an-android-in-a-tutu

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

So two of the kids I watch gathered that I am a witch because A: I like bugs B: My hair is purple and C: my bones make weird sounds. They very much like me and call me the nice witch.

Part 1 here!

Part 3

(Check my page for more stories soon)

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

Oppositional sexism is a very useful term actually. Like, so much is better explained by the idea of “there’s a societal belief that men and women should remain opposites and should have no overlapping traits” than “this is homophobia/transphobia”. Why does society hate displays of femininity in men and masculinity in women? It’s oppositional sexism. They hate that you’re proof that masculinity and femininity aren’t inherently opposites. Thank you julia serano for another banger

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

Reckon that’s about all the charcoal the hospital had.

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

i know i joke about rent-lowering gunshots but i cannot emphasize enough that incest and rape kinks are extremely common. wildly popular. this is something that a lot of people fantasize about, because it’s an easily accessible taboo, it intrigues/scares/interests people and there’s a lot of content out there to absorb about it. it’s really not that out there or extreme to have those fetishes; we are talking top charters on pornhub of all places.

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

Pay attention to the particular's Mastercard's responses, because this a textbook example of how to create plausible deniability.

"Mastercard has not barred any legal transaction" is, technically, a true statement – because Mastercard is not the one processing the transactions in the first place. Mastercard does not deal directly with any merchant, and in fact typically refuses to communicate with merchants at all; there's always a payment processing service sitting in between Mastercard and the merchant, whether that's Stripe or Paypal or any of dozens of other service providers.

Consequently, there are two layers of service agreements in place: the agreement between Mastercard and the payment processing service, and the agreement between the payment processing service and the merchant. That second layer of service agreements, between the payment processing service and the merchant, is where all of these content restrictions are being imposed. Mastercard can thus truthfully claim that they aren't barring legal transactions.

Now, if you've been paying attention, you've probably already spotted the issue: if the content restrictions are being imposed upon the merchants by individual payment processing services and not by Mastercard, why do all of those payment processing services seem to have exactly the same content restrictions?

That's where the critical sleight of hand comes in: while Mastercard's own terms of service do not require payment processing services to bar transactions of particular types, their ToS does require payment processors to bar transactions which could be damaging to the Mastercard brand. What constitutes damage to the Mastercard brand is not defined; it means whatever Mastercard wants it to mean. The payment processing services are thus in a position where they can be held in breach of Mastercard's terms of service for basically any reason, which gives them a strong incentive not to test any boundaries.

And that's why Mastercard can truthfully say they have never barred any legal transaction: they're never the ones doing the blocking. The layer of payment processing services that sits between Mastercard and the merchants are enforcing those content restrictions, based on a series of unwritten handshake agreements between the payment processors and Mastercard regarding what does and does not constitute acceptable content – and because the particulars of those handshake agreements aren't in writing, Mastercard can assert that their terms of service do not compel payment processing services to bar any legal transaction and technically be telling the truth.

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

Even if you are completely indifferent or even negative on porn you need to understand that having to give sites like discord or tumblr your ID or picture to verify your age is really, really bad with regards to privacy and cybersecurity.

That stuff can and will get leaked or stolen. It happens regularly, and then it can be used to dox you, steal your identity, and more.

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

baby i could treat you so good you just have to get past my strange and off-putting demeanor and my kubrick stare and my inability to behave like a human and the 40 layers of icy fortress walls i have up and answer my riddles three

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

do not let up the pressure

https://yellat.money/

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

There is literally no circumstance where I support age verification to access a website. As I've said before I'm very much the "there's nuance here" person on almost everything but on this issue there's no nuance for me, it's awful and horrible in and of itself and it also sets an awful and horrible precedent

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

yeah this is where this was always gonna fuckin go, unfortunately

she’s 35 years old, by the way

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

really really mind boggling how since the whole tariff thing started you can hear in the news every day that america cannot function without cheap overseas labor and that the exact same labor would have to be abundantly compensated in the us of a and then we just breeze past that. like um guys. the evil implication is right behind me, isn't it

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

[an-android-in-a-tutu]

[an-android-in-a-tutu]