Please Help Reverse This

Nooo! It's because stupid people have too much sex and smart people don't breed enough! Probably part of the gay agenda! /s

Pleeeeaase don't think about the fact that this movie is kind of basically supporting pushing eugenics... It's totally a political commentary about how bad Republicans are, and definitely not actually propagating hardcore Randian Libertarian ideals in its insistence that certain types of people are just inherently, genetically, more suited to rule over others.
- It isn’t supporting any sort of selective breeding program at all, in fact it’s the exact opposite: it’s saying that all people should be raising kids to avoid a situation where the culture nosedives to the lowest common denominator. The supporting characters start coming around towards the end of the movie because they are not inherently stupid, just brainwashed.
  
  Just because it doesn't support an explicit breeding program, doesn't mean it can't dabble in negative eugenics.
  
  For someone that says he isn't pro-eugenics, Mike Judge certainly made a very pro-eugenics movie. It's simply undeniable, whatever his intentions.
  A common criticism of Idiocracy is that it's most appreciated by some of the people it purports to mock, faux intellectuals. I don't think it's a coincidence how many of its most fervent online supporters lack the intellectual honesty to admit such an obvious fact.
  
  A common criticism of Idiocracy is that it's most appreciated by some of the people it purports to mock, faux intellectuals.
  Given how much on the movie is spent dunking on stupid people (i.e. stand-ins for republicans), I don't think that's surprising at all.
- It does have one anti-capitalist theme (the megacorp buying the FDA), so, I don't know, if it's exactly Randian, per se.
  
  I mean, the movie doesn't actually know what it's trying to be. It's a dystopia where everyone is too stupid to function, but a megacorp has zero difficulty arranging the infrastructure and logistics needed to water crops with sports drinks, while also engaging in massive regulatory capture to make this happen. It's a world where intelligence has disappeared but they somehow have super advanced scifi tech everywhere that hasn't broken down even though logically no one should have a clue how to maintain it. Oh, and despite being apparently the worst possible future, as soon as someone comparitively smart shows up they immediately put him in charge of the country instead of, say, handing it over to said megacorp.
  Idiocracy is an incoherent mess masquerading as satire, while it's only cogent point is "I hate anyone who has ever shopped at Walmart."
  
  Each one of these things is it's own commentary, that is all. Judge obviously wasn't doing cohesive world building; he was just squeezing together all the commentary he has on why people are hypocritical idiots. All the way down the the eugenics bit.
  Since that's where the conversation started, let's go to eugenics first. I would wager the writer has expienced the 'cautious successful people with no kids' trope a million times in real life and in his very successful career. He made it his own when he contrasted it with the Jerry Springer types; which was very culturally dominant at that time. Yes, we look at it today and only see the problematic eugenics message; but I imagine the writers regret when he sees the most intelligent, affectionate, people he knows never being able to do what the dummy's on Springer find all to easy.
  The writers world is one on the brink of collapse. All because technology was so advance it was self sustaining, at least for a time. The excess it provided made society's need for education, social structure, and governance evaporate. The time leading up to when Not Sure showed up could have been a cultural revolution of art and space exploration but instead was plagued with reality TV, fart humor, and fast food. All things that were dominating the culture when the writer wrote the script. Taken to the most extreme, focus on making more Gatorade then could ever be consumed would be in line with societies priorities at the time.
  Finally, Not Sure becoming president was a simple, funny, way to advance the story. It would be unkind for the author to make all this commentary without giving the audience a polite instruction that could help circumvent our tragic future. That comment being, just feed the plants water. Meaning stop with the idiocy. You don't have to listen to the, "smartest man in the world" because Not Sure was just an ordinary 20th century guy and even he knew that plants need water.
  
  I've always found it funny how I've seen folks from both ideological sides point to this film as a satire of what's wrong with the other. It's a simple satire, but that's what makes it effective.
  
  Judge is master at this type of commentary. Beavis and butthead was making fun of how stupid the MTV audience was. The same audience that adopted and Beavis and Butthead just as fast as it was incepted.
  King of the hill is the ultimate "Steven Colbert is a sincere conservative show." In king of the hill Hank is a nieve Texan that buys into every bullshit "American exceptionalism" type idealogy there is. He then humanizes him and shows how every single time Hank is returning to "American values" he's just being nieve and if he were born anywhere else he would be just as liberal as he is a "conservative."
  
  I mean, this honestly just sounds like you're saying he's really good at vapid "commentary" that is little more than broad observational humour that falls apart on close inspection. "Stupid people are stupid" isn't exactly putting you up there with George Carlin.
  This is exactly the problem South Park has; the only "commentary" they're actually willing to commit to is "everyone sucks". This is neither helpful, nor in any way actually accurate.
  As the saying goes, if everywhere you go smells like dogshit, check your shoes.
  
  Sure but maybe you need a mirror?
  
  As a counter to you comment: Quiet you. No one cares what the anti fun police think.
You are indeed proving you point here 😂

People are definitely not more bigoted and ignorant. They just feel it's now safer to express their bigotry.

Possible.
They just feel it’s now safer to express their bigotry.
Which has a memetic effect on the population. The more bigotry ideas are expressed, the more new people feel that those ideas have value. Andrew Tate is an example of a super spreader.

Between the lead fuel, plastics, and possibly other issues not yet proven to be an issue like food colorings and preservatives, we may actually be dumber today than 150 years ago.

We just have access to more platforms to share our opinions and people have access to more sources of information to reinforce their bad opinions.
During the Spanish flu people were fighting against preventive measures, the anti Vax movement existed in the late 1800s (example for those who read French https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/634164/la-grogne-contre-les-vaccins-et-les-mesures-sanitaires-des-le-xixe-siecle ), there's always been people supporting fascists and so on...
- Doctors used to refuse to wash their hands before performing surgery.
You vastly underestimate the amount of smoke (both pollution and intentional) and lead and toxic dyes and alcohol and cocaine and heroin that people consumed 150 years ago. Not to mention the rampant disease.
- That didn't effect nearly the entire population as leaded gasoline.