ObjectivityIncarnate

If women’s compliments towards men were the same as men’s compliments towards women, I think men would also dislike it.

Nah.

Every time I’ve ever heard of an experiment where indignant women do/say to men the exact same things that they hate getting from men, they’re always astonished to see the men’s reactions as practically universally positive:

If the goal of the experiment was to make men feel the weird combination of creeped-out and ashamed that comes with everyday objectification, then the experiment failed. Instead, these fellas look flattered and expectant. You can practically see them plotting the nearest route to the cheapest hotel.

Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

This is a perfectly succinct, textbook example of Outcome Bias.

Betting $1 with a 1 in 3 chance to win $2 is objectively a bad idea; the odds are against you. It doesn’t cease to be a bad idea if you happen to win the $2 after 1 bet.

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.

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.