“Why can’t you just have no valid feelings or emotions or hopes or dreams or needs or desires like my AI girlfriend? Why can’t you just exist to please me and be “vaguely pleasant” in any and every situation?!” Glad to see incelism is alive and well.
Ok, yeah I got that originally. Did you misconstrue my original sardonic comment or do you disagree and not know how to express it? Cuz I’m pretty sure we’re on the same side here, lol.
This thread is full of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. I mean the whole thread is based on the implication that the credit bureaus are a government program.
At one time you walked into a bank, showed how much money you made, and got a home loan.
But that allowed too many Black people to buy homes, so credit scores were invented as a way to discriminate against people using a black box with no real published metric.
You’re showing way too much faith in the institutions that invented the red lining in the first place to imply that the ol’ boys club system wasn’t waaaaay more rife with systemic racism.
The post war recovery laws were literally lobbied to specifically exclude black folks, but sure, home buying was easier for them then than it was post credit scores.
My dude, you're missing about thirty years of history.
Redlining was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act in the late 60's. It may have still existed in some fucked up form but it was no longer the standard by which lending was done. There's a reason the rate of home ownership among Black people has steadily risen ever since, and yet it still isn't close to any other group of people.
The whole system is fucked and it's largely set up to fuck Black people because some mayo motherfuckers still want to own humans.
It might have been “illegal” but lenders were still basically doing it anyways, just calling it everything else imaginable. Shit they still do it when they think they’ll get away with it, folks have actually tested it, real estate brokers list houses shown by white “owners” at higher values than those shown by black “owners”
It’s funny how the other person who replied to me said credit scores are actually the solution to racism. I think you’re the one who’s right it’s just funny. I’d like to take this opportunity to say it’s retarded that you can pay rent for years but not be approved for a mortgage with equal or lesser payments.
Violence in the streets is how we got the civil rights act.
The act was not dictated from nothing from on high, a gift from beneficent lords of government who were finally convinced through rhetoric and nonviolence to enshrine some sliver of equality into law, it was a reaction to civil unrest and violence.
I certainly have problems with the way current financial institutions operate, but prior to the credit score there wasn't a standardized, scientific way to assess lending risk. It was left to a good ol' boy process rife with racism, classism, and sexism. Sadly, we're better off with what we have now, as flawed as it is.
Why would you be better off? In the rest of the world you just have to provide proof of income and proof of savings and debt and banks can calculate how much they are willing to loan you for the purchase of a house. Seems to work fine, and I don’t have to have pay interest on meaningless loans just to prove that I can.
The problem is that just having the income and savings doesn’t necessarily guarantee that you’ll be as good about paying back a loan as someone of your same income and savings.
That’s supposed to be where the credit score helps, but the current system is so shady that it basically just reads as the ol’ boys club system but asking pretty please to pretend there’s a formula and method being used.
I think there are plenty of failsafe mechanisms. But most importantly, if you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank has the right to take possession of your house. Those forces the bank to do it’s due diligence with regards to the value of the house. Also, if a bank has been too lenient with its mortgages, it can get into serious trouble - the government here enforces pretty strict rules to prevent people from getting in over their heads.
There still isn't a standardized and scientific way to assess credit risk. There are three major companies, several minor ones, and all of them offer multiple products.
IT'S ALL A FUCKING SCAM. We just blindly accept random institutions compiling all of our data and telling a bank whether or not we should be given a loan regardless of our ability to pay it back. It has little to do with income anymore, which should be the only allowable metric. Don't want the risk? Get the fuck out of the mortgage business.
Mortgages were, prior to assholes screwing the whole thing up with mortgage-backed securities, seen as one of the lowest risk things banks could handle.
If you default on a mortgage the bank forecloses and auctions the home. This was QUITE rare before the housing crash. The problem was that the banking industry became so lax that they were giving loans to people that actually did NOT have the money to pay for them, figuring that they could just seize and sell the home as they always had. The problem THEN is that mortgage-backed securities were a thing by that point and every foreclosure caused another domino to fall over.
It became a shitshow because banks fucked themselves over being greedy pieces of shit.
Why? Income is a terrible metric. Regardless of how much money I’ve made, I’ve always spent within my means. I’ve never carried debt, but always has my cc to build the credit score.
