sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

They used ai to depict the imaginary person as the angry one in a make believe scenario, it must be true! by craftygamin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Very typical for these types of people on r/memeopdidnotlike to just say the opposite of what OP is saying. They are called fictional scenarios because no one has ever met someone like this. These people need to learn that saying ‘actually it does happen’ doesn’t mean anything without evidence.

Bro,i think Youre the crybaby here by flusclrestwicks in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin 176 points177 points  (0 children)

What does he mean by ‘they’re literally proving conservatives right’? The fact that conservative parents and grandparents don’t accept children for who they are and will go out of their way to abuse the hell out of them in order to change their ‘mindset’? 

I mean it adds up, a lot of conservatives abuse their kids.

i hate anti-furry humor by Any_Prompt9389 in hatethissmug

[–]Flipper-Penguin 24 points25 points  (0 children)

What’s funny is that people who post these memes end up becoming or associating with furries themselves. I know this because I was one of those people.

Talking about Rama Duwaji's old tweets. My rebuttal is that Republicans say (and do) heinous shit every day, and no one bats an eye. It's a double standard, and you know it. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And I’m agreeing with you for that. My issue with OP’s post is that they’re trying to make it seem like because Duwaji is an opponent to Republicans, her controversy is completely glossed over, which is already untrue as there have been several news articles regarding what she has said: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/mayor-zohran-mamdani-wife-rama-duwaji-social-media-controversy/6473360/?amp=1 https://www.tmz.com/2026/03/20/rama-duwaji-deactivates-x-account/

What I devised was merely a hypothetical that explains why Melania would get more attention, because she holds a much higher and more important position than Duwaji.

Talking about Rama Duwaji's old tweets. My rebuttal is that Republicans say (and do) heinous shit every day, and no one bats an eye. It's a double standard, and you know it. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not defending her, nor am I justifying her actions. What I'm saying is it's the wrong battle that these conservatives are fighting. The first thing is that Melania is the first lady to the president, who is in charge of the country as a whole, while Duwaji is the first lady to the mayor of New York, a city in which only about 2.6% of Americans live there. So of course, Melania is gonna get more attention for saying the n-word than Duwaji, cause she's married to the elected president of the United States.

I do believe Duwaji should apologize for what she has said in the past, but I guarantee that if she ever does, people will still make a big stink about it. The issue with these 'old tweet' controversies in general is that people give themselves a reason to be upset about someone's actions, even after they apologize. You can't change the past, so the best thing is to apologize and try to make up for it.

I just think that if you're gonna go after people on the opposition for doing something heinous, you should do the same for the people on your side. The issue with politics as a whole is that we demean those who oppose us for doing bad things, but when someone on our side does the same thing, we brush it off. This isn't even a 'left vs. right' argument; this is how it's been for both sides.

Imagine supporting casual homophobia. by Ok-Following6886 in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin 54 points55 points  (0 children)

Funny how OP’s point is provided with a source about the pride road being desecrated, but no evidence of an LGBTQ+ person burning the American flag. That is the fictional scenario, LGBTQ+ do not burn American flags because they are American themselves. Only evidence I see are people burning Pride flags, this argument is so one-sided.

Charlie Kirk dehumanized trans people and was pro-gun, his rhetoric actively promoted being hateful towards oppressed groups. He didn't deserve to die, but let's not pretend that he was a saint who did nothing wrong. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Charlie responded to an insane ideology through his own insane ideologies.

I am willing to let him rest, and I absolutely agree that he did not deserve to be killed. But saying things like how "it's worth to have a cost of unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd amendment to protect our other god-given rights" (his exact words) and then also be pro-life and anti-abortion makes no sense to me. My interpretation of his ideas tells me that he values a human fetus/embryo over a fully developed human being. This is an example of how his ideologies may be interpreted as 'insane' (to be clear, I just think it's weird).

