ObjectivityIncarnate

But collateral isn’t used as part of a transaction unless the loan is defaulted on.

let “unrealized gains” be taxed if they were ever used as collateral for a loan.

This simply makes no sense as a concept. Collateral is something that you tell the one you’re borrowing from “you can have this if I fail to pay my loan back”. If the loan is repaid, literally nothing happens to the collateral, and it plays zero part in the actual transaction. There is zero non-arbitrary reason to tax an asset just because it was used as collateral.

Also, all home equity loans would fall under this definition, as well.

You’re equivocating “guilt” as in feeling at fault/remorseful about doing something immoral (the definition you used), with “guilt” as in it being proven that she violated a law (the definition @chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world used).

I don’t “think” you are a drama queen. It’s self-evident, from what I quoted. Not a single word of anything I said could genuinely lead to the ridiculous conclusion you did, in any rational mind.

That said, it matters much more that you don’t care about objectivity, accuracy, and intellectual honesty. You’re unfortunately more interested in labeling merited refutations of your demonstrably-bogus assertions as misogyny (which, naturally, magically justifies dismissing them outright), than actually accepting your error and learning from it.

Firstly, cite what you quote from elsewhere in the future, if you want to be taken seriously. I found it myself, so no need in this case, anymore.

Secondly, that cited study of hiking accidents has literally nothing to do with ‘alpine divorce’—it makes no differentiation between hiking injuries following from someone being abandoned by someone else (much less specifically a man abandoning a woman) after going hiking together, and accidents that happen under any other circumstances. It’s a study about hiking accidents overall, and it’s extremely disingenuous to even attempt to reach any conclusions about ‘alpine divorce’ based on its data.

This is the study that was cited. Here are the variables about the accidents it had access to:

For each victim, the following characteristics were reported: sex, age…, alcohol intake on the day of the accident (yes, no, not specified), rescue by helicopter and/or terrestrial rescue, type of trail…, and accident happening during the ascent or descent. Furthermore, the report specified the injury cause…, injury degree…, injury type…, and injury location…

Can’t help but notice not a single data point related, at all, to even going hiking with someone else, much less anything about being separated from them during the hike.

It’s a massive, desperate straw grasp by the author to cite this study in support of any assertion about the frequency of ‘alpine divorce’, and no less of one by you to try and bolster your assertion with it.

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” Once again, your own words come back to bite you; it’s obvious your feelings/biases led you to willfully discarding the part of your brain that would easily have seen how nonsensical that article’s claims are. I can find literally no data about how common this ‘phenomenon’ even is, much less anything about it becoming more or less frequent over time, and from what you’ve written so far, I have a feeling that I’ve ironically looked harder for it than you have, being the one of the two of us who isn’t driven by bias.

The only time I wrote “lol” was when I noticed that the very first sentence of the Wikipedia entry of the term “alpine divorce” directly contradicted your assertion that it “isn’t a new, trendy term”. I found that funny. That had literally nothing to do with the actual subject matter of the OP, and had everything to do with discussion of the rate of incidence of a slang term in colloquial parlance.

It’s literally the opposite of “deflection” to directly address what you wrote (I quoted exactly what I was responding to), and it’s definitely not “scorn” to be amused by a contradiction. To even consider assigning the word “scorn” to something so trivially insignificant only bolsters your first impression of being an outrage junkie.

Just say you don’t want to hear about women’s abuse stories and be honest.

If anything in this thread actually deserves an exasperated “oh my fucking god” reaction (and/or a “lol”), it’s this. Come down from your cross, drama queen.

I was sincerely open to a conversation with you

No, you weren’t. Your comments are dripping with condescension and sanctimony, not to mention projection (care to cite the “scorn” in anything I wrote?).

You’re being deliberately obtuse, and the feigned indignation (“Oh my fucking god”) just amplifies its obnoxiousness, in my opinion. It was used once in a short story over a century ago, but it’s only started to become a common term very recently.

Would you argue that “sus” doesn’t count as modern slang, because it was used as slang for “suspicious” in the early 1900s? Or would it be moronic to seriously argue that, because it’s obviously only exploded as common slang much more recently?

The term “Alpine Divorce” isn’t a new trendy term coined from TikTok, y’know.

Meanwhile, the very first sentence of its Wikipedia page, lol:

Alpine divorce is a new informal term emerging in 2026 in popular and social media

We really need more men to call each other out for this shit.

It’s complete hypocrisy to direct this criticism at men specifically, given things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3PgH86OyEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZH6YSQvwA

Return to reality. For one thing, the bystander effect is gender-neutral, so encouraging people to speak up when they witness mistreatment of others, regardless of the sex of either the perpetrator, the victim, or the witness, is inarguably positive. But singling out the sex that is demonstrably most likely to intervene when the opposite sex is witnessed being mistreated, as if males are the only ones that need to be ‘called out’ for non-intervention, does nothing but expose an extremely-obvious bias.

The point is, it doesn’t happen enough to merit an article that tries to imply, especially with its headline, that it’s a common occurrence.

It’s like when discussions about rape in general are primarily focused on incidents of violent ‘random’ rapes committed by strangers to the victim, when the fact is that that is literally the rarest type of rape that happens.

If the article was just talking about this shitty thing someone did to something else, without trying to pretend it’s ‘a thing’ that happens with any statistically-significant frequency, it wouldn’t get/merit the kind of reaction GreenBottles had.

MJ and a new partner – he was not exactly her boyfriend, and the pair were not exclusive…[MJ] could not shake the feeling that something was “off”; indeed, MJ would learn on this trip that her partner was seeing other women.

This is like saying you agreed to go dutch on a date, and then feeling that something was “off” because you couldn’t shake the feeling he was intending to split the bill.

No shit?

Clickbait headline. Trump’s rant demanded that those reporters be tried for treason, is that not a bad enough thing to do, to make a compelling, and truthful, headline?

But no, because one of the possible outcomes of being convicted of treason is the death penalty, the headline says “demands death penalty”. Gee, I wonder why the headline doesn’t say “demands 5 years in prison”, another possible outcome of a treason conviction? Anyone want to take a guess?

Sensationalism is so pathetic.

If you want to stay a console gamer you’re going to have to switch teams …

I thought that said switch TO Teams, for a moment, lol

What’s the tax that prevents people from valuing your stuff highly? Because that’s what net worth ultimately is: other people’s valuation of what you own.

Don’t hold your breath for any sort of ‘maximum wealth’ legislation to ever be a thing. It’s an absurd idea on its face, and even if you could accomplish something like that, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems you think it’d solve.

you get everyone a baseline income of $75k is by taking it from the billionaires

Actually, no. That’s a hypothetical for a reason; the entire net worth of all billionaires combined (assuming a magic wand could convert the net worth figure into an equivalent amount of cash, literally impossible in reality) wouldn’t get everyone to $75k for even a single year.

Over the long term, there really isn’t. Outside of a government imposing tyranny-tier control over everyone’s wealth, wealth inequality happens naturally, and inevitably, and the gap widens similarly.

What’s more important is making sure that even the poorest among us can have a decent standard of living. After all, if you waved a magic wand and now everyone in the US, for example, was earning $75,000 a year minimum, no one would be in poverty, right? And yet the size of the ‘wealth gap’ between the wealthiest and the $75k ‘minimum earners’ would effectively be identical; the gap between $0 and billions is basically the same as the gap between $75k and billions.

Toppling the wealthiest just because they’re the wealthiest isn’t going to solve any of the actual problems (especially when politicians get bribed for relatively-measly five figure sums, etc.).

Massive understatement—they’re actually the only things that could truly be “solutions” at all in anything approaching long-term.

There will always be people who are the smartest and/or shrewdest and/or most ambitious and/or luckiest, in a population. “Just get rid of the people who currently have the most wealth” is extraordinarily naive.

Couldn’t help but laugh at the juxtaposition of these soldiers being in full camouflage including face paint, while walking around holding up this giant rainbow-colored obliterator of stealth, lol