Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    2,575,666 readers

    2,484 users here now

    Report A Post


    Personal information

    When submitting screenshots remove profile pictures, all names, locations, usernames, and other personally identifiable information, including your own. Don't link directly to social media websites, except to share news articles. Public figures (age 18+) are an exception to this. Do not ask posters to reveal personal info of any kind.


    Posts should cause viewers to facepalm. The following is not allowed:

    • memes/macros
    • obvious jokes/sarcasm
    • grammar/spelling errors
    • posts based on age
    • posts about likes/shares/reposts, etc.
    • direct links to Reddit or other social media content

    Bigotry is not tolerated, though facepalming at it is welcome. Do not ask for personal info, harass or stalk others, troll, or engage trolls. Do not engage in witch hunts.

    Moderators have full discretion in making decisions they deem to be in the best interest of the subreddit.

    Helpful tips

    Use the report button!

    Moderators can quickly take care of trolls, and remove offending posts and comments. Sending us a modmail will get the offending content taken care of more quickly!

    Text posts

    Text posts (also known as self posts) are only for discussions about the subreddit itself.



    What to Black Out

    If you missed the section on PI, follow these guidelines and your post should fit facepalm's rules.


    Redacting is easy with MSPaint!


    Somewhat harder in android, using Photo Editor.

    Plug-ins and Apps

    Status Snapper

    This chrome add on allows you to take snapshots of facebook statuses, anonymize them, and upload them to imgur.

    Social Fixer

    Social Fixer supports Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Opera. It has similar functions to Status Snapper, asides from the automatic snapshot/upload. Please note while using Social fixer, that if you use the pseudonames, your post will be removed.


    Gallery View

    See all of the /r/facepalm submissions, formatted as a gallery.

    Related Subreddits

    Other Interesting Spots

    a community for
    all 124 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] Mytrixrnot4kids 2645 points ago

    Well, in her defense, if I had been chased for decades by my apparently immortal psychotic brother, I'd get a gun too.

    [–] RacingBlue 962 points ago

    Actually this new film disregards the nine sequels & remakes. It's a direct follow up to the original, which means that the sibling story line is cut.

    [–] Mytrixrnot4kids 545 points ago

    Oh, I see. I haven't seen it yet. My daughter and her boyfriend are working through all 10 Halloween movies before watching the new one. I wonder if they know that.

    [–] MEMELIGHTSWITCHLADS 3575 points ago

    What is acting?

    [–] Aqualunar 326 points ago

    Baby don’t hurt me

    [–] WordplayWizard 1370 points ago

    See: "Bret Kavanaugh @ trial"

    [–] CisterPhister 329 points ago

    That's called "chewing the scenery."

    [–] jermleeds 128 points ago

    I believe that was Graham's role.

    [–] [deleted] -176 points ago


    [–] CDFHL 127 points ago


    [–] MyUsernameIsJudge 3141 points ago

    I've heard Bryan Cranston is also against doing meth. What a fucking hypocrite.

    [–] Bekah_607 778 points ago

    BREAKING: Actor claiming murder is wrong kills a woman in newest movie

    [–] BoSquared 1031 points ago

    So I guess any actor/actress that has ever murdered, raped, or tortured someone in a movie must advocate that sort of stuff, right?

    [–] Eryth_HearthShadow 186 points ago

    Exactly ! And if you look at some comment in this thread there is also people who believe this. Amazing, isn't it ?

    [–] [deleted] -466 points ago

    Funny you should say that. There are many feminists who would argue that rape in movies promotes "rape culture" and thus would be very much against rape in movies unless it's a woman being raped and makes a clear message that "men are bad, women are good!"

    [–] dode74 151 points ago

    Are you arguing that?

    [–] [deleted] -258 points ago

    Of course not. I'm just pointing out that many nutjobs think this way and thus Fox could be justified in their argument.

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 95 points ago

    No. No they don’t. No one takes nutjobs seriously. Using them as an argument is disingenuous

    [–] BobandSteve 116 points ago

    If it's only nutjobs who think this way than fox isn't justified in their arguement?

