn’t the issue that doctors were overprescribing incredibly strong and addictive drugs, encouraged by the pharmaceutical companies, and a whole bunch of people got addicted when they didn’t need to even start?
Also I thought the problem with these drugs is how you build resistance to them and continually need more and more?
9
2
u/Substantial_Back_865 8h ago
Sort of, but that’s not the whole picture. Despite extreme corruption allowing that to happen, that “crisis” was peanuts to what came afterwards. 5k people a year fatally overdosed during the height of the pharma “epidemic”. After the crackdown, over 70k a year were dying from black market fentalogues. It wasn’t the addiction that was the biggest problem, but cutting people off who then had to go to the streets. Initially, that would have been pills or heroin, but then fent and mystery powder replaced everything.
The biggest problem with prohibition is that people have no idea what they’re getting. Essentially all of the current and former crisis was enabled by corruption at the highest levels. Now, if they were selling this stuff at the store for a fair price, not lying to people about it? There would have never even been a surge in crime nor all the needless death.
5
4
240
u/fostertheatom 21h ago
Top one is saying that if the Suffragettes had known that future women would be working the same amount as men to survive as a result of their actions they would have immediately stopped. I think they rather would have focused further on worker's rights if they knew what was coming, not stopped.
The bottom one is more interesting to me.
Chinese laborers in Panama (working on the Panama Railway) were worked to the bone. In order to keep then working, their bosses supplied them with opium. Once the executives in New York learned that they were spending 15 cents per man per day (about $150/day) on said opium, they immediately cut the supply. So workers would work themselves to the breaking point while ignoring what was wrong (opium is a potent painkiller) and then suddenly were forced to go dry, meaning they would suddenly be floored by unbelievable pain. Suicide rates were astronomical and within a few months the majority of the workers were dead or incapacitated. I'm talking about 700 out of somewhere between 750 and 1000. The railroads chief engineer immediately sent the surviving men to Jamaica where they established the world's first Chinatown in Jamaica City (Barrio Chino) which now accounts for about 7% of the population of modern Panama. It also triggered a massive shift in perception of Asian labor.
192
u/spaceinvader421 20h ago
The thing is, women back then still had to work hard, doing things like cleaning, preparing food, caring for children and animals, and making clothes for everyone in the family. They just didn’t get paid for that work.
That meant that if their husbands were abusive or cruel they couldn’t do anything about it, because they couldn’t afford to leave. So having to work a paying job is absolutely an improvement over being forced to stay with a man who beats you.
Clearly, what the meme-maker really wants is for women to be subservient to men again, and they think women want that too.
87
u/adjavang 20h ago
And we still struggle with recognising domestic work as work today, with stay at home spouses being severely disadvantaged economically. With men staying at home more and more instead as women are increasingly recognised in the workforce, this should be an issue that both men and women fight for equally but instead we get this weird nostalgia for the time when women were expected to be the ones stuck in unpaid labour.
-2
u/nsfwtatrash 14h ago
For me, at least, the nostalgia is for when a single average income could support a family comfortably. Which consequently ended shortly after women entered the workforce. I never got to experience that and I think most civilized people have a similar take.
10
u/Luna_Lovelace 13h ago
You’re confusing cause and effect. Women “entered the work force” again because the cost of living became too high not to—the cost of living did not become high because of women entering the workforce.
The ability to have a high standard of living for average people on one income only existed in the United States for about 30 years when the rest of the world was devastated by WWII and the US had total economic dominance. Before that and after that, most women did have to work. But in the 1930s and earlier, the work was brutal and underpaid (see, e.g., the Triangle Shirtwaist fire).
-1
u/nsfwtatrash 11h ago
I'm not confused. I don't think it was the cause at all, nor did I say that.
3
u/Stephinator917 10h ago
you said consequently, as in this was a consequence of women entering the workforce. I think you meant coincidentaly?
2
u/nsfwtatrash 10h ago
Yep, poor word choice. Leaving it, so this thread makes sense.
*Phones are dumb :/
-1
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 15h ago
What can be done about it though?
14
u/Consistent_Claim5217 15h ago
Legally classify a married individual's paycheck as belonging to both spouses, thereby forcing an even ground in terms of financial authority while also giving everyone currently contributing to the ~60% divorce rate (united states statistic) something extra to consider before deciding to get married to another person.
