damnedfurry
@damnedfurry@lemmy.world
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 3 days ago:
How do you get a mortgage in the US if you’ve never had ANY credit before?
You could have googled this in less time than it took you to ask the question.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 3 days ago:
If you’ve never fallen behind, or it’s been over 5 years since you paid off your delinquent debts, there’s no record.
It’s kind of similar in the US, negative things are gone 7 years later, regardless of whether they were resolved.
The country is Estonia. Mortgage delinquency rates are 0.17% over 60 days late as of last year. Home ownership rate is about 80% and a lot of those are mortgaged.
I’m seeing about 20% of homeowners having mortgages in Estonia, I wouldn’t call 1 in 5 a lot. It’s more like 60% in the US.
Also reading up on this, it looks like some post Soviet-era policies gave a lot of people the ability to buy their homes outright for a fraction of the cost in the 90s, so it seems a lot of what you’re saying is the result of inertia from that. From what I read, it also seems Estonians are more likely than Americans to ‘live within their means’ as well, being much more averse in general to going into debt. That’s definitely going to contribute to that low delinquency rate.
There are good reasons to avoid delinquency. The bailiffs can get your bank accounts even in other EU countries arrested if you keep refusing to pay. Also the debt registry system is fairly effective. You won’t be getting any major credit for at least 5 years once you’re in on it.
This all sounds pretty similar to how it is in the US.
Banks are also willing to work with people on alternative payment schedules if they get in trouble. I’d wager that saves everyone involved some money and time too.
This is also true in the US.
Overall, from what I’m seeing, I don’t think any of the significant differences you’ve mentioned between Estonia and the US can be chalked up to how our credit score system works versus how it is there—you honestly describe a very similar system, and there are much more obvious reasons for the differences that I saw in the bit of research I did.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 4 days ago:
In my country there’s debt registries (that you can only be put into when you’re late enough on a payment) and lenders will usually ask you for proof of income and list of obligations, or account statements for the last 6 months, to determine if you’re capable of paying back.
So you have a system that’s only different than the US’s in the minutia—fundamentally, it’s still lenders using information from the to-be borrower’s past to try and determine how risky it is to lend to them.
Which is what the person I was replying to is saying is a bad thing for lenders to have access to.
If your income is high enough and your expenses are noticeably lower than your income, and you don’t have an outstanding debt registry entry, you’re eligible for a loan.
This doesn’t protect lenders from people who are plenty capable of handling a debt with the income they have, but don’t, because they’re irresponsible with that income. But that may be more of an issue in the US than in your country overall, culturally.
Our mortgage delinquency rates are lower than in the US.
What’s your rate, if you don’t want to reveal your country of residence directly? Just to make sure you’re not using figures from around the 2008 scandal (primarily caused by a bunch of lenders giving mortgages to people who shouldn’t have qualified); It’s 1.78% in the US presently.
And home ownership rates are pretty high
Define “pretty high”, so I can get a better idea; it’s 65% in the US presently, for reference.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
Credit score bad. Next.
Nah, it’s good for me to know the risk before I lend to someone. Only bad borrowers are against their reputation re repayment history not being public.
Without credit scores, nepotism and bigotry are what decides who gets loans, since lenders will have nothing but ‘vibes’ to go off of. No thanks.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
you are a good investment if you are reliable to pay back your loans at maximum interest.
That sentence is correct only if you omit the last three words. The credit reporting agencies don’t even know what the interest rate is on a given loan. Also, your credit score goes up from paying a credit card off (i.e. down to a $0 balance) every month, which means you’re paying literal zero interest.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
taking out loans and paying them back is the most well known way of raising a credit score.
This is so much the case that many financial institutions have “credit builder loans” which are essentially a loophole for building credit, where you’re given a ‘fake loan’ that you repay, then you’re given back your payments at the end of it. Meanwhile, the credit reporting agencies see that you took out a loan and faithfully repaid it, so your credit score goes up.
One arguably unjust part about credit scores is that the actions of people related to you, or simply sharing the same surname as you, can affect it! E.G i have heard that a friend-of-a-friend’s dad took out too many loans and now their credit score suffers.