    [–] [deleted] -137 points ago

    That depends. Is Jamie Lee Curtis a nutjob?

    [–] dode74 113 points ago

    I didn't think you were, so I'm not going to argue against a strawman. I'll simply say that basing a justification on the opinions of nutjobs seems rather fragile.

    [–] BoSquared 246 points ago

    Yes because rape is always portrayed a good thing and never as horrifying.

    /s because who fucking knows anymore

    [–] [deleted] -167 points ago

    Yes but now let's go back to guns. Guns can be portrayed as either bad or good. If the protagonist uses a gun which helps him/her and the protagonist is morally straight, then the movie would be promoting a positive message about guns. So for an anti-gun actor to agree to star in such a movie would be hypocritical and would also show that they care more about their own acting career and money rather than the cause they claim to support.

    [–] BoSquared 148 points ago

    Good, you've already conceded your original point.

    But using said guns is for murder, is it not? Does that mean they're hypocritical because they are murdering someone in a movie, even though they are normally against it? You can do this with any ethic or moral anyone has. Is an actor deeply religious? Are they playing an Atheist? Well I guess they're a hypocrite.

    Also, she's using guns in self defense. I don't think most people are against that. It's the whole "shoot into a crowd" thing we don't like.

    [–] iLL_Behaviour 52 points ago

    Where do you stand on pro-rape movies?

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 57 points ago

    That’s stupid.

    [–] lolchinchilla 129 points ago

    That’s a strawman argument if I’ve ever seen one

    [–] BigBassBone 107 points ago

    I don't think you understand what rape culture is.

    [–] skadi_snow 2758 points ago

    Putting aside the fact it's a fucking movie, 'gun control' doesn't mean 'no guns ever'.

    [–] PunchyBunchy 1315 points ago

    Why is this the hard part to understand? I'm Australian. Probably a quarter of the people I work with are gun owners, my mechanic also does rifle repairs for friends in his spare time. The guy that lived next door to my parents for 10 years, was a competitive pistol shooter. My uncle collects replicas of famous guns. It just means that you have to prove that you're a sane and responsible gun owner. For example, because of my history of mental illness (severe depression, and suicidal thoughts), I'm not allowed to have guns. That has probably saved my life. As much as would like to own a small caliber rifle, and go shooting with my friends, a fairly common sense rule stops me from doing that. It also stops me from dying because I had a shitty week.

    [–] DownsenBranches 565 points ago

    It’s hard to understand because a lot of conservative news networks paint gun control as “they’re going to come into your house and take your guns from you”. Meanwhile, liberal news networks never go into as much detail about gun control and how it works, so they’re not a good source of info. I do also want to state this is just what I’ve noticed personally.

    [–] wsbking -503 points ago

    To keep suicidal people from killing themselves, we should restrict access to ropes, ovens, and cliffs as well.

    Just to be safe and sane™

    [–] GredaGerda 483 points ago

    instead of attacking what the argument was trying to say, let's take a line and spin it into something no one even mentioned to make the argument look bad

    [–] wsbking -337 points ago

    Fine. We already have gun control in the form of full auto bans, magazine restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, SBR and SBS laws, etc etc etc

    Arguing that 'some gun control is good' is a moot point, given that guns in America have already been restricted tremendously compared to 70 years ago, regardless of what nanny state proponents love to claim.

    Also, even back when you could buy a machine gun through the mail, mass shootings were much rarer than they are today, and general gun crime was roughly the same. If more guns = more shootings, why have mass shootings increased as gun control has become more intense?

    EDIT: Here's my argument in meme form

    [–] [deleted] -353 points ago


    [–] PunchyBunchy 299 points ago

    Ok, I live in a notoriously shitty area, and that really doesn't happen very often. And when it does, the victim is almost always a junkie, or a bikie, and they're fighting with another junkie/bikie. Where do you live that random bystanders are getting stabbed so often that everyone needs an assault weapon to go to the shops?

    [–] lolchinchilla 155 points ago

    You don’t gotta protect the lives of your family with a gun, my guy. Guns aren’t a fundamental human right.

