6mo ago

Please Help Reverse This

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

190 comments

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.
  
  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)
  Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn't make you a good parent, but that's not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
  how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
  So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
  
  Being smart doesn't make you a good parent, but that's not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
  We're talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: "If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we'll have a problem of stupidity."
  That's a eugenicist stance. Period. It doesn't rely on nature or nurture, or anything else. Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were "unfit for parenthood" due to eugenic arguments. Not, because of their genes, but because of their lacking capabilities of nurturing.
  So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
  No, but that's literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
  
  We're talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: "If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we'll have a problem of stupidity."
  That's your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social "devolution". Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
  It doesn't rely on nature or nurture, or anything else.
  The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
  Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were "unfit for parenthood" due to eugenic arguments.
  The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn't have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
  Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked "racial science", and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It's not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.
  No, but that's literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
  Lol, there are only two "smart" people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker..... They also have three kids.
  So I don't really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.
  I think you're getting a little caught up on concepts like "breeding", which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it's just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.
  The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.
  You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I've provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I'm "cherry picking", which really isn't an argument.
  
  That's your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social "devolution". Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
  Damn, you must be a Yogi, if you're that great at bending over backwards to make a point.
  The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
  lol, wut?
  The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn't have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
  That included the "mental illness" of "feeble mindedness" and "promiscuity" of Carrie Buck. "Feeble mindedness" was once determined by IQ tests, btw. Noticing a pattern already?
  Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked "racial science", and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society.
  Yes, so far, so good
  It's not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same
  Why not? Where in the handbook of eugenics does it say that it has to be explicitly racist? The whole idea of the "wrong people" having "too many" kids leads to a "degeneration" of society is the basic justification behind negative eugenics!
  Lol, there are only two "smart" people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker..... They also have three kids.
  I'm talking about the setup. You can see the IQ of the smart couple in the beginning.
  The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years.
  I'm judging by the internal logic of the movie, not on the real world. I know that the real world doesn't work like that at all. 🙄
  You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point.
  No, you! /j
  I've provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine
  I disagree
  other than saying I'm "cherry picking", which really isn't an argument.
  You're misrepresenting the movie by cherry-picking, which invalidates your arguments.

190 comments