[Excuse me sir, but I'm an expert memeologist, with a PhD in Memeology and General Internet Studies from one of the most prestigious universities in the country. I've been working in the field of memes, studying and collecting all types with my colleagues at the /r/Circlejerk/MagicSkyFairy Institute for Euphoric Meme Studies and I'm also at the current moment a Professor of Memeology at Columbia University, a guest Professor of Euphoria at Stanford, and the Assistant Head of the Atheism Studies Department at the University of S-weed-en in Stockholm working with the great Niel Degrasse Tyson to disprove gOD and resurrect Carl Sagan so we can work in conjunction with Sir Richard Dawkins to show the truth of Euphoria to the world. I hope this qualifies me enough answer your question, as I believe it sufficiently should. The obvious fallacy in this meme is that it is not obvious in any way that the meme simply the variable of MFW. Aside from the cats face we have no actual direct indicator of the MFW variable, if you were to take the text and paste it over a Bad Luck Brian image macro (or (T-cF [1+bl+b])+imm=logic), it wouldn't make sense. You wouldn't even have the sufficient information to call the Bad Luck Brian meme for wrong use, simply due to the equation "logic-(1b2l x approximate value of T-cF)=/=te", with te being the final object of a meme and the equation not making any sense in the context of the meme over 1b2l. Even with the image, all your left with is "logic=((product of perceptioneuphorialibertarianismDoritos)-(belief in god+republicanism x race other than white x being a woman)=y) where x has to be a positive number for a funDIE to be Euphorisized by the meme. The fact of the matter is this meme isn't top tier, and was badly done.