Randomness thread, part two.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Meanwhile, in India...

I don't get it.

[spoonitnow]

I don't get it.

The video might not have loaded for you.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I saw the video, but there is a lot I don't understand.

It's not in English, so I don't know the words. Is it a translated version of Thriller?

It looks vintage. Is this current or something old?

I don't see the context to this thread (aside from being random). Is there a cleverness to the post that I'm missing?


EDIT: Obv. the music isn't Thriller. So is it a parody or an homage?

[spoonitnow]

Some motherfucker's always trying to ice skate uphill.

[OngBonga]

I saw the video, but there is a lot I don't understand.

It's not in English, so I don't know the words. Is it a translated version of Thriller?

It looks vintage. Is this current or something old?

I don't see the context to this thread (aside from being random). Is there a cleverness to the post that I'm missing?


EDIT: Obv. the music isn't Thriller. So is it a parody or an homage?

How does something so brilliant go so completely over your head?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Obviously, the emperor's new clothes are magnificent.

[JKDS]

His new groove was better

[OngBonga]

It's basically Indian comedy. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously at all.

They even have their own Chuck Norris...



Don't be fooled by the "very funny" tag. It's not that funny, I would be more inclined to use the word "amusing".

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's basically Indian comedy. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously at all.

They even have their own Chuck Norris...


Don't be fooled by the "very funny" tag. It's not that funny, I would be more inclined to use the word "amusing".

Dude, that's a clip from one the biographical documentaries on spoonitnow.
I forget what episode.

[rong]

His new groove was better

Kronk rocks!

[rong]

They have their own rambo too.

[rong]

Thanks for editing my other vid mmm, feel free to edit this one too, it doesn't seem to work on my phone.

[OngBonga]

They have their own rambo too.

https://youtu.be/36-vVlHA5ZA

I watched a bit of that too, it was fucking awful.

Awful in a good way, of course.

Also, try using [youtube] tags instead of [url].

[rong]

I use the video button. But anyway, that movie's freakin' awesome.

[rong]

I'd be curious what Americans or Canadians would make of that movie. Not sure if they'd get it.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This link:
https://youtu.be/36-vVlHA5ZA

redirects to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-v...ature=youtu.be

which is functionally identical to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-vVlHA5ZA

The last link gets you there without bouncing you through any URL's which you weren't pursuing or giving credit to anyone for you getting where you wanted to be.


***
The following is what I understand, but it could be incomplete or outright incorrect.

Everything after the ampersand (&) in the link is like a cookie that tells the site in the url (youtube) that you got there via a link from another site (youtu.be), and gives credit to that other site for redirecting to youtube.

Basically, even though we've embedded the clip in FTR, it's going to say that it came from elsewhere (perhaps in addition to also leaving a tag that it was redirected from FTR, I don't know.) I doubt FTR admins care about this, so it's not a big deal.

Note that the only reason I edited your post was to properly embed the video, and not to alter the url in any way. Once I was editing your post, I changed the URL because it seemed the right thing to do, though.

[OngBonga]

I use the video button. But anyway, that movie's freakin' awesome.

I just type out the tags instead of faffing about.

But then again I don't faff about with the internet on my phone.

[NightGizmo]

This link:
https://youtu.be/36-vVlHA5ZA

redirects to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-v...ature=youtu.be

which is functionally identical to this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36-vVlHA5ZA

The last link gets you there without bouncing you through any URL's which you weren't pursuing or giving credit to anyone for you getting where you wanted to be.


***
The following is what I understand, but it could be incomplete or outright incorrect.

Everything after the ampersand (&) in the link is like a cookie that tells the site in the url (youtube) that you got there via a link from another site (youtu.be), and gives credit to that other site for redirecting to youtube.

Basically, even though we've embedded the clip in FTR, it's going to say that it came from elsewhere (perhaps in addition to also leaving a tag that it was redirected from FTR, I don't know.) I doubt FTR admins care about this, so it's not a big deal.

Note that the only reason I edited your post was to properly embed the video, and not to alter the url in any way. Once I was editing your post, I changed the URL because it seemed the right thing to do, though.

