484
There is no explanation
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2026
484 points (94.5% liked)
memes
23132 readers
1873 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The inclusion of the full name and capitalizing the Peanut Butter Cups is telling me this is an ad. So is the unnecessary inclusion of the photo.
I feel like a person making a joke would have just said peanut butter cups, or reeses cups, or maybe just reeses.
A non-marketing individual would have been more likely to find a photo of someone with chocolate on their face, rather than a glamour shot of a twix.
And only speculation, but the person in the profile pic doesn't look like the type to make this age-group of joke.
All of that aside, the basis of the conversation is it's own issue, it implies that both parents have gone through their kids candy for their own reasons, and one found the results interesting enough to bring it up later. Not that this is an actual scenario that happened.
Thank my TED.
It's an ad for two different companies?
That's not how you spell Reese's, you silly goose.
If it really were marketing copy, they'd spell it right.
Or not, for eNgAGeMeNt
I'm not sure if I agree. They're pretty shady with all this stuff. My brother's general counsel at some major candy maker, and for some reason his role at one point included content approvals, and they're just sneaky. Now I'm interested in confirming if that's one of their tricks.
Improper trademarking is a pretty big no-no.