The Idiocracy conumdrum... should we denounce dangerous propaganda hidden as comedy.

[Lost in CT]

I have a couple of friends that are quite liberal... and yet they love the film Idiocracy... not just do they like the film but they buy into the premise that smart people don't breed enough and Freepers in trailers breed like rabbits... in other words they buy the premise of the movie....


Well for those of us that know better Idiocracy's premise is one of the most dangerous pseudosciences of the twentieth century... called Eugenics it has returned with a vengeance in the last few years and shockingly enough among many Progressives as well as Fascists.

The film Idiocracy seems to have been spread this idea of eugenics in the minds of otherwise normal progressives. Idiocracy and it's fans are the latest example of this disturbing trend. What is really sad is that they don't even recognize the poison they are spreading themselves.

We certainly wouldn't allow our children to watch Triumph of the Will or Red Dawn without some context... would you let them watch Idiocracy without explaining the dangerous evil that it subversively endorses.

(And for the record Freeper children are at birth no smarter or dumber than non-freeper children. With a good school system they all can be productive members of society)

[arcadian]

1. That is some real bullshit you are peddling.

The film doesn't promote any sort of policy regarding population control or social engineering. It merely observes trends. To quote OMC, this is about the stupidest post I've ever read on DU.

[Lost in CT]

The premise of the film is the premise of Eugenics...

Are you saying stupidier people are having more kids then smart people? And what IN REAL LIFE does that lead to... a Eugenist would say a stupider population... a scientist would point out it doesn't matter...

[arcadian]

11. That is a proven fact.

The birth rate drops to zero in industrialized nations. When people become more educated and more technological they have less kids.

[Lost in CT]

21. This has nothing to do with the birth rate and everything to do with average IQ. nt

[obiwan]

102. Yep. I am educated and intelligent.

My parents had four kids and were miserable. I had one kid, and I am pretty happy. Intellectuals will always get crap for not reproducing enough. Battles of philosophies are not games of numbers but matters of right versus wrong. Liberals will always be outnumbered by knuckle-dragging right wingers because we think about the consequences before we fuck. Conservatives don't. I would rather be a thoughtful mind that is correct most of the time than a knee-jerk troglodyte who is mostly wrong and rules by brute force any time. It's better to be right about the major things.

The originator of this thread really needs to think about the premise set forth in the movie. The film itself is a piece of shit, but the underlying premise is correct: Conservatives wield power by fucking a lot and making more brain-dead conservatives. Curiosity is supressed and imagination is frowned upon. Opposition is overcome by sheer force of number and loud shouting, not any rational or logical trin of thought.

[Touchdown]

114. Spare me! The premise is a cheap setup for kick in the balls jokes.

"Welcome to Costco. I love you!" Funny lines, but not much else in it.

[Bombtrack]

101. I'd like introduce you to a fella named Beef Supreme

This thread is very sad.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. I thought the movie was funny but I was also uncomfortable with the premise

While it is true that social conservatives tend to have more children, their reactionary worldview is the result of cultural conditioning, not something imprinted on their DNA.

Another issue I have with the "smart people need to breed more" meme is that it is the height of arrogance to assume that one's own offspring are somehow more "needed" in an overpopulated world. The problem isn't that there aren't enough smart people, it's that there are too many people. Period.

[Atman]

3. Yeah...total load of crap.

Your post, that is, not the movie. I find it both hysterically funny and very disturbing. And I recommend it whenever I get the chance. I am NOT a "fan" of Eugenics, a follower, an apologizer, whatever. I've written about Bush 1's past involvement in the movement (not good). But I refuse to buy into the notion that Idiocracy does anything more than warn Americans about the devastating consequences of ignorance and stupidity as government policy.

.

[Lost in CT]

6. I agree except for one thing it focuses on undesirables outbreeding desirables

as its premise and amazingly some people still in this day don't recognize that for what it is.

[Atman]

12. I don't read it as "undesirables breeding undesirables," though I understand your point.

I saw it much more as an issue of education. Every character in the movie -- even the "hero" if you can call him that -- was pretty much a moron, a product of a system gone wrong. There was no message that I saw which said We must stop stupid people from breeding. The opening family-tree sequence might have been disturbing, but I've attended a couple of demographics seminars in the last year or two which have shown a very similar trendline: highly educated, wealthy people are not having children. It's a societal fact, not the plot of a bad movie. So how do you address/acknowledge it?