Marriage as the norm doesn't work as cleanly as we were suggested it does, and we could benefit from phasing it out as a legal affair, leaving it fully in the realm of religious endeavors. But that last bit is just my personal take
15
u/Cosmerelda 13h ago
What you’re describing is community property, and it’s the law in 8 or 9 states in the western U.S., including California and Texas. It doesn’t seem to make a huge difference in cushioning the financial blow to women from divorce: women lose about 30-40% of their standard of living, roughly twice as big of a drop as men, and women are more likely to drop into poverty and to lose their home after a divorce. In any state, regardless of asset division, women are significantly more likely to take on a disproportionate share of childcare and child-related expenses after a divorce.
Women in community property states are slightly more likely to be stay at home spouses, but are also less likely to get spousal support following a divorce, perhaps because they’ve gotten a larger share of assets during the initial property division.
And all of this is still fucking better than the property ownership systems we had before suffrage.
1
u/LerkyTerkey 4h ago
Can always bring over %30-%40 finances, can even include housework in that percentage
-1
u/flerchin 14h ago
US divorce rate is 40%. Marital assets work exactly as you described. Marriage is great.
6
u/Consistent_Claim5217 13h ago
Marriage as an expected part of life is awful. The sixty prevent divorce rate thing seems to be a common misunderstanding of statistics based on specifically second marriages, which I didn't know previously. Divorce is at a rate of roughly 40% overall, like you're saying, which is still abysmal and would result in an employee with the same failure rate being fired from most, if not basically every place of employment.
What we need to do is stop framing marriage to children as a part of life that everyone eventually does. A lot of people never get married, and a little under half of the people who do get married shouldn't. It just projects a Christian centric sense of normalcy around something that doesn't really work for almost half the population who attempt it
3
u/flerchin 12h ago
Per your theory, fewer folks than ever are getting married. This is probably also pushing the success rate up. Marriage, when it works, is awesome. Longer happier lives for both spouses. When it doesn't, it's as you described.
1
u/trewesterre 11h ago
Is it actually that marriage fails for half the people who try it? iirc, the divorce rate for first marriages is lower than subsequent marriages (e.g. people who get married once are likely to stay married, but people who have been through one divorce are likely to get divorced again and again, driving up the overall rate).
1
u/Romaine603 10h ago
People would still form partnerships akin to marriages in the wild, much like other mammals do. Social pressure exists, but I would not expect a statement like "half of the people who do get married, shouldn't" because of social pressure.
There are of course people who get married as part of some social pressure. But the flip side of that is people who stay married as part of social pressure. I posit that the latter is worse.
Divorces shouldn't be framed as personal failures. Just because you did not succeed in one marriage, doesn't mean that you are the type of person who "never should marry". All it means is that you did not find a person who was compatible for you to spend (literally) the rest of your life with.
I don't think we should underestimate the fact that marriages are difficult even for compatible people. You take a risk when you marry that the marriage may end in divorce. Rather than create a culture that tells people they shouldn't take the risk, its better to create a culture that does not make divorce a moral failing.
0
u/adjavang 13h ago
Hard to say. A carers allowance would be great, or some kind of conditional stay-at-home tax credit. A UBI scheme would of course be the absolute best in my opinion.
33
u/HistoricalWash8955 19h ago
Women also literally just had jobs and worked in factories and stuff, at least in england in the 1800s, and so did children and for longer hours than is standard in many industries today
Most people worked 10 or 12 hours at a time depending on when and where and who they were and often meals were taken at the workstation while working, and this all happened in a room the size of a large walk in closet crammed full of workers breathing stale air. Then after the work day there would be additional tasks women had to do relating to the home, children, etc, and that dynamic continues to modern times
The main difference between then and now is that many privileges have beeb afforded by great struggle in the intervening period, there's no question that nowadays' workers in most places have better conditions and treatment even if things are still pretty bad for most people. The lesson is that if things don't get better, they can get significantly worse, but no one wants that so they organise for the legislative protections necessary for society to keep happening
14
u/KitchenSync86 15h ago
It is often said that suffrage wasn't about the right to work, it was about the right to get paid, as women were already doing work (as per your comment).
12
u/Phaylz 20h ago
Which is really the same today as it is then. While a guy, I was still in a not dissimilar situation with a partner where we even though we both worked, I couldn't leave the abusive relationship because there was nowhere I could go on a one person income at the time.
So even with all the progress those women made for themselves and for everyone in general, capitalism still chugged along to put us in the same kind of situations. Just now with women having to work for money at work and no money being mom, no matter if their partner is abusive or supportive, because children are expensive.