Everything after the & in a URL is known as GET parameters -- if the page is looking for it, then it can use that those key/value pairs programmatically for rendering the page/headers, submitting form data, pretty much anything it wants. Figuring out the source page of a link is different -- that's done through the HTTP "referer" header, which is automatically sent by browsers when you click on a link. That's the technical mechanism for how Google Analytics and similar systems are able to find out how traffic gets to your website.

For youtu.be -- that's owned by Google, I think they just use it so people can share shorter links to videos. So adding the "feature=youtu.be" is probably just for their own internal tracking, to figure out how many people are using the shorter version of the URL vs. the longer one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Everything after the & in a URL is known as GET parameters -- if the page is looking for it, then it can use that those key/value pairs programmatically for rendering the page/headers, submitting form data, pretty much anything it wants. Figuring out the source page of a link is different -- that's done through the HTTP "referer" header, which is automatically sent by browsers when you click on a link. That's the technical mechanism for how Google Analytics and similar systems are able to find out how traffic gets to your website.

For youtu.be -- that's owned by Google, I think they just use it so people can share shorter links to videos. So adding the "feature=youtu.be" is probably just for their own internal tracking, to figure out how many people are using the shorter version of the URL vs. the longer one.

Thanks.

[rong]

I just started reading how to win friends and influence people.

I've only read the first chapter but already I feel this could be a life changing event.

I recommend it, and it's freely available on the internet.

[spoonitnow]

I just started reading how to win friends and influence people.

I've only read the first chapter but already I feel this could be a life changing event.

I recommend it, and it's freely available on the internet.

Yeah it's a great book with a lot behind it.

[wufwugy]

Sowell on multiculturalism. Good stuff.



Related: My university champions diversity for the sake of diversity. It does so so deeply that it includes the subject in its entrance interviews and requires a course in diversity for all prospective graduates. Yet it is not a diverse school. It is a highly successful and prestigious regional school, but this status has nothing to do with its efforts towards diversity. Its success and prestige emerges from it being a select school among cultural Christians, i.e., those who embrace respectability culture and the work ethic.

I find that a little funny. It's like my university says "hey look at how much we're all about things that aren't like us" yet its success comes from it staying true to its principles that don't necessarily involve things that "aren't like us". In fact it's a school where people who want to get away from the complexities of multiculturalism and potential problems choose to go.

An additional thing I find funny is that it's not even as great of a school as its success would lead one to think. The instruction is mediocre. Its regional prestige has nothing to do with its skill at churning out learned graduates and everything to do with the ethic its graduates embrace.

[rpm]

what are the complexities of multiculturalism for uni students where you are?

edit: uni = university = college for your purposes

[wufwugy]

The students attending my university typically come from Christian families or are those who appreciate the more reserved, Scandinavian-American atmosphere with origins in the region. This can be contrasted to the two largest schools in the region, one that's among the biggest party schools in the country, and the other has a more lefty urban and hectic flavor.

Some examples of values found in other cultures that are largely foreign to the typical student at my university: rebellion against authority, libertine-type celebration, confrontational behavior of any sort, underhandedness (the professors are uniquely unconcerned with cheating since they know nobody who goes here would consider cheating), generally aggressive social lives, to name a few.

[spoonitnow]

Aka multiculturalism is a bullshit myth that requires bullshit to keep alive.

[OngBonga]

Aka multiculturalism is a bullshit myth that requires bullshit to keep alive.

It requires mutual respect. So yeah, I guess bullshit is fair enough.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Culture isn't a static thing. It is always changing. Every culture on Earth is the result of blending traditions from past cultures.

Saying multiculturism doesn't exist is kinda an odd re-branding of "multiculturism."

It seems that - to you (spoon) - if there is conflict, then it's multiculturism, but if there is no conflict, then it's just one culture getting along.

I think the only reason you're pissed about multiculturism is that you've drawn this line.


***
@wuf: Do you think it's a coincidence that you express acceptance and forgiveness even to the point of turning a blind eye on your closest neighbor's indiscretions, yet the further someone is from you, the less forgiveness and acceptance you afford them?

Discuss.

[wufwugy]

@wuf: Do you think it's a coincidence that you express acceptance and forgiveness even to the point of turning a blind eye on your closest neighbor's indiscretions, yet the further someone is from you, the less forgiveness and acceptance you afford them?