The most amazing part of Idiocracy to me was the conundrum it presented its viewers: If you are smart enough to understand what the movie is about, you're probably not the type of person who would ever go see a Mike Judge (Beavis & Butthead) movie. But since you're watching the movie...does that make you a moron? That's why Fox shelved it without ever giving it wide theatrical release. Focus (fuck-us) groups were generally just confused or insulted by the movie, no matter how Fox attempted to market it.

.

[Lost in CT]

43. "highly educated, wealthy people are not having children"

but why would that effect the intelligence of the average newborn American?

[Atman]

86. It wouldn't have any impact on their intelligence.

But dumb parents who think they done did just fine even iffin they didn't get no book learnin' aren't going to be shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for higher education for their children. It has nothing to do with the supposed IQ of the child at birth -- if there is such a thing. It has to do with how there is a correlation between income, education choices, priorities, etc. I am not for a moment suggesting any of these are genetic qualities, a direction in which you seem to want to steer me. All I am saying is that they are REALITY. A child born to ignorant, uneducated, poor parents is simply more likely to grow up the same way. Many escape the poverty/ignorance cycle. That's not to say it doesn't exist.

.

[Donnachaidh]

4. SATIRE

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=satire


–noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
Origin:
1500–10; < L satira, var. of satura medley, perh. fem. deriv. of satur sated (see saturate )

Synonyms:
1. See irony 1 . 2, 3. burlesque, caricature, parody, travesty. Satire, lampoon refer to literary forms in which vices or follies are ridiculed. Satire, the general term, often emphasizes the weakness more than the weak person, and usually implies moral judgment and corrective purpose: Swift's satire of human pettiness and bestiality. Lampoon refers to a form of satire, often political or personal, characterized by the malice or virulence of its attack: lampoons of the leading political figures.


:eyes:

[Lost in CT]

7. Do you mean my post?

which clearly has its tongue in its cheek.....:evilgrin:

[Donnachaidh]

8. no. I meant the movie n/t

[angrycarpenter]

5. I love that movie

But I don't read any more into it than a cautionary look at a possible future.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. So the "Octomom" would fall into your category of a smart person?

She seems to support the movie's premise

I have not seen the movie so I can't comment on how the premise is presented in the movie.

If you want me to accept your premise then you need to show me some demographic evidence that shows highly educated or affluent people having as many children as poorly educated or less affluent people. Good luck with that.

[Lost in CT]

10. Clearly you have not seen the movie the premise is that the stupid outbreed the smart

and the country as a whole becomes dumber.

[dustbunnie]

14. But only because they have no access to education -

and fall victim to vampire corporations and government. That's what most of the flick was about, perfectly mirrored with what's gone on in the last eight years.

[Nikia]

38. I disagree

A certain percent of uneducated people are mentally gifted. All the characters in the future appeared to be below average and most appeared mentally retarded or close to it. If there were intelligent people there somewhere, as there are everywhere in this world in the worst circumstances, someone would be doing something radical like growing their own garden with water from the toilet. There seem to be holes in their societal construct anyhow, but it is just a movie after all.
I think that there is an eugenic element, especially since there is a family tree at the end as well.

[dustbunnie]

71. Again, that's not eugenics, it's natural selection.

Anyway, yes, you're correct about the other. Many gifted people will rise above, even when stuck in poverty and other unfortunate circumstances. At least, for the time being.

But it seemed, at least to me, that the future "dumbing down" included lots of brainwashing in the form of constant television, (Masturbation TV, etc) fast food crappola, societal pressure in the form of policing (forgive me, it's been awhile, but I do remember the policing vaguely) all of which served to keep people in some semi-catatonic state. As far as I remember, in the flick all water had been replaced with that gatorade product which had been thrust down the peoples' throats by corporations. And that sort of thing has been a hallmark of our society for a long time. Exaggerated in the movie, but we're getting there. The character who gets thrown into the future isn't particularly mentally gifted, nor very curious about the world (as someone else pointed out). The reason he's able to "lead" towards the end is because, having come from another time in the past, he hasn't been as brainwashed as the future humans.

[Lost in CT]

51. No the movie is clear....

It isn't that they are uneducated. It is through indiscriminate breeding the IQ level has dropped.

[dustbunnie]

76. I disagree that the flick implies IQs have dropped.

I saw it much more as the mass brainwashing of people until they've given up to the couch potato God, self-medicating with porn and fast food. And consuming hype and junk. (I've already said it 10 times, so sorry for repetitiveness.) Studies seem to indicate that poor countries are more religious. In countries where education is available, the need for religion goes down. Baring the US, which is an anomaly. Is that because the people are inherently "low IQ" or because they're uneducated? Same thing here applies.

