pull down to refresh

The author basically argues that since banks take federal money or subsidies (e.g. in the form of FDIC and bailouts), they fall under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by organizations taking federal money. Thus Congress should stop the banks from discriminating based on political speech.
I think it's laughable to expect Congress to do anything about it. In fact, they're probably one of the biggest beneficiaries of bank discrimination, as they can leverage their political power to help "unbank" or "rebank" their political friends/foes.
The best solution to bank discrimination is one that people on SN already know much about :)
reply
Are we really so distracted we are now fighting the "woke" vs the "unwoke"? Anyone involved in any side of that battle is straight up smoking mad dick. The hilarious part is the people complaining about people being too woke like 15-20 years ago was inhaling Alex Jones content screaming about the "sheeple" not being woke enough. They apparently woke up and now everyone wants to act upset about it? The fuck does anyone want?
Distractions everywhere.
reply
If you aren't going to read a post, you may as well not comment on it either, because you probably won't have a useful contribution.
It's talking about cases where people have been debanked or otherwise had their finances limited because of their political opinions. Sure, the terms being used are stupid (we are living in the dumbest timeline, after all), but it's a real trend in the financial sector.
reply