Why go to a show when the replay button is, like, right there?

I do not think the problem is education, but a fundamental trait about human nature. Education, as an institution, can only lay the groundwork; it cannot instill the intrinsic desire to learn and grow. That fire must be kindled from within, yet so many treat learning as a phase of life rather than a lifelong pursuit.

There is a deep and persistent resistance to intellectual evolution in society. A cultural thread that regards curiosity with suspicion and introspection with discomfort. Too often, people conflate questioning with opposition, and the invitation to examine one’s beliefs is perceived as an attack rather than an opportunity. This isn’t a failure of education; it’s a failure of cultural conditioning, perhaps even a failure of human instinct.

Nietzsche wrote: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” Yet, instead of seeking out and embracing fluidity, many anchor themselves to certainty, mistaking stagnation for stability. They prefer to defend what they are rather than work toward what they could be. This anti-intellectual obstinacy isn’t uniquely American or modern; it’s something that’s been with us from the start. I do not think we cannot educate our way out of the problems we keep making for ourselves; it’s going to have to be either revolution, or evolution.

I getcha, and you’re most likely right; if OP sees the gap in their argument and realize it, that’s just a bonus. My real intent is to share a broader perspective with people coming to the comments with genuine curiosity and an open mind.

You may be misunderstanding the difference between assets and liquidity. These days, owning a home, a car, and paying into a retirement fund for a few years can easily put someone close to having $500,000 in assets. But those aren’t liquid, i.e. they do not translate into having $500,000 in a bank account. Most people that have that much in assets will also have a lot of debt; take into account the mortgage on their house, student loans, car loans, and credit cards, the average person with $500,000 in assets actually has a negative net worth.

Compare AOC to someone like Nancy Pelosi, who has an estimated net worth over $240,000,000, with most of it bound in stocks and bonds that could quickly translate into liquidity. That is what being rich is. That is the kind of person that is out of touch with poor people.

Can you explain why you think she is out of touch with poor people? I’m genuinely curious, because you may know something about her that I don’t, and if she’s as secretly two-faced as Sinema and Manchin, or has done something to actively denigrate or undermine the working class, I want to be informed.

I understand that most poor people feel overlooked, ignored, and exploited by the rich, and that’s because that is exactly what they do–but their greatest trick is to make us think that it’s not their fault that we are poor. Please look again to the last sentence of my reply: Holding someone in contempt merely because they are richer than you is exactly what the billionaires want you to do, because it distracts and redirects anger away from them, and is just another tool they use to make the working class fight amongst themselves.

It seems like you may be conflating having ~$500k net worth with being rich, which may not have been your intent, but it seemed that way based on context. I think what the other responder is getting at is that AOC is not rich. She may have a house, a car, and some retirement saved up. All of those are assets, but they do not translate into the kind of liquidity that many other American politicians have.

She was working class before she entered into politics, and some would argue that she still is based on her work and advocacy. I don’t want to sound like I’m accusing your of anything, or putting words in your mouth, because that’s not my intent; I just want to point out a common belief held by a lot of Americans. Lumping someone in with the rich and then holding them in contempt merely because that person is richer than you is exactly the kind of us-versus-them mentality the ruling class wants us to have.

Slaanesh disagrees.

It’s wonderful how misunderstood a lot of the ‘evil’ metal bands are. Bands like Cradle of Filth and Cattle Decapitation have ostensibly repulsive artwork and song titles/lyrics, but the themes and meaning behind the songs meander between tongue-in-cheek fun to philosophical pondering to outright castigation of humanity’s treatment of the natural world. Judging a book by its cover and all that stuff…

Then again, there’s Behemoth, who literally describe summoning demons and other pagan and satanic rites in their songs. But good grief, the music is so good.

It’s almost impossible for the average person to purchase a chinese EV in the US, mostly due to high tariffs, trade barriers, and regulatory roadblocks. I’d love to see the market opened up to competition from chinese companies.

Copper cables are easier to reuse or sell as scrap due to the intrinsic value of the metal value and simple structure. Fiber optic cables are harder to reuse because they require precise handling, expensive connectors, and special training and equipment to splice together properly. Unless thieves steal pre-terminated fiber and handle it with extreme care or take entire spools with a buyer ready, fiber is essentially worthless to them since it can’t be melted down and reused like copper.

Ah, a classic. ALF truly is timeless.

This is just my personal experience, but I think it reflects a larger issue. Younger people were not ‘too inconvenienced to actually go out and vote’; they wanted to support the party that they felt aligned most with their values, only to be ignored and betrayed in favor of the DNC’s neoliberal matriarch.

Back in 2016, a group of us, mostly young people, caucused for Bernie Sanders. We had a strong turnout, with more people in our group than for any other candidate. The next largest group was for Hillary Clinton.

The people running the caucus seemed to have their own agenda. They told those supporting other candidates that their choice was “nonviable” and that they needed to switch to a “viable” candidate. Then, they physically ushered them to stand with the Hillary group while they [the staffers] “figured things out”. Many of the attendees were first-time caucus-goers, so they didn’t know any better and assumed the staffers were just being helpful by directing them.

For those of us who had caucused before, it was clear what was happening: the staffers were trying to inflate Hillary’s numbers. When we tried to speak up, we were told not to interfere or risk being removed.

It was obvious to us that the DNC was working against Bernie, ensuring the nomination went to their chosen candidate. Even Trump acknowledged that Bernie would have been a tougher opponent to run against.