Many, many people can trace their roots back to poor peasants from Europa or wherever, and this doesn't seem to have affected the future generations of American "genius." Education has. Most people can probably make the connection. Does it make fun of people who enjoy NASCAR and professional wrestling and people who procreate with their neighbors. Yes. Does it imply we should get rid of people? I honestly don't know of anyone who has watched the movie, feels it in some suggests that we should keep certain people from breeding, but rather that if we don't do something, we're all going to be anesthetized into oblivion by corps and government.

You do bring up an interesting point though, because lots of industrialized, and much smaller European countries have become well-educated and thusly, have stopped procreating like mad. To make up for the deficit, they've imported immigrants from much less privileged countries, and now find themselves aghast at the seemingly superstitious, backward, religious practices they bring. But are they asking to annihilate people? Most just can't wait for them to catch up, but some have no patience.

[Quantess]

112. The "atturnee" went to Law School at Costco.

As much as I love shopping there, a Law degree from Costco wouldn't give me much confidence.

[Lost in CT]

115. I wonder if that is like a five pack of various degrees....

Being Costco and all....

[arcadian]

16. You really need to read more about eugenics.

Merely observing population trends doesn't make one a proponent of eugenics. Do you know how idiotic that sounds? Eugenics is a policy of intentional social engineering to weed out what is perceived to be inferior traits in the population.

[Lost in CT]

20. No but endorsing the outcome of lowered IQ's is Eugenics 101.

[dustbunnie]

24. That would be more along the lines of natural selection -

Not really, but it's much closer to your point than eugenics, which as someone said, means to actively breed people, or deny breeding, to get the results you want.

The flick was about the "dumbing down" of America, which has nothing to do with IQ, but rather lack of education. That's brought up endlessly throughout. People don't read, they watch "Masturbation TV," there are corporate logos on everything, politicians have become professional wrestler-type of showmen. That speaks to dumbing down, not necessarily anything to do with intelligence.

[arcadian]

32. How is that film endorsing anything?

So I guess, the film American Pie endorses pastry masturbation by your definition.

[Lost in CT]

53. The film shows if A is allowed... (undesirables breeding) then B will result...(a stupider America)

It isn't all that subtle... Heck they even include the family trees for the slower members of the audience.

[arcadian]

60. How exactly is that "endorsing eugenics"?

You are the only one using language like "undesirables", the film did not.

[Lost in CT]

66. Watch post 59 there is even a chart showing the lowering of IQ's

[Atman]

31. Hmmm....the name "Katrina" comes to mind.

Were Bushes involved? Why, yes! Just as there was no actual "how could we have anticipated it?" reality in regards to the events of 9/11, there was no actual surprise or ineptitude in the Bush Administration's handing of the Katrina crisis. It all happened just as they'd planned for.

The Family has a long history in the Eugenics movement, and the one thing they DID quickly was to install paramilitary troops and erect lots of razor-wire fences and close air corridors and to keep the press out -- you know, limit as best they could any outside influences on their experiment. Under guise of "help" and "emergency rescue," the government dispersed virtually all of the devastated area's chronically poor, chronically uneducated (and not coincidentally, chronically Democratic), to places such as Utah, where the was not even an existing Demographic in which to count them. Now they can observe how well they'll assimilate when placed in a totally foreign "superior" environment. Will their "negative traits" become diluted, and then those diluted negative traits passed on, further diluted and passed on again? Textbook Eugenics experiment.

I'd personally think what I just wrote was a little nutty -- if I hadn't read up on the Bush Family and their history in this ugly movement.

.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. as I said in my post, I have not seen the movie. but I do not disagree with that premise

Octomom is one example of someone with 14 kids who has no job.

If you are trying to convince me that the movie's premise is wrong then please provide some evidence to support your point of view.

I am open minded on the subject, but in my experience the movie's premise seems to be correct, though overstated for effect.

[Lost in CT]

19. Why would you think octromoms kids would be any better or any worse than anyone elses kids?

[Motown_Johnny]

28. 14 kids, single mother with no income and living with her mother. house in foreclosure

and she is insane


need I go on?

