It is a paradox because there’s no objective, universal definition of tolerance. It’s literally impossible to be tolerant of everything. So you’re left with different forms of what intolerance people deem acceptable.

People make the same mistake about bigotry. It’s impossible not to be a bigot. You just don’t want to be the wrong kind of bigot. Now if only we could all agree on exactly what that was.

It’s a bit too positive to encompass all that is elitism.

That is certainly a better value option if you can still get the drivers and amps for a reasonable price over there.

I went the DIY route as well and build 2 of the VBSS style subs. I wanted to build something bigger, but my wife vetoed that. AVS forum has plenty of information on design options you have.

It absolutely makes a massive difference. But you unfortunately need to spend $500+ on a subwoofer to get something that outputs the full range of what you can hear. There simply are zero subwoofers below that price point with adequate output in the 20-35 Hz range.

With regards to 4k, I can understand not caring for it. I agree that for most viewing distances and TV sizes, there’s not a massive difference. However, 1080p TVs also don’t have good HDR or the wide color gamut.

Upgrading to a 4k TV with a good peak brightness (at least ~1000 nits) will be very noticable. I especially notice it in anything with fire. It looks so much better on a 4k HDR TV than on a 1080p SDR TV.

Not on my phone it’s not.

My opinion is that the next biggest upgrade is a receiver and a 5.1 (or at least 2.1) sound setup.

I disagree, because there are some fugly people out there. Boobs are certainly no longer good boobs when the nipple is below her belly button.

Being friendly is far more effective than trying to punish people to make them agree with you. Especially when there’s no immediate and obvious consequence of their individual actions.

It doesn’t void the whole process. It may very slightly increase the degree to which it’s easier to launder money (I’m not convinced on that aspect since the money already originated from within the banking system).

Rather it prioritizes people’s right to their own property.

What you’re saying makes sense to me if you’re talking about a deposit of cash that was mailed. It doesn’t make sense to me for a wire or electronic transfer.

The person I responded to said discriminatory didn’t even make sense. I pointed out why it does make sense, because it is discriminatory and that’s perfectly fine.

Yes, that’s true and not in contrast with what I’ve said.

Then you shouldn’t let the transaction occur in the first place.

Sure, that sounds like it’s best addressed with enforcement of the requirements before keeping the money.

I’m not saying it’s a common issue. I’m saying that something like this should never occur.

I’m also not saying that I don’t value anti money laundering process. I agree those are very important.

However, I also think it’s even more important that people aren’t deprived of their money without due process. If you can’t accept it, because they’re not proving the required evidence then you should be required to return it unless there’s more to it. In order to keep the money, there needs to be some form of evidence showing money laundering not just an absence of evidence altogether.

I’m not seeing how that proves the transaction is clean.

If I put money in a bank account, then transfer it to another account, then back to the same one, the transfer back doesn’t obfuscate anything. If it’s not caught on the initial deposit in the banking system, then I’m not seeing how any subsequent transactions matter.

I understand that’s the law as it currently is. I’m saying that it shouldn’t result in any legal ramifications.

It seems they weren’t well setup, if they were then he wouldn’t have gotten to the point that he wired money before filling the required paperwork out.

You’re right that it’s incorrect about the racism. I was referring to the discrimination aspect.

If you’re aware, then why do you imply that it wasn’t discrimination? Or did I misunderstand that?

We’ve had that experience in years past, but ended up picking several items that were the lowest price in 1 to 6 months.

There weren’t any crazy discounts, but it was better than nothing.

It absolutely does make sense because it is discriminatory. He’s absolutely correct.

The mistake that you are making, is thinking that all forms of discrimination are bad. They’re not. Most are in fact good. We just don’t tend to call them discrimination.

That honestly should be the law. If you can’t accept it without documentation, you should be required to return it. Of course you can also report it, but that’s separate.

I wouldn’t say murder falls under intolerance. It certainly can, but not all the time.

if you’re not actively hurting someone besides yourself, you should be tolerated.

Who gets to define what constitutes not actively hurting someone besides yourself? Is it just as defined by you or do other people get a say? What do you do when someone decides that not wearing a hijab or extra-marital sex is actively harming others?

I hope that illustrates why this is not simple at all. It’s incredibly complex.

And as I was saying in my initial comment, it’s literally impossible to objectively define tolerance. But, you have to choose to tolerate some things and not others (because they’re mutually exclusive). So you end up with different forms of intolerance of behaviors that you deem intolerant.

Along with that, we decide that intolerance for other reasons (ie, because of a person’s genetic makeup or mode of expression) is itself harmful.

And we decide that intolerance is acceptable for many other reasons. You don’t tolerate ignorant people. You don’t tolerate people who cannot arrive on time. You don’t tolerate people who are too rude. Intolerance of those aspects

Now we can find tune and dicker about where that line of injury is, and of course there are special cases where the alleged hurt is spread around and it’s hard to decide how to adjudicate that, but that’s what the law and all its apparatus is for, after all.

The special cases are the ones where it’s actually clear. The majority of the cases are where we struggle to know where to draw the line.

Not at all. I’m not talking about just things. I’m also talking about about people.

It is not simple to determine the extent to which to tolerate different groups of people. Unless you’re saying that you want to be equally tolerant of murderers, races, all religions, and people who like pineapple on pizza.