Sometimes I even pay with cash.

May we all become older and wiser before we have to find out.

You're right of course, the root issue is trust.

If you are a new product/service vendor for me, then there is no trust yet - there hasn't been time for a trust relationship to develop. We don't have a relationship yet, and certainly not enough of one for me to trust you with any of my financial information. By asking for that up front, you are demonstrating that you are not trustworthy. You are identifying yourself as the type of business that tries to collect excessive amounts of information about its clients for no justifiable reason. And even if your intentions are completely above-board in collecting that information, I also have no idea how the information you collect is secured, and since I haven't evaluated the product yet I can't determine whether the risk of sharing financial information with you is worthwhile. My risk-reward analysis is blank on the reward side, which means that I need you to lower my entry risk.

When you make this distinction of "high trust" and "low trust" people, you are actually misusing the term "trust". Trust cannot exist without experience - it is something that develops over time through interaction. I cannot trust you if I have only just met you, it is impossible. I can be naive, and agree to what you ask for without suspicion, but naivety is not the same thing as trust. What you are calling "high trust" people would be more accurately termed "rubes" or "saps".

On average, high trust people are just easier to manage, especially when you’re a small outfit. It’s better for everyone if low trust users bounce away because of the cc wall.

What you are saying here is that it's convenient for you if people just give you what you ask for without asking too many questions or raising any objections, and you prefer customers who are generally lacking in awareness especially with regard to their own security. Of course that's convenient for you, you don't have to spend any time considering whether there's something wrong with your approach to this.

If you are disrespecting my financial security up front, and you are doing that for the sake of your own convenience, that is a very bad place to start a relationship. You are damaging the potential for trust before we've even got started, because it's "easier" for you.

A retraction.

He also posted an eight-paragraph note on the book's Amazon.com sales page, calling it "a misguided and potentially dangerous publication" and expressing his wish that the book be taken out of print.

And from wikipedia:

[...] he began writing about pedagogy and conflict resolution. This led him to renounce his book and instead campaign for its withdrawal from publication. He was unable to legally stop the publication of The Anarchist Cookbook because the copyright had been issued to the original publisher Lyle Stuart, and subsequent publishers that purchased the rights have kept the title in print. Powell publicly renounced his book in a 2013 piece calling for the book to "quickly and quietly go out of print".

So the "New word..." box seems pretty open... it accepts Unicode characters like Miscellaneous Symbols. I assume any valid Unicode character would work... I haven't tried any of the unprintable/control characters yet.

I wonder how much filtering there is... what would happen if little bobby tables showed up?

*damning

damming is when you build a wall across a river

1. I don't know if I'm "serious" yet - I am here to test the product/service. I can't determine if I am serious or not until after I have tested it, and neither can you. I should not have to share financial information with you until after I have determined that, so this justification about "seriously" wanting the product is bunk.

2. You are dipping your hand into my wallet. Just because you haven't pulled your hand back with money in it yet doesn't mean this isn't an attempt at picking my pocket.

That link is an academic paper about social norms in general. It has nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi or insider trading or government corruption, which is why I said:

directly relevant corroborating information

You are drawing inferences based on assumptions. You haven't provided anything that constitutes evidence.

I can't help you if you reject evidence.

What evidence? You haven't provided any. You need to substantiate this claim:

as the speaker she greatly normalized the corruption and made incredible money at the cost of her constituents.

with some directly relevant corroborating information.

OK. For what other reason could you need my credit card information?

Picture this...

Could be worse, you could be trapped in the closet.

Absolutely. The way forward is to move the Overton window until the current left is the new right.

...and understand that it might take a lifetime.

Nothing handicaps genuine progress quite like impatience.

Well... maybe. My response was mostly tongue-in-cheek... it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Costco was just selling Christmas kitsch in July with no other considerations.

Sorry, no. The only reason you could possibly want my credit card information is so that you can start collecting rent if I forget to cancel, which is the goal. That is an extremely shady way to collect customers marks.

It's a con. The goal is to collect rent from people who don't actually use the service. It's basically theft.

I didn't ask any "extremely vague" questions, I asked you for evidence that supports your opinion. There's nothing remotely vague about that.

Oh sorry, you wanted evidence for her normalizing it?

She's the boss. If the boss does it, it's okay.

This is not evidence, it is conjecture. Evidence requires you to present some corroborating information which substantiates your opinion. You still haven't presented any. Everything you have said is still just your opinion - that is, a load of hot air.

That may not sound complicated enough to you

Being complicated or not has nothing to do with it. You need to present information that backs up your claims, otherwise they're not worth the time you spent typing them.

Did I get your question? If not then that's on you.

There is no question to "get". There is simply a request for evidence. Sources. News articles. Stock value tracking. Data analyses. Anything.

To put it bluntly: [citations needed]

Plenty of cabinet space.

If you want the current left to be recognized as centrist, then you need to vote until it becomes the norm, so that a new left can develop.

This is pretty much what I was wondering. How many of these classifications (such as autism) cross cultural/linguistic boundaries?

Obviously nitpicking one identifying characteristic (object personification) isn't really valid to dismiss the diagnoses entirely. Perhaps it's a valid diagnostic and Japanese culture is just more accepting of certain autistic personality traits, where American culture would suppress them. Identification of weird/unusual/possibly unhealthy behavior can be hard to separate from cultural norms.