You made up a new definition of money while insulting people for using a different one. I'm not the inappropriate one here.

You said it in the stupidest possible language, language mirroring the pseudo legal hooey that comes from them. Sorry I can't parse whatever you meant from "currency is a non transferable blah blah" and "the idea that taxpayers pay for stuff is fascism".

"Moneys not real, nobody needs to pay taxes", very sovereign citizen of you.

Oh, it's a fringe on the flag style argument. Gotcha.

Invisible sounds easier to fix than that. This sounds like "Don't feed the bears" hostility.

I remember the Trump 1.0 handshake thing where he would always try to yank the other person off balance while shaking hands as some stupid power move. Now handshakes are haaaaard...

I wish you would.

Yup, you are totally ruined that you think this was somehow going to convince anybody of anything, or even counted as evidence of anything.

It amazing how at the end of all your evidence, I now more firmly believe Stancil is almost 100% right and you are living proof. Just a living, breathing example of what he was worried about in the "social media is going to ruin people" posts.

She chased after a school shooting survivor screaming that it was a hoax. She dished it out- now she can STFU & take it.

Activists agreed to point their cameras away from cops and soldiers so they could help the very lawmakers they were instructed to shoot climb over the fence to go vote down the martial law without showing up on livestreams before the fascists who would punish them for it were in jail.

I'm a preceptor/assessor now, and I have to take a few mins every new student to tell them "doing everything right, no mistakes, is a 3 out of 5, satisfactory. We expect you to be at least that good." It's a shock to kids who are used to other grading schemes.

My pharmacy classes had several marked that way. You can't pass by being "close enough", you had to know the material. I had to retake a course over something I had 75% correct.

Depends on the scale. If you were going on a "from incomprehensible to amazing" like a curve, sure. If it's "every time you mess up you lose a point", that's a 0/5. Both are valid ways to mark.

The paper had a clear grading scheme. The student managed to write that entire paper without answering 1 point on that clear grading scheme. From reading the paper, I'm not even sure the student read the article, since the only citation is to the Bible. I would have failed them too.