1y ago

Please Help Reverse This

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

189 comments

I don't know what I can say. The movie literally focuses on the biology. It's literally in the text and you claim otherwise.
Edit: I noticed that my timestamp didn't work. It's pretty open at 1m58s
- At 1m58sec they are talking about medical advancements....not genetics. Again, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Medical advancements that allow people to procreate at a faster rate is not biology, it's sociology.
  It kinda seems you are dismissing the possibility of nurture attributing to the equation at all, which in and of itself is a eugenics based argument.
  
  The joke is "this could have been prevented, if that guy became infertile, but unfortunately, modern medicine saved him". That's not jumping to codclusions, that's the literal text of the movie.
  Seriously, what's wrong with your media literacy? It's so obvious.
  It kinda seems you are dismissing the possibility of nurture attributing to the equation at all, which in and of itself is a eugenics based argument.
  Nice try. I'm simply interpreting the text of the movie.
  
  The joke is "this could have been prevented, if that guy became infertile, but unfortunately, modern medicine saved him". That's not jumping to codclusions, that's the literal text of the movie.
  Yes.....it is. Preventing a deadbeat dad from abandoning even more families to poverty is not saying that his genes are cursed or something.
  Seriously, what's wrong with your media literacy? It's so obvious
  Have you not ever heard of nature vs nurture? Never heard of tabula rassa? You do know that intellect isn't determined by genes alone, correct?
  Nice try. I'm sim'ly interpreting the text of the movie.
  Yes, through the lens of eugenics.....
  
  The movie constantly focuses on genetics. It even ends with the naration that the (relatively smart) hero has a few smart kids and his dumb friend has a few dumb ones. The movie never interacts with *any socioeconomic factors, except for conflating poor people with dumb people.
  Have you not ever heard of nature vs nurture?
  The movie doesn't get into that argument.
  Never heard of tabula rassa?
  What does "clean slate" have to do with this?
  You do know that intellect isn't determined by genes alone, correct?
  Yes, that's my point. The premise of the movie hinges on intelligence being mainly inherited.
  
  The movie constantly focuses on genetics. It even ends with the naration that the (relatively smart) hero has a few smart kids and his dumb friend has a few dumb ones.
  It doesn't mention genes...... In the clip you are talking about where he has smart kids, you can see both of the parents actively teaching their kids how to read. It then pans over to his friends who had a bunch of dumb kids and he's teaching them to play with fireworks or something.
  The movie never interacts with *any socioeconomic factors, except for conflating poor people with dumb people.
  If it never interacts with socioeconomics how does it conflate poor people with dumb people?
  The movie doesn't get into that argument.
  It's the whole point of the movie.....
  What does "clean slate" have to do with this?
  Lol, so no. You don't understand.
  Yes, that's my point. The premise of the movie hinges on intelligence being mainly inherited.
  How are you making that determination? How does one delineate between the two within the context of the movie?
  
  It doesn't mention genes......
  Dude, modern eugenics was invented almost 40 years before they knew genes were even a thing. Do you expect them pointing at a double helix and saying "this is the stupid gene", before you accept a premise that's based on breeding having an eugenic message?
  In the clip you are talking about where he has smart kids, you can see both of the parents actively teaching their kids how to read. It then pans over to his friends who had a bunch of dumb kids and he's teaching them to play with fireworks or something.
  Nice cherry-picking. In the rest of the clip, they're constantly ref renceing, how much "stupid" people breed. One punchline is specifically that a stupid person's junk was saved.
  If it never interacts with socioeconomics how does it conflate poor people with dumb people?
  Do you know what "except" means?
  It's the whole point of the movie.....
  When? When does it reference the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture.
  Lol, so no. You don't understand.
  "Tabula rasa" is used in German as an equivalent of "clean slate". I read that stuff up... the movie explicitly negates these behaviorist ideas. (Again: it focuses almost exclusively on breeding)
  You would have a point if it would have focused more on the poor children being badly cared for, instead of slutshaming the poor.
  
  Dude, modern eugenics was invented almost 40 years before they knew genes were even a thing. Do you expect them pointing at a double helix and saying "this is the stupid gene", before you accept a premise that's based on breeding having an eugenic message?
  Yes, and this movie was written in the 2000s... If we want to get pedantic with the science aspect, then your theory is out the window to begin with. 500 years is not long enough for a species to radically alter their intellect on a societal scale.
  Nice cherry-picking. In the rest of the clip, they're constantly ref renceing, how much "stupid" people breed. One punchline is specifically that a stupid person's junk was saved.
  The rest of the clip? It's literally the end of the movie..... And again, there's no way to delineate if the stupidity in question is a byproduct of parenting vs "breeding" as you put it.
  Do you know what "except" means?
  Lol, and how does it conflate poor people with stupidity? Just out of the blue....no context?
  the movie explicitly negates these behaviorist ideas.
  Lol, no it doesn't.
  You would have a point if it would have focused more on the poor children being badly cared for, instead of slutshaming the poor.
  Lol, what are you talking about? I've brought up the care of children several times, and havent brought up sexual provocation at all?
  I think you need to take a nap or something.
  
  Keep at it homie. I got you way down here.
  
  Lol, I really don't know what this guy's going on about. I feel the only way you could be this obtuse about nature vs nurture argument is if you actually believe intellect is a purely inherited trait.
  
