WARNING! THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS
Exactly 40 years ago today, the original Friday the 13th was released (May 9, 1980) and if you haven’t seen it, you need to stop reading, go watch it, and come back.
Friday the 13th (1980) was not the first slasher film (there was Psycho in 1960 and perhaps even earlier ones), but it’s the film that launched the 1980s slasher craze and the iconic Jason. The film was inspired by the incredible success of Halloween and the film makers admit they were deliberately trying to rip that movie off. Indeed Halloween was ripped off so many times it launched its own sub-genre (stalker films). But because Friday the 13th was the first Halloween rip-off, it got to eat all the low hanging fruit Halloween neglected to pick and perfected the stalker film template.
So the first thing you need when ripping off Halloween is your own scary day to set your film on. Since October 31st was already taken, they got the only other scary day on the calendar (Friday the 13th). Later Halloween ripoffs would have to settle for valentines day, graduation day, Christmas, Prom Night, or some some character’s random birthday (Happy Birthday to Me (1981))
The next thing you need when ripping off Halloween is a location where teenagers are isolated. Since Halloween focused on teenagers babysitting in suburbia, Friday the 13th picked counselors at a summer camp and the forest is perhaps even scarier than the suburbs. Again because Friday the 13th was the first Halloween rip-off, it got the prime real estate.
Once you decide to set a slasher film at a summer camp, you need a reason why someone would be killing camp counselors, especially ones who have sex. In Halloween the killer just killed because he was the boogeyman (which made sense since it was Halloween) but what’s a reason why someone would want to kill camp counselors? The most obvious reason is that having sex instead of doing their job caused something terrible to happen? What’s the most obvious terrible thing that can happen at a camp when counselors are distracted? A child drowning. And who would be most upset that a child drowned? The child’s mother. But we need a reason why she’s killing on Friday the 13th because we have to name our film after a scary day to rip-off Halloween. Oh I know, because that’s the child’s birthday, and since it’s a bad luck day, the child drowned.
So see how the entire story just flows organically from the fact that it’s a slasher film set at a summer camp. Unlike other slashers where everything feels so contrived, in this film everything just flows seamlessly because they had the luxury of being the first Halloween rip-off and the first summer camp slasher.
This was the first U.S. slasher to give us real graphic gore.
When you see such brutal violence using so many different weapons (axes to the face, arrows stabbing you through your matress from under your bed, machete, knife) and corpses being thrown through windows deep in the woods beneath a full moon and rain storm, you picture the killer as some big hulking man. You picture Jason, the big bald hockey mask wearing brute from the Friday the 13th sequels, but what made the original so brilliantly ironic was that the killer is finally revealed to be all American mom played by the 1950s icon Betsy Palmer.
She has the best dialogue in the film, The oh so subtle way she admits her son was mentally retarded without saying it.:
“You see Jason was my son, and today is his birthday” says the killer creepily, explaining both her motive and the film’s title in one brief sentence.
Palmer is incredible in the role. On the one hand she’s the June Clever type mom who had freshly baked chocolate chip cookies for you when you came home from school, the type of woman who would lead the local girl guide troop and thus knew her way around the woods. And yet for all her blonde 1950s aging femininity, she is physically menacing in the part. Wearing multiple sweaters and long johns under her pants to make her character as bulky as possible, the final chase scene is a tour de force. The heroine, Alice, throws a ball of string. The killer punches it away. Alice throws an object too small to see. The killer deflects it with her chin before slapping the hell out of Alice. The two women end up wrestling on the beach until Alice finally prevails in the most dramatic and graphic killing in the entire film. A Shakespearean beheading that put special effects master Tom Savini on the map, decades before CGI made his skills obsolete.
But if all that wasn’t great enough, what makes this the greatest slasher of all time is that one last jump scare that no one saw coming.
Imagine being in the theater in 1980. Viewers would have been jumping out of their seats, their popcorn flying through the air and landing on other viewers.
