this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
610 points (98.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8175 readers
805 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
- Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out:
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i don't think he has to specifically say 'i wanted leopards to eat peoples faces.' i reckon its sufficient that he said 'i voted for the guy who publicly wanted leopards to eat peoples faces, and even now that my face has been eaten, i'd do it again.'
if this wasn't something that trump regularly harped on about prior to getting elected, if the tariffs and their consequences were a surprise, you might have a point.
But he does. That's the whole premise: that the 'eating faces' is a thing you explicitly supported. Hence the 'I didn't think they would eat MY face' 'punchline'.
The whole point of LAMF is to point out the foolishness of assuming that a particular action will be taken selectively, that was never actually 'promised' to be done selectively (notice that it's not the "Leopards Eating [group's] Faces", just "Faces"). If the thing they supported is not the same thing that's biting them in the ass, then there's no connection. Some examples:
I think some of the confusion also is that LAMF is about support/advocacy of the policy/campaign promise/etc., not about the individual espousing it—it's the 'eating faces' itself that is the focus. This is why it doesn't fit LAMF when the 'supported thing' and the 'negative consequence' are unrelated, despite coming from the same administration.
If a situation like the OP counts as LAMF, then literally ANY negative impact coming from ANY administration a person voted for, would count as LAMF, and that just renders the whole concept meaningless. Do you think anyone who complained about Obama's drone strikes during his administration, who voted for him, should be considered 'fair game' for LAMF? I sure don't.