_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2025
942 points (98.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
8406 readers
704 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This tweet is essentially:
For it to be LAMF, you have to actually get what you're expecting others to get. The person you voted for NOT doing what they promised to do is literally the opposite of LAMF.
Basically:
is the equivalent of the situation happening here.
Not LAMF.
You're not wrong. I'd say this post is LAMF adjacent. Not directly LAMF.
I think even 'adjacent' is giving it too much credit.
After all, what's happened is the literal opposite of what they wanted, while LAMF requires that the thing you supported happening is what happens, you just thought it'd happen to others and not you.
Trump promised to do tariffs. People assumed other countries would pay the cost so that was good. It turns out they are paying the cost.
It would be straight up LAMF if the tariffs were front of mind when they voted. But inflation was what they were most concerned with, and they either didn't pay attention to Trump's tariff talk or assumed it wouldn't be them paying the tariffs... you could say it's not directly LAMF because people don't understand the connection between higher tariffs and higher prices, but definitely LAMF adjacent because of the widespread assumption that people in other countries would be paying the tariffs, not them.
LAMF lies in the 'victim's expectation not being met, with respect to who the thing they supported is happening to. What they support and what happened must match; the LAMF lies solely in the 'I assumed it (what was supported/done) wouldn't happen to me'.
I think that to make an adequate determination of that, we would have to know what they did vote for.
Sure, we can infer it's probably not a higher grocery bill, but that's what they didn't vote for.
We need to know what they did vote for and whether it relates to the situation at hand.
Since their motives for voting how they did are impossible to know from this individual post, we would be unable to make an adequate judgement call as to how LAMF, or LAMF adjacent this might, or might not be.
So everything we're saying now is conjecture and opinion.