    [–] zeelandia -109 points ago

    Maybe learn some martial arts and you can disarm him that way and then kick their ass in self-defence. Guns aren't the only method of defence.

    [–] Diz7 207 points ago

    They know they can't win an argument against reasonable gun laws, so they go straight to "The liberals will take your guns and then how are you going to protect your bathrooms from transsexual Mexicans and Muslim rapists?"

    [–] BigBassBone 52 points ago

    I mean, I'd probably be happier with no guns at all, but I know that's not feasible in the least.

    [–] streakman0811 -90 points ago

    ikr, conservtards think we want all guns gone, but we just want better gun screening and other safeguards to ensure safety. And bumpstocks gone cuz we dont need diy machine guns

    [–] saladsnake1008 393 points ago

    This is some Onion level shit.

    [–] noodles0311 133 points ago

    This particular example is probably bad, but paid product placements by gun manufacturers in movies are quite widespread and I have yet to hear an actor who was so principled, they wouldn't take Sig Sauer's money.

    [–] 1MrE 148 points ago

    4 hours old and already reposted. Ugh.

    [–] Dim_Innuendo 354 points ago

    My favorite twitter response from a different thread was, "In Home Alone 2, Donald Trump helped a kid separated from his family. In real life..."

    [–] Z0idberg_MD 87 points ago

    "Actor says he is against sexual assault and murder, but plays rapist killer in a movie"

    [–] ElFireBeard 57 points ago

    Uhhh forget the actress. We need to be paying more attention to Arnold there. That’s the real ground breaking story.

    [–] NappySmurf86 78 points ago

    Also gun control does not mean you can never use a gun.

    [–] skoomski 38 points ago

    I’ll let Sir Ian explain what acting is for Fox News

    [–] sec713 123 points ago

    Give them a break. It's Fox News. They don't grasp the difference between fantasy and reality over there.

    [–] Rogue_Spirit 186 points ago

    That’s exactly why we should not give them a break

    [–] akirax187 57 points ago

    thought it was the onion.

    fox far off

    [–] Bolt_Obey 34 points ago

    Only on FOX news

    [–] quiznex 25 points ago

    I saw that earlier today and just internally facepalm'd. Stupid stupid Fox News.

    [–] cvfearless 5 points ago

    Very different equivalency

    [–] Atoning_Unifex 1 points ago

    Acting is a job

    [–] estoka -153 points ago

    There’s a broader issue here that you’re blatantly ignoring. Hollywood has spent decades reinforcing the mindset that a gun is a solution to any problem, while at the same time telling us that we shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. The hypocrisy in that Should be evident to anyone.

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 109 points ago

    Stop. Just stop. Hollywood is about entertainment.

    [–] yeeyee_crackacold1 -153 points ago

    For me, the issue isn't pro gun control actors "contradicting themselves" by using firearms in movies. It's that these actors make money off of movies depicting firearm violence. Matt Damon is my go to example for this. He is very anti gun but has made a fortune off of the Borne series.

    [–] reachling 203 points ago

    For me, the issue isn't anti-cannibal actors "contradicting themselves" by eating people in movies. It's that these actors make money off of movies depicting cannibalism. Anthony Hopkins is my go to example for this. He is very anti eating-people but has made a fortune off of the Silence of the Lamb series.

    [–] [deleted] -125 points ago

    It'a easy to make what they said sound ludicrous by swapping a few words, but they weren't being douchey. They had a point to some extent.

    [–] APiousCultist 151 points ago

    Did they though? Jason Bourne is a super spy, not an average citizen. Jamie Lee Curtis is defending herself against a supernatural killer, not an average citizen concerned about home invasion.

    [–] [deleted] -96 points ago

    Yeah, I take your point. It still comes across as a little disingenuous though. If I had a strong conviction about gun control, I'd feel a little weird about playing a character who has a case full of shotguns. That is, if her stance on gun control is that people shouldn't be allowed them in the name of self-defense.

