>But the underlying objection was that you shouldn't need to go into debt to get access to higher education in the first place, ie college should not be insanely expensive and you should be able to manage the academic and financial demands with a part time job.

But we're conflating social credit with credit scores are we? A highly contentious normative claim has little to do with OP's argument and is obviously not a basis for a rebuttal for distinctiying the two systems. Which I would imagine there is a certain intentionality in reaching for highly contrived arguments based on literal hypotheticals rather than accurate description of reality.

▲

platevoltage 9 days ago | parent [-]

> But we're conflating social credit with credit scores are we?

Yes, we are. "Your credit score is social credit." is the first sentence in the original post.

If you want to reject the entire premise of this article/blog post, thats your prerogative, but it's really not that different.

	▲	corimaith 9 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Yes, we are. That's what I'm saying here. You're the one who's making strange tangents here to try to rebutt OP. >but it's really not that different. No it's not. Because others are explaining why the premise is wrong. You using the normative assumption that "university should accessible" to conflate credit scores with the descriptive reality of social credit. That first assumption is just an opinion that far from everyone holds, and you can effectively construct hypothetical that credit scores would fail to reach to justify your point. That's not good debate, and I'd be be curious to see what dosent count as "social credit" here.