And yet unlike so many final jump scares, there’s nothing contrived about this. It flows naturally from the story: Alice had just beheaded a mom who was avenging her son’s drowning, so by the logic of horror films, it’s only natural that the child’s drowned corprse would pull her into the lake to avenge mom’s beheading. I love the Shakespearean way it comes full circle.
Of course being pulled into a lake by a child who drowned 23 years ago turns out to just be a dream on Alice’s part. Or was it? The film makers claim they had no intention of a sequel and the final jump scare was all just a dream, but what made the ending so brilliant is we just don’t know. When the film broke box office records, a sequel appeared a year later, and is set just a couple months after the events of the first film.
What makes the start of part 2 so creepy is that Jason has apparently followed Alice from the lake at the camp, to her home in the suburbs but instead of being the drowned child she “dreamed” pulled her into the lake a couple months ago, he’s a big grownass man.
So if Alice had merely dreamed Jason had returned to attack her, why did her dream come true a few months later? But if her dream was true, why was he a child in the dream and a grown man a few months later? Was he a flesh and blood ghost that had catch-up growth to makeup for the 23 years he had been dead a la Toni Morrison’s Beloved, or had he never really drowned at all, but survived in the woods for those 23 years?
I prefer the latter interpretation: Being attacked by a child’s drowned corpse was just a premonition that Jason would indeed return to attack her for killing his mom, but in reality he was a grown man, not a drowned child’s corpse, because he had actually survived. It’s also possible that Jason may indeed have pulled her into the lake, but perhaps she thought she was being pulled in by a child’s corpse (and not a grown man) since she’s thought Jason drowned as a child.
But I love how the series has two interpretations: A supernatural one for the lower IQ and more schizophrenic fans, and a realistic one for the higher IQ and more autistic fans. By part 6 Jason is indisputably undead (they literally dig up his grave and open his coffin) but not even the film makers can agree on whether he was undead in the earlier sequels.
Pumpkin Person 
I really wish you all would start using Schizophrenia and Autism properly instead of just as insults for a lack of social intelligence.
Pretty Autistic if you ask me.
I prefer the latter explanation too as it seems like less of an asspull.
I wasn’t using it as an insult nor was I referring to social intelligence. My point was only that one’s position on the autism vs schizophrenia spectrum (if you believe such a spectrum exists) may influence their preference for supernatural vs natural fiction. Just a little theory
Right. Don’t pretend like you all don’t use it that way and that this “little theory” doesn’t have any basis on the idea that Schizo are more paranoid and that Autists are more gullible. Or in other words that Schizos always see purpose where Autists do the opposite.
It’s based on the idea that schizophrenics see intention where it doesn’t exist & thus are more believing of supernatural forces.
Yeah I know. That’s what I said.
Daily reminder that ASD lacks biological/construct validity.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-016-0085-x
We’re working on it.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0321-0
Understanding others does happen on an intuitive level. So whether or not autists or schizos mislabel certain acts as intentional or not matters little too intuitive geniuses who naturally / correctly label acts as intentional because normal people neither autist nor schizo have the same ratio as the genius. The geniuses like Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling Creates intention in her stories. The average audience can understand without any mislabeling.
Mr. Monk proves there is a 4th dimension.
OCD gives monk superhuman detective abilities.
It also gives Homes and Dr. Gregory a house stuck up personality.
Because the Philosopher is more like Homes than Monk, Philosopher thinks Monk is autistic. In reality, Monk has average Intuition but also High OCD.
Animekitty has high intuition which is closer to empathy rather than OCD detective.
[url=https://imgur.com/Rju4Nr9][img]http://i.imgur.com/Rju4Nr9.jpg[/img][/url]
With intuition, it is a feeling, It is irrational, a sense of Knowing. The mind gets quiet and observes. Intuition is a perception. Examples being: “The look on his face means he is up to something”. “My left toe is wiggling, a storm is coming”. Things like that. One thing leads to another. There is meaning behind things.