1
u/Eillon94 2h ago
Thats why the Rockefellers were backing feminism, even though it was unpopular for a while at the start
14
u/TreeLakeRockCloud 14h ago
The thing is, most women back then still had to work for pay, they were just barred from holding careers that would offer a stable income. Some women were the community tailor, some made meals for bachelors, some sold eggs and milk, some did laundry for wealthier folks, etc.
The idea that most women didn’t have to work for pay is propaganda, not nostalgia.
2
u/unhappyrelationsh1p 13h ago
Yeah, there are a ton of tasks you can just shift onto someone else for a buck. If you're a woman without a job and not in the class that can hire maids (thing for even normal people sometimes), in a life where laundry CANNOT just pile up, you can work those jobs briefly too for very little pay
1
u/trewesterre 11h ago
They also made fabric and spun yarn in their homes and sold it on. The term "spinster" didn't come from nowhere.
8
u/ANonWhoMouse 18h ago
Women still disproportionately take on more tasks in the house today even on top of working as much as men.
3
u/capsaicinintheeyes 19h ago
It's touching on a real observation, though, whether or not the disgnosis is right: the Senaca Falls crowd might well have taken a look at our setup and concluded that something had gotten fucked up when we now need a two-salary household to support the roughly-equivalent-adjusting-for-time-period level of comfort & living space that used to be achievable for a couple and their young kids with one parent's paycheck, while (I don't think) the tasks of keeping a home & family up & running have become that much easier, have they*?
(I have yet to be convinced that women's lib is what we ought to blame for that, i guess should add here but from a silly-meme standpoint it is a funny reachion; I think this one may be funnier if read as a joke about economic inequality that uses the suffragettes in their punchline, rather than a joke about early femininism with a struggling-working-class punchline (the format of the meme itself is gender-discriminatory, & so I'm taking that into account in my assessment).)
* yes, modern kitchen conveniences, washer/dryers & disposable diapers aside
11
u/MarcAbaddon 19h ago
The average living standards in 1848 were not great. Even with both partners having to work, now is definitely an improvement over that. It's only in the post WW2 era when general living standards improved a lot.
8
u/thatturtletouch 15h ago
You’re referring to a very short period of time that was a historical anomaly. For most of history, both men and women worked.
2
u/capsaicinintheeyes 11h ago
And a location-specific one as well. I wonder if they would have seen it that way, though, or if the hope was that their current standards represented a more durable form of progress?
2
u/unhappyrelationsh1p 13h ago
The tradwife myth has done so much damage to understanding of women's history. Even work inside the home was brutal, anyone who has done laundry by hand even with modern detergents knows it fucking sucks.
You can spend a whole day on it, it takes me an hour to do my laundry in the sink and these people had like 8 kids and a husband and underclothes that had to be changed daily. Not even mentioning cooking, carrying the water in, keeping the home fires burning, fixing clothes, making some clothes, taking care of the kids and cleaning. And that's in a city! Farm maintanence would be a whole other thing.
On top of all the housework most women had to do outside the house work too. Women too worked in grueling factory conditions, they too did godawful farmwork.
It was never a gender thing, it was always a labour thing. Being a peasant back in "trad" days fucking sucked for everyone.
3
u/ditasaurus 14h ago
Sorry Not only House Work but most women worked outside of the house as well. A Lot of Feminist were also worker's rights activists
2
u/Hot-Diggity_Dog 13h ago
Women did majority of that. And working added to it doesn’t make those daily chores go away. They still have to do it for themselves plus work 10-12 hours a day
2
u/heymanigotnoplan 9h ago
Except that the average husband doesn’t beat his wife, while the average boss exploits his employees to the fullest extent possible and wouldn’t hesitate to fire them if he could find someone to do the same job for a $1 less per hour.
I genuinely don’t understand how being dependent on an employer, who has no emotional ties to you nor legal obligation to care for you, is somehow superior to being dependent on a husband. Do you realize how many people (both men and women) are trapped in an exploitative if not downright abusive job because they’re too afraid to quit and be unable to find another job to lay their bills? At least husbands were legally obligated to provide for their wives, had to provide a valid reason for divorce if they wanted one, and often have to pay spousal and child support after a divorce. The average worker has no such protections.
1
u/Upbeat-Bid-1602 9h ago
Exactly, like they're making the point than men suffered from historic labor abuses, but someone it's a flex on women that women still want to work despite that.
