What people are speculating is that Magnus' prep got leaked to Hans leading to him researching this line. Of course just speculation, no hard proof. I tend to be of the mindset of "innocent until proven guilty".
Because no matter how much the dollar depreciates, the amount of debt itself always increases, and the actual dollar amount of the debt is what people pay. The fact that $50,000 in debt is worth 10% less than $50,000 x years ago does not mean $5,000 of that debt was "forgiven."
And even if that were the case, then interest on that debt would easily cancel the effect out, since interest far outstrips inflation on many student loans.
Arguing that student loans are "forgiven" and that no action needs to be taken because deflation is solving the problem, despite the crushing weight of that debt on so many borrowers even when they're trying to work it off, is twisted logic.
> actual dollar amount of the debt is what people pay
Exactly right! A loan is a time capsule of prices. Wouldn't you rather buy a house 30 years ago than right now?
> interest far outstrips inflation on many student loans
Maybe on some, but not on the federally subsidized student loans we are talking about here. My interest is something like 2.25% (not including the 2 years payments have been frozen). Even when inflation was pretty stagnant, you would be hard pressed to find many years below that.
Consider an extreme example. You take out a $300,000 loan to buy a house. The next day, there's suddenly hyperinflation and now $300,000 is the average price of a meal, or less than most people earn in an hour. You basically got a free house.
I and many other believe that the government should not have the power to interview, detain, or do anything else to a person based on the contents of "offensive tweets".
Just because something is codified in law doesn't make it right.
I'm generally on the side that the side that this kind of stuff is generally nonsense, but I also think that you're being a bit narrow minded in your interpretation of "offensive tweets".
Can you honestly not think of any "offensive" tweets that you think would constitute harrassment and benefit from someone telling you to get your shit together? (edit: by which I mean police attention).
e.g. "I hope your {{family member}} gets {{offensive act}}'d"
Replace with favourite family member, and most offensive act you can think of.
At that point I believe it would be more beneficial to just have them banned from the site or block them if it's continuous harassment not police intervention. If they go further, then it's not an offensive tweet that would become threats, which is a completely different topic from offensive tweets. I don't like the idea of being put into jail because of what someone else finds offensive. Being banned from Twitter won't make it harder to get jobs and live your life, like jail time / a record will. Saying I hope something happens to someone is nowhere near as bad in my opinion as saying you're planning to do something and giving a detailed layout of someones house and daily plan.
They're not giving you permission, they're defending their own beliefs. "You" here could be replaced by "one" or "a person", similar to the French pronoun "on".
