_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
Cross posted from Discuit
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1321 points (98.7% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
5486 readers
1023 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
/r/thathappened material
/r/nothingeverhappens
Wrong site brother
No, that was very intentional lol
🤗
Trust me bro.
If they had just said “my Trump voting Neighbor just lost his job at the USDA. FAFO.” I’d be totally down to believe it. Tons of people are losing their jobs right now, that is reality. But the flag/house thing? Give me a fucking break
Loosing a job means no more mortgage payments, so that's not too far fetched.
It makes sense if they were behind on their mortgage and would be forced to sell immediately or something
Normally most people would try to keep their home by looking for a new job. Not sure how it works in the US, but in my country it would also be fairly common to have mortgage insurance specifically in case you're laid off, fired, or suffer an injury that causes you to be out of commission for long. I suspect it's less common in the US if it's even a thing. Is it a thing?
Most people don’t immediately sell their homes the moment they are laid off.
They do if they have no savings and the payments are more than any income they are getting. It's better to quickly sell before the fees start for non payment. There are also options to put your home on forbearance while it's on the market so the homeowner could have done that immediately to prevent the house being repossessed.
I didn’t say it doesn’t happen. I said most people do not.
When you see moving to a smaller house is inevitable, it might not be worth it to delay for some additional months. Better preserve the savings so they last longer. When your economy goes south, better start more economical life right away.
I didn’t say it never happens. I’m saying most people don’t respond to layoffs by selling their home immediately. Trump hasn’t even been in office for 60 days. So this dude probably got laid off, assuming this happened, 4 to 6 weeks ago if we’re being generous.
You’re also not taking into account current interest rate/home prices. If this person has held their home for a long time, then even if they got a higher interest from the 90’s or 2000’s The home was so cheap back then that their bill is probably pretty reasonable. If they’ve had it for a couple of years, then they got incredible interest rates And to give that up for a higher interest rate upwards of 7-8% would be asinine. Not to mention it would be very hard to finance when you admit you were laid off and don’t have a job. The most likely outcome is an equal or even higher mortgage payment unless they truly uproot their lives. Again, all over a recent layoff.
The narrow lane of parameters for this story to be true makes it possible but highly unlikely. And the flag thing…come the fuck on.
Plenty of people are having their lives ruined. Some random person on the Internet telling this story is what we’re going to point to?
If you have a reason to believe you might be living off your savings for the next two years, you will want to maximize your savings. If you have paid enough of your house to buy the smaller and more remote one with cash, then that's what you should do.
Agreed. But now you’re making your own host of assumptions. We know nothing about this person. We don’t even know how old they are.
Most people do not sell their homes the moment they are laid off.
Maybe it's real, maybe not, but it's certainly plausible.
Of course it’s plausible. The point is that it’s most likely not true.
Plausibility is incredibly useful way to introduce falsehood.
I don't understand why so many people are eager to (metaphorically) scream "FAKE!!!!" at every story (that isn't highly unlikely) told on the internet. Sure, maybe, but does it even matter? Odds are good something like this did happen somewhere.
So, basically we know it's a falsehood because it's plausible. Saying something plausible is precisely what a liar would do!
That is not even remotely what I said and you know it
No, I don't.
Please elaborate.
Despite your stance/tone I’ll answer this in good faith and assume you’re genuinely asking even if I think you’re not.
The best lies/misinformation attempts are couched in 1) truths and/or 2) plausible things that can’t be dismissed as impossible.
It is plausible [insert any JFK assassination conspiracy]. Should they all be equally weighted? Is each equally plausible? No, yet dozens persist because they’re at all plausible. I say this as someone who says the least plausible scenario was lone gunman who was killed by some rando. I think it was a conspiracy. But it doesn’t mean I treat each conspiracy theory as equally plausible. Unfortunately it’s hard to 100% disprove basically anything, so even the worst ideas remain sticky if people want them to be true.
Thanks ❤️
In any case, all this is very little proof that the story is a falsehood. Obviously, by default everything you read online falls to the category "this may have happened", but that's all we really have.
The burden of proof squarely lies with OP. You didn’t ask me to prove it’s false. You asked me to explain my previous comment.
Yup, because the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. But that only allows us to say the text is not necessarily true.
When you say the op is lying, that's a new claim, where the burden of proof is on you.
Actually the burden of proof not necessarily always on the one who made the claim. But it is on the person who has the less credible claim.
I don’t need to prove it’s false. I just need to demonstrate that, taken at face value, the more prudent thing to do is assume this post is at least partially made up. And given the details of it, the most likely scenario is that the story is not 100% true.
...although, because selling a house ASAP if you have a loan with large payments for it, is the only logical course of action if long-term unemployment is assumed, nothing to that extent has been demonstrated.
I have addressed this point several times across several comments. Surely you’ve seen it.