Idiocracy is not a Documentary

[CivilDiscourse]

A very long video, there are a few F-bombs towards the end, but it's over an hour long and has alot of great information in here.

It does cover the eugenics of the movie, as well as reminds you how many liberals truly have this smug superiority complex.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Since I don't have over an hour to listen to this, how about some high points?

[CivilDiscourse]

Since I don't have over an hour to listen to this, how about some high points?

The big one is that this movie leans heavily into 2 really bad themes.

1. Eugenics. I.E. the world is what it is because stupid people outbred smart people (and intelligence is genetic).
2. The masses should get out of the way and let the smart people run everything.

This feeds into an overall problem of liberal smugness because they believe that poor people are conservative/dumb (again, see the movie's portrayal of dumb people), and that liberals are the smart people, and everyone else should just get behind them. (That comes from the people going "idiocracy is a documentary).

The main speaker/author of the above video is a liberal, and even she is talking about how bad this movies message is.

[Sparko]

The big one is that this movie leans heavily into 2 really bad themes.

1. Eugenics. I.E. the world is what it is because stupid people outbred smart people (and intelligence is genetic).
2. The masses should get out of the way and let the smart people run everything.

This feeds into an overall problem of liberal smugness because they believe that poor people are conservative/dumb (again, see the movie's portrayal of dumb people), and that liberals are the smart people, and everyone else should just get behind them. (That comes from the people going "idiocracy is a documentary).

The main speaker/author of the above video is a liberal, and even she is talking about how bad this movies message is.

Ah elitism again. Basically the same thing every genocidal maniac has proposed in history, that they are the only ones worth of breeding and they need to get rid of all of the inferior subhumans.

[CivilDiscourse]

Ah elitism again. Basically the same thing every genocidal maniac has proposed in history, that they are the only ones worth of breeding and they need to get rid of all of the inferior subhumans.

The thing is, I find the movie funny. But, there's a difference between finding it funny, and believing it actually says anything meaningful about politics, or describing any group of people.

[Sparko]

The thing is, I find the movie funny. But, there's a difference between finding it funny, and believing it actually says anything meaningful about politics, or describing any group of people.

I watched a bit of it. I think the real message is that society is dumbing down, and I think that is true. Schools cater to the least common denominator, are afraid to teach critical thinking, and are afraid to hold anyone back. I am reminded of those interviews where college students don't even know who won the civil war, or who the current president it.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I watched a bit of it. I think the real message is that society is dumbing down, and I think that is true. Schools cater to the least common denominator, are afraid to teach critical thinking, and are afraid to hold anyone back. I am reminded of those interviews where college students don't even know who won the civil war, or who the current president it.

Not unlike a lot of church these days - aimed at the newest convert rather than mature believers.

[Ronson]

What I've seen in my kids and grandkids is a lack of curiosity. When I was a kid up through my early adulthood, and including my friends and family, there was a definite curiosity about the world, science, and history. Not much of that anymore.

[CivilDiscourse]

What I've seen in my kids and grandkids is a lack of curiosity. When I was a kid up through my early adulthood, and including my friends and family, there was a definite curiosity about the world, science, and history. Not much of that anymore.

I think that has to do with "instant entertainment." As kids we had to go find something to do, which led to discovery and exploration. That kept imaginations and curiosity going.

My son is fascinated by outdoor activities when we go do tgo, but at home, the easy entertainment wins

[Ronson]

I think that has to do with "instant entertainment." As kids we had to go find something to do, which led to discovery and exploration. That kept imaginations and curiosity going.

My son is fascinated by outdoor activities when we go do tgo, but at home, the easy entertainment wins

That's likely the culprit. With so many modes of entertainment and distraction, there is little room left for imagination.

Coincidentally, my brother sent me this link because this was something we saw on PBS back in the 1970s. I forgot about it but he always remembered the mystery, and about the moving rocks of Death Valley. Apparently, it was recently solved. It drove my brother crazy trying to figure it out.

[CivilDiscourse]

That's likely the culprit. With so many modes of entertainment and distraction, there is little room left for imagination.

Coincidentally, my brother sent me this link because this was something we saw on PBS back in the 1970s. I forgot about it but he always remembered the mystery, and about the moving rocks of Death Valley. Apparently, it was recently solved. It drove my brother crazy trying to figure it out.

I just watched that today. Lol.

I think room is the wrong word. "Need" is better. Like I said, my son is fascinated by these things, but unless we make it happen its easier to simply rely on the easy pre packaged fun.