  Yes, and this movie was written in the 2000s... If we want to get pedantic with the science aspect, then your theory is out the window to begin with.
  What theory? Eugenics doesn't work in real life. I'm critizising the movie on its' own premise, not on scientific pedantry.
  It's literally the end of the movie...
  Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?
  here's no way to delineate if the stupidity in question is a byproduct of parenting vs "breeding" as you put it.
  the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don't. You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.
  how does it conflate poor people with stupidity?
  Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white "trash" trailer park people (except the President, maybe).
  Lol, no it doesn't.
  Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie? The first five minutes is back to back jokes about reproduction (fucking). Where are the behaviorist scenes?
  
  What theory? Eugenics doesn't work in real life. I'm critizising the movie on its' own premise, not on scientific pedantry.
  But you aren't.... There isn't any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they're implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.
  The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it's hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children's intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn't raise.....
  So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of "smart parents" was raised by idiots, and remained smart...... Then it's impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.
  Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?
  I was talking about the end of the movie.....that's what we were talking about from what you quoted.
  At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.
  the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don't.
  People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education..... America being a land of inequality based on social status isn't exactly a new idea.
  You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.
  In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity.... Not exactly great parenting.
  Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white "trash" trailer park people (except the President, maybe).
  I did not get that impression..... Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?
  Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie?
  How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the "idiots" in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?
  
  Ok, that's like... three "nurture" mentions (although being smart doesn't make you a good parent and being dumb doesn't make you a bad one, so I'm already generous) against... how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
  But you've clearly made up your mind and refuse to see the obvious classist notions of the movie. I can't do any more than pointing out the obvious if you don't want to see it.
  
  I'm sim'ly interpreting the text of the movie.
  Yeah, badly
  
  It's in the friggin text, homie.
- Does the movie touch on an "intelligence gene" that's passed down?
  I don't believe it does, in which case, is it eugenics if no genes are involved?
  
  Does the movie touch on an "intelligence gene" that's passed down?
  r u serious?
  is it eugenics if no genes are involved?
  Yes, goddammit. The idea is older than the discovery of genes. 🙄
  
  Yes, goddammit. The idea is older than the discovery of genes. 🙄
  Incorrect theories about hereditary effects have fueled eugenics, however the undiscovered underlying mechanism would still be genes.
  My understanding is that the eugenics still necessitates genes being passed down, but I am no eugenics scholar and would cede to definitions that are contrary.
  
  Incorrect theories about hereditary effects have fueled eugenics, however the undiscovered underlying mechanism would still be genes.
  So? Darwin came before the discovery of genes. My whole point is that you don't need to talk about genes in order to talk about eugenics.
  
  Sure, however there are traits passed down through generations that don't utilize genes. As an example, let's look at intergenerational wealth. Is that a form of eugenics? I would argue no - there are no biological traits being selected for, which afaik is the scope of eugenics. Instead I would propose that these are inherited environmental traits, which are more in the scope of public policy.
  Let's then talk about intelligence. AFAIK, intelligence is a mixture of nature and nurture - genes and environmental impacts. What this means is when you claim the movie is about eugenics, you are choosing to ignore the environmental aspect, and instead focusing on the genetic aspect of intelligence. If we bring this back to inherited social traits, it is just as likely that it is the inherited environmental traits that resulted in the dumbing down depicted in the movie. The dumb example fella did not prioritize education, so why would his offspring?
  
  What this means is when you claim the movie is about eugenics, you are choosing to ignore the environmental aspect, and instead focusing on the genetic aspect of intelligence.
  You see: I believe that even your nuanced take on intelligence is selling the whole thing short. Intelligence is something that seems intuitive but actually isn't very well understood (but sadly: quite often used as justification for discrimination).
  So, I don't believe any of those things about inheritabiliy of intelligence. Yet, the basic premise of the movie relies a lot on inheritability of intelligence. I'm saying that the whole setup of the movie is a thought experiment, based on eugenic principles.
  I don't think that eugenics relies on genes, btw. Eugenicists actually always took an effort to ignore socio-economical issues. The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is "if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem". The justification, be it genes, nature, or nurture, comes afterwards.
  
  The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is "if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem".
  Reproduce, meaning procreate/have kids?
  This clarification matters because if it's just about giving birth to kids, it fundamentally is about genes. The justification is whatever quality the eugenicist is hoping to encourage. The underlying mechanism, once again, is genes.
  Here's a question that might further the discussion. Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies? If it's not eugenics, then why does choosing who can have babies through procreation fall under the umbrella of eugenics? What's the difference between these scenarios?
  It would be very helpful if you could share a source that discusses eugenics in the absence of passing on biologically inherited traits. The vast majority of definitions that I've seen focuses on this supposed passing on of biological inheritance of traits.
  
  Yes, have kids.
  But the mechanics don't matter, since eugenics don't rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed "unfit to raise them properly" was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn't rely on genetics at all.
  It doesn't matter if the justification is "genes", or "capabilities of raising children", or cosmic radiation or whatever.
  Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies?
  Kind of? That one's a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I'd say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can't care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I'd argue that's not eugenistic.
  
  Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for "eugenics native American children" and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
  When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
  To get the conversation started, here's the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
  Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well', and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')[1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4]
  the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations (as by sterilization) to improve the populations' genetic composition
  The study of methods of improving the quality of human populations by the application of genetic principles.
  
  Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I'll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
  Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
  I don't think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.

189 comments