I have no idea what you mean.

[rong]

Multiculturalism is such a confusing term. I'm sure lots of people use the term to mean different things. Until a definition is agreed it's hard to criticise it.

If it means simply different cultures living side by side, I don't see why it would ever be an objective of a country, it's the watering down of your own culture. And if culture and values are what gives us our indentity, then they are the only thing that effectively defines a group/population/nation and a governent that promotes multiculturalism is effectively betraying it's electorate.

Now some cultures can coexist in what would effectively be classed as a multicultural society, but only if the underlying values are shared, and perhaps the expression of those values differs. If the underlying values clash, there is no hope at all and none should be desired.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have no idea what you mean.

-.-

You praise your own university and deride other universities.
You praise the culture of the religion in which you were raised, but deride the cultures of other religions.
You have no widespread or ethical critiques of those close to you (aside from your disfavor for taxation, but really, you view taxation as something that is forced upon you by "others," so it's really not even an outlier), but you do have scathing criticisms for people whom you've never actually met.

Is this merely a coincidence of geography or is it something else?

[wufwugy]

You praise your own university and deride other universities.

That was praise of my university and derision of others? LOL! I explicitly stated the instruction is mediocre. I cut it short so as to not make a long post. I don't like the school that much and I'm not the biggest fan of its culture. If I could do it again I would probably have accepted the invitation from the "more lefty urban and hectic" school instead of the one I'm at.

You praise the culture of the religion in which you were raised, but deride the cultures of other religions.

I have contrasted mainstream Christianity to mainstream Islam. You wish to imply that I'm a bigot for not equivocating them.

You have no widespread or ethical critiques of those close to you (aside from your disfavor for taxation, but really, you view taxation as something that is forced upon you by "others," so it's really not even an outlier), but you do have scathing criticisms for people whom you've never actually met.

Raise your hand if you forgot the numerous times I have given rather scathing critiques of my "own people"? Critiques that you even agreed with at the time because you said you experienced them before.

Is this merely a coincidence of geography or is it something else?

It's a coincidence of the lens through which you say I view the world is actually the lens through which you view me.

Don't be so eager to confuse an objective and academic argument with an emotional one.

[wufwugy]

Now some cultures can coexist in what would effectively be classed as a multicultural society, but only if the underlying values are shared, and perhaps the expression of those values differs. If the underlying values clash, there is no hope at all and none should be desired.

Good way of putting it.

One way I think this is exemplified is in how so many different immigrant groups have assimilated or are assimilating into the American mainstream even though they're still culturally unique in lots of ways. The underlying values they've accepted or brought with them include the respectability culture, work ethic, and family orientation. In groups where we don't see those values, we see lots of problems when interacting with the mainstream.

[spoonitnow]

Multiculturalism is such a confusing term. I'm sure lots of people use the term to mean different things. Until a definition is agreed it's hard to criticise it.

If it means simply different cultures living side by side, I don't see why it would ever be an objective of a country, it's the watering down of your own culture. And if culture and values are what gives us our indentity, then they are the only thing that effectively defines a group/population/nation and a governent that promotes multiculturalism is effectively betraying it's electorate.

Now some cultures can coexist in what would effectively be classed as a multicultural society, but only if the underlying values are shared, and perhaps the expression of those values differs. If the underlying values clash, there is no hope at all and none should be desired.

100% this

[spoonitnow]

-.-

You praise your own university and deride other universities.
You praise the culture of the religion in which you were raised, but deride the cultures of other religions.
You have no widespread or ethical critiques of those close to you (aside from your disfavor for taxation, but really, you view taxation as something that is forced upon you by "others," so it's really not even an outlier), but you do have scathing criticisms for people whom you've never actually met.

Is this merely a coincidence of geography or is it something else?

lol man come on, we're trying to be cool and let you hang out with us

[wufwugy]

[rong]

Good way of putting it.

One way I think this is exemplified is in how so many different immigrant groups have assimilated or are assimilating into the American mainstream even though they're still culturally unique in lots of ways. The underlying values they've accepted or brought with them include the respectability culture, work ethic, and family orientation. In groups where we don't see those values, we see lots of problems when interacting with the mainstream.