OCD must have the world a certain way. It is personal and forces the will upon things. It notices details. It comes from anxiety and knows not so much what will happen but what has happened. OCD is about control. Intuition is divination.
ASD has a lack of context when thinking.
SCZ has an imaginary context (Delusions) thought process.
INTUITIVE – is like SCZ accept context matches up with reality.
OCD – orders things by ritual, it is a total lack of control. Mild OCD allows problem-solving from ordering. ASD people have control. Intuitives have control.
Based on my personal knowledge of self and these 4 sets on 4 levels I get these chart scales.
ASD – 2
SCZ – 1
INTUITIVE – 3
OCD – 2
one of the few movies even shittier than the oprah show.
actually non shitty movies of 1980 include American Gigolo and The Blues Brothers.
Being There may have the most cultural significance.
Hate to always be the annoying photographic memory guy but Being There came out in 1979 🙂
Being There is about a man who has such low IQ that everyone assumes he’s brilliant. I once heard an expert compare Obama to that character. LOL!
F13 is to slashers as oprah is to talk show: the greatest, most iconic & influential of its genre
Is that the one with Pete Sellers. That movie was good but reminds me more of Trump than Obama for sure though both fit the bill. However the character had a variety of weird quirks that only Trump can embody unlike Obama who was very neurotypical.
They Live – most accurate documentary of [redacted by pp, may 10, 2020] of the past 50 years.
movies may be released in a few theaters or only one in december in order to qualify for the awards for that year.
Ian youre a pop culture hack. Always tryna display your knowledge of whats current and trends and stuff. Honestly makes you come across as a bit cringe. Regardless I dont think you know as much about pop culture as you think as you are an outdated dinosaur!
Good luck tryna keep up with the Jones’s but as someone over a hundred years old youll never be able to do it.
The cringest ones are the IQ-ists.
High IQ is just the ability to manipulate highly complex datasets fast.
Does that make me an IQ-ist?
IQism is pretty normal because most neurotypicals engage in it. You must mean the people advocating for IQ tests to be used as a holistic approach to measuring talent and significance something I do agree is absurd. IQ tests are okay but categorizing people based on IQ tests is extreme I will admit.
How much do IQ tests correlate with brain activity and what not? In the future, “cognitive superiority” should be laid out by fMRI scans rather than tests because that’s the way we use diagnose a host of neurological diseases, physical pain, emotions, anything you can think of tbh. So we need to do the same for intelligence as well if we want to advance the accuracy of where a person belongs.
The whole point of IQism is to categorize people based on a test score. We will always need that categorization because in the society we live in and the economics we have, we’ve created a place of efficiency, of effectiveness, etc where people work where they belong. IQism like you’ve mentioned is classist. Classism will never go away and we need to restructure it by advancing our technologies and evaluating people based on that.
I’ve always believed we could end the notion that people have social constructs by simply uploading their minds to computers at birth. If we did so, we’d see people interacting with others through a clean slate, through only biological dispositions, etc.
If successful it would show the world that people are unique and don’t rely on social constructs to dictate them and would give us access to how much it does so. If a failure then we know that our world has inherent and strong constructs that need to be broken out of and re-evaluated.
Simple.
The ASD-SCZ continuum idea makes sense, but I don’t think it works out that way in practice.
Yes, social geniuses tend to think magically, but actual schizos aren’t cool or social at all. They’re dirty, crazy, and scare people away. And autism shares a lot of symptoms with some Cluster A, B, and C personality disorders.
The ASD end of the continuum is more continuous, though. Bill Gates is more similar to a hardcore autist than Oprah is to a hardcore schizo.
Here’s a blogpost by an autistic tranny who says his experience is typical of people with AvPD.
You can tell he’s a hardcore Aspie by the way he writes.
http://unstrangemind.com/how-autism-can-mimic-avoidant-personality-disorder/
The way I see it, a bit of autism makes you smarter at STEM and a bit of schiz makes you smarter socially but too much of either makes you worse at both.
