ObjectivityIncarnate

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?

It’s also important to keep in mind that a fallacious argument leading to a conclusion does not actually disprove the conclusion; identifying the fallacy just means that if the conclusion is correct, that argument is not the path to it. And if the fallacious argument is the only path to conclusion X, then there is simply no basis for presuming X to be correct at all.

red herring: might as well call it by its social media names: “ackshyually”, “whataboutism”, etc.

Well, “ackshyually” is actually (:P) rooted in mocking people who pedantically and pointlessly correct others, to the point of being more irritating than informative. The ‘Jimmy Neutron salt’ meme shows a pretty solid example of that kind of behavior:

Red herrings as a type of fallacy, on the other hand are about using something to support an argument that doesn’t actually have anything to do with it. The Wikipedia page itself gives a solid example of this:

For example, “I think we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend you support this because we are in a budget crisis, and we do not want our salaries affected.” The second sentence, though used to support the first sentence, does not address that topic.

But you will hear them saying they don’t want to raise taxes, thinking it will affect them with their low income.

You presume to know what they’re thinking, you mean. Have you never considered the possibility that they’re simply adhering to the point of view that you shouldn’t have to pay over and over for the ‘privilege’ of continuing to own what you own?

Taxes can be targeted at the ultra-wealthy, but low-information people have been made to believe they will be taxed.

You assume they believe that because they’re ignorant. But what if they just know their history? The income tax started with the exact same promise, a tax targeting only the wealthy, but somehow, we all have to pay it now, too.

The populace has every reason to be skeptical of taxes ‘targeting’ only the wealthiest among us.

I have seen comments like this thousands of times, but I’ve never seen a single example of anyone genuinely expressing this sentiment.

Even if you ignore ethics and assume the billionaires are benevolent - it’s just a bad investment to invest majority of resources to a small number of investments. Does any successful large project hold 99% of their investments in few projects? It’s absurd.

Small number of investments? Billionaires have shitloads of investments, what are you talking about?

If your concerns are ethical, then you should be consuming only indie music from unsigned artists

…who could be using AI, lol.

You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.

In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.

“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?

This article is about Brazil.

According to the same article, 42% of drug dealers did not complete elementary school. Not quite the same situation as what it’s like in the US.

Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?

The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.

The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.

Did you read anything but the title?

So you’re essentially admitting to the headline being misleading. We can agree on that.

Moving production around and creating new transporrt routes are not ongoing costs.

It’s also not the reason world hunger still exists.

A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.

They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.

I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.

The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.