I read that in the sense that they’re too conventional looking for what is a pink acid trip around a mass produced toy doll with an impossibly shaped body.
In fact of all 4 that’s the only critique which is actually about the movie (notice how all the others are raging against some general fantasy they have in their minds, which they associated with the movie) and it even uses language that’s not typical of the far-right crowd (how many far right nutters have you ever seen casually mentioning experiences from taking some kind of drug even in a methaphorical sense?!)
I suspect that it might actually be a legic critique, on top of which some people are projecting their own internal prejudices (because it was mixed with and presented as something from a far-right raging nutter) without actually doing your own personal analysis of it (aka thinking for yourself)
It’s a bit hypocrite (or lacking self-awareness) to criticise others for their unthinking prejudiced take on something whilst having an unthinking prejudiced take on something.
I mean, a liitle thinking about it by yourself easilly leads to the same conclusion as the OP on the other 3 (clearly the product of brainless rightwinger fanatics) it’s only this one that in style and content seems off from that, unless you’re forcing certain possible but not logical interpretations of the meaning of its contents to force it to fit a prejudgement, which, IMHO, is dangerously parallel to very same mental processes that lead the far-right nutters to think this movie is about “spreading gayness”.
No saying that I agree or disagree: all I’m saying is that this 4th comment in style and substance does not seem to be in the same bucket as the other 3.
if you can afford it, i recommend people try it 👍 however, i am in poverty in the USA, so it's a no go. i can't even see the dentist till the middle of next year
I’m not in poverty and I still feel that. Only thing that’s always worked for me is physical work. Get out and take a walk, at the very least. But that’s kinda hard when you’re too depressed to even do that much.
Had a week off this spring, thought I was getting my kids. Ex fucked me over, despite a court order. Instead of going back to work, I worked my ass off outside on my house. I haven’t been that happy since.
I agree with your sentiment but Lemmy is trying to replace Reddit. In addition to that I was originally replying to the low effort response “Proof or stfu”.
Also, people are going to do what they want if they can (in this case there’s quite a few people doing worse than me). I felt like calling someone stupid today, sorry bout that.
Wait I can see in my notifs that you replied to someone else entirely, but here it doesn’t show me that comment and shows you replied to me??? Fediverse or Connect needs some work lol
The purpose of today’s credit score system is to eliminate bias. Before credit scores, borrowers were deemed creditworthy by lenders using factors such as income, referrals and even home visits. In 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act disallowed credit-score systems from using information like sex, race, marital status, national origin and religion.
Today, FICO considers payment history, amounts owed, length of credit history, new credit and credit mix in its model. But that data may be influenced by generational wealth that many Black and Hispanic borrowers did not have equal access to, says Frederick Wherry, professor of sociology and director of the Dignity and Debt Network at Princeton University.
“We’re often told to stop talking about history, but history won’t stop talking about us,” Wherry says. “The data used in current credit scoring models are not neutral; it’s a mirror of inequalities from the past. By using this data we’re amplifying those inequalities today. It has striking effects on people’s life chances.”
The article you provided and states right there that those who do not have generational wealth don’t benefit from credit scores because several of the considered factors are things they don’t have.
I don’t know if I buy that they were created to reduce discrimination, but even if they were, it’s an incredibly flawed system.
If a person pays off a loan that is a good thing. That shouldn’t make tour credit score lower.
I paid off a loan and a card and consolidated my debt to a lower interest rate loan and my score dropped 20 points even though I had overall less debt and at a lower interest rate. All because the average age of my credit dropped.
I’m going to translate what you’re saying in simpler terms, maybe you’ll come to understand that what you’re saying isn’t quite alright.
“Back in the day they used to force feed horse shit to people”
“nowadays we put a lot of effort making the horse shit look more appetizing by wrapping it in a tortilla and sprinkling some chives on it and delivering it right to their doors. Can you believe those same people are still complaining? They got no idea how good they have it now”
We’re all waiting on you to propose an alternative to unbiased credit reporting. Unless, perhaps, and this is just a guess, you’re an angry teenager with no clue how all this works?