[Hello_Kitty]

13. And do you have proof that the offspring of the affluent and educated are necessarily smarter?

Because I submit exhibit A as a refutation of that:

[Motown_Johnny]

15. I did not suggest that, but even that moron only has 2 kids and he is rich and educated

[Aristus]

22. Educated? I don't think so. He ATTENDED Harvard; it would be a very sick joke to suggest

that he was educated there...

[Motown_Johnny]

26. compared to people with a GED?

[Aristus]

30. I don't understand the comparison. What does a GED have to do with it?

FWIW, my brother has a GED, and he is now a successful and highly respected businessman; something GWB never was, and never will be...

[Motown_Johnny]

40. W is well educated. He isn't smart but that isn't the argument.

Sorry if my using a GED as an example was offensive. My boss has a GED and I have a 2 year degree if that tells you anything. I agree that education and intelligence are not synonymous.


The point is that people with higher education have fewer children. (I think, I have not seen the movie)

Shrub is well educated and has only 2 children (and they are twins).

I think bringing W into this was a mistake but I went with it.

[Aristus]

73. Not offensive; just confusing.

No harm, no foul. :-)

My point was that education doesn't mean being in the room when knowledge is being passed along, but absorbing and applying that knowledge once you're out of the classroom.

[agent46]

17. I enjoyed the movie

I think it succeeded in holding up a mirror to our times through satire and circus. Why would someone take a Punch and Judy show and resolve it into an insidious ideological message-piece based soley on the cartoonish premise of the story. It's comedy. The silly premise is the setup and the movie itself is one long punch line. It's good having a chance to laugh at ourselves and take note at the same time. Two thumbs up!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[GReedDiamond]

23. Where does "eugenics" come up in the film?

My guess is you are referring to this line from the beginning of the movie:

"Narrator:As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species."

LINK: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/quotes

This does not describe eugenics, IMO. Controlled breeding in order to produce a superior "human" does not seem to be what has occurred to the population of the future world depicted in the film.

The populace that is depicted in "Idiocracy" is the result of centuries of "dumbing down," through the use of pop culture delivery systems such as "reality" tv shows, monster truck rallies, professional wrestling, the mainstreaming of porn, etc, along with the corporate branding of EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. The use of corporate logos in the people's clothing has gone beyond Nascar drivers and bicycle racers, it is now a part of all "fashion."

The "Joe Bauers" character, played by Luke Wilson, is himself a precursor to the people he encounters when he wakes up in the future. He admits to being willfully uninformed and apathetic about the circumstances of his life and the world around him before he finds himself in the future.

[dustbunnie]

27. I thought so. Refers to natural selection, not eugenics.

[Lost in CT]

52. But the theory of Eugenics is based on the downside risk of Natural Selection

And if this movie claims one thing its that we shouldn't let just anyone breed.

[dustbunnie]

77. Or that we need to bring everyone up to a certain level of education?

I don't think the poker-up-their-asses, Republican, yuppie, well-educated people represented well either. They appeared empty and cold. The guy who won out, the protagonist, was an average guy, not a Harvard graduate, nor someone without a brain. He appeared to be truly caring of others and used his middle-of-the-road talents to persevere in the name of everyone.

[Lost in CT]

83. He only won out because the collective IQ's dropped

He was the smartest person in the new society.

[dustbunnie]

85. Yes, but because he arrived from the past -

before the final brainwashing occurred. That's demonstrated throughout. Even the couch potato, porn guy finally gets his act together and becomes helpful eventually. He doesn't seem that IQ disabled toward the end.

Lol, I have to go. I liked reading your thread, it made me think. Even though I disagree with most of it. :D

Edited to add: And the corpie guys and the government didn't seem THAT IQ disabled throughout the flick either.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. But the scenes at the beginning contrasting the educated couple

Who kept delaying procreation until it was too late with the pair of idiots fornicating in the truck and the ensuing prodigious generations of unintelligent offspring could be construed as an argument for eugenics. That said, it doesn't mean the film can't be funny and entertaining, just that, as the OP suggests, people should be careful not to internalize a serious message from it. I also agree with the OP that people have done just that, including many right here on DU.

It disturbs me to see people buying into this "Idiocracy" notion in earnest. They are using it to justify adding more children to an already overpopulated world because their children will be "better".

[arcadian]

36. "an argument for eugenics"?

Please cite in the movie where there is any discussion of intentional social engineering. You can't. Pointing and laughing at octo-mom doesn't make you Dr. Mengele. :eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Jesus god.