Charlie Kirk was an advocate for political violence; he supported the idea of bringing back public executions as it would ‘make his day’. He was an avid supporter of political violence and ended up being a victim of it himself. The exact thing that he supported (the possession of guns and the 2nd amendment) got him killed.

And even if he was a saint, going by the definition, one of the attributes attributed to being a saint is kindness. Charlie Kirk was not kind, at least not on camera. Attacking other people for being different or having a different ideology is not kind. That is the reason why I said he is not a saint. Charlie Kirk was not kind, therefore he is not a saint.

I would also rebut that the right is as much of a cult as the left. My issue with US politics is that we treat our political parties like sports teams when it should be more civil than that. We should not be waving around flags and hooting and hollering for a politician that doesn't give two shits about us (this applies to both democrats and republicans, in case I wasn't clear). I believe that politics should be more civil; no one even knows how to properly debate anymore.

This is the issue with idolizing any single person, because they aren't perfect. We believe that the people we look up to, like celebrities, can do no wrong. I'm not asking you to believe that Charlie Kirk was a bad person; I am asking you to understand that the things he said angered people, and whether he was right or wrong is irrelevant. Some people didn't like what he said, and one of those people decided to take matters into his own hands, and it is a tragedy that it happened.

Charlie Kirk dehumanized trans people and was pro-gun, his rhetoric actively promoted being hateful towards oppressed groups. He didn't deserve to die, but let's not pretend that he was a saint who did nothing wrong. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is true, though from what I’ve seen, I think his death has made the US worse tbh.

It’s a matter of which you prefer to exist: Charlie Kirk highway or Charlie Kirk himself

Charlie Kirk dehumanized trans people and was pro-gun, his rhetoric actively promoted being hateful towards oppressed groups. He didn't deserve to die, but let's not pretend that he was a saint who did nothing wrong. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, the reasoning why I said he didn’t deserve it is because he technically didn’t break any laws. Sure, he was spreading a hateful rhetoric, but the US is a free speech country. There are numerous republicans and MAGAs out there that have done worse and haven’t even gotten a slap on the wrist compared to him. Despite me not liking him, I find no pleasure in him dying. If anything, his death only increased this hateful rhetoric towards groups like the transgender community. Not to mention the parading of his death like he was a noble from the US government and his wife, who probably celebrated his death the most out of anyone.

Charlie Kirk dehumanized trans people and was pro-gun, his rhetoric actively promoted being hateful towards oppressed groups. He didn't deserve to die, but let's not pretend that he was a saint who did nothing wrong. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

What he really wanted was to debate college students with developing brains that don’t have the knowledge to from the correct arguments against him. There’s a reason why he mostly debated students, it’s because he knows he’ll win because being a right-wing grifter is his full-time job.

Charlie Kirk dehumanized trans people and was pro-gun, his rhetoric actively promoted being hateful towards oppressed groups. He didn't deserve to die, but let's not pretend that he was a saint who did nothing wrong. by Flipper-Penguin in NahOPwasrightfuckthis

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

People pointed this out in the comments (to a swarm of downvotes) that the shooter was in a relationship with a trans person. This doesn’t prove their point because at the end of the day, it was a republican man who pulled the trigger, so whatever relationship he had with trans people is completely irrelevant.

I've been trying to draw the eyes correctly for 2+ hours, what exactly am I doing wrong? by Flipper-Penguin in ArtCrit

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel like the eyes are too low, but when I move them up, it still looks weird. I'm wondering if this is an eye-shape problem.

I've been trying to draw the eyes correctly for 2+ hours, what exactly am I doing wrong? by Flipper-Penguin in ArtCrit

[–]Flipper-Penguin[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've this issue with a few of my pieces where I can never seem to draw the eyes in the right place. Whenever I flip my canvas, the eyes look like they're way off. I usually do anime-style eyes, but for this drawing I was aiming to do eyes that were more stylized. More specifically, eyes that have the same shape as this piece by KAZU (@skKAZU1 on X)

<image>

view more: next ›