[Juvenal]

Remember the long detailed discussions about Zeitgeist?

For better or worse, the performance piece that became that movie was at least artful and the discussions about the film were interesting. I’m not expecting nearly as much from a youtube analysis of a B-grade movie from the originator of Beavis and Butthead. I managed to get through about 30 minutes of it before I lost out to my inner OCD screaming at this woman to put down the damn crock-crafted teacup picked up from a Renaissance faire before she spilled it on her lap again.

The teapot was okay, I guess, but not with that cup.

Where is your fashion sense, woman!

I watched Idiocracy with my since passed old buddy McGrath, the Irish blacksmith and blarney hustler I brought down to Florida with me to give him a couple seasons in the sun before he called it quits, which is the only reason I was able to sit through the whole thing. But having done so, it’s an evident fact this woman’s got no clue about the movie. Far from being a paean to elitism, the protagonist’s main claim to fame is that he’s barely average bright, which allows the director to flatter the mass market mediocracy by vicariously placing them in a position where they’re finally smarter than everyone around them.

”They’re outbreeding us” is indeed pitched by pointing out folks three standard deviations above the norm don’t have as many kids.

But even in a universe where regression to the mean doesn’t occur, lopping off the top 0.3 percent isn’t going to make the average IQ no longer the average IQ and eliminate standard deviation enough to homogenize the population. For the former you’d need average IQs to stop breeding, too, and a rising population to suddenly invalidate the large number theorems.

But that’s beside the point, as the portrayal of the intelligentsia is, again, created to demean them in order to appeal to the average movie patron.

I could go on, but the point is made sufficiently well I’m figuring. This is, in the end, a crap analysis of an even crappier movie.

/thread

[KingsGambit]

It's been well over 15 years since I watched this movie, but it had to be one of the most insufferable movies I ever watched (but to be fair, I have watched relatively few). It struck me as likely scientifically implausible, but that lies well outside any expertise of mine, plus anybody who has ever been exposed to Neil DeGrasse Tyson on social media knows how trying to scientifically critique lighthearted movies comes across.

[CivilDiscourse]

Remember the long detailed discussions about Zeitgeist?

For better or worse, the performance piece that became that movie was at least artful and the discussions about the film were interesting. I’m not expecting nearly as much from a youtube analysis of a B-grade movie from the originator of Beavis and Butthead. I managed to get through about 30 minutes of it before I lost out to my inner OCD screaming at this woman to put down the damn crock-crafted teacup picked up from a Renaissance faire before she spilled it on her lap again.

The teapot was okay, I guess, but not with that cup.

Where is your fashion sense, woman!

I watched Idiocracy with my since passed old buddy McGrath, the Irish blacksmith and blarney hustler I brought down to Florida with me to give him a couple seasons in the sun before he called it quits, which is the only reason I was able to sit through the whole thing. But having done so, it’s an evident fact this woman’s got no clue about the movie. Far from being a paean to elitism, the protagonist’s main claim to fame is that he’s barely average bright, which allows the director to flatter the mass market mediocracy by vicariously placing them in a position where they’re finally smarter than everyone around them.

”They’re outbreeding us” is indeed pitched by pointing out folks three standard deviations above the norm don’t have as many kids.

But even in a universe where regression to the mean doesn’t occur, lopping off the top 0.3 percent isn’t going to make the average IQ no longer the average IQ and eliminate standard deviation enough to homogenize the population. For the former you’d need average IQs to stop breeding, too, and a rising population to suddenly invalidate the large number theorems.

But that’s beside the point, as the portrayal of the intelligentsia is, again, created to demean them in order to appeal to the average movie patron.

I could go on, but the point is made sufficiently well I’m figuring. This is, in the end, a crap analysis of an even crappier movie.

/thread

Its unfortunate that someone liberals latched onto its message during the Trump years, with even Time magazine making the connection.

https://time.com/4327424/idiocracy/

[CivilDiscourse]

It's been well over 15 years since I watched this movie, but it had to be one of the most insufferable movies I ever watched (but to be fair, I have watched relatively few). It struck me as likely scientifically implausible, but that lies well outside any expertise of mine, plus anybody who has ever been exposed to Neil DeGrasse Tyson on social media knows how trying to scientifically critique lighthearted movies comes across.

The problem is, of course a lighthearted movie could still be based on a racist belief and message. The fact that its light hearted wouldn't change that.