It doesn’t work that way, at all. Credit scores are individual. Either that person is mistaken, or they were a co-signer on one or more of those loans (which makes them matter to their score also).
Anyway if it’s true that the actions of other people can affect your credit score
It’s not, they can’t.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
The credit score was always a measure of how individuals took on an paid off debt in a way that the creditors wanted for maximum profits.
This is demonstrably bullshit.
Someone who maxes out a credit card, and then only pays minimum payments, and always makes them late, is, via interest accruing and late payment fees, making the lender basically the maximum amount of profit possible. And yet doing this will result in a garbage credit score, because using every penny of your credit limit is very detrimental to your credit score, and not making payments on time is extremely detrimental to your credit score.
Meanwhile, take me, someone who never pays a cent of interest, because he pays off his card every statement cycle (and on time, naturally), and because of card rewards, I’m the one profiting, the lender is literally the one paying me, and ‘yet’, my credit score is in the 800s.
So how do you reconcile that with your assumed truth quoted above? It’s very hard to understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion you did, while also knowing (as I assume you do) that late payments simultaneously hurt your credit score and increase profit for the lender, just as one example.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
There must be something else to it.
Massive understatement—it’d be more accurate to say they’re completely wrong, lol.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
No joke, I’ve had a car dealership tell me they can’t sell me the car I want because my credit score was nonexistent (no credit history in 7 years). I was paying in full, in cash, literally in an envelope in my hand.
The dealership wanted you to finance so that you’ll pay them interest, because they make more money that way. If they completely refused, what’s most likely is that the car was being sold at a price that gives them zero/negative profit margin, so without financing, they’d literally take a loss selling it for straight cash.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
Credit scores are used to tell companies how much they can earn on lending you money.
This is demonstrably bullshit.
Someone who maxes out a credit card, and then only pays minimum payments, and always makes them late, is, via interest accruing and late payment fees, making the lender basically the maximum amount of profit possible. And yet doing this will result in a garbage credit score, because using every penny of your credit limit is very detrimental to your credit score, and not making payments on time is extremely detrimental to your credit score.
Meanwhile, take me, someone who never pays a cent of interest, because he pays off his card every statement cycle (and on time, naturally), and because of card rewards, I’m the one profiting, the lender is literally the one paying me, and ‘yet’, my credit score is in the 800s.
So how do you reconcile that with the assertion quoted above? It’s very hard to understand how anyone can arrive at the conclusion you did, while also knowing (as I assume you do) that late payments simultaneously hurt your credit score and increase profit for the lender, just as one example.
Paying back quickly reduces the amount they can earn, lowering your credit score.
Straight-up lie.
The way I understand it, to raise your credit score you need to slowly pay back your loans, so you pay back maximum interest.
You don’t understand it.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
No CC gets instantly closed when you pay it off. I pay my CCs off every single month.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
Ridiculous, you can have a fantastic credit score just by using a credit card in place of when you’d otherwise use cash, then just pay the card off each month (which you should be able to do with no problem if you didn’t borrow more than you had in cash) no later than the due date.
No interest accrued, credit score over 800. Easy.
- Comment on Anon tries to understand credit scores 5 days ago:
Thank you, holy shit, I get so frustrated seeing the most obviously-disproven misconceptions flying around even communities that purport to be savvy, lol.
- Comment on It's basic science 2 weeks ago:
I don’t know if “give” is a fair word to use there, lol
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
I think that you ignore an important part of the picture when you ignore perceptions of you as part of your identity.
But I’d argue that allowing those perceptions to shape your identity, to any extent, is equivalent to forfeiting part of who you are to them, and allowing others to define you. That seems really unhealthy to me.
Have you seen the Clayton Biggsby sketch on the Chappelle show with the blind black white supremacist? He had no knowledge of being black, but I think most people would still argue that it formed a major part of his identity regardless of his own concept of himself.
I have, and yeah, I guess I just don’t see it that way. His identity ironically clashed with his biology, but it doesn’t make sense to me that an aspect of yourself you have literally no knowledge of can be considering part of your “identity”.
Maybe I just see the concept of “identity” as borne of, and residing fully in, one’s own consciousness.
