Is this what the picture refers to?

https://knowyourmeme.com/editorials/guides/what-does-kurwa-bobr-mean-polish-beaver-video-memes-explained

It depends how upcasted the first wizard’s spell was.

I took a lot of tests for autism as a kid because I would stand on my toes. All the specialists said I wasn’t autistic. I got my hamstrings stretched and I stopped standing on my toes.

Thank you!

Me right now too. I was thinking about this episode recently. I couldn’t figure out what it was supposed to be comparable to. I guessed dodging traffic on a highway, but that didn’t seem right. Getting hooked on drugs makes sense though.

No, at the time the principle was a woman. She was one of the those career administrators who raises kids tests scores by any means necessary and then takes a better job in a larger town with a bigger school. The principle before that was a teacher who took the job because no one else wanted it.

I’m not sure who was in charge of Learning Lab. They mostly helped kids who needed to improve their academic performance, including myself. They used the same space as the researchers, I don’t know how it was organized or where the researchers were from. Just that the pool of kids who were pulled out of class for Learning Lab was the same pool who interacted with any researchers. I don’t know how many kids had the same experience as me. At least one, probably more.

edit: There was someone who was like a teacher, who was in charge in of the kids, and instruction. I’m not sure who that person reported to or who came up with the program. They were not my regular teacher for any given grade.

No, the elementary school I went to had this program called Learning Lab for K-3 grade. I didn’t even tell my parents what was going on at the time because I assumed they just somehow knew everything that happened at school without me telling them.

I wouldn’t be too hard on him. I was a weird kid who grew up into a weird adult. I ended up doing lots of tests as a kid with him or researchers just like him. I did the test where you’re told to electrocute a person if they answer a question wrong and they pretend to scream. And the test where they use a wire to knock over water bottles. I gave weird responses to those tests as well. I just started pressing the button for the electrocution and laughing. I apologized after. And when the water bottles got knocked over I just sat there and waited for him to come back. It occurred to me that I might get in trouble, but then I figured he would just take my word on it. I was like, “Your structure fell over!”. These tests make for fun stories.

edit: With the electrocution test I definitely tried to reason with the researcher that electrocuting people wasn’t scientific, but I very quickly realized he wasn’t going to listen to me. I realized it was an opportunity to electrocute a person and that I was never getting another opportunity to do that ever, so I just went for it. Egg on my face when it turns out it’s both not real and I’m a awful person. I did feel bad though.

It was awhile ago since I took the test. I definitely wasn’t given this exact meme as a child though. I probably would have said wugs if I had been given this on a sheet of paper. I think the test was given verbally and he only busted out paper when I was struggling.

I mean, that could have been it, but it seemed like everyone else got through unscathed. I was older than average, I was 7 and the rest of the kids were 6. I think that was his explanation anyway.

This test screwed me up in first grade. I thought it was some kind of grammar test so I kept asking if it was a verb, a noun, or an adverb. The test giver was some researcher and was convinced I wasn’t taking the test seriously because I wouldn’t say wugs. He got kind of angry and I found the whole thing to be kind of distressing. I asked to stop and he just got even angrier and said something like, “No one has ever had trouble with the wug test before”. I was convinced I was bad at grammar for years after that. Anyway, wugs! =)

I’m guessing Sir Patrick Stewart.

You’re correct that Trump complaining about Biden for this New York case doesn’t make any sense. Presumably Trump is counting on his supporters believing in some conspiracy or being uniformed. Alvin Brag is the District Attorney of New York County and doesn’t report to Biden.

GLOAT

Greatest Liar of All Time

Wow, lol, thanks for the new acronym. edit: new to me anyway

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/31/donald-trump-guilty-verdict-felonies-hush-money-trial

Trump vows to appeal what he claims is ‘scam conviction’, laying into Biden and complaining about trial – live

Your one of today’s luck 10000. Or maybe considerably more.

allies should be the ones doing the sacrifice so that trans people weren’t dead and could live their lives after said sacrifices were made

Sorry, my phrasing wasn’t clear. We shouldn’t be sacrificing people to forward social progress. Also, there are a lot more people who aren’t trans than are trans. We should want as many people to be allies as possible. If a person is an ally then they are going to want trans people to live to see social change. As opposed to hoping that enough trans people are killed to motivate social change.

=D Shonks for all!

People hold these views. The fact he’s trolling doesn’t exclude him from holding some or all of them. Whether he holds these views or not isn’t relevant to understanding these views. Here are some reasons why a conservative man would hold these views.

These threaten his religious sensibilities:

• Use of profanity or vulgar language
• Any piercings
• Vapes
• Hugs the bouncer on a night out
• Skimpy clothing
• Tattoos
• Atheist

These threaten traditional roles for women, which he needs to deny women access to public life and define his own masculinity:

• Over 500 followers on IG
• Has a twitter account (Other microblogging platforms do count)
• Cannot cook

These threaten his masculinity because he associates them with men:

• Knows what a barbell is
• Been to more than 3 countries

These threaten the dependence that he thinks women should have on him and all the other reasons apply to these as well:

• Has a drivers license
• Can think for herself

It happened to me because we were discussing the Nazi’s views on racial hierarchy in sophomore honors history class and I’m ethnically Jewish. It was a surreal experience.

You did indeed add a supernatural element, you claimed that Marx claimed Material Conditions force ideas, when that isn’t true nor his argument. Base and superstructure, after all.

No, not force, naturally lead to. It is logical for the oppressed to want to overthrow their oppressor.

We are discussing Imperialism, to ignore Imperialism is to ignore Marxism.

I’m ignoring both of those things because they are not relevant to the discussion. Only the specifics of the flaw in Marxism we are discussing and domestic policy implications of imperialism are relevant. Your argument is effectively trying to justify the veracity of the Bible with Bible verses. Your argument is self referencing. I addressed the rest of this paragraph in the other comment chain, except the last line.

Neoliberalism is a side effect of Imperialism.

Neoliberalism is a political invention. You’ll notice the UK adopted it as well, a year earlier than the US. Even though the UK’s actual empire had collapsed at that point. Imperialism had nothing to do with it. Conservatives needed a new ideology to combat progressives movements that were taking hold in those countries. So they came up with neoliberalism.

the American Proletariat is also the benefactor of American Imperialism

This is the part I addressed in the other comment chain again, but here you go. Any benefit they experience is quickly extracted from them. The owner class always wins in the end. The boom and bust cycle is the gradual extraction of wealth. With each bust more American families lose the ability to participate meaningfully in the economy. Where as the owner class is always there to benefit from the next boom.

It is not Ad Hominem to point out over and over that you misrepresented Marx and Marxism. I showed you where and why you misrepresented Marx and you call it Ad Hominem.

This is an ad hominem attack in a nut shell. Your argument is directed at me. The veracity of my argument doesn’t depend on me.

If you do not wish to engage with Marxism that’s fine, but don’t try to pretend you understand it enough to discredit it, that’s all I ask.

Ad hominem. Again. What I am doing to refute your argument is trivial. Anyone can do this. I highly recommend you try a different approach.

You don’t have to take reading recommendations from me, you can find them elsewhere and decide for yourself if they contradict your current understanding.

I’ll take recommendations, but Marxist and anarchist theory in general is not relevant to this discussion.