But more than that, when two cultures with shared values meet, the potential exists for both to grow and improve, so there's actually value in it. Maybe we need new terms, multiculturalism and culture contamination?

Edit: that sounds so racist.

[wufwugy]

imo one of the biggest disservices intellectuals have done for the western world is equate culture and ethnicity. the further away from scientific racism the concept of racism gets, the more it includes things that aren't racism.

we should be able to talk about the role of culture in the world, but the second we do that we're racists.

[JKDS]

Doesn't NYC invalidate this "when two cultures collide" argument? It seems super multicultural, and I mean in terms of actual culture not just skin color.

[spoonitnow]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

[JKDS]

On a larger scale, America is incredibly multicultural too. I guess you'd argue that the many cultures are segregated, and thats mostly true, but there's plenty of instances of cultures living together here besides nyc.

I heard itt that the refugees is a cultural dispute, same with #blm, and both are examples of cultures fighting. But I'm not sure that's true.

For one, take any southerner and transport them somewhere else. Many will keep their accent, way of cooking, religion, etc. Take a Mexican family and move them to wyoming, it's another dice roll on whether they become as white as ted cruz or act like the culture they brought.

So what's going on? Is it culture or is it something else driving the discussion?

For refugees in germany, I see lawlessness. Is it a cultural thing to completely disregard the laws of the State? I'm not sure it is. Is blackliveamatter the result of culture wars...or is it people objecting to perceived wrongs and acting within cultural norms? (Whats more American than protesting?)

I think this topic is more difficult than it appears

[wufwugy]

I think this topic is more difficult than it appears

It indeed is.

For refugees in germany, I see lawlessness. Is it a cultural thing to completely disregard the laws of the State?

It can be. I'm not sure if I've said this here before or not: a friend teaches English in Korea. He grew up in Africa to missionary parents and loved it. When he was considering the move to Korea, I asked him why he wouldn't just teach English in the region of Africa he grew up in instead, and he said teaching there is a nightmare because the students, virtually without exception, adore cheating and abhor learning. It's so bad that their cultural value system itself considers cheating a virtue and integrity a flaw. I was kinda blown away when he told me this.


As a response to the rest of your post, I think it's safe to say that most Americans have mostly acculturated to mainstream norms. This is why a place like NYC can be a relatively regular place. To see how a different cultural norm could totally throw that out of whack, just take any of those from elsewhere in the world and lob it into NYC. Say, mainstream Islamic views of women. Drop 2 million Saudi and Afghan rural types in NYC and we're gonna have proooooooooooblems. Most American Muslims have acculturated to the degree that they're very different than the average Middle East counterpart, so we don't see the sort of extreme problems from them in places like NYC like we would see from the rural Saudis and Afghans.

Appearances can be deceiving. We can see acculturated Muslim Americans and say "see they're totally different than us yet we don't have all these problems", but the reality is that they're actually not that different because they've adopted most/all of the important norms of our society.

[JKDS]

I think there's an important distinction between macro culture and micro culture then.

It appears that were now saying that so long as the macro cultures line up, we'll be ok. I can see that, the many different cultures of NYC all share some fundamentals like "don't kill no body, and obey the law" (even if some choose otherwise).

It also explains why many muslims in America are behaving differently than those in Germany. Ours likely have adopted (or always held) our macro "follow the law" rules.

Likewise I can move to the bayou and love comfortably, still maintain my culture, and experience a ton of new stuff. This is mostly because our macro cultures line up and they don't believe in the mass murder of whites or something.

[spoonitnow]

I think there's an important distinction between macro culture and micro culture then.

It appears that were now saying that so long as the macro cultures line up, we'll be ok. I can see that, the many different cultures of NYC all share some fundamentals like "don't kill no body, and obey the law" (even if some choose otherwise).

It also explains why many muslims in America are behaving differently than those in Germany. Ours likely have adopted (or always held) our macro "follow the law" rules.

Likewise I can move to the bayou and love comfortably, still maintain my culture, and experience a ton of new stuff. This is mostly because our macro cultures line up and they don't believe in the mass murder of whites or something.

I'm pretty sure that this concept has been explored in this thread and others previously, though we didn't use the micro/macro terminology.