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
When you’re talking about gay folk and same sex attraction conceptually, you don’t call it “homosexualism” or “gayology”. You would use the term homosexuality or same sex attraction.
Okay, so if I want a single word, “transgenderality”? That really just sounds bizarre, I have to say. Not to mention I’ve never seen any person talking about trans issues ever say/write that.
The issue is explicitly the “ism”. The -ism suffix is used to denote political and ideological beliefs
That’s only one way that suffix is used, and it’s assumption on your part that when you see that suffix, that that’s the way it’s being used. In other words, I think you should allow for the possibility that it ain’t that deep. Was it not obvious from the context of what/how I was writing that I wasn’t coming from a transphobic place?
-ism is used for all sorts of nouns that simply describe a state of being (e.g. autism, alcoholism, absenteeism), and that’s all I aimed for. And from what you said in your comment, it seems like this is uncharted territory, if there’s no actual single word term regularly employed for this particular state of being—all of your examples are multiple words.
P.S. By the way, I don’t really care if something inherently benign is popular among shitty people—in my opinion, all the more reason to take it away from them, by using it benignly more often than they use it pejoratively. It was successfully done with “queer”, I say keep that train running!
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
part of identity is our relationships to other people.
I wouldn’t agree, simply because I consider relationships as existing between people, not within them individually, and more as ‘facts of the matter’, as opposed to immutable aspects of individuals themselves. But again, this is simply a disagreement on the definition of “identity”. I’m not saying your definition is wrong, but it obviously is different.
A familial connection is a fact about someone’s lineage, but it is no more a part of someone’s identity than to the extent that that individual chooses to make it so. If I was adopted and have never met the woman who birthed me, then yes, she’s still my mother even though I never knew her. But that being a fact has no inherent relationship to my identity. The same is true if I was raised by my birth mother but am now estranged, and she has no part of/in my life—she’ll always literally be my mother, but in this case, her existence is no part of my identity any longer.
Nonconsensual trauma that alters one’s sense of self against one’s will is the only thing that muddies this water at all, I think, but even in a case like that, it is only from within that whatever degree (whether zero or nonzero) those events shape one’s identity, can change.
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
You can indeed become a completely different person when afflicted with Alzheimer’s, dementia, or a brain tumor. It doesn’t retroactively change who you were before, of course…but it can absolutely fundamentally change you.
I know this first-hand.
I never asserted that identity is immutable, nor that only that it is not defined by outside perception of other people.
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
Also, “transgenderism” is a term popular with transphobes, because it frames trans people as a belief/ideology, rather than acknowledging their identity.
What am I supposed to call it, when talking about this as a concept, outside of referring to a specific person. Transgendericity? Transgenderology?
Throw me a bone here, don’t just insinuate I’m a transphobe just because I casually tossed ‘ism’ onto the end of a word to noun-ify it in a sentence, without even offering a correction.
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
Every person who knows you has a concept of you in their minds.
Yes, of course.
This is a part of your identity
I don’t agree with calling that concept “identity”. Others “concept of you” is just that, their idea of you. That does not define you, in any way.
It’s why people are negatively affected when others misgender them.
Actually, I think this bolsters my point, not yours. The whole reason being misgendered is a negative experience is because that person’s “concept of you” is wrong. They see you that way, but that is not the way you are. Your identity comes from you, and you alone.
In the end, it’s obvious we have different definitions of “identity” and that’s what our disagreement is rooted in. I define identity as the sum of what comprises one’s sense of self.
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
I think you could say part of one’s identity exists outside of the person.
That doesn’t really make sense to me. It would imply that some part of who you are is defined by outside perception, and I definitely don’t agree with that, especially considering that there are an indefinite number of outside perspectives, and some number of those perspectives could definitely be mutually exclusive with others, making it impossible for them both to be correct.
Simple analogy: if a triangle is viewed ‘face-on’ by one person and directly ‘edge-on’ by another, the former will perceive it as a triangle, and the latter, as a line. Something can’t be a line and a triangle simultaneously, so how can these outside perspectives both be any part of what defines the identity of that object?