Ronald Reagan didn't come out and say "cutting social services to poor black people" either. He talked about "welfare queens" nudge nudge wink wink. Idiocracy isn't even that subtle.

I mean, fuck, it's not that hard to figure out. :eyes:

[dustbunnie]

50. Not to get rid of people. To keep them poor and uneducated.

Even today, the idea is to keep people as stupid as possible, so they can provide cannon fodder for whatever war happens to look good tomorrow, along with accepting slave labor work, and to consume a bunch of crap that will keep them pacified and content. The idea is not to keep people from breeding - we'd have way better abortion services if that were the case; it's just to keep them away from knowledge of any kind.

[arcadian]

54. Mike Judge = Ronald Reagan?

Ummmm... yeah, OooooooKay :eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

70. That's your equivalence not mine.

People are internalizing a meme about the "unfit" reproducing more than their intellectual superiors just as surely as they internalized the belief that a social safety net created black "welfare queens" driving around in Cadillacs. It's likely that this wasn't Mike Judge's intention (with Reagan it was definitely intended) but the result is that "Idiocracy" has entered the discourse as a serious consideration. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Mike Judge is the only one perpetuating the idea. Far from it.

[Atman]

34. Excellent analysis!

Thanks. :hi:

.

[GReedDiamond]

42. You're welcome.

[ColbertWatcher]

45. One more delivery system you forgot was fast food.

Almost everything everyone in the movie says is a term related to fast food, including some of the character's names.

[Quantess]

113. And, Starbucks doesn't serve coffee anymore.

They serve hand jobs, "men's lattes", and "full body lattes".

[Lost in CT]

46. It shows the horrific results of no controlled breeding...

It's about as subtle as Birth of a Nation on black voting rights.

[GReedDiamond]

56. I think you are confused.

[Lost in CT]

68. see post 59 the film itself is quite clear... nt

[AzDar]

25. Wait... what?

:P

[lotus]

33. OMG!

Wow... this could very well be the strangest post I have ever read here. I just treated the movie as both a hilarious comedy and a dark commentary on the state of where our society is headed. It did not advocate eliminating stupid people or controlling how they breed.

I'm not sure the comments about freepers breeding more than us is accurate. Republicans tend to have more money than us, and people with more money trend towards being narcissistic and can't be bothered with having too many children -- they are too busy buying fancy houses and toys for themselves. The most breeding seems to go on in the inner cities, and nearly all those people vote the same ways we do.

[distantearlywarning]

35. Ummmm....

I'm not even sure how to respond to this post.

Maybe you didn't really get what the movie was about? :shrug:

[MrPerson]

37. Huh huh. You use big words and stuff.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Are you threatening me?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. You lost me early in the OP... the pseudoscientitst is you

The number of psychologists who reject a large genetic and inheritable contribution to human intelligence is less than the global warming deniers the oil companies periodically trot out.

You are flirting with "the jury is still out on evolution" level scientific illiteracy.

I am sorry if I am being too harsh but you did chose to make a critical OP on a topic you have no understanding of whatsoever.

The problems with eugenics are moral, not practical.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. So you agree with the premise of the movie? eom

[Lost in CT]

49. So do you support the premise that stupid people breed more and as a

result our average IQ's are being lowered?

[Evoman]

44. Uh...no.

From wikipedia:

Eugenics is a scientific field involving the controlled breeding of humans in order to achieve desirable traits in future generations.


In other words: killing or sterilizing people with blue eyes to prevent transmission of the gene: eugenics. Sterilizing genuises so they don't have babies: eugenics. Killing all jews to increase the number of people with Aryian features: eugenics.

If people with blue eyes keep fucking and having kids because they are too damn hot: natural selection. Genuises don't have children because they are too busy studying, while others with other traits fuck: natural selection.

Evolution is completely neutral about what we believe is moral or valuable. If there is a conscious direction to evolution, brought about by people steriling people with one trait, and encouraging the breeding of other with another trait, then your talking eugenics. But what your talking about in regards to this movie is not eugenics.

Does the movie argue that dumb people should be sterilized or killed? Because that is really dumb. Intelligence only has a very small genetic component.

[Lost in CT]

47. No but it shows what it feels will happen if we allow them to breed.

It really isn't that suttle it is the whole premise of the film.

[ColbertWatcher]

55. I've heard this claim before and still no one has been able to argue it convincingly.

Sorry OP.