To give another related point of view, the "red pill" perspective is that proximity combined with diversity [in the sense of culture] creates conflict. The closer you are, the more similar the major points of your culture have to be for there to be relative peace. Taken to an extreme, imagine two people who are roommates. While the major points of their culture might be the same, they're close enough to each other that very minor points could cause a conflict on some level. However, if these same two people lived in different apartments that were right beside of each other, that could be enough distance that those minor differences aren't enough to cause conflict.

[OngBonga]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

True story.

[wufwugy]

i like both the macro/micro and red pill way of looking at it

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol man come on, we're trying to be cool and let you hang out with us

Sorry to waste your time.

Peace out.

[JKDS]

Most misdemeanors I deal with right now involve DUI or domestic violence. Also, most criminals/victims that I've seen were under educated or drug users.

I thought that was interesting.

Also, nothing makes you appreciate the right to bear arms like living in the middle of bfe.

[rong]

Where are you?

[spoonitnow]

Also, nothing makes you appreciate the right to bear arms like living in the middle of bfe.

For fuck's sake, thank you.

[rong]

Bum fuck Egypt?

[boost]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

I laughed aloud.

[spoonitnow]

I've had people asking me shit about managing multiple females via PM on FTR, and I can't tell if I should be irritated or just talk to them about it. Either way, I feel like I'm going to come across as a jackass who's super full of himself. I don't really like talking about the shit in my personal w/e, but I'll talk about managing chicks in the general sense all day.

[MadMojoMonkey]

[Luco]

Bum fuck Egypt?

I also googled bfe

Wtf is bfe?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I also googled bfe

Wtf is bfe?

rong got it right.
Why Egypt? I have no idea.

I don't know where/how it started, but it roughly means "not near civilization."

It probably varies from place to place. Even in the St Louis area, people's ideas of how far from the city counts as BFE is a wide spectrum.

[JKDS]

It's a favorite phrase in AZ. Sorry.

I think it's cuz were in a desert and so is egypt...for the popularity I mean

[spoonitnow]

Related: There's a place outside of Winston-Salem called Midway. Do you know why they call it Midway? Because it's midway between Winston-Salem and the middle of fucking nowhere.

[JKDS]

Also, for those that don't know, there's only 3 "real" cities in arizona. Phx, tucson, and arguably flagstaff. Every other county/town/city has a population of nobody. Just miles of open desert as far as you can see.

[rong]

I've had people asking me shit about managing multiple females via PM on FTR

Lol

[spoonitnow]

Lol

Personally I think asking the question in the first place is out of line, but it's some real Aspergers type of motherfuckers asking it to begin with.

[a500lbgorilla]

[spoonitnow]

Anyone into researching their family history, etc?

[OngBonga]

Anyone into researching their family history, etc?

I am interested, but it's not easy because of my surname... it's one of the most common names in the UK. Having said that, my interest is because my Dad swears to me that I'm a (very distant) blood relative of Winston Churchill, I'm curious to know if he's full of shit.

[spoonitnow]

I am interested, but it's not easy because of my surname... it's one of the most common names in the UK. Having said that, my interest is because my Dad swears to me that I'm a (very distant) blood relative of Winston Churchill, I'm curious to know if he's full of shit.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...at-199595.html

[OngBonga]

http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...at-199595.html

I'm going out soon but I might stick my head in later to see what goes on.

[spoonitnow]

So have you ever thought about what the repercussions would be if rape on private property was made legal? People are apparently losing their fucking minds over a satirical article that considered that as its premise.

Woo libertarians. Woo anarchy.

Edit: For an example, it could provide incentives for women to have sex in public. Dealing with rape in prisons would also change, etc.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Sounds like a modest proposal.



Couldn't help myself.

[wufwugy]

it would be a disaster because the body is also private property. the proposed law would just be some extreme favoritism of one form of property (a person's land) over another form (a person's body).

[JKDS]

Its not as crazy as it first appears, and that's mainly because of other laws that already exist.

Violent rape would still be a thing, even under his premise. The reason is because assault/battery would still be a thing. Don't think that only stops the serious attempts at defense either, I regularly see people charged with assault for mere pushes and little visible injury.