- Comment on In 2015, the Fortingall Yew, one of the oldest trees in Europe, decided trans rights are tree rights and switched its sex to female 🏳️⚧️ eat shit transphobes 2 weeks ago:
🤓 Being trans has to do with gender identity, not sex. The whole foundation of transgenderism as a concept is that sex and gender identity are independent elements of a person. So as a corollary (I think, haven’t used that word in a while lol), no non-sapient creature can ever be trans, because you need consciousness to have a gender identity in the first place.
- Comment on I think there's an imposter amongus 2 weeks ago:
Suddenly remembered Mitch Hedberg saying on stage, after some of his newer material didn’t land as well, “My old shit’s better than my new shit~”
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
This is 10x more aligned with the smug condescension of the “Reddit” stereotype than anything I’ve ever written. You’re projecting.
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
Concession accepted.
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
your dumb misinterpreted study has been posted and debunked to hell and back.
- Show me the alleged debunking. Claiming it exists while seething at me is not convincing. If it’s the same argument made by that other person, I already broke it down and showed how it doesn’t hold water, so make sure not to repeat it.
- Actually, now that I think about it, it’s ironically you that can’t read by your definition of literacy, because you failed to understand that it was a hypothetical analogy to begin with, that works just fine even if said study didn’t even exist in the first place. The actual point all along is that it’s wrong, morally and practically, to generalize that way about the entirety of any demographic.
But it seems all you’ve demonstrated proficiency in is slinging clumsy, unoriginal (more irony!) barbs.
And you’re also delusional. I’m not surprised.
You know what’s extra ironic about your reply? It was literally my partner getting my attention for a moment that broke my train of thought and resulted in me not completing that sentence. Of course, now it’s best not to fix it until after I share this exchange with her, it’ll make her reading this part extra amusing. :)
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
Then I would tell you you’re not original
Is this a bad time to point out that “are the lesbians okay” yields a paltry 172 results on Google (and on top of that, the first page of results is mostly not people using it the way the hypothetical in my analogy does)?
Seems much more original than most things you can find online, objectively speaking.
“data”
Poisoning the well. State what makes it illegitimate, with specificity, if you can.
it doesn’t say what you think it says so you can’t read.
Even if I did misinterpret any given source of information, calling me illiterate for doing so is comically over-the-top cruel. For shame.
I’d also remind you reactions like that are why you’re single.
The person I just celebrated an anniversary with would be very amused to read this. And like me, she’d recognize
Anyway, if you’d like to at least pretend to be someone who’s interested in more than creating an illiterate unlovable strawman to insult for your own ego’s sake, here is my response to a far less caustic retort.
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
But that alone doesnt say who is doing the abuse. Remember lesbians often date men before coming out.
Short version: They certainly aren’t more likely to have dated men than the female demographic that dates exclusively men, and also reports a much lower domestic violence incidence than them. The above absolutely does not hold water as refutation.
Long version:
Even if we assumed the following for the sake of argument:
- X% of men are abusers
- zero women are abusers
- 100% of lesbians have dated men at some point
- The lesbians have the exact same number of male partners on average as women who have had exclusively male partners
Then in aggregate, the abuse incidence between hetero women and lesbians would be effectively equal.
However, in reality, 2 is obviously more than zero, 3 is obviously less than 100%, and re 4, lesbians obviously have fewer male partners on average than hetero women. And all three of those facts push the incidence rate of DV for the lesbians up to be higher than that of women who have only ever dated men, without there being any change in how many male abusers there are.
When asking whether the perpetrator was male or female and separating the data, the stats shifted. Lesbians experienced less DV from their female partners than straight women do from their male ones.
Got a link for that?
Women are also capable of abuse of course
That’s arguably a significant understatement, according to this study:
- Comment on Anon asks out a girl 4 weeks ago:
If I linked to the data showing that f/f couples have higher domestic violence than either m/f or m/m couples and then said ‘I keep asking “are lesbians okay”’, would you not think that a callous and insensitive thing to say?
- Comment on The existence of billionaires is a policy failure 1 month ago:
The downvoters almost certainly didn’t even make it to the end of the comment before they clicked the down arrow and resumed scrolling. The last sentence made it 10x more obvious, imo.