A Look at Idiocracy

[TulipQulqu]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I'm sorry, but the movie didn't target any tangible subsect of modern society, or as tangible as gelatin maybe. Who are we specifically supposed to target in our practical demagoguing? People doing something we already recognize we have no capacity in stopping any how? That's not very eugenic centric. As if Mike Judge was of the mind to say "yeah sure use it as your ideological manifest in order to run an ultraconservative agenda."

The premise is not picking anybody for who they are, it's explicitly showing the practice and decisions that lead to the social evolution outcome. It's demeaning, but it's discreet in identification and doesn't suggest any call to action other than respecting institutions of democracy.

[TulipQulqu]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I'm sorry, but the movie didn't target any tangible subsect of modern society, or as tangible as gelatin maybe. Who are we specifically supposed to target in our practical demagoguing? People doing something we already recognize we have no capacity in stopping any how? That's not very eugenic centric. As if Mike Judge was of the mind to say "yeah sure use it as your ideological manifest in order to run an ultraconservative agenda."

The premise is not picking anybody for who they are, it's explicitly showing the practice and decisions that lead to the social evolution outcome. It's demeaning, but it's discreet in identification and doesn't suggest any call to action other than respecting institutions of democracy.

The movie specifically is targeting those with mental impairment. It uses the measure of IQ as a proxy for "worth". This is the same premise as well known tome of racist nonsense "The Bell Curve".

There is literally a exemplar of the dumb in the beginning who accidentally sterilizes himself, and the movie then shows that preventing this man from being further disabled medical science was creating the idiocracy. How does that not endorse sterilizing the mentally infirm?

[Thebestoftherest]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I conded to your point

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I'm sorry, but the movie didn't target any tangible subsect of modern society, or as tangible as gelatin maybe. Who are we specifically supposed to target in our practical demagoguing? People doing something we already recognize we have no capacity in stopping any how? That's not very eugenic centric. As if Mike Judge was of the mind to say "yeah sure use it as your ideological manifest in order to run an ultraconservative agenda."

The premise is not picking anybody for who they are, it's explicitly showing the practice and decisions that lead to the social evolution outcome. It's demeaning, but it's discreet in identification and doesn't suggest any call to action other than respecting institutions of democracy.

The movie specifically is targeting those with mental impairment. It uses the measure of IQ as a proxy for "worth". This is the same premise as well known tome of racist nonsense "The Bell Curve".

There is literally a exemplar of the dumb in the beginning who accidentally sterilizes himself, and the movie then shows that preventing this man from being further disabled medical science was creating the idiocracy. How does that not endorse sterilizing the mentally infirm?

I don't know who you're referring to that sterilizes himself. Elaborate, please.

Having a low IQ isn't indicative of having a mental impairment. Mental deficiencies aren't really denoted by lack of intuitive development as much as social psychological disposition. Low IQ's are code for lack of development.

[TulipQulqu]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I'm sorry, but the movie didn't target any tangible subsect of modern society, or as tangible as gelatin maybe. Who are we specifically supposed to target in our practical demagoguing? People doing something we already recognize we have no capacity in stopping any how? That's not very eugenic centric. As if Mike Judge was of the mind to say "yeah sure use it as your ideological manifest in order to run an ultraconservative agenda."

The premise is not picking anybody for who they are, it's explicitly showing the practice and decisions that lead to the social evolution outcome. It's demeaning, but it's discreet in identification and doesn't suggest any call to action other than respecting institutions of democracy.

The movie specifically is targeting those with mental impairment. It uses the measure of IQ as a proxy for "worth". This is the same premise as well known tome of racist nonsense "The Bell Curve".

There is literally a exemplar of the dumb in the beginning who accidentally sterilizes himself, and the movie then shows that preventing this man from being further disabled medical science was creating the idiocracy. How does that not endorse sterilizing the mentally infirm?

I don't know who you're referring to that sterilizes himself. Elaborate, please.

Having a low IQ isn't indicative of having a mental impairment. Mental deficiencies aren't really denoted by lack of intuitive development as much as social psychological disposition. Low IQ's are code for lack of development.

The big fat idiot at the start who gets hit in the nuts and then has to go to the hospital to get it fixed. Just doing eugenics advocacy in the first 15 minutes is not okay.