[Lost in CT]

65. see post 59 pretty clear evidence. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

75. You've posted an odd link to a clip that seems to support your argument. However ...

... one isolated, out of context clip doesn't cut it.

We're talking about a whole movie, right? Not just one scene, which you misinterpret.

If you notice, both "case studies" are exaggerations. Case #1: Trevor and Carol have no kids and case #2: Clevon has this many offspring:

Both of them are exaggerations. Or, didn't you notice that?

Someone else in the thread above tried to help you by pointing out the movie is satirical.

You do realize it's not a documentary, right? They didn't have a time machine in the movie and someone didn't come back and give the footage to Mike Judge to release under his name.

You know that, right?

[Lost in CT]

80. Yes I know it is satire... yet I see people actually believe that this can and is happening...

I know it isn't happening the idea is scientific hogwash... yet up thread there are people saying it is natural selection...:banghead:

Eugenics came from people who believed the same thing as the premise of this film... and there are people like that right here on this thread.

[dustbunnie]

84. Science is science. It speaks the truth, no matter which way a society's morals flow.

It IS natural selection, and you sound an awful lot like the religious fanatics who say that teaching evolution is bad because "it leads to eugenics," and "gave us Hitler." The idea of eugenics and selective breeding has been around an awful lot longer than the theory of evolution and an understanding of natural selection.

If you ever decide to read Darwin, you'll see just how anti-eugenics he was.

This eugenics thing is your take on the movie, and based on your own personal experiences with friends you feel people will suddenly decide we need to stop others from breeding. Yet it's the creationist, anti-evolutionists who want to pay certain people to stop having babies today, not dems. Duh!

[ColbertWatcher]

97. I think you're making an unfounded leap from what was said in the film ...

... which was natural selection to what you fear after 30 years of GOP control of government (eugenics).

Your fears are understandable, but you don't make the argument that the movie was about eugenics.

Eugenics is the deliberate control of breeding. The movie does not talk about that. In fact there is a scene near the end of the movie when the hero "Joe" (Secretary Not Sure) tells Rita to go back in time to tell people what he believes will prevent the problems they see in the future.

Remember that scene? He also says he believes he was a part of the problem (do you remember why he believes he was a part of the problem?).

Watch that scene again.

That's the scene that tells you what the movie is about.

(EDITED TO ADD) Do you remember the only research scientists were working on in the movie?

[B o d i]

57. -1

[Lost in CT]

58. So are you a fan? Do you agree with the films premise?

[Lost in CT]

59. Here is the clip....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-mJbMm8854

[GReedDiamond]

72. How does this clip support your claim...

...that "Idiocracy" promotes eugenics?

Again, I believe you are confused.

[Lost in CT]

74. The movie suggests that uncontrolled breeding by the lower classes will

result in lower IQ's that is the premise upon which Eugenics is based. (Henjce the need of selective breeding to "save" the human race form exactly this outcome)

[GReedDiamond]

90. Your definition of eugenics, and your claim that...

..."uncontrolled breeding by the lower classes will result in lower IQ's (sic) that is the premise upon which Eugenics is based," does not seem to be supported by the literature on eugenics, particularly in the way that you apply it to the movie "Idiocracy."

In a nutshell, the idea behind eugenics was to use "controlled breeding" to produce a gene pool that, as time went on, would produce a superior race with desirable traits (but which has been shown to be a fatally flawed concept, when actually attempted), or for more benevolent reasons, such as stopping hereditary diseases, amongst other motives offered by various types of "eugenicists."

The idea you suggest, that those who espoused (or still espouse) the concept of eugenics might view the masses as inferior, and that the "breeding" of such lower classes was undesirable, may be correct, depending on the "eugenecist" and the type of "eugenics" being promoted. But to suggest that a comedy movie called "Idiocracy" is promoting eugenics, in the Hitlerian/Lebensborn sense, is quite a leap, and not supported by other aspects of the film, as myself and others have already pointed out.

You'd do better to view it for what it really is: a fictional comedic photoplay which utilizes satire to provide a possible view of a future society, should the Corporatocracy be allowed to continue to appeal to the "lowest common denominator" when marketing and promoting the products, services, programs, political viewpoints, and public policy they are hawking to the general public.

If I'm wrong, and "Idiocracy" is really what you claim, than I guess Mike Judge, creator of "Bevis and Butthead," and "King of the Hill," prior to his work on "Idiocracy," is a nefarious Nazi stooge for the very Corporatocracy he seems to be lampooning in the movie. Sorry, but I don't agree with that conclusion.