That is an interesting way of putting it, probably a kernel of truth to that.
I tend to think of schizoid/paranoid types as people with over-active imaginations(perhaps justly so given how insane the world really is) but lacking the ability to properly organize, contextualize, compartmentalize and process their ideas. So much so that their ideas start taking over their minds and affect their emotions. They then get overwhelmed by negative emotions and this affects their ability to think clearly and rationally while also severely reducing their ability to remain socially functional.
Having the ability to apply a well thought out probabilistic model to the type of speculation that is in many ways a necessity to daily life is vitally important. Further to that one also needs to remain emotionally stable while entertaining all sorts of thoughts and also being mentally tough and socially savvy while expressing certain ideas to people. Some people have an incredible talent at sniffing out insecurity and will miss no opportunity to drag you down if you express something that is too far out there. Which is why I think that the combination of high creativity and low IQ might put people at a high risk of developing schizophrenia.
Having said all this emotional stability may just be the most important factor, if one lacks emotional stability(particularly in managing negative emotions), this can, under extreme situations, fry the brain enough that if one is also high in creativity(without the high IQ to balance it out) this can wreak havoc with the brain and severely deteriorate ones’s ability to function normally which itself leaves the door open to all sorts of social problems and further trauma which essentially compounds the problem.
One of the wisest things I’ve ever heard regarding this topic; “sanity, is when you figure out how to be OK with your own insanity”. Assuming of course you’re not having Friday the 13th levels of insanity!
The point I have about moderating comments has nothing to do with free speech but rather the morality of letting others comment whatever they want because they’ll make a fuss about it if it doesnt happen and those who sit quietly and let their comments be moderated regardless because they know that they aren’t entitled to anything.
Maybe that has something to do with free speech but is more of an ethics question. [redacted by pp, may 10, 2020]
Loaded, my moderation appears unethical to you because you only partly understand its purpose:
1) I moderate many racist or antisemetic comments because I have an ethical responsibility to not spread hate and I have a vested interest in protecting the blog’s brand and protecting it from being taken down by wordpress (which also needs to protect their brand). That doesn’t mean we can’t discuss HBD or Jewish influence, but we can only do so responsibly. This doesn’t apply to you because you seldom make racist comments (except against whites which is also unacceptable)
2) I moderate many accusations against individuals who are not here to defend themselves because I have an ethical responsibility not to allow unfair smears and because I have a vested interest in not alienating other bloggers, especially ones who are kind enough to let me post on their forums or put me on their blogrolls.
3) I moderate many personal attacks against me because it’s easier to just moderate them than to waste time getting in flame wars and because insults against me damage my blog’s brand, which in-turn damages my ability to attract quality commenters and reach out to experts to get valuable scientific information I need to do the research I share with my readers.
4) I moderate many sweeping generalizations about my commenters because it damages my blog’s brand.
5) I moderate many personal attacks or demeaning comments against individual commenters depending on whether I think it will upset them. Some people seem to enjoy flame wars so I allow them to attack each other; others are more serious or more sensetive, so I moderate insults against them.
I respect that Pumpkin. You know I’m not guilty of the majority of things you outlined however I have taken part in your criticism. It’s fair to say that some of the criticism is unwarranted but other parts are things you have to own up to and understand are valid points about you. Just like if you criticized me you could leverage your power on this blog to make it authentic.
You’ve called me possibly autistic before and dim and other things and I had no reason to complain because maybe those were your valid viewpoints of who I was. You should probably do the same for various reasons but most importantly to build a healthy ego.
Anyways I respect you a lot Pumpkin I just feel like you look at your image more than the truth. Sometimes it’s necessary to do so and I think you deserve a lot more attention, respect, and credit than you deserve!
You are a pioneering member of the science community especially in cognition and neuroscience. That is why I think you deserve more from your blog tbh. However just be more open minded to criticism because it will benefit you in the long run and make you seem like a less image-conscious person who focuses on the facts and truth.
