You know you're a grammar nazi when, you create a Slashdot account just to post this:
Actually, the original sentence was correct. If the clause "foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special" is treated as a restrictive appositive, then it's correct, even without a comma. The "corrected" sentence is almost correct; the use of "which" as a relative pronoun indicates the dependent clause is non-restrictive, which generally requires a comma (as used in this sentence). Replacing "which" with "that" would make it restrictive, forgoing the need for a comma and retaining the original intent of the author.
Slashdot Mirror
You know you're a grammar nazi when, you create a Slashdot account just to post this:
Actually, the original sentence was correct. If the clause "foisted upon the world by upper class tits that needed another way to make themselves feel special" is treated as a restrictive appositive, then it's correct, even without a comma. The "corrected" sentence is almost correct; the use of "which" as a relative pronoun indicates the dependent clause is non-restrictive, which generally requires a comma (as used in this sentence). Replacing "which" with "that" would make it restrictive, forgoing the need for a comma and retaining the original intent of the author.