[GReedDiamond]

95. I tried to add this on edit...

...but ran out of time.

ON EDIT: To be fair to the Original Poster, I will state the following: I am not any kind of scientist, particularly and especially in the fields of genetics and the like. I am a visual artist and musician, and I am responding to the OP only in defense of the movie "Idiocracy," and its director, Mike Judge, from the perspective of an artist defending their work, or, in this case, the work of others (Judge's) that is appreciated (by me).

After attempting to educate myself a little bit in order do dispute the "eugenics" claim of the OP, it must be pointed out that the type of eugenics referred to by the OP is called "negative eugenics," the goal of which was to reduce the birth rate in the "lower classes" or "genetically disadvantaged" through the use of birth control, abortion and sterilization. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, a "progressive," was a proponent of negative eugenics, as were other prominent persons in this country a hundred or so years ago.

With that in mind, had the OP specified "NEGATIVE eugenics" as the offending underlying message of "Idiocracy," perhaps it would be a more apt and accurate critique, because most people are now conditioned to think of "eugenics" as the Hitlerian/Nazi/Lebensborn version of it, which is but one version amongst many, dating back to Plato and before him.

However, that still overlooks the REAL, IMO, message of the movie, which is the "dumbing down" of the "masses" using the Lowest Common Denominator theory of communication. For example, witness the way LA Governor, Bobby Jindal, spoke to the Nation recently. He spoke as though EVERYBODY he was addressing had the mental capacity of a three year old, maybe even a "genetically disadvantaged" three year old, at that. Or, turn on your TV and watch any number of phony "reality" shows which seem to dominate the "airwaves" these days. Or have a listen to Cramer for financial advice, or Rush, the oxycontin addict, for political views...etc, etc.

ON FURTHER EDIT:
Let it also be noted the the Hitlerian form of eugenics seemed to be a "full-spectrum" form: they tried to perfect, through primitive concepts of genetic manipulation which they enacted through the Lebensborn project, where Hitler's vision of Aryan Supremacy would be realized by mating as many perfect examples of racial purity with each other as possible, resulting in the "Master Race," which would dominate the planet for 10,000 years. But they also combined that with the negative eugenics of sterilization of undesirables and ultimately, the murdering of millions. The murdering began with "genetically disadvantaged" (i.e. mentally retarded), the homosexuals, the political dissidents, and went from there to anyone else considered useless or an enemy to the cause, until culminating in the Holocaust.

There is no such suggestion of nazi-esque eugenics-based genocidal behavior in "Idiocracy."

Edited for clarity.

[Lost in CT]

96. Thank you for your intelligent reply... I always viewed Eugenics as the classic Progressive

version not the later Frankenstein approach the Germans finally adopted (Though it should be noted that American Eugenicists continued to fund German research till 1939)

I did not know that it was now called negative Eugenics...

I agree that this message is restricted to the opening set-up of the movie... however I have seen people in earnest claim that the intelligent and college educated have a duty top have children to help fight the tide of "dumb white trash" being bred in trailer parks. This is a meme as old as time... and as you rightly pointed out this was embraced as much by the Progressive movements of the early twenty century as anyone else.

Looking at say an Octomom debate or a teenage pregnancy debate on DU you will see the attitude quite clearly... the fact our Harvard Educated president was the result of such a union seems to fly over the head of such posters.

As for your other note I to am concerned with the dumbing sown of America and the approach of teaching so everyone can understand rather than challenging your audience.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Does the film actually say "this is a genetics problem"?

Or does it say it's a problem of upbringing and education - or does it leave that question open?

'Nature v. nurture' has been at the heart of the serious discussion of how personalities (including intelligence) are formed, for decades. Unless the film specifically says it's about genes, I think it's a bit hard on a movie to say it's pro-eugenics, when its message could just as easily be "teach our kids not to be dumb, and we'll save ourselves, because they'll then teach their kids not to be dumb".

[Lost in CT]

109. By suggesting an apparent genetic trait IQ is lowered among the mean

by allowing stupid people to breed.... See post 59 it seems clear the film is claiming that intelligence is no longer a natural advantage and blames advances in medical science for keeping imbeciles alive long enough to reproduce despite their former propensity for an early demise.

This is all done under a veil of comedy and is somewhat subtle.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. I'd already watched the clip (but not the rest of the movie)

The specific thing it blames is "lack of natural predators", but I don't see that it's therefore a call for letting wolves, lions and bears loose in cities.