I was just trolling when I called you autistic. The reason I don’t publish your personal criticism of me is that extremely negative comments can potentially damage my brand, not because I’m too egotistical to handle criticism.
For the same reason shrewd celebs force their employees to sign confidentiality agreements. This protects their brands from being damaged in the press.
**than you’ve received
I would understand that if you weren’t a science-related blog. To be fair to you, yes you need to preserve your image to get a better audience who will in turn contribute to the science of your blog.
However criticism of subjective reasonings in science should always be seen as reasonable and important because thats the only way to gain access to the truth.
But overall I understand where you are coming from. Hurling insults at you and making personal attacks is not the way to go but otoh you would need someone to criticize your beliefs and what not if they contradict the science.
That’s my only complaint there.
Good point. You have a much better chance of getting your criticisms published if you confine them to my arguments themselves, instead of criticizing me for making the arguments.
First time puppy shows his moderation policy 3 years after introducing it. Great.
swank can see a genuine example of what he mistakes monk for…
the appreciation of the unappreciable…
in professor hsu’s boosting for bill evans, the ultimate elevator music nothing.
but in america you don’t get to be a professor without being a fraud.
i scratch your back. you claim to like bill evans.
bill evans is jive.
given the choice between listening to him and monk, however….
…i would choose him precisely because he is so easy to ignore.
monk insists upon himself AND sucks.
what is an artist ecept one who insists on himself?
art tatum is a mere craftsman.
PROOF!
where’re tatum’s compisitons?
wiki says…
Four of his very limited number of compositions were also published in Britain…
i forgot to mention that female sasquatches also objectify men.
thus their incredibly high rate of syphilis.
Monk, once the quintessential outsider, has come to dominate American jazz, 100 years after his birth and 35 years after his death.
Today, Monk is by far the most covered jazz composer. His catalog—some 60 to 70 songs, many of them familiar to even moderately serious jazz fans—forms the spine of the contemporary repertoire. That has also made him a major influence on every composer working in jazz and improvised music. In 2006, he was awarded a posthumous Pulitzer Prize.
“If you’re a jazz musician and you think you’re not influenced by Thelonious Monk, either you’re not a jazz musician or you are influenced by Thelonious Monk.”
so saying monk sucks is like saying von karajan sucks or the beatles suck…
but bob dylan really does suck.
Dylan real name Zimmerman looks quite creepy these days.
To his credit he was never (((in your face))) about it. I actually think he was a born-again Christian at one point.
But his politics were very Tribal.
i half agree with swank. the only monk album my parents had was the Trio and so i thought, “i like this so much i’ll buy more of his albums.” and i was DISAPPOINTED…he was just TOO “jazzy”.
but swank made me revisit monk, and now i know…
monk is great within a trio and sometimes solo, but with more than bass and drums he’s just noise (for me)…but with more than bass and drums monk can’t be blamed. monk’s solos mostly suck…he needed the rythm section to be palatable to my ears…
and boy was he! like an integral fast reactor.
monk was radioactive. but he kept recycling his waste. over and over again.
swank’s racism is typical of “elite democrats”.
and then there’s the “untutored genius” thing, the “monk was just a monk-ey” thing.
monk could played like the best. it was playing like he did that was hard for him.
maybe he was too african for swank’s taste…he played the piano like a drum…and his rythms were the most complex…or so i have read…
but sinatra does NOT suck.
or maybe it’s just the name and the look…monk’s weirdness was “performative”…in reality he wasn’t very weird…or so i have read.
another song swank might groove to is:
here’s a thing.
if Spinal Tap actually produced a ready for radio song…it wouldn’t be funny…
in other words…
the “this is shit” parody is kinda dishonest as it can’t actually re-produce the shit.
because some of those ozzie songs actually rock!
what mug said makes no sense.
a good musician is good alone. with one instrument. with many instruments.
that’s the big test.
it’s why someone can sound good alone in a music store but be a failed musician otherwise.
art tatum pisses on monk. and most piano players of any genre.
