this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
58 points (88.2% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

8388 readers
97 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
418_im_a_teapot@lemmy.world
58
Firewood Banks Aren’t Inspiring. They’re a Sign of Collapse. (newrepublic.com)
submitted 5 days ago by HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth to c/leopardsatemyface@lemmy.world
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'll give the author a modicum of credit, I didn't know wood banks were a thing, so at least I learned something. But gotta lambast them everywhere else.

Rural America knows the truth long before the rest of the country feels it.

Rural America wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass. This is what they voted for, a silver spoon city slicker who calls functioning institutions "the deep state" before totally destroying them, to their delight.

The article is full of this coddling "woe is they" language.

Rural families don’t get to pretend. ... They also know what it means when everything gets privatized except the consequences.

What a load of baloney. Rural voters have been playing pretend my entire life, to the tune of 64% support for Trump in 2024. They've been pretending that piss-down economics works since the 80's. Maybe you mean they can't afford to pretend, but they've been happily running a deficit on that front and won't stop even if they freeze in the winter.

So I say let them freeze. They can beg for scrap wood and call it charity, because that's exactly what they wanted.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 10 points 4 days ago

Firewood banks are a fantastic tool for teaching rural people that socialism is actually fucking great.

Assuming that ALL rural people voted a singular way and have singular beliefs is incredibly prejudiced and dangerous. I live in a northeastern US city that has been solidly blue for my entire life, but I still see plenty of houses and cars with Trump merch. Heck, a lot of rural people have been disenfranchised by voter suppression tactics. A lot of these people are illiterate. They're victims.

And where do you draw the line? This inevitably leads to "purity testing" all of the "blue" folks to figure out just how "blue" they are, and that's kind of gross.

These people are my neighbors and fellow humans. Give them their fucking firewood, food stamps, libraries, healthcare, and all of the other material support any reasonable government should in 2025.

The real enemies are the wealthy elites. The fossil fuel magnates, the wealthy elites who own the land and control the lumber. They absolutely love that you're picking on a bunch of uneducated and powerless poor people and drawing attention away from the people with power who made the system this way.

[–] Salamanderwizard@lemmy.world 16 points 5 days ago

As a rural American... don't fire shots at me. I didn't vote for this shit. I voted against it.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Hey, asshole, not everyone who lives in a rural area and is poor is a Trump supporter. Nor, would being a Trump supporter mean that it's okay to let them freeze or cheer at other people suffering. You're engaging in exactly the same toxic dehumanization as the MAGA crowd.

If you think rural voters are your enemy or the source of our problems, then you're woefully ignorant about the current political situation or how political influence works.

You're very much right to be angry, but make sure you know where that anger should be directed before making outrage bait posts like this.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nor, would being a Trump supporter mean that it's okay to let them freeze or cheer at other people suffering. You're engaging in exactly the same toxic dehumanization as the MAGA crowd.

We should not ever be tolerant of intolerance. Similarly, it's fine for those who want others to suffer, to suffer themselves.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Karl Popper’s paradox of intolerance is about how we can’t tolerate intolerance in society.

It isn’t a cloak for you to wear when you want to be intolerant and feel justified. Nor is it a proscription to dehumanize and celebrate suffering.

Those are the actions of the intolerant, which we will not tolerate here.

Similarly, it’s fine for those who want others to suffer, to suffer themselves.

The irony.

So you mean people like OP? You?

Don’t confuse feeling outraged or righteous for an actual moral high ground.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That was some excellent sea lioning there buddy.

I feel fully morally justified in having people experience what they want others to experience. I'm also fine with that applying to me.

And since you're substituting outrage for intelligence, I'll provide an example.

Person A thinks that social safety nets should be removed for the express purpose of making Person B to suffer. Taking this action causes person A to suffer the effect of their own action.

Person C thinks that if you want others to suffer, you should suffer. Taking this action causes... Nothing because it is a purely reactive stance that doesn't do anything unless triggered by a second party.

Similarly, I think that if you take someone's money that you should be punished, for example by someone taking your money.

The fact that you don't understand this is honestly rather baffling. Or you're just enjoying sealioning to make everyone who isn't on your side of the argument look bad.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

I wish there were both. Like yes you can have relief but you have to fill out the "Trump Tariff Disaster and Farmer Welfare Application". Like yeah, we'll help as long as you recognize your own contribution to the mess and realize that welfare often goes to people who work when billionaires steal from them.

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

Tolerance is a social contract. Intolerance voids the contract, so no paradox.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They have never in my lifetime acted as friends. They have never offered so much as a kind word for anyone not in their group.

At some point, you have believe people when they show you who they are.

Yes, there is intense propaganda. Yes they are uneducated. This changes nothing of the material reality of the situation they FOUGHT FOR.

If they want to come over to my side, I would welcome them. They have to make they effort, not just whinge that their own policies are hurting them. The more they suffer from their own stupidity, the more likely they will see the light.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 4 days ago

Part of the conservative argument against government welfare is that is goes to "the wrong people". I don't think there is going to be much cognitive dissonance between getting wood from these banks while being happy that Medicaid is taking a hit.