PhobosAnomaly

A great question. I was going to call it a “thought experiment”, but as Wikipedia more succinctly calls it, a “philosophical concept”. I’m wary of jumping to the paradox of tolerance as a device to handwave away violence against anyone.

It’s an important point to consider and it raises vital questions that challenges my own argument, but ultimately the rights of the human override any philosophical ideals.

In this instance, I would much rather preserve the rights of any person - arsehole or not - rather than subject them to sexual violence because of a perceived difference in political opinion.

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your insight.

We still disagree, but I genuinely appreciate the additional context you have to offer. I’m not wholly altruistic, I think Fuentes is a massive piece of human garbage.

But, he is human - and with that, is his right to human rights.

I don’t like him as much as the next person and that is an entirely subjective opinion, but levelling the same kind of hatred and lack of compassion effectively makes you no better than fanny balls Fuentes is. It’s a dangerously small leap from <I don’t like what this person stands for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault, to <they don’t like what I stand for> and therefore sanctioning sexual assault.

I suspect we’re on the same broad page, but our means are vastly different.

You and I are on such vastly different platforms that you’re one of the few people I don’t think I can find any common ground with. Whereas I agree one’s own qualified rights end where others rights begin, I consider basic human rights to be absolute, and certainly not influenced by whatever political views you do or don’t share.

By extension, the abstracted opinion of “I think it’s funny that <a group of people I don’t like> <experiences something terrible>” is borderline fascism in itself, and your position is cancerous to any anti-fascist movement you’re involved in.

Nah it wasn’t. Although I really should listen to more of her stuff.

Seriously though, what is the deal with trying to stop others from doing the exact same thing that you are doing by speaking in the imperative form?

It’s a comment section after all.

Stop trying to police language.

dat irony tho

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but:

Many of us heard it back in 2016, but the media

I lost interest after this. Someone’s talking about normalising the sexual assault of a group of people - as likeable or dislikeable as they may be - and all I can see is some “I told you so” word salad?

I’m sorry if I’ve picked you up wrong, but I’m happy to be corrected.

Do you hear yourself?

More like Max Burnout amirite???

Poor soul.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

$ undelete spankmonkey

$ chmod 0 dtrump

$ 10 PRINT “DONGS”

$ 20 GOTO 10

Andrex is much cheaper, if admittedly a little less satisfying.

Awesome. I miss the raised numerals on the front of the card.

I don’t think there is in terms of process, I think payment handlers just add a higher charge for processing credit card payments, which is why stingy retailers dislike them.

I’m happy to be corrected though.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear.

I’m assuming the 16 digit card number, start and expiry dates, and CVV are printed on the reverse - whereas it used to only have the CVV on the reverse and the rest of the details on the front.

What’s stopping someone with a picture of the rear of the card visiting an online retailer and going wild with a picture of just one side of the card these days - aside from multi-factor authentication at the point of authorising the payment?

Absolutely spot on, thank you - always handy to know.

I’m wondering what it does to mitigate the “card not present” fraud though, for online purchases or remote purchases?

As entertaining as that is, it does raise the question - why do they put all of the details on the back now?

I thought one of the main reasons that the CVV was on the signature strip was so if a card was photocopied, photographed, or carbon copied (literally on carbon paper), then it was still less possible to clone the card.

Is “physical” cloning so small of a problem now that it’s more beneficial to make fancy looking cards? Anyone in the industry able to shine a light?

also branding

particularly the style that gives up on capitalisation and punctuation

this is not primary school

It was, but as Atari was known for, was just a fancy new shell on eight year old hardware not too dissimilar to the 2600 or VCS or whatever your region calls it.

My parents went down the home computer route, and I ended up with an 800 XE.

It was beautiful. The detachable keyboard, the IBM-grey sleek housing, the pastel console buttons, and satisfying “chi-chuunnnggg” of the spring loaded power button.

I felt like I had the future under the palms of my hand.