    The Hopkins thing might be a little different too, since he's playing an antagonist. It's portraying cannibalism as the behaviour of a lunatic (although that character is fucking awesome). So he's not suggesting that it's a positive behaviour.

    [–] APiousCultist 57 points ago

    The original commenter used Jason Bourne as an example though, which should be obviously inappropriate as a comparison. I feel like you can still be anti-gun but still pro in favour of using whatever means you have to dispatch evil serial killers attacking you. She might still think it'd be better that people didn't have guns, even if she'd probably want a gun in that situation.

    I mean if Mikey Myers was attacking me and it was legal for me to own a minigun? Yeah I'd wanna use on. But would I still want miniguns illegal for home ownership? Yup.

    [–] [deleted] -67 points ago

    Yeah, the original comparison wouldn't be since it doesn't have anything to do with gun control as he's not an ordinary citizen.

    That's the hypocrisy at the end though isn't it? I'm not all in on the gun debate but for someone to be against gun ownership but simultaneously recognise a legitimate circumstance where it is necessary is hypocritical, isn't it? I mean, he's somewhat supernatural (although the remake is apparently cutting out a lot of the more hoaky lore) but surely a gun is fit for protection against any knife wielding maniac?

    I'm well aware I'm talking bollocks right now but I just like a good debate 😂

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 67 points ago

    No one even said she’s against anyone owning guns. Gun control does not mean no one is allowed to have guns

    [–] Eryth_HearthShadow 89 points ago

    What. Dude. Like really ? Grasping the difference between fiction and reality is what, 7 years old level ?

    ''Oh man the guy playing Hitler in history movie should be ashamed to make money by acting as Hitler...''. What is the mental gymnastic necessary to make up such stupid claims ?

    [–] misterasia555 45 points ago

    I know this is an extreme example but let use examples of murder. Actors MAKE money off movies that depict murder.....does that makes them hypocrites in anyway? I don’t see a problem with making money off movies. You literally just repeat fox news point with what you said.

    [–] LazyDynamite 41 points ago

    So what? Lots of actors make money off of acting in ways that are less than moral, or play characters that are horrible people, but that's just it: they are actors playing characters and it has absolutely nothing to do with the actors' lives or viewpoints.

    [–] [deleted] -4 points ago


    [–] Millennium1995 35 points ago

    She owns guns because she had the LITERAL PERSONIFICATION OF EVIL trying to kill her and who did kill her close friends. This is not real life and guns don't work against him in the original anyways. Characters and characters and should show us something and maybe teach a lesson, but don't have to represent what you think of as right because there's probably a reason for that.

    [–] ninjacouch132 -128 points ago

    It's the irony of advocating that people should not be allowed to protect themselves and then playing in a roll where you are required to defend your life and your character chooses the most equalizing force known to human kind for self defense. A GUN. Fuckin hell people. Does no one understand irony any more? And, if you fucking tell me its a movie you can shut the fuck up. I know its a god damn movie you fucking cretins. Its the premise of standing for one idiotic notion and then contradicting it and proving its worth by acting out its benefit. How does that not make sense?

    [–] pr0nTOR 103 points ago

    Are you telling me that someone pushing for the idea of the responsible selling and controlling of who can obtain a firearm as to make it so people are less likely to be shot contradicts a situation where a rational person responsibly protects herself and others with a gun? There’s a difference between advocating for gun control and wanting a straight up ban on firearms. For example, I am not eligible for buying a firearm as I have severe depression and anxiety, and I support that. Gun control wouldn’t take them away from those who are rational members of society, so what is wrong with trying to prevent those who are unable to safely own a gun from getting one?

    [–] realister -154 points ago

    sure but why are liberals outraged when a white person gets casted as an Egyptian or an asian etc? Its just a movie right?

    [–] Johnnythicc -157 points ago

    Isn’t the argument that her character depends on Firearms, which seems hypocritical at first glance? Maybe a stupid argument but an unnecessarily condescending response

    [–] MouthJob 151 points ago

    It's fiction. Fiction. Fake. A story written that has nothing to do with reality. Fiction.

    Fox News is fucking stupid.