The idea that some bozo who spends more than he earns has a better credit score than me just because he makes more money makes absolutely zero sense to me.
I suggest you lie on a few credit applications (not really). You'll be amazed at how readily you get approved just because your income crosses a certain threshold, even with the same score.
Several years ago I was looking to add a couple of cards, primarily for emergency reasons. I apply for a card and get rejected. Six months later I get a new job that's promising me a significantly higher income but I haven't started receiving more money yet (contract work is fun). I apply for the same card, same information, knowing my credit score had not changed, the only difference in my applications was my income (that required no verification) and that time I got approved.
So apparently the banks have a different thought process than you.
And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else's credit score? Are you also mad that your neighbor is gay?
I never said it wasn’t a factor, only a terrible one that shouldnt be the only one. Also try improving your credit score and see the better rates and cards with better benefits open up to you.
And what the fuck is wrong with you that you even think about someone else’s credit score?
Considering you think I spend time thinking about people’s credit score because I think it’s better metric for getting credit, this question is all but a straight up admission that you spend a lot of mental energy thinking about the income of other people.
It was so much better before! When being a woman, or god forbid, being black, counted as serious criteria. Oh, and you best be friends with the banker. (Read the part, again, about being a white man, who was well accepted in the community.)
It’s not a scam, it’s a step forward. Time to take the next step.
Because there are standard metrics for where the score comes from. Each of the big three has slightly different weighting, but it all broadly comes out the same.
The numbers aren’t made up. You can look at your credit report and see what is affecting it.
The numbers are made up, unless you can actually prove your original statement.
Edit: oh, and since proving a negative is essentially impossible, you can’t actually prove your original statement, so I would recommend not making statements like that, and try to rephrase.
Yes, you brown-nosing corpo-slurping bootlicking twit, I do in fact keep a pretty damn close watch on my credit score because suckups like you will fellate and propagate any capitalist horseshit you can so I have to rather than just NOT WORRYING ABOUT IT and only applying for lines of credit in line with my income levels.
Instead it becomes this stupid game of laddering where you can apply for an increase now, but you can't apply for new credit, but also you need a new loan to maximize your score, no not that kind of loan, no also don't pay off the loan that's bad too, why did you need more credit again?
Anyone ignorant enough to support this needs their own separate financial system that caters to their intrinsic need to be a sub.
Literally nobody is making you apply for lines of credit outside your income levels… that’s entirely on you.
There’s no game to play. You take out credit, you pay it back. You have revolving credit, you pay the balance every month and don’t carry debt. It’s literally that simple.
I have never had to apply for an increase in credit limits, pay your bills and banks/credit card companies will just do it automatically.
So you've never had an emergency or a need for a large one-time purchase. Good for you. You are not everyone. The sooner you learn and understand that people that aren't you exist, the sooner you can graduate high school.
Are you arguing that the system is made up or that it’s unfair to the poor?
I would agree with the latter, but you haven’t been terribly consistent in your argument. I’ve had troubles with my credit score in the past, which is part of why I understand how it works.
I agree that credit scores unfairly disadvantage the poor, but that’s merely a reflection of deeper economic issues that should be dealt with. Abolishing the credit score won’t enable the poor to suddenly buy houses.
Yes, I have indeed lol. I had a year where our hvac went out and our son second child’s birth bill which racked up thousands that we had to pay out of pocket. We had tens of thousands in unexpected bills that year.
We had to drain most of our savings and take out a large loan to cover it all. Guess what I did. Paid the damn loan back.
We had to drain most of our savings and take out a large loan to cover it all. Guess what I did. Paid the damn loan back.
Seriously? You think draining your savings is the same as not having any money, lol. You are a wee bit out of touch. Born on 3rd base and expects everyone up to bat should get a home run.
Lmao dude I was born to white trash drug addicts and never lived in one place for more than 9 months because they could never afford rent and kept getting kicked out. I have lived on my own since I was 15
Born on third base my ASS. I have worked my ass off since I was a teenager. I’ve lived in friends storm cellars, couches, and my truck at times to get where I’m at now.
I made saving a priority since my first job working at fuckin Burger King in high school.