There is the scene where the dumb teenager is saved, so he can breed; you might make a claim that eugenics is implied by that bit, I suppose. But after reading your reply #82, I'm not really sure if you expect the OP to be taken seriously anyway. :shrug:

[last_texas_dem]

61. I don't think it's worth worrying about

Not enough people saw that movie (or, perhaps, have even heard of it) for it to have any real impact on societal attitudes. Additionally, I don't see it as the type of movie that will develop any true sort of cult following to the point that substantially greater numbers of people will be seeing it/praising it decades in the future. It had some funny parts, but the director's attempt to marry social commentary and gross-out comedy wasn't really executed all that well, IMHO.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Well, thankfully your "friends" have you to tell them what they're permitted to like and not like.

Hmmm. Perhaps, in your zeal to protect us all from fascism, you can set up some centers... you know, like "camps"-- where the enlightened can re-educate people out of these dangerous ideas.

Feh. What a load of crappo.

And, for the record, there are clearly some genetic components to intelligence. Not liking the truth doesn't make it any less true.

[Lost in CT]

67. I am more concerned with progressives embracing failed pseudoscience policies of the past... nt

[Warren DeMontague]

99. No, you're getting your knickers in a bunch over a Mike Judge movie.

Trying to claim that "idiocracy" is somehow promoting eugenics is just plain fuckin' goofy.

[Bluebear]

63. 'I have a couple of friends that are quite liberal' - so majority of your friends are conservative?

[Lost in CT]

64. Um-no... we have had some conservatives in our employment..

but our social set doesn't have a conservative element.

[sendero]

69. Idiocracy..

... is a movie that is as funny as it is insightful. It satirizes the extreme dumbing down of this country, the extreme corporate takeover of the country and the extreme use of gestapo tactics by all law enforcement in this country better than any other movie I have seen.

It offers a THEATRICAL PREMISE as the reason all of this is happening which you are free to agree with or reject, but either way the movie is "true".

[lunatica]

78. Are you aiming for President Camacho's job?

This could have been written for Idiocracy...

[Lost in CT]

81. I'm not that good a wrestler.... or porn star.

I really doubt IQ's in America are dropping though some of the responses on this thread are straining that belief.

[EstimatedProphet]

79. This is way dumb.

Really, it deserves no more criticism than that.

[Lost in CT]

82. It is supposed to be dumb... It is an over the top criticism of a movie

that people, who think they are being smart, mistakenly believe is correct thereby proving the movie correct with there own stupidity.... (twist your head around that one... I recommend wine)

Oh and people who think that genetics works in a linear two smart people equal a smart baby fashion.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. Don't you mean "their" own stupidity?

I'm pretty sure that somewhere in Sun Tzu's "The Art of Internet Arguing and Generalized Political Bitching" there's a whole chapter on how, if you're going to toss around wholesale accusations of stupidity at people, you should first make damn sure that your spelling and grammar are correct.

[Incitatus]

87. dangerous propaganda?

It is just a comedy. I seriously doubt Mike Judge intended to hide propaganda in this film. Some fools will believe anything. I'm sure there are some people who think we are living in the Matrix. Anyone stupid enough to believe this is in a small minority and lacks the intelligence and power to implement a eugenics program.

[H2O Man]

88. "We could still

gouge the horse's eye." -- JDM

[NoPasaran]

89. I haven't seen this movie Idiocracy nor heard anything about it

But I feel totally shamwowed to hear Red Dawn equated with Triumph of the Will.

[Starry Messenger]

91. This thread has electrolytes.

It's what plants crave.

[annabanana]

92. but it needs:

a little more cowbell

[ColbertWatcher]

98. LOL! Bra-vo!

If I could, I'd kick you in the balls!

Best reply for this thread!

[Starry Messenger]

104. "Water...you mean from the toilet!!?"

I love Idiocracy. :D

[ColbertWatcher]

105. I've never seen no plant grow out of the toilet! n/t

[JTFrog]

93. So, I guess the $64,000 dollar question is: Would Starbucks be considered cheating?

:spank:

[sendero]

94. Yeah..

... I like money.

[JTFrog]

103. My joke doesn't work without a link?!? The fail... it burns.

:cry:

What the fuck good is a joke you have to explain. :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=8589245

[Starry Messenger]

106. I got the joke.

All my comebacks would have gotten the thread locked, though. }(

[JTFrog]

108. LOL! Good point. n/t