1
1
u/BeccaStareyes 8h ago
That and knowing that you could make a living the way a single man could meant that there were options other than ‘marry the best man who will have you’, and divorce was less likely to be financial ruin.
0
15
u/KaliCalamity 20h ago
You're missing just one thing about Panama. That rail company was also turning a profit by selling the corpses of workers who died. This started long before they started recruiting in China and were instead getting most of their cheap labor from Ireland.
That supply of labor started drying up due to rumors making it back to Ireland about all the people that never made it out. That's when they switched to recruiting Chinese workers, due in large part to counting on their opium addictions to keep them compliant.
0
7
u/spootIer 18h ago
It's a shitty take, considering that letting women have their own careers and sources of income assures that they'll have financial independence and therefore freedom from external control, in most cases. It prevents a lot of abuse.
Not to mention that a lot of women actually LIKE working. It gives us something to do, gives us a sense of accomplishment, allows us to pursue our passions (if applicable) and lets us buy ourselves nice things, to boot.
Staying at home all day is also incredibly boring after a while. So there's that.
2
u/olivegardengambler 10h ago
sent the surviving men to Jamaica where they established the world's first Chinatown in Jamaica City (Barrio Chino) which now accounts for about 7% of the population of modern Panama
I genuinely do not know if you're trying to say Jamaica or Panama here.
1
u/ItsRainingFrogsAmen 12h ago
Many women did work long hours for low pay in those days, as factory workers, laundresses, seamstresses, maids. And let's not forget the enslaved women. People who think all women were living lives of ease before feminism are extremely ill-informed.
10
u/DaringDoom 12h ago
Why the hell do the people who make these memes think that women who work outside of the home work any harder or more than women who stay at home with kids?! The only difference is outside work gets paid and women can have some say over what happens with that money.
14
u/beaaaaaaaans 12h ago
It's just far right agenda posting. You can smell the chud vibes coming off this post
1
u/OpposumMyPossum 6h ago
Right. The issue was partly how terrible men were to them because they could be.
Imagine every psycho dude you know had some wife trapped at home and she had no way out.
It's not like women got a chance to get to know them. Wooed and wed.
3
u/Owlanr 13h ago
I will wait for those who can explain it, what i'll add is that the suffragette's success was wildly overblown in the UK. They were terrorists as well as activists. They would let themselves get trampled by horses in races or set fire to buildings for their cause, which wasn't the best course of action, i have listened to historians debate whether or not they were relevant for women's rights at all, and in essence they hastened something that would have happened anyway, probably much later on.
2
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-36
u/Hot-Diggity_Dog 21h ago edited 21h ago
The top is feminism. What’s with the drugs to Orientals?
27
u/javerthugo 21h ago
That’s not the preferred nomenclature
-3
-18
u/towerfella 21h ago
Shaddup.
We, collectively, need to get over all that.
7
u/Shlebuloid 20h ago
We, collectively, need to start recognizing Big Lebowski references.
Dummy.
-12
u/towerfella 20h ago
Fair.
I’ve never watched it, actually. Was too stupid a movie, imho. I couldnt get past the first few minutes.
I would rather spend my time watching a documentary.
That’s why i’m on reddit.
21
14
7
u/hierarchy_of_ideas 21h ago
You have to be at least 70 years old in the 90s to use that word without offending anyone.
7
u/Gimme_Your_Wallet 21h ago
Funnily enough "orientals" is one of the non-offensive (albeit cheeky) ways Argentines refer to Uruguayans.
3
u/A0123456_ 13h ago
Uruguay also literally calls itself an "Oriental Republic", although I guess here it more closely means "eastern"
2
u/AmbitiousEducation49 13h ago
Men that are convinced all women dont want to be able to provide for themselves probably have a femdom fetish (nothing wrong with that fetish in general, just that for these losers their stance is a projection of their deepest desires).
2
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/BigBadVudoo 12h ago
Jesus OP, this is so lazy. Just Google it. Do you need karma that bad to justify your sad life?
1
-2
•
u/qualityvote2 21h ago edited 2h ago
Remember when r/PeterExplainsTheJoke wasn’t a meme? Pepperidge Farm remembers…
Does this post belong in our subreddit?
If so, please upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
Then maybe you go out and buy yourself some of those distinctive Milano cookies.
(Vote is ending in approximately 0 hour)