So you had friends that helped you live at their place, do you think that maybe there people who don’t have that kind of support system? You did not pull yourself up by your bootstraps, you had a lot of help along the way.
Also, now go tell the you that was living in your truck to take from your savings and pay your bills.
Whatever you say dude. I know I had help. Virtually everyone has help along the way. If you have literally nobody that will let you crash on your couch, maybe you should look deep inside why nobody likes you.
Me living in my truck did take from my savings to pay bills. Half the reason I lived in my truck was not to be wasting money on renting some shitty apartment and draining my savings. I maintained a savings the whole time.
Keep complaining instead of doing something about it. It’ll guarantee you stay poor.
How about when you left the house to live on your friend’s couch? You had savings then? Did you pay your friends rent? LMAO, How much was your savings, $10? Did you have it in a bank account at 15? So many questions that I think you’re having battles with your inner self answering. I normally don’t like to see this kind of struggle, but this time I’m enjoying it.
When I left the house? You mean when my parents drug habits caught up with them and we ended up homeless.
I didn’t live on anyone’s couch. I spent a day or two at most at a friends house at a time.
I had a few thousand saved up. And yes had a bank account where my pay was direct deposited or my parents would steal it.
You can wallow in your self pity and tell yourself that everything is luck or some bullshit to get out of helping yourself. That’s fine. I’m doing more than well now lol.
I spent a day or two at most at a friends house at a time.
Welcome to living on someone’s couch, lmao.
What’s super hilarious is that you think I’m poor. Just because I have compassion for people doesn’t mean I don’t have money. Your world view is fucked up if you think being shitty to people who are in a hard place, a place you’ve actually been, is a decent way to go.
Why do you think that was one friend or something? That’s not living on someone’s couch.
And I have plenty of compassion for people actually trying to make their lives better. I have zero compassion for people that sit there and just blame everyone else, thinking they should get everything handed to them.
Would you be this toxic if you had help when you were younger instead of left to fend for yourself? I honestly don’t get your world view, it’s honestly depressing. Lazy seeming to you may be someone in shock and not knowing what to do because they’re overwhelmed. Why would you not want help for others that you didn’t get? It didn’t make you stronger, it made you hard and judgemental for some reason. I’m glad you got out but damn if you’re not pulling up the ladder behind you.
I haven’t been toxic. Toxic is the prevailing attitude online, at least on Lemmy, that nobody should have to work for anything and everything should just be free, never mind that someone has to actually work to make that shit they want for free.
Toxic is the attitude that anyone who isn’t working at a minimum wage job subsisting on ramen just lucked into it without any work at all
I am all for helping people. I have personally helped a ton of people that have needed it. I’ve given my couch, my truck, money, food, stuck my neck out for people for jobs, clothes, you name it. I love lifting people I care about up. What I hate is trying to help someone that just leeches off of others and gets mad when you cut off the help. And I’ve been around enough to see that most people complaining online are that person.
And I’ve been around enough to see that most people complaining online are that person.
How would you know that and who made you judge and jury? Wouldn’t you want to help a few too many people with some who may not need it, than not helping enough? Good luck man, you seem resentful that others aren’t having to suffer instead of being happy they got out. As far as complaining, all I see is people like you complaining that people don’t want to work. I think this is my last comment, have a good weekend.
Jesus dude yeah people have had it worse but it’s not a competition. You accused him of not earning his financial position and he explained how your attack on person is baseless. Having friends is a support system, it doesn’t mean you had it easy. If you were not raised by wolves, you’ve had people help you too.
Yep it’s not a mystery at all if you care enough to read about it. All these “capitalist dystopia” complainers sound like what I probably thought about credit scores when I was in my early 20s and had terrible credit from being irresponsible with credit cards. My credit score is 800 now because I simply pay my bills on time and have an established history of doing so.
Yeah, it’s not a perfect system and I would welcome increased federal oversight and greater transparency because it does have the potential for abuse.
That said, it’s not numbers made up to keep the little guy down. Lenders want to lend money because they make money off it. The whole point is to determine whether or not you’re a safe investment.