IQ within the bands of one or two standard deviations is usually developmental. Things that reach into the three or four standard deviations tend to be indicative of either test failure (the subject being excessively knowledgeable about the test or testing someone in the wrong language) or something going on that is not going to be overcame easily. Intellectual disability is going to result in doing poorly on a properly designed IQ test.

The problem with this movie is that it associates low IQ with low worth as a person.

[CharlesPhipps]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It depends if you think satire is free from having a point or message.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I hate this movie because it assumes intelligence is genetic and not necessarily an attack on education by authorities that wish to deprive the public of truth, advantages, or teach them to question authority.

It is satire should you take what happen at fact?

It literally endorses the logic of eugenics in its premise. A watcher of the movie is told straight up in the start of the movie "the dystopia of the future is because the dumb dumbs kept breeding like animals".

This is a real thing people into eugenics have said. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell?wprov=sfla1 was not so long ago that it is safe to assume that no one honestly thinks this way anymore.

If a satire had "them Jews!" secretly running society, and then showed a future where everything sucks, and the narrator said "them Jews ruined everything, no one could stop them", we would flip out because it's obviously Nazism. Why does advocating another, less famous, Nazi crime against humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4?wprov=sfla1 get any pass?

I'm sorry, but the movie didn't target any tangible subsect of modern society, or as tangible as gelatin maybe. Who are we specifically supposed to target in our practical demagoguing? People doing something we already recognize we have no capacity in stopping any how? That's not very eugenic centric. As if Mike Judge was of the mind to say "yeah sure use it as your ideological manifest in order to run an ultraconservative agenda."

The premise is not picking anybody for who they are, it's explicitly showing the practice and decisions that lead to the social evolution outcome. It's demeaning, but it's discreet in identification and doesn't suggest any call to action other than respecting institutions of democracy.

The movie specifically is targeting those with mental impairment. It uses the measure of IQ as a proxy for "worth". This is the same premise as well known tome of racist nonsense "The Bell Curve".

There is literally a exemplar of the dumb in the beginning who accidentally sterilizes himself, and the movie then shows that preventing this man from being further disabled medical science was creating the idiocracy. How does that not endorse sterilizing the mentally infirm?

I don't know who you're referring to that sterilizes himself. Elaborate, please.

Having a low IQ isn't indicative of having a mental impairment. Mental deficiencies aren't really denoted by lack of intuitive development as much as social psychological disposition. Low IQ's are code for lack of development.

The big fat idiot at the start who gets hit in the nuts and then has to go to the hospital to get it fixed. Just doing eugenics advocacy in the first 15 minutes is not okay.

IQ within the bands of one or two standard deviations is usually developmental. Things that reach into the three or four standard deviations tend to be indicative of either test failure (the subject being excessively knowledgeable about the test or testing someone in the wrong language) or something going on that is not going to be overcame easily. Intellectual disability is going to result in doing poorly on a properly designed IQ test.

The problem with this movie is that it associates low IQ with low worth as a person.

The movie never said it was 3 to 4 sds away from average.

[TulipQulqu]

The movie never said it was 3 to 4 sds away from average.

Do you wait until a movie has a character say the N-Word followed by people congratulating the character saying it on demonstrating moral character in doing so to wonder if there is a racial subtext to a movie?

Because it seems like you will only find a movie bothersome if it wears its reactionary politics so on its sleeve that it could not be understood another way.

I am not saying Mike Judge intended to make eugenics propaganda. I have no idea what is in his head or heart. I just know he repeated a lot of the concepts eugenicists push in a movie. See the Patricia Taxxon video I linked a while back on the matter for someone going into depth on it because she got paid to while I am just some forum poster.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The movie never said it was 3 to 4 sds away from average.

Do you wait until a movie has a character say the N-Word followed by people congratulating the character saying it on demonstrating moral character in doing so to wonder if there is a racial subtext to a movie?

Because it seems like you will only find a movie bothersome if it wears its reactionary politics so on its sleeve that it could not be understood another way.

I am not saying Mike Judge intended to make eugenics propaganda. I have no idea what is in his head or heart. I just know he repeated a lot of the concepts eugenicists push in a movie. See the Patricia Taxxon video I linked a while back on the matter for someone going into depth on it because she got paid to while I am just some forum poster.

I don't find his piece liable for those events.