i don’t disagree but it’s interesting i think that by this point this isn’t a man dressed badly in a professional space, this is a man dressed in a particular business uniform that communicates certain values precisely the way a suit would in another context
@eigenrobot I had significant savings and a detailed budget so it wasn’t a stressor. Just funny to me what the OP might say about marrying an unemployed guy with no car.
@eigenrobot I was unemployed when I bought the ring, so I think that’s ~infinity months’ salary.
It was probably 2-3 weeks of what I made shortly before. She wanted to limit it to $1000. She’d probably be upset if she knew how much I actually paid.
@btc2008@emptywheel Depends on the program they’re associated with or the info they contain. Some things you can sanitize pretty easily (specific names, dates, locations, etc out of otherwise unclassified statements) but others even the existence of the info is highly classified.
It’s really easy to dunk on people not paying their debts. That doesn’t address the unrealistic expectations presented at every turn to the people taking out the loans.
Righteous indignation is fine when your coworker never pays you back for lunch. But this?
I’m not in any position to comment on the economics of debt relief, but the issues unique to student debt are that
1. We millennials grew up assuming that college=good job/pay and that therefore almost any cost would be worth it.
Setting aside Executive Power or The Economy or transactional politics, helping out some people who got screwed and taking steps to keep it from happening to new generations seems like a good thing to me.
@emptywheel I mean, has he had any life experiences that might make him think he’d need to do that? Not to say you’re wrong of course—but as a behavioral science matter he may just not have experienced feedback in life that would make him want to act fast here.
@NomeDaBarbarian Thanks for the thread. I also have trouble forming habits and now I suspect this may be related. Excited to dig into some head science.
This is especially bad considering that there are no sides without a history of bad faith. Like, that’s been the whole game for centuries. At best, it’s been people compromising their political principles for their moral ones.
This is true if you have no other principles to go by. It doesn’t make sense to decide e.g. some of your neighbors are unworthy of equal rights because you think Dems have an ugly history unless you never really cared about that.
(Replies blocked or I’d say it in the thread)
a faction's history of acting in bad faith is a perfectly good grounds for adopting a social position against them and insinuating that its not is straight up enabling abuse. dont let yourself become a victim of this mans deranged framing