solo
with full band
no musical experience necessary to appreciate on superficial level.
upon reflection it is still genius.
it’s the same with law.
a good law or ruling
(1) pushes an agenda
(2) gives opposing agendas clear guidelines for pursuing those agendas in the future
the purpose of doctrines such as ‘original intent’ ‘original meaning,’ etc. is (2).
tolerance and accomodation is the crux of good law.
the fact that muggy feels he can make a good argument against a particular ruling in the language of the law is proof that whatever law or rulling he argues against was a good ruling.
muggy cannot see this.
muggy also cannot see that America is exceptional not just for free speech.
the ability to transform modern social struggles into legal parlance via constitutional judicial review is uniquely american.
this commercial has swank played by terry bradshaw, who couldn’t spell “cat” if you spotted him the “c” and the “t”. (one of the few examples of a black man calling a white man stupid https://newsinteractive.post-gazette.com/thedigs/2017/01/06/can-terry-bradshaw-spell-cat-the-history-of-an-insult/)
swank is too dumb to comment.
the point is monk played the piano but almost all of the recordings labeled “monk” are a quartet or more. more than a trio (more than a rythm section) means it’s not monk leading and thus the label “monk” is meaningless for almost all recordings labeled “monk”.
if swank were a roman he’d appreciate the rosary, the repition of prayer.
monk repeats the theme, the melody, over and over again, but always in a new way.
or maybe swank just has no musical appreciation ability.
what is a FINE artist but someone who insists on himself?
monk could play like tatum.
tatum couldn’t play like monk.
you have NO taste swank.
…
so it’s true that jazz is dead. but a consequence of its un-popularity is that the only people still in the genre are experts, people who care. so monk’s ascendancy so many years after his death is an ascendancy among people with good taste…people who prefer sushi to a big mac and aren’t faking it.
but the contemporary repertoire and american jazz are dead. jazz is played out…
monk was the alpha zero of jazz…the ne plus ultra…
the same goes for rock ‘n’ roll. The Who were the last rock band. all the good songs in the genre had been found by the time of their last hit You Better You Bet…
Dark Side of the Moon was released in 1973. Heroes was released in 1977.
rock ‘n’ roll hasn’t evolved. it’s been dead since 1981. played out.
the ONLY good thing about boomers is their music.
proposition:
moderate alcoholism is environmentalism and animal un-cruelty-ism.
because:
1. alcohol is a source of calories and is from plants (except for the mare’s beer of central aisans).
2. alcohol is an an-aphrodisiac. so fewer chirrens.
3. moderate alcoholism can be the anteroom to severe alcohoism and early death. so fewer people.
Talking about movies, any intellectual intelligence the actors have is conflated by social intelligence they possess.
That for sure is the truth.
I suffer from major ocd as outlined by anime. I am definitely sure Pill is a neurotic. And Mugabe turns schizotypal when he drinks.
Pumpkin, how do some 130+ IQ kids with ADHD do well in school without trying? Wouldn’t ADHD need some hard work to get past?
PP I’m a pescatarian and have been for 15 years. How do you think that’s affected my cognitive development?
I can count the number of times I’ve eaten meat since the age of ten on my hands.
I don’t think it’s affected your IQ, but high IQ people are probably more likely to avoid beef (at least within America).
What makes you say that?
Is it because non-carnivory is related to lefitsm which is related to high IQ?
morals
btw RR, you’re the health expert. I have a craving for McDonalds but is it safe to eat beef? I’m worried about all the people in beef plants getting coronavirus and sneezing, coughing and sweating all over the beef. I know it’s not a food-born virus, but still makes me uncomfortable.
I saw something on food and Corona a few weeks back. It said not to worry about it getting into food. I’ll see if I can find the ref later.
Go eat your Mick D’s, but not too often.
rr is a trans cave man.
trans cave men live in new york city, smoke cigarettes, and have ridiculous hair.
they’ve never killed what they eat because fake and gay.