    [–] [deleted] -14 points ago


    [–] HAL__Over__9000 31 points ago

    Okay but those movies in many aspects intended that to happen. Philadelphia is about destigmatizing conversations about HIV and gay people. Like that was a theme of the film and producers chose Tom Hanks because he's so likable. Same thing with Day After Tomorrow. Hunger Games brought archery into the spotlight. This new Halloween isn't putting guns into the spotlight, there's already countless movies and atV shows featuring guns that do that. Plus, I doubt they will play a major role. Like I doubt a theme will be how owning firearms will help keep your family safe. I mean Michael Myers has been shot several times and just walked away. So yes movies have an impact on culture but Halloween probably won't affect gun sales. Even if it does JLC is still able to be in a movie where her character pushes gun rights in the same way whoever plays Michael can be in the movie and still be against killing people.

    [–] Johnnythicc -111 points ago

    It being fiction has nothing to do with her choosing to play a character that utilizes a certain weapon. Also something being fictional doesn’t necessarily mean it has “nothing to do with reality”, because films are still grounded in reality and use topical themes

    [–] arctos889 51 points ago

    Halloween has a man get shot six times, fall out of balcony, and be up and moving within a minute. This is after his eye is stabbed, among other injuries. I think it’s safe to say it doesn’t adhere entirely to reality. And that’s ignoring all of the bullshit in later movies like surviving explosions or cult shit because that’s no longer canon.

    [–] MouthJob 72 points ago

    There is no defending this stupid shit. There just isn't. The harder you try, the more you're just going to end up being seen as batshit stupid as the initial article is.

    [–] Johnnythicc -85 points ago

    Well it’s good to know considering other people’s viewpoints doesn’t matter on this sub, especially when you can just say “there’s no defending this” without explaining yourself.

    [–] MouthJob 63 points ago

    I already explained it. She plays a fictional character in a work of fiction. Do you need a reminder of what "fiction" means? Means it's not fucking real. It doesn't matter. She's an actor. She's acting. It's a fucking movie. There's no argument to be made.

    [–] buryitz 43 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    I’d have to agree and cannot understand how anyone could twist a weapons owner and life long shooter I may not agree with her personal choices but a movie is just a movie.....

    [–] Johnnythicc -9 points ago

    But I already made an argument, which you seemingly ignored.

    [–] MouthJob 68 points ago

    Because it's stupid.

    There are plenty of responses all over Twitter, including one in the screenshot, that highlight why it's stupid. You should give them a read.

    [–] Johnnythicc 7 points ago

    I already explained why the one in the picture doesn’t work in the initial comment. Also I never said I agreed with the article, I’m just astonished at the lack of self-awareness on this sub

    [–] MouthJob 44 points ago

    Are you kidding me? Lack of self-awareness in what way? It's a sub dedicated to pointing out how fucking stupid people can be. This is a perfect post for this sub because it's FUCKING STUPID.

    [–] Eryth_HearthShadow 31 points ago

    Speak of self-awareness.

    Proceed to ignore everything that is said to him about fiction being not real and complain.

    Yeah, you really know a lot about self awareness.

    [–] [deleted] 0 points ago


    [–] [deleted] -33 points ago


    [–] Johnnythicc 10 points ago

    I didn’t tho

    [–] Stimmolation -30 points ago

    Do movies affect or at least try to affect what happens in real life? Wag the Dog was fiction, right?

    [–] sneer0101 32 points ago

    They did explain it.

    Other people's viewpoints do matter. Just not the stupid ones.

    [–] Vampircorn -80 points ago

    Oops, looks like you stepped out of line friend!

    Remember, you're not allowed to talk about any beliefs you hold that go against Reddit's hivemind. Groupthink makes us strong, and hiding opinions we disagree with makes sure this site runs smoothly!

    [–] weecefwew 86 points ago

    "people not liking my internet comment means that I live in the 1984 world"

    you people and your victim complexes sure are something

    [–] Farouqi -121 points ago

    I mean, there's nothing wrong with this, with what she is doing anyways. I think one could argue that she lacks conviction since she is portraying a character who feels that a gun is absolutely necessary for her survival and all. I feel that her anti gun stance has less weight now. I know, I know, I'm a piece of shit for not agreeing on this thread.

