damnedfurry

You said something stupid, and it was identified as such. That's not being offended.

Though the fact that you had to assume several things about me personally to rationalize the way you behave, as your ego is apparently just too fragile to conceive of the possibility that YTA, says a lot, and makes me wonder if you're available in IMAX.

What’s your source on that? Your arse?

Good luck finding a single source in any country that has females being on the receiving end of violence more often than males per capita, overall.

I think you’re an incel who hates women and doesn’t care about violence against them.

That's because you're enough of a fool to think caring about male suffering is misogynistic. All I did was point out your deliberate blindness to the suffering of half of humanity, by describing the half that is assaulted and killed less, as the half with the 'epidemic' of violence against them.

It's like when the reaction to 11% of journalists killed the year before being women is to say "stop targeting female journalists". You're so deeply sexist that the 89% who are male don't even land on your radar.

Men don’t deserve empathy.

You're sexist scum.

You know what else is an epidemic? Violence against women and girls

Men and boys are victims of violence at an order of magnitude greater frequency, you just don't care because you hate males, so only female suffering bothers you.

Misandry isn't a problem compared to misogyny, and likely wouldn't exist if there was no misogyny

This is what peak anti-male sexism looks like.

"Who cares?" Yeah, not your pathetic, empathy-free ass, you've made that abundantly clear.

For shame.

need a large gender affirming car

???

This is a projection of your own brainrot sexism, nothing more.

Don't try to make it sound like you ever mocked a woman for having a large car, either, you're not fooling anyone with "people", lol.

Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

I’ll be honest, I’m burned out. I need a break from morons and their stories. I really do.

You need to stop going out of your way to doomscroll on social media, then. It's ultimately entirely in your power to not be exposed to them.

I'm being serious. It's not good for you--social media makes it extremely easy to be exposed to negativity 24/7 if you're looking for it, since you're 1 person in a world of over 8 billion. You don't have to get even close to 1% of the people being assholes, for this to be not only possible, but trivially easy.

The human psyche is literally not designed to withstand the kind of barrage technology has made possible. Please do not feel guilty about giving yourself a break at times, to say the very least.

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.