[redacted by pp, may 13, 2020]
as terrestrial animal products go, beef is the least cruel/most humane, and if the ranch is land unsuitable for farming it’s good for the environment too, except the cow farts.
the moral reason not to eat beef is cows are smarter than chickens and you can eat fish or crustaceans or oysters. what do vegans have aganist eating oyesters and clams? if man’s ancient anscestors hadn’t eaten other animals, there’d be no man today.
peepee redacted the most important part as usual.
eggs: irredeemable, because even if pastured hens, all the male chicks are put in a wood chipper because not meat chickens…selective breeding for meat vs eggs.
milk, cheese, ice cream, etc.: heffer has to be pregnant all the time (via artifical insemination…her babies are taken from her), and is milked while pregnant 7 out of 9 months…and is turned into beef when she passes her peak…and is NOT pastured 99% of the time…
the logic of capitalism is the animal is turned into an oyster, the sentient into the insensate. if it were possible to make brainless dairy cows and brainless chickens, “the market” would demand it.
chikens: steve hsu has used the example of the shaq chicken so many times…but these birds are so yuge they can’t have sex, they can’t walk, lots die before “harvest” because they’re so sick…they’re waldo chickens…
you can buy pastured “heirloom” and “heritage” chickens, but you have to pay.
the story with turkeys is identical.
pork: pigs are confined to an area the size of a ping pong table 99% of the time.
what is a “wadlow chicken”?
Wadlow reached 8 ft 11.1 in (2.72 m)[2][4][5] in height and weighed 439 lb (199 kg) at his death at age 22. His great size and his continued growth in adulthood were due to hyperplasia of his pituitary gland, which results in an abnormally high level of human growth hormone (HGH). Even by the time of his death, there was no indication that his growth had ended.
You can’t get healthy meat because what animals eat have no vitamins and minerals.
GarliCon (Deodorized Garlic Concentrate) Good for heart health. I bought a bottle of capsules.
Animals get vaccinated because captivity spreads disease. Open spaces are better.
Why do you ask such stupid questions?
why do you have such stupid hair?
rr’s trans shit is digusting.
someone needs to get up in his grill and scream at him…
“you’re NOT a fucking cave man! just STOP!”
Finished watching Pet Sematary, gotta rewatch Darkness Falls, and watched part of Ft13th IV.
All great horror movies. I live and thrive off that shit sometime haha.
Anyways expect World War III soon!
This song is HBD in a nutshell…white boi had the best verse hahahah.
peepee still NOT promoting Pandora’s Promis and Planet of the Humans.
Just A Gigolo / I Ain’t Got Nobody (1985) is a song (((some people))) might appreciate more than Just a Gigolo un-accompanied…
monk is the most Cynical musician/composer i know.
not even Parsifal compares.
the guy was 100% original intent.
100%.
Hey Pumpkin. What do you think that the WAIS-IV profile would be of a person with Asperger’s syndrome (Verbal, Performance, Memory, Processing Speed)?
The WAIS-IV technical manual reports such a study. Their profile is:
Verbal comp > perceptual reasoning > working memory > processing speed
It also reports that autism proper has the following profile:
Perceptual reasoning > working memory > verbal comp > processing speed
So the common denominator between aspergers and classical autism appears to be relatively low processing speed, though as I explain in my most recent article, processing speed is a misnomer (such tests have the weakest correlation with reaction time)
Oprahs lance armstrong interview was amazing.
I was always hooked on sports. Always wanted to be an athlete. Guess Indians are only good at cognitive activities.
The best aspect of this type of thinking is I can break stereotypes by saying that free speech is not sensible or is sensible based on the fact that some thoughts get disapproved and become remnants of the past.
@Flaminhotcheetos
We need to analyze which words are now remnants of the past and what their meanings were. Language is the only way to access strength in this world.
William Shakespeare is my creative and intellectual favorite. Everyone might have one be it a friend or family member or whatever. Mine is Shakespeare and orators of sorts. Jfks IQ is surprising though.