Fiat currencies are not an outright ponzi scheme, but they're essentially exactly the same as Bitcoins: They are accepted because people think they will still have value in some foreseeable future.

That's basically pretty much the general idea behind money. Be it Euros, Dollars, Bitcoins, gold or some shiny pebbles. And all of them have in common that they cannot be multiplied by the average person at leisure.

The huge advantage our current fiat money has over the others is that governments can multiply it at leisure. But that's at best an advantage for governments, not for us. Because we have to have faith in that government giving a shit about us trusting it.

And I don't really think that's currently really something I'd put my money on, so to speak.

And that's by no means any better than "normal" commercials.

Let's look at it and see if it looks, walks, swims and flies like a duck...

Does it interrupt the program I'm watching? Yes.
Is it something that does not interest me? Yes.
Is it repeated so often that you can speak along? Hell yes.

The fact that it's for a movie instead of some female hygiene product doesn't matter.

At least we get turned back to being the customer after having been the product far too long.

What you fail to address, at least in my understanding, is the difference in the premise. Golf players are on unequal grounding because of their abilities. Not someone else's prejudice or bias they depend on. They are unequal because of skill.

The purpose of the handicap in golf is also not to make the players equal but to make a game between them interesting. You will notice that it does not apply as soon as it's no longer "for fun" but actually in professional competition. Because it makes no sense altogether to do so. Why bother learning, training, practicing and pretty much spending your life honing your skill and getting better when we get to the PGA tour and I enter, get a handicap of half a billion so I can compete with the likes of Rory McIlroy or Jordan Spieth. I should be able to compete with them, right? It would be unfair if I couldn't, just 'cause they practiced all their life and I don't even know which end of that long metal thing to grasp and what end to swing.

Because you'll have a hard time proving he based his decision on it. And unless the rapists (ex) friend is some rare and unique specialist in a hotly contested field, the employer will just toss him and move on to the next applicant who has generally the same level of experience and training but one less "bad thing" lurking about. Real or not, relevant or not, the employer will not bother to double check. Why should he? To him, hiring A or B doesn't make a difference.

All it takes to really ruin someone's life is someone else being pissed enough at him to set up a slandering page about the first someone in a country where the police is busy fighting some real crime and can't be assed to deal with it.

Your fallacy in this context is that the laws of your country that protect you and your reputation mean jack anywhere else.

You can't see someone masturbating in the "it's a small world" ride?

You haven't been on the internet too long, have you?

Pay for the insanely priced on-ride photos. Why do you think that ban is in effect?

Oh I'm sorry. What move of MS proved without a doubt that they're a reputable, honest and customer oriented company? When they went on their many "embrace, extend, extinguish" sprees? Or when they forced vendors into selling only MS systems if they didn't want to be uncompetitive? Or was it when they claimed that IE cannot be removed from the system and deliberately changed it (with nasty side effects) to actually make that spin true? Or was that back in the 80s when they actually tried to put journalists out of work that were critical of them? Or did them cooperating with China in their censorship program endear them to you? Or are you the patriotic kind that enjoys their work with the NSA more?

"Ask what you can do for your country" is a fad of the past, get with the times. People don't give any more a fuck about what their country wants than their country does about what they want.

An analogy has to fit the situation. You cannot wish it into being sensible when it does not work out. The golf analogy you choose depends on two people of different skill playing against each other, not two people who are (or rather, should be) essentially on equal footing but are disadvantaged by an external force (i.e. prejudice and bias). There is no external bias in golf, the difference is actually the different ability of the entities involved. NOT the perception from the outside. I don't just think that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than me (not only because I don't play that game), he simply IS a better golfer than me. Not because or despite any innate trait of him but because he spent a lot more time learning the sport and getting good at it.

What bothers me about your example is that this is EXACTLY what I despise: Putting someone with no skill, no intention to get any and no time or money spent on getting any good at it on par with someone who dedicated his life to being in the top line of experts. And while it makes sense in a game to make it interesting, because games are only interesting if you don't know how they will end before they got started, it's DESPICABLE in a professional environment. Why should someone who is begging for handouts get a "leg up" and be pushed ahead of someone who spent time and money to be good at it?

If you expect unequal treatment for different parties you implicitly expect them to not being able to compete on equal grounds. Different handicaps in golf very bluntly mean that the players are at a different level of ability.

So if you can't find a better parallel to draw, one has to assume your expectation is that $minority has a lower level of ability if he needs a leg up. And that's just fucking wrong. That's basically what I had to fight throughout all my life!

I'm also not gaining anything by siding with deadbeats and spongers who can't get anything done by themselves and rely on guilt tripping everyone for being the poor, disadvantaged $minority, and whenever they fail it can't be because they're lazy, ignorant and outright stupid useless fucks but just because everyone treats $minority sooooo terribly badly. Boo-hoo, cry me a fucking river!

What's even worse is those deadbeats EXPECTING me to "help" them because, hey, we $minority have to watch out for each other! At the very least nobody can claim I have anything against $minority when I tell them to get the FUCK out of my office before I throw them out the window while it's still closed!

But don't think none of those fucks have tried that.

It's amazing how well you know me. Or, well, rather how well you know your prejudices towards people who aren't willing to bend over and hand out trinkets and freebies to anyone crying for them because they're part of $minority_group.

It may amaze you that yes, indeed, I not only support equality but am actually part of a minority. And frankly, it sucks. Not because of the prejudice against my "type" of people. That sucks too. But what's worse is the "look at me, I'm $minority, gimme handouts! Gimme jobs! And if you don't, you're a $minority hater and should be in jail!" assholes.

Because they breed even more contempt. I have to work twice if not thrice as hard to accomplish anything. You don't have ANY kind of idea what uphill battle I was fighting to get where I am now. No, not because of people being prejudiced. Because they see me, look at my job and AUTOMATICALLY assume that I got it because I'm $minority. Not because I am good at what I do, not because I FUCKING deserve having that job, not because I worked my ass off to get there. No, that can't be. It just has to be because of this AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BULLSHIT.

Doesn't anyone get a FUCKING clue that this shit hurts people who are "disadvantaged" because they belong to $minority more than it does for them? It breeds even more contempt and prejudice. Anything you do, anything you accomplish, anywhere you get, it's not because you're good at what you're doing, it's not because you proved that you're not only on par but actually BETTER than any of the self proclaimed "better people", oh no. They can always point at that affirmative crap and claim that this is the only reason for your accomplishments.

Do you have a FUCKING idea how much that hurts?

Your golf parallel fails at not being something innate to the players. One player is better than the other one purely because he played more, practiced more and hence plays better. Should I give someone a golf handicap because he's black/white/gay/straight/choose_your_trait? No. You should give him a handicap because he is of unequal skill.

I hope your argument is not that black/gay/female/choose_trait people are inherently worse at everything and hence need a leg up because they suck at it...