ObjectivityIncarnate

borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

…until they pay the loan back, you mean.

Hell, loans better be tax free, it’s not income if you have to pay it back.

P.S. Some food for thought: if workers’ labor is being ‘skimmed’ by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who’s doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?

Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.

And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.

It just frustrates me how much trans people/activists fuck up their own messaging with confusing/ambiguous/self-contradicting rhetoric, you know?

Another major example imo, is using the single word “gender”, both to describe gender identity (something an individual person has), and gender roles (something a society has), sometimes in the same damn sentence.

The best way to ensure a discussion isn’t productive is to make sure that the ‘discussers’ are using the same terms, but are defining them differently, lol…

It’s literally not a fact. Net worth is a price tag, not an amount of cash.

No they aren’t. The number that’s increasing is a price tag, not cash. That’s why no one’s wallet or bank account gets bigger when that same number goes down.

I guess what they’re getting at is that if “non-binary” is considered a gender identity unto itself, then you could describe one being trans with the transition being “from man to non-binary”, for example.

Gender identity doesn’t get assigned at birth. There is no “gender” field on a birth certificate.

Sex gets identified at birth (at the latest, usually before, during pregnancy, unless specifically requested to keep it secret).

Two reasons this is important to point out:

• Assignment implies that the act of assigning is what makes it so. It’s not. If a doctor says that a male baby is female, it’s not now female just because they said so. “Identify” is a much more accurate description of what the doctor is doing.
• The whole premise of “transness” being a thing relies on the notion of sex and gender being two distinct, independently-variable traits. So be careful not to conflate them. It causes needless confusion, since conflating them literally undermines the whole thing–after all, if “sex” and “gender” are equivalent, then it’s objectively impossible to be trans.

wowwww a trans person making unfair assumptions/criticisms of people for quoting an extremely popular piece of pop culture.

let’s all say it together!!

Being trans does not grant a prejudice pass!!

The fact is, most Harry Potter fans neither know nor care about any of the personal exploits of the author.

If she kept that a secret or anything then sure… But it’s not exactly a hidden fact that money gained from Harry Potter is being put towards hate.

The spaces you hang out in obviously make a big deal of these and broadcast them consistently, I’m sure. But it’s clear you spend enough time in them that you’ve lost perspective in how things are in the ‘world at large’.

Although it’s very obvious and “not hidden”, to you, it wouldn’t even have to be hidden from the average Harry Potter fan, because they make literally zero effort to seek it out. They simply don’t care about anything she does, outside of writing the books they like to read.

P.S. The way you worded it in a previous comment implies heavily that a lack of explicit criticism of Rowling is equivalent to “support”. It isn’t.

What you are describing is essentially the roguelike/lite genre, lol. Search up some of that, see if anything looks fun.

There was an attempt

women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc.

It’s simply the difference that’s being noticed, and no one’s really at fault for that, on either side. Any woman who never wears makeup is also never going to get the same ‘are you sick?’ kind of reactions on any given day she doesn’t wear makeup to work.

Same, I’m really grateful she has no interest/desire to wear makeup. It was also nice to know what her face looked like from day 1, which is what this app is meant to facilitate.

The more I think about it, the stranger the notion of ‘gatekeeping her real face’ behind a full-on relationship sounds to me, lol.

P.S. lol, I just remembered reading an old ‘hack’ for this years and years ago: make a water park your first outing together.

1 in 4 households earning over $100,000 a year live paycheck to paycheck–not because they can’t make ends meet, but because their money management sucks. A high income has very little relationship with responsible borrowing, despite what many would assume.

imposing a higher interest rate on them on top of that is just the final nail in the coffin.

That’s the only way to justify loaning to people like that at all, given how much more often they default (and the lender never gets repaid at all). If lenders were forced to give the same interest rate to everyone, that would cause them not to lend to “A person with a low income with a precarious job” at all.

You’re discounting the people who have always lived within their means and so never took on debt.

No I’m not. Those people are unknown quantities, and so also suffer if credit scores go away, because bad borrowers are worse than first-time borrowers, so without credit scores, first-timers will be treated worse.

And how exactly is guessing your credit worthiness based on those factors a better system than literally keeping track of what happened each previous time money was lent to you, when it comes to making a decision on lending money to you?

This is like arguing it’s a better idea to select NBA players by their height, than by their performance in high school and college basketball games.

Only people who are bad credit risks ever come up with this take, lmao.

The sole function of credit scores is to benefit people who are reliably ‘good for it’ when they borrow money. Without them, everyone is treated as just as high a risk as the worst borrowers who are least likely to pay back their debts, and you gain no benefit from reliably paying back your debts. But with them, your good borrowing is kept track of, and good reputation means lenders trust you more to pay your debts back, so they’re willing to lend more, and they are willing to charge less interest.

Removing credit scores changes nothing for bad borrowers, and hurts good borrowers.

Yeah, this is just people not understanding how credit scores work, part #57294, lol

The fact that a worker who barely makes ends meet pays 10-20 times the taxes Amazon pays is… Fascinating in a dark way.

That is absolutely not a fact, lmao.