I found what appears to be the article, (it may just be commentary), and it seems like it's mostly advocating for relaxed statutory rape laws....so no more walk-of-shame regrets followed by 911.

[wufwugy]

Something I'm sure nobody cares about, but whatevs.

So I completed intro macroeconomics a week ago. Spring semester started today and I had a discussion with a guy who took that class with me. He hated it and didn't understand much and said the only thing he learned from the class is that "free markets fail". This takeaway is reasonable given that the class was taught from the political perspective that the Great Depression was a *wink*free*wink* market failure which resulted in depressed aggregate demand and that Keynes demonstrated that governments can counter this "natural" failure by altering the government spending portion of the aggregate demand equation (Income=consumption+capital investment+government spending+exports-imports).

The equation is good stuff and Keynes was correct that when part of that equation declines, governments can increase spending to counteract. The problem, however, is that the material was taught as if the premise for why Keynes developed the equation in the first place was correct when it has since been learned that it was not. The field of economics has come a long way since Keynes and it has since become consensus theory that monetary policy (something Keynes did not understand) and regulatory policy (something Keynes wasn't big into) are also key elements of aggregate supply and demand. So much so that by the early 2000s, the economics field *begrudgingly* accepted the statement that the Great Depression was not caused by a free market failure but instead by a combination of things that largely include regulatory failure and the "monetary mechanism gone wrong" (Ben Bernanke's exact words).

Yet we didn't learn any of this in the class. All the elements that economists learn that contribute to their questioning of the popular view of the Great Depression are either learned in more advanced classes or by an advanced understanding of microeconomic principles. Our coverage of the Great Depression didn't even mention monetary policy, despite the fact that economic historians believe that to be the most important element. It didn't cover regulation induced moral hazard causes nor the backfiring of the legislature's stabilization policies. In fact a central tenet of the coverage of the Great Depression was that the legislature's stabilization policies were a significant contributor to recovery, despite the fact that the data does not suggest that one bit.

When I mentioned to the guy the Federal Reserve element, he said that he thought the Fed was created because of the Great Depression (it was created before). He didn't know that a failure in the money market that contributed to the Great Depression necessarily could not be called a failure of the "free market" since the market was monopolized. He also was equating "market" with "free market". It wasn't his fault because the professors (and some textbooks) do the same, even though they wouldn't if asked specifically about it. It's more that they fail to make the distinction during instruction. They say the Great Depression was caused by a "market failure" (it indeed was; even a monopoly operates in a market), yet then they say that the field of macroeconomics was created due trying to find solutions to this failure of unregulated markets. Those two are not the same; market!=unregulated market. I don't know why they make this mistake other than Keynes himself made it.

It's a wee bit upsetting since this is important stuff. Lots of people walk away from intro macroecon classes having essentially been taught the wrong thing.

[wufwugy]

TLDR: people be leaving economics classes thinking that they were taught that the Great Depression was a response to a failing of a totally free market, when, in actuality, the market regulation leading to that time was high and is believed by most economists who specialize in that period to be the most significant cause of the Great Depression.

[spoonitnow]

TLDR: people be leaving economics classes thinking that they were taught that the Great Depression was a response to a failing of a totally free market, when, in actuality, the market regulation leading to that time was high and is believed by most economists who specialize in that period to be the most significant cause of the Great Depression.

In other news, KRS-One has been saying college is a scam for years.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Perhaps I'm old and tired, but I think that the chances of finding out what's actually going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say, "Hang the sense of it," and keep yourself busy. I'd much rather be happy than right any day.

- HHGG

[wufwugy]

In other news, KRS-One has been saying college is a scam for years.

Some have said that the overwhelming support that Bernie Sanders gets from the college-aged demographic is evidence that the education system has failed. On the contrary, it is evidence that the education system has succeeded. With every passing decade, the education system has moved further away from being the laboratory of ideas and closer towards being the indoctrination tool that keeps people stoic for the state.

[spoonitnow]

Some have said that the overwhelming support that Bernie Sanders gets from the college-aged demographic is evidence that the education system has failed. On the contrary, it is evidence that the education system has succeeded. With every passing decade, the education system has moved further away from being the laboratory of ideas and closer towards being the indoctrination tool that keeps people stoic for the state.

Ding ding ding.