• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They can’t provide proof because it’s blatantly untrue. Perhaps they propose going to back to in-person interviews to determine credit worthiness?

    “John goes to my church, solid guy. Approved.”

    “I’m sorry Jamal, maybe come back when you have lighter skin?”

    • floatingpaperweight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m going to translate what you’re saying in simpler terms, maybe you’ll come to understand that what you’re saying isn’t quite alright.

      “Back in the day they used to force feed horse shit to people”

      “nowadays we put a lot of effort making the horse shit look more appetizing by wrapping it in a tortilla and sprinkling some chives on it and delivering it right to their doors. Can you believe those same people are still complaining? They got no idea how good they have it now”

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re all waiting on you to propose an alternative to unbiased credit reporting. Unless, perhaps, and this is just a guess, you’re an angry teenager with no clue how all this works?

        “Here’s a system where race is utterly anonymous, credit worthiness is determined by a formula. Beats hell out of interviewing in person.”

        “That’s racist!”

        Are your parents aware that you’re interacting with adults online?

        • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yo that’s a pretty mean comment. I’d appreciate if you could tone that down a bit.

          Also people can point at a broken system and say “that’s broken” without having the expertise to tell you exactly how to fix it. Political policy is an area of expertise on its own and we can’t expect everyone to become an overnight expert