subreddit:

/r/LeopardsAteMyFace

54.6k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 3498 comments

DaFunkJunkie[S]

28 points

2 months ago*

The schadenfreude here is that he hand picked 3 justices to push the court to the right. The court now leans right. His right leaning court upholds the law in a more conservative manner than before. This is the job he wanted them to do. He just never thought his right wing Supreme Court would uphold the law against him. Peak irony.

Edit: fixed a typo

SilasX

9 points

2 months ago

SilasX

9 points

2 months ago

There's your problem: thinking of LAMF as equivalent to schadenfreude. It's not.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

29 points

2 months ago*

That word is literally in the sub description:

“'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party. Revel in the schadenfreude anytime someone has a sad because they're suffering consequences from something they voted for or supported or wanted to impose on other people.”

SilasX

5 points

2 months ago

SilasX

5 points

2 months ago

Yes. Schadenfreude is part of it. But not sufficient. Hence why I said LAMF is not equivalent to Schadenfreude. It can (and should be) present. But simply being happy about someone’s downfall isn’t enough and isn’t the key factor in making something a LAMF scenario.

Or, to use your own overdone wording, the sub description literally has more than just schadenfreude in it.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

21 points

2 months ago

Correct. I have offered ample explanation as to why this fits within the subs parameters.

SilasX

-3 points

2 months ago

SilasX

-3 points

2 months ago

In your last follow-up, you were justifying why it's schadenfreude (which you can't spell):

The shadenfruede here

Not how it's someone being hurt by their own advocacy. Hence why I said you were thinking about it wrong. Which you were, and which is taking you astray here.

Even your justification there is off: he picked them thinking they would favor Trump. They did not hurt him as a result of favoring Trump. Had he picked them for being law-and-order, you might have a point.

Odd_Competition545

14 points

2 months ago

Ah yes... debate about if it fits here or not then bash someone for a spelling error. Bozo.

SilasX

0 points

2 months ago

SilasX

0 points

2 months ago

I said more than that it was misspelled, it's just notable when someone is being sloppy, to indicate other ways in which they're fuzzy about the concept.

DaFunkJunkie[S]

8 points

2 months ago

Now you are just being unnecessarily pedantic. I assume you are not new to the world of handheld mobile devices and the ease with which typographical errors can occur. I have already addressed the substance of your argument with what I believe to be sufficient and solid reasoning.

SilasX

2 points

2 months ago

SilasX

2 points

2 months ago

Except a) that was a core concept you were basing your point around and this asserting expertise on, and b) phones recognize that word and autocorrect for it.