Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??
Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit?
Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn’t know the answer
Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you.
*You don’t actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor.
It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.
Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you’ll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they’re doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.)
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
That’s why it’s called “the lesser of two evils.”
The problem is that they aren’t two evils, they’re two parts of the same evil machine whose functions are mutually dependent and mutally reinforcing
“The United States is also a one-party state, but in typical American extravagance, they have two of them.” -Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
Under the policies of the greater evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them. Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die due to climate change because corporate profits are more important than human lives to them.
It makes no difference, both parties should be opposed and true change can only come through revolution and the abolition of the capitalist class.
Under the policies of the lesser evil, billions will die as you say.
Under the policies and rhetoric of the greater evil, a woman just got brutally murdered in California for the crime of hanging a fucking flag outside her shop.
My point, as I have been trying in vain to make this whole time (but apparently don’t have the writing ability to convey) is that if you’re fucked no matter what you do, then do the thing that hurts your friends less.
If you have some other course of action that can lead to actual change, then tell me. If you have some other course of action that will help my trans friends today, then tell me. Because billions dying over the next century doesn’t mean much to people who get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death today.
I want to believe there’s a better way, though, so explain it to me.
I agree with everything but the “it makes no difference” part. Thinking it makes no difference is a privilege a whole shit ton of people can’t afford.
They’re both horrible. Capitalism sucks. But to say there’s no difference? That’s just delusional. You’re missing the trees for the forest.
Until that “true change” you’re talking about happens, I’m not willing to sit by and let women, immigrants, minorities, and LGBTQIA+ people get fucked over even worse than I am. And fuck you if you are.
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.
MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.
But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.
Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.
As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.
I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.
I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.
And it’s not like there aren’t better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren’t usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn’t actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.
Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.
In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn’t include these “democracies” and is more along the lines of “a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end.”
Big yes to the scam that is liberal democracy. One terrible use of libs calling things democracy when they aren’t is blanketly condemning everyone in some place bc someone got elected: Russia and every red state in the USA. These places are full of people who do not support the government and had no real chance of electing real representation nor would those elected officals really be useful.
In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000
That makes perfect sense though. The UK government subsidizes/funds the universities, and in turn domestic students are more likely to have higher paying jobs and pay more tax. Foreign students are more likely to leave after graduating, so no tax for the government once they go.
Australia has a similar system.
How do you get college without tuition, affordable housing, or not-for-profit healthcare without taxes?
The real scam is the widespread aversion to taxation.
It is a sham. I agree with you, we shouldn’t be the world’s army. Israel, Ukraine. Way too much money and military weaponry given away.