We could have a discussion on the merits of modern usury, which can be deeply predatory and abusive. It’s not the credit score that’s the problem.
i dont see the problem with improving your credit score by sacrificing a virgin to the volcano every year, at least anyone can do it instead of just the well accepted white men
im being unfair of course, unlike modern credit scores tossing a virgin into the volcano doesnt still put minorities at a disadvantage
About 780 last I looked. Utilization went up when I decided to do some travel this year. But go on thinking that the only people that want a system reformed are the ones that don't know how to work it.
I'm sure that'll get you far in life. All the way to brown-nosing middle management.
If you don’t take credit facilities but pay for your expenses in cash, you are considered a risk. Credit scoring based on credit card purchases is akin to being required to be spied on every step of the way just so you can access what you practically can without the credit in the first place. I don’t have a problem with people who are fine with that kind of behavior. But there should be a way of fair assessment even if you pay in cash.
I hosted a NY party once. I told a bunch of people at work, and random folks I met briefly. Told my neighbors. Said people can bring others. It was a huge turn out of like 15-25 people. The extroverts tend to go to 2-3 parties and bounce around. The introverts tend to go out of social pressure.
Being a host isn’t my thing. But NY parties is definitely the easiest party to create and get people to come.
Also assuming you don’t live in a cabin in the woods. And you promise food and drinks.
7 ton seems pretty big and I think they were warm-blooded, I recon they’ll start starving before I run out of food. They may not be dead by day 30 but on those final nights of starving unconciousness you could probably stick it with the knife. Large birds of prey may only eat once per day but they still starve within a couple of days, and the bigger they are, the hungrier they get.
Good point wait out the first 3 weeks then when it’s exhausted launch sneak attacks everything it closes it’s eyes. Plus if the T rex has no food safe to assume it has no water
Alligators and crocodiles can go months without eating. If needed, apparently, even 2 years. I wouldn’t count on a dinosaur being weak with hunger in a few weeks.
I mean the brief is of you kill it you get a big payout but you otherwise get to live rent free in a hut for month fully catered. As consolation prizes go there are worse gambles and this one at least means you do not die.
Don’t go to crazy busy bars, but ones that have a moderate amount of people. Sit at the bar. Bullshit with bartender when they have a moment, usually others will chime in. That’s what I’d do at least ¯\(ツ)/¯
Hell, I can’t sit alone at the bar of a modest to moderately busy establishment without getting drug into a conversation. Obviously it depends on the bar and location, but it’s a good way to meet people. Whether they’re people worth meeting is a whole different conversation.
I prefer going to a bar to drink seriously without distraction, but the kind of bars I go to are apparently big on having everyone join in on the conversation.
That was a little bit tongue in cheek. Look at my username. But I’ll humor the question.
I don’t like to drink at home because I quickly go from being an affable drunk to a hardcore alcoholic. I like people watching. The noise of a bar can drown out my thoughts so I’m not living in my own head.
Why do you think you know what’s best for anyone else? Instead of deciding people are weird for being different, maybe you could examine yourself and find out why you’re a judgemental ass when there’s no way you could have all the information on someone else’s life.
They missed the part where he has a history of mental health issues and had heard voices telling him to kill people. He should have lost access to his guns.
So according to pro-gun talking points, he should have been completely safe to arm. He received the fabled “mental healthcare” that renders people safe to indiscriminately sell guns to.
The lack of laws and lack of enforcement both have their roots in pro-gun groups – the people arguing that guns are blameless and everything is a mental health problem.
Ehhhh maybe it’s my American showing, but I’ve known lots of hobbyist clay shooters that are responsible, great people. Not to mention that hunting is more than a hobby to many; it’s a way of life. I don’t think we should police hobbies to that degree. Much moreso, we should have initial and updated background checks on gun owners.
I wasn’t aware that hunting was a hobby created after the invention of assault rifles. Pretty sure hunting has been a way of life since forever so I don’t think gun control is going to destroy that hobby.
How can you honestly be arguing hobbies are more important than doing something to protect human lives?
It is already federal law that any gun sale going through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) is required to run a check using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICs). So initial already yes, updated “if they buy more guns,” but still.
Private sales are legal in some states but if you sell to a prohibited possessor you’re in deep shit so most people will only do so with a CCW card to show you’ve been NICs checked and it hasn’t been confiscated.