“Here’s a system where race is utterly anonymous, credit worthiness is determined by a formula. Beats hell out of interviewing in person.”
“That’s racist!”
Are your parents aware that you’re interacting with adults online?
Yo that’s a pretty mean comment. I’d appreciate if you could tone that down a bit.
Also people can point at a broken system and say “that’s broken” without having the expertise to tell you exactly how to fix it. Political policy is an area of expertise on its own and we can’t expect everyone to become an overnight expert
The system didn’t really kick off in the US until 1989, which I’d guess is more recent than most realize. Until then, you had a sit-down with the bank officer and explained your need. How well do you think THAT went over for black people?
When you apply for credit, the creditor has no clue about race. (Your name can be an indicator. LOL, ask this white boy about getting trashed resumes until I dropped my “black” middle name. 🙄) You’re an anonymous number, all they care about. How in the world could you conflate that with racism?
So, if anything, credit scores clearly work against racism. You could argue that they hurt poor people, and you would be somewhat correct. But lenders aren’t exactly clamoring to loan money to the destitute. In a perfect world, your credit score reflects your ability to repay the loan.
Do people think that if they didn’t have a credit score, banks would just freely give loans to anybody? Nah, man, without credit scores, they judged you by your reputation in the community (and if you were black, you probably didn’t share the same ‘community’ with the banker) or else on how much they trusted you. You can imagine how that would go for black people.
And when you got rejected, it wasn’t “ahh well better pay my bills on time for a couple years then try again”, you were just shit outta luck.
And before bank loans (which is another thing people are commonly against) you literally had to have a rich relative, or take loans from a rich person on ridiculous terms.
Credit scores can be pretty annoying when you’re getting started, but they’re a pretty reasonable way for anybody to demonstrate that they can be trusted with money. And they’re a lot better than the old system (still current in much of the world) of: are you already rich or from a rich family? No? Well fuck you then.
In Cuyahoga County, there are significant disparities in credit health across neighborhoods. Communities of color have the lowest median credit scores, the highest percentage of individuals with subprime credit scores, and the highest share of individuals having debt in collections. On the other hand, majority white communities have the highest median credit scores, lowest percentage of individuals with subprime credit scores, and lowest share of individuals having debt in collections. These disparities are reflected in access to mortgages, mortgage denial rates, and arguably shape access to rental housing. Relying on credit scores and credit histories to determine access to rental housing and mortgages disparately impacts communities of color and helps exacerbate existing inequalities in the region.
And further
In practice, the reliance upon credit scores in evaluating borrowers and tenants disproportionately disadvantages communities of color, perpetuating another cycle of economic and housing injustice.
Credit scores are an improvement over white bankers deciding who gets loans. But they’re not an improvement over black-owned banks deciding who gets loans. The whites bombed Black Wall Street and then added a less bad (but still bad) alternative.
Of course it’s odd. Most people don’t see those “two steps back” (white bankers) as connected to the “one step forward” (credit scores from white bankers) because of this gap.
No it’s odd because of the time period between them.
The fact you think it is “white bankers” who created credit scores rather than algorithms created by mathematicians, finance experts, and economists speaks volumes as to how poorly educated you are on this topic.
My grasp of history is odd because these two events were decades apart? Why do you think this duration is important?
I haven’t stated (and it doesn’t matter) who originally created credit scores. The authority figures to whom you’re appealing have also criticized credit scores for their racism. So I think it would be more constructive if we discussed the subject matter, rather than each other.
You are connecting two events that are unrelated and attempting to create a connection and that is an odd thing to do in history. The massacre in Tulsa has no direct impact on the creation of credit scores and it requires a massive amount of illogic to get there.
As for your attempts to find a logical flaw just stop now. You clearly do not understand what they are if you think I made an appeal to authority (I did not and could not since there was no source).
You however seem to think that a wikipedia article existing means the notions suggested are factual and that cannot be farther from the truth. Just because someone criticized credit scores does not make their claims valid or even informed.
lemmyshitpost
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.