Coca-Cola literally used to contain cocaine. It started life as a patent medicine made from coca leaf and kola nut, and expanded from there. By the 1950s they at least on paper were already cocaine free - they switched to “spent” leaves in 1904 (leaves that already had cocaine extracted and so only had what was left due to inefficiencies in the process) and later switched to extract made by a third party that was invested in being thorough in removing the cocaine since they were selling that for medical use as well so any cocaine in the extract sold to Coca-Cola was a loss in their higher-dollar product.
Then the person who originally responded to them wasn’t mansplaining, and used facts to contradict what they said. Then they acted like they already knew that
The person who had the lengthy the explanation about cocaine and Coca-Cola was correct - it just wasn’t what I was talking about. I was referencing diet pills in the '50s that were made out of amphetamines (“momma’s little helpers”).
You did so in comparison to cocaine, in response to something that only mentioned cocaine in the context of cocaine cola. If you say it wasn’t cocaine but speed back then, how am I supposed to get that you are referencing diet pills and not at all contradicting the whole cocaine cola bit?
But yeah, diet pills were basically just speed back then too. I can’t argue that. Not sure why that’s related to cocaine in cola though. Turns out people do all kinds of drugs, especially when readily available.
It absolutely is: Mansplaining is a colloquial term referring to a man condescendingly explaining something to someone, typically a woman, who already understands it, often in a way that assumes the other person’s ignorance. It was info I already had (which a reader could glean from my comment), did not require the explanation, and was tangential to my comment.
It was info I already had (which a reader could glean from my comment),
Could they?
do cocaine (although I’m pretty sure it was speed back then, but I’d still take it).
…in response to a reference to cocaine cola. That doesn’t sound like you were aware cocaine cola was actually a thing, but rather sounds like you were saying people weren’t using cocaine much but were doing speed instead, implicitly suggesting cocaine cola wasn’t a thing, at least not commonly.
No, it wasn’t. Their explanation wasn’t condescending, they very likely didn’t know you were a woman, you likely didn’t know they were a man, and from your comment it wasn’t obvious that it was knowledge you already had.
They were sharing knowledge and you got defensive for no reason. Be better, because you were the only one being condescending.
Coca-Cola literally used to contain cocaine. It started life as a patent medicine made from coca leaf and kola nut, and expanded from there. By the 1950s they at least on paper were already cocaine free - they switched to “spent” leaves in 1904 (leaves that already had cocaine extracted and so only had what was left due to inefficiencies in the process) and later switched to extract made by a third party that was invested in being thorough in removing the cocaine since they were selling that for medical use as well so any cocaine in the extract sold to Coca-Cola was a loss in their higher-dollar product.
Thanks for the mansplaination! 😉
How dare people share information on the internet!
Wasn’t mansplaining, but the word you were trying to spell is mansplanation
It absolutely was. It was tangential to my comment. Information I already had (which you could glean from my comment). And completely unnecessary.
Thanks for calling out the typo!
So were you saying people called cocaine “speed” back then?
No, I think they did speed, not coke in the 50s. In the form of diet pills
When were diet pills brought up?
I believe they were trying to say that the stimulant of the 50s was speed (aka an amphetamine)
Then the person who originally responded to them wasn’t mansplaining, and used facts to contradict what they said. Then they acted like they already knew that
The person who had the lengthy the explanation about cocaine and Coca-Cola was correct - it just wasn’t what I was talking about. I was referencing diet pills in the '50s that were made out of amphetamines (“momma’s little helpers”).
You did so in comparison to cocaine, in response to something that only mentioned cocaine in the context of cocaine cola. If you say it wasn’t cocaine but speed back then, how am I supposed to get that you are referencing diet pills and not at all contradicting the whole cocaine cola bit?
But yeah, diet pills were basically just speed back then too. I can’t argue that. Not sure why that’s related to cocaine in cola though. Turns out people do all kinds of drugs, especially when readily available.
That’s not mansplaining. Nice try, though.
It absolutely is: Mansplaining is a colloquial term referring to a man condescendingly explaining something to someone, typically a woman, who already understands it, often in a way that assumes the other person’s ignorance. It was info I already had (which a reader could glean from my comment), did not require the explanation, and was tangential to my comment.
Could they?
…in response to a reference to cocaine cola. That doesn’t sound like you were aware cocaine cola was actually a thing, but rather sounds like you were saying people weren’t using cocaine much but were doing speed instead, implicitly suggesting cocaine cola wasn’t a thing, at least not commonly.
Whats the gender of the text based comment?
No, it wasn’t. Their explanation wasn’t condescending, they very likely didn’t know you were a woman, you likely didn’t know they were a man, and from your comment it wasn’t obvious that it was knowledge you already had.
They were sharing knowledge and you got defensive for no reason. Be better, because you were the only one being condescending.
I didn’t. I don’t usually check the user profile and comment history of whoever I am responding to to verify their demographics before responding.
Hmmm…No…very unwise.