• meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      However it was designed, it shouldn’t be allowed to be abused by rich fucks not giving up their millionaire lifestyle while continuing to rack up additional debt/judgements. You know these assholes are proponents of limiting what people can use welfare for (no steak or other “luxury” food styled arguments). Perhaps he should be limited to what a person on welfare is able to afford? You want to continue to pull in an income for “speeches” or whatever bullshit these grifters do for money? All but the bare minimum get frozen by the court until judgements are settled.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You’ll have to specify you don’t support it when describing it in a way that can be confused as a defense for it if you really want to avoid it. Saying, “nah it doesn’t work like that.” is very, very easy to take as an adversarial statement.

          It doesn’t imply defense, but it can come across as a defensive posture. Poe’s Law kinda’ sucks to deal with. It’s one of many reasons good speech writers are kept around. It’s not just about having correct English or making logically correct statements.

          • LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            They were being neither parodic nor sarcastic so Poe’s law really doesn’t apply.

            I also disagree that they have to specify they don’t support it. The comment is a statement of fact, a readers assumptions about the stance of the writer speaks to the readers bias, not the writers.

            • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Yes, notice how I said, “…if you want to avoid it.”

              It wasn’t an appeal for making correct statements. It was an appeal to hedge communication, which is always intelligent to do with a general audience. Most people do not think like a computer. You HAVE to communicate with that in mind to effectively communicate.

              Yes, it’s a problem with stupid people, but if you want stupid people to understand you, you better get used to it.

        • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think you are falling into the social media trap that every comment has to be a back and forth, or a disagreement. When you describe the existing system, if someone disagrees with it, it’s not a disagreement with you. When you let that go and realize you don’t need to reply, it’s a weight lifted.

          Keep informing and more people learn.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Exactly. You shouldn’t come out of bankruptcy homeless, but you should absolutely be stripped of all but your smallest house and all trusts in your name.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Except for student loans of course. Nothing but the sweet sweet release of death can discharge that debt.

        • TrumpetX@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          It depends on the state I’ve recently learned. Some states allow inheriting debt, others don’t. Even some are in between allowing it for spouses only.

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            This isn’t in the case of something “unwanted”. You can decline to assume a debt from inheritance. You would also be giving up anything tied to it like a house or car. In the case of a dead loved one’s higher education, there’s no reason to assume the debt. You don’t get the education if you do.

        • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          This isn’t true. In fact, I told my wife that I’d come back and haunt her if she paid a penny towards my student loans if I died.

          But it doesn’t matter any more, I was able to get my student loan debt finally discharged earlier this year. All it took was sending $450 to my loan carrier every month for 20 years, and then they told me I didn’t need to send any more. Thanks Biden!