Dude you need a to pass a test and have a license for loads of hobbies, people still do them. Even just driving a regular car which is considered a near necessity in some places, we acknowledge that it’s dangerous so you need to pass a test and can have your licence taken away if you are a danger to others.
Sounds like you’ve let the gun lobby tell you what gun control is.
For example in Australia, to buy a gun you first need a firearms license that is granted once you’ve established that you know how to safely handle a firearm, are not a danger to yourself or others, are not a known criminal and have been a member of a club or range for at least 6 months without creeping people out.
From there, your new guns must be registered and you must be able to produce them on request. Handguns and semi-automatic guns are more heavily restricted, in line with them being far more dangerous to the public.
So do you know what you do if you don’t have a license and want to go clay shooting? You book a session at the range and show up.
No license, no background checks, no knowledge of firearms required.
Because do you want to know the dirty little secret the gun lobby has been hiding from you? Gun control advocates don’t actually give a shit if people own or use guns if they never kill, maim or traumatise anyone.
Systems like the one above massively reduce the supply of guns to criminals, the number of mass shootings, accidental deaths, suicides, domestic violence homicides.
Meanwhile, in America, the pro-gun crowds ideal gun laws can’t even stop a teenager with a history of death threats, rape threats and animal abuse from legally buying two semi automatic weapons, mere days before he used them to kill a room full of children.
That’s what gun control is trying to stop and what the pro-gun community inadvertently fights to keep.
Is every hobbyist clay shooter a good person? Is their hobby worth the lives of innocent people? Not to mention how easy it is to snap and turn bad. It sucks for the good hobbyists but idc if it means less dead children, they can shoot clay with bbs.
Background checks simply don’t work well enough to catch everyone. Mental health issues are hard to spot, it’s not like you can just do a blood test.
Honestly, there are soooo many ways to entertain ourselves in our society, people that center their whole lives around guns need to grow the fuck up imo. Fuck the hobby.
as someone who has unfortunately had to use a firearm to protect the life of myself and my family, all I hear is “it would be better if you where dead”
But we all already sacrifice our liberty for security constantly. I sacrifice my liberty to bite anyone I want, in order to live in a society where I’m unlikely to be bitten.
I gave up my freedom by deciding to follow laws. You don’t have to. There are consequences, but if you decide to disappear into the wilderness and avoid people, you can do whatever you want
I get the essence of that quote but I feel it falls apart under any scrutiny. Drunk driving laws are widely agreed to be a good idea but that would fall until the category of sacrificing liberty.
And there is exactly where a libertarian’s entire argument falls apart. Rational people obviously know such words are idealistic and hyperbolic, and would ostensibly craft laws to balance personal liberties and public safety. The thing is, there’s a cold truth behind it that is important not to forget or ignore. It hints at the slippery slope of regulation into oppression, and that’s a very real danger to us today as much as it was back then.
No one talks about the slippery slope in the other direction where lack of regulation leads to weekly mass murders. Of course there’s no actual evidence of either of those outcomes happening, right? Right?
How do you figure? As far as I can tell, that conversation happens all the damn time. Not among anyone who SHOULD be having it, but I hear it happen all the time regardless. But you knew that… Same as you knew that there’s an abundance of evidence to prove your sarcasm is seriously unfounded because there’s PLENTY of evidence of both of those things being a thing. I’m beginning to believe that some people are intentionally creating straw man arguments and being deliberately hyperbolic while presenting their arguments as rational and balanced. Weird.
This is how it was for the first one hundred years of American existence. “Purposive open carry.” Only lawless shit holes had what conservatives want today, habitual open carry. If it was a place with law, open carry without an obvious purpose was a breach of peace.
It’s also the type of legislation thats been applied and immediately abused. So the reason most states don’t have it is that the gov can’t be trusted to have discretion of basic human rights.
Nope, get fucked. You don’t get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you’re capable of imagining legislation being misused.
Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms.
A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and “being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort” is not a “basic human right”.
People are being murdered because the gun laws are hopelessly inadequate yet you staunchly oppose changes to them on the grounds that hypothetical people could hypothetically use them to take guns away from a hypothetical innocent person that was no danger.
It’s something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a “prohibited person” and cannot own or have access to firearms.
The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can’t be declared a prohibited person.
Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks.
4chan
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.