Nice, although wouldn't work today. Modern distros (ime, fedora 42) need you to update policy and reboot. You can't connect with just --key-exchange YOLO1 any more
I hate network vendors. Wish I could put BSD on my old Catalysts.
The NSA is an American body, and Trump is the subject of a personality cult far in excess of any European monarch. Authoritarianism is a personality trait independent of political structures.
If you think for a moment, you'll realise that it's irrelevant whether marriage is important to you - it's important to many.
So when a person wishes to deny this important institution to a minority, they are creating an out-group and discriminating against them.
By that logic, we can put those discriminators themselves in an out-group and discriminate against them. We can deny them institutions such as directorships. Fair's fair.
It's more than fair - despite what conversion camps want to sell, being queer is an intransigent characteristic. Being a bully is just a choice. Discriminating against bullies is as morally just as discriminating against the incompetent.
They don't come with all the downsides. They externalise the reduced forward visibility for people behind you, the headlights spinning onto other users' cabins, the running over of toddlers, and, my favourite, the driving in the middle of the road rather than risk getting mud on their fucking tyres
No tax rate is too high. Rebates for agricultural workers maybe.
That's funny. Because I lived in Peckham for a decade, and it's obvious to me that money is fucking fucking tight for a lot of working families.
It's obvious to me that zero-hour contracts have massively reduced labour power.
It's obvious to me that energy bills are crippling.
It's obvious to me that there has been galloping inflation over the last decade.
It's obvious to me that all food has become more expensive since Brexit, notably including fresh fruit and veg.
It's obvious to me that rent is increasing faster than wages, and that it's well over 50% of income for millions of households.
It's obvious to me that benefits can be speciously cut at any moment, by policy of "climate of hostility", leaving a recipient unable to cover bills for a month while they take time off work and chid care to bang their heads on the bureaucracy.
When I say "obvious", I mean it literally: these things are in plain sight. When you say it, what I understand you to mean is that you have strong preconceptions making your blind. Could you kindly not Marie Antoinette in my country, thanks ever so.
Nitpick: "gammon" as a constituency refers to boomers and older Gen X, typically financially comfortable, who are declining in intellectual openness and increasing in strength of opinion. They are called "gammon" because their faces go bright pink as they rail against the EU, immigrants, woke nonsense, and the laziness of today's youth. They can come from any strata of society, but they are made by being insulated from economic reality during their intellectual decline. Their defining characteristic is that they are choleric about topics of which they know nothing, and this makes them easily led by jingoistic tubthumping.
It's awfully condescending to insinuate that these people are in mental decline just for having the opinions you don't like. You don't have the answers to these problems you speak of, any more than the older and wiser plebs. You might like woke nonsense, infinite immigrants, loss of national sovereignty, etc. but frankly you ought to know better or at least be open to the idea that you don't know it all.
Tosh. The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers. You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
>You think you can define me, because I scorn gammon - you must think you're still on Facebook.
I don't use Facebook, lol. You just defined yourself by checking off all the usual liberal talking points and practically claiming that conservatives are old and brain-addled simpletons. There was no nuance afforded to conservative views anywhere in it.
>The axis is not leave/remain or pro/anti-immigration, it's having an interest in nuance versus settling for simplistic answers.
There are simple wrong answers and nuanced wrong answers, and the left employs both kinds of narrative to achieve their ends. I do have nuanced views but I refuse to take part in further fence-sitting and waffling when it comes to issues that affect me.
It's unclear which meaning of "betrays" you intend. If you think it's counterproductive to be so direct and emphatic, let me rephrase it: I am against all but a small amount of immigration of very high-quality people, whereas liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration. If you think I "betrayed" my intent by expressing this clearly, it was no secret or mystery to begin with.
Your misrepresentation of opposing views betrays a lack of intellectual openness. For example:
> liberals are in favor of practically unlimited immigration
Do you think "liberals" (are you from the UK btw?) are in favour of 5 billion people immigrating to the UK? Of course not. They just disagree that the current levels of immigration are as big a problem as right-wing media makes out.
I question "mainstream". I would say it's a peculiarly American blend of prosperity gospel and pick-and-choose.
America didn't invent those tenors of self-serving cant, but it is the exemplar today
This supposed Christianity was one of the bigger factors in the assassination of reality, but ultimately we have these cunts because Zuckerberg gave a platform to perennial losers.