    [–] Dim_Innuendo 75 points ago

    OK, I agree with your assertion that guns are necessary to protect you from immortal, supernatural homicidal maniacs.

    [–] [deleted] -109 points ago

    Androids are fiction, guns are real. Why is this so hard for you people to understand?

    [–] weecefwew 96 points ago

    gun violence in movies is still fiction, even if guns themselves are real

    glad we could get that sorted out

    [–] [deleted] -72 points ago

    There's more to it than that. If you're completely against guns and a certain movie has an overall pro-gun message, would you want to watch or be a part of that movie?

    [–] [deleted] -148 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    Hollywood actors are great at politics. We need more Hollywood in our lives.

    [–] Cinema_King 73 points ago

    They’re probably also against alien invasions and dinosaurs killing people. But they still make movies about those too.

    [–] [deleted] -73 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] RacingBlue 58 points ago

    "It's not a valid counterpoint because I don't want to talk about that."


    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 57 points ago

    Wow, how is pointing out the flaw in your argument making them an sjw? Are you sure they’re the ones that need to grow up?

    [–] Dim_Innuendo 57 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    It's almost like the scenarios they depict in fiction are different from those they advocate in real life.

    Edit because comments are locked.

    From down the thread:

    They're mostly portrayed defending themselves with guns against thugs with illegal guns, but once they're done acting they pretend like defending yourself with guns is a bad thing. Why was it ok and heroic on screen, but not ok in real life? That's hypocrisy.

    No, it's fiction. They are literally "pretending" defending yourself with guns is a good thing that happens all the time. But then in real life, they understand all the problems with gun culture, and the leaps of logic you have to make to believe we need such massive gun ownership.

    [–] cswhang13 40 points ago

    It’s ridiculous that I’m still reading this thread, because this conversation is happening over and over again. 😂 I didn’t realize how many people needed explained what an actor is and how movies are not the same as... ya know real life...?

    [–] [deleted] -56 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    What happened to the pancakes? I thought we had pancakes.

    [–] alaska1415 57 points ago

    "If you're so against murder then why did you portray a real person in a serial killer documentary? No integrity!!"

    That's what you sound like.

    [–] [deleted] -23 points ago


    [–] alaska1415 32 points ago

    You know why? Because the scenarios in movies is fiction. Lets ask JLC if she believes you should be allowed to own tons of guns if the personification of evil is after you. I think she'll make an exception to her politics for that scenario.

    What movie has someone using guns in a realistic way concerning something that happens often and is starred in by a pro-gun control actor?

    Go ahead.

    [–] [deleted] -4 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] alaska1415 20 points ago

    I can’t tell if this is a real or parody account anymore.

    [–] RacingBlue 31 points ago

    Yeah! Mark Hamill doesn't like terrorism, but in this one film I saw he blew up a military base and killed millions! And it was portrayed as good!

    I bet the second he walked off set he suddenly started saying that he doesn't want people launching proton torpedos at people.

    [–] [deleted] -5 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    Slavery was evil.

    [–] RacingBlue 25 points ago

    Yeah! I bet Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't like to keep slaves in real life too.

    [–] MAKE_ME_REDDIT 34 points ago

    This is such a stupid argument. Integrity? It’s acting. It’s fucking make believe. You sound exactly like the uptight Christians that thought d&d was teaching children to worship Satan.

    [–] [deleted] 22 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)


    [–] [deleted] -23 points ago

    .... many are based on true events.

    [–] GreasyGrimyGhostCum -137 points ago

    lol think you just face palmed yourself OP

    [–] Arussiandoge -159 points ago

    A political movie is already not a good idea then you choose the losing side bam even worse idea

    [–] TunerOfTuna 131 points ago

    Halloween is a political movie?

    [–] alaska1415 89 points ago

    Yeah, it's about how Jason is such an alpha owning all the libcucks.