684
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] krelvar@lemmy.world 277 points 2 years ago
[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 21 points 2 years ago

How is this an example of leopards eating faces?

In this case the backlash is from the gay community to a (stupid) member of the gay community, so saying it's a leopards-eating-faces party (lefp) member getting their face eaten would mean the gay community is the lefp right? I don't think that's what the lefp meme is about

[-] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 146 points 2 years ago

This person supports policies that hurt themselves and their peers. Now their peers are angry with them for supporting things that hurt them. They are being hurt by the result of what they support.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

That's not leopards eating faces though. That's a guy voting for the leopards-eating-faces party and getting his shit rocked by his fellow citizens for endangering them.

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

A little bit of column A, a lotta bit of column B.

[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but in this case it's not the leopards eating their face (yet). They've voted for the leopards, people are angry at them for it, but so far the leopards have only eaten other peoples faces

[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago

Eh, then you could say voting progressive and getting attacked by your conservative community would count as leopards eating face, since you're getting hurt by the result of what you support.

The meme is about voting for the harm and being directly harmed by the policy voted for, like if someone voted to ban abortions and then couldn't get one when they needed it. Voting to ban abortions and then getting backlash from your friends is not leopards eating face (yet) either

[-] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 43 points 2 years ago

This guy is voting not only to have his own face eaten, but everyone else's within his community. I wouldn't want to acquaint myself with someone like that either.

[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago

I'm not saying the guy did a good thing. In this article he voted for the leopard party, but hasn't had his face eaten yet. He voted for the leopard party and everyone was fucking pissed at him for it

idk I thought the leopards eating faces party meme was mainly for examples of them both voting for leopards and getting their face eaten.

[-] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 years ago

It's a little more nuanced than that. The typical face eating leopards voter doesn't have enough critical thinking to figure out they'll get eaten eventually. Everyone else around him knows they're gourmet leopard food and it's only a matter of time before they'd get eaten. I wouldn't wait to hold my judgment on the guy until after the inevitable happens because of his dumb-ass decision.

[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 years ago

I see, so the meme is also used in cases where they voted for the leopards but haven't had their face eaten yet?

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

You're right, but people aren't listening to what your point is. Come on lemmy, you're better than this

[-] SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 2 years ago

No you and that commenter are literally wrong lmfao what do you even mean.

The meme derives humor from the fact that someone who voted for leopards was surprised when leopards hurt them.

The gays in the article supported bigots and was surprised when the bigots started to hurt them.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The article's ambiguous, but I read it as the LGBT community (rightfully) showering them with sand, not bigots doing it to be dicks.

[-] TallonMetroid@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

That would fit with the rest of the article, which includes the fellow who got blacklisted from his local gay bar for being MAGA.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Hey hey now I'm just here to argue, not read articles

[-] androogee@midwest.social 22 points 2 years ago

It's the dumbest possible thing to argue about, and the Internet is 86% people finding dumb things to argue about

[-] theangryseal@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I don’t take kindly to your tone! There are a thousand other ways you could have said this. Let’s fight about it!

Oh, yeah! Also, your mom is fat and you over feed your pets, I’m assuming.

[-] androogee@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago

Your lover made a minor faux pas? They're a sociopath and they never loved you.

I bite my thumb at thee

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Ha, that's my favorite part of that play.

"Is the law of our side if I say aye?"

"No."

Just plain "no". Gets me every time.

[-] iiGxC@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 years ago

🤷😮‍💨

this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
684 points (100.0% liked)

News

37565 readers
1613 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS