ObjectivityIncarnate

Turning Point USA chief

Turning Point USA has chiefs? lol

The quad ‘rest of the fire’ images, lol

Doesn’t retroactively make the show any less funny, and this post is not any sort of endorsement of him; if it was, that would at least serve as a reason to comment the way you did, as a response.

This just comes off as empty virtue signaling.

the multimillionaires

Why would any of them do this instead of charity donation that they can deduct from their taxable income?

There is no actual sentiment in the image, lol. On its face, it’s just stating two facts, not explicitly criticizing anything.

One could feasibly spread the exact same image as a positive thing, just depends on the audience.

$74,250 per employee

Hm, is this low for this line of work? Genuinely asking.

I dryly state of couple of plain facts, along with an analogy to clarify why using your own assets as collateral for a loan doesn’t make sense to be interpreted as ‘bypassing income tax’

You accuse me of being a bootlicker and put a ton of words in my mouth, assuming all sorts of nonsense about my values/positions because you apparently can’t handle the actual words you were presented with, and need a straw man to focus on instead

Why pretend you have any interest in genuine discourse when you act like this? It’s extremely obvious you have no desire to actually communicate. Go write a blog somewhere with the comments disabled if you can’t handle contradiction.

The problem lies in the top 1% using their shares of a company as their personal bank account.

There is no problem in someone using their own assets for their own benefit.

They can use these shares as collateral for a loan, bypassing all income tax.

There’s no income tax to “bypass”, because a loan isn’t income. You have to pay it back. Do you consider it “bypassing all income tax” when a homeowner takes out a Home Equity Loan too?

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.

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.

It’s the cloudflare one for me, yeah. The bit where it says how many things are blocked on the page you’re currently on seems to always say “2”.

Honestly didn’t even notice until this thread, lol.

I sometimes forget that there are no ads on the Fediverse to begin with.

Just glanced up to uBlock Origin and that number’s not zero, so…maybe not visual ads, but there isn’t nothing.