161–170 of 302 posts
I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up . In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how viscerally real it is. It is funny, in that it's ostensibly comedy, and the actors all have great comedic timing...but it's also a very very honest appraisal of where we're at as a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the original commenter literally feigned confusion, as if the term might have referred to people who deny that the Earth has a climate.
No, the original commenter questions whether anyone denies that earth has a climate, which would make "Climate Denier" an accurate and useful term. Of course, it's a rhetorical question to point out that the term is just used for effect, thereby reducing the utility of language. I believe you can apply Kant's categorical imperative to language as well and you'll quickly arrive at the point that misusing language to s…
I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up . In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how viscerally real it is. It is funny, in that it's ostensibly comedy, and the actors all have great comedic timing...but it's also a very very honest appraisal of where we're at as a society.
"The underlying message of course is that humans ought to take such things as science, research and knowledge seriously, lest we create our own Idiocracy." Rather, I felt the underlying message of the film is that the film is a critique of the consumerism and corporatism of the US. The 'idiocracy' with how the government runs, the downward trend of education in the US, and the pessimistic views of our future.
The Learning Channel (TLC) once aired documentaries but is now a heartbeat away from "Ow, My Balls!" Is TLC making people more stupid or are they just giving an already foolish population what they want?
I don't think consuming "stupid" entertainment makes us stupid or is even a solid indicator of intelligence (if you can settle on a definition of it). TLC just saw a market and pivoted, imo.
Many people like to say "Idiocracy is a documentary" or some similar thing implying they think it's realistic. I've never seen anybody take the premise of the movie seriously though. If idiots are reproducing out of control and that will lead to a bad result, doesn't that mean we should reduce the reproduction of idiots and increase the reproduction of the intelligent? To avert Idiocracy we need eugenics, no?
Idiocracy mixed being educated with being intelligent. Being educated is not hereditary and does not (I think) affect intelligence of your children* Satisfactory nutrition and exposure to positive and engaging environments during childhood affect your intelligence no matter who your parents were * other than that educated parents are more likely to provide the positive and engaging environment, maybe? Not in the leas…
The literature is too extensive to provide individual citations, but Google for [genetics of intelligence] or [heritability of intelligence] to get a sampling.
It's funny to see how 'one side' will completely miss the satirization of themselves in the work, and just laugh at the jokes targeted towards them. (And FYI I'm not 'taking a side' I can only imagine what 'some other' publication would make of the film) Judge was also mocking lack of education, slouching cultural standards, lack of competency, lack of moral fibre, conscientiousness etc.. In pretty much every scene.…
I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up . In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how viscerally real it is. It is funny, in that it's ostensibly comedy, and the actors all have great comedic timing...but it's also a very very honest appraisal of where we're at as a society.
I encourage everyone to watch Don't Look Up . In many ways it struck me as the spiritual successor to Idiocracy. I needed to watch it in chunks, because of how viscerally real it is. It is funny, in that it's ostensibly comedy, and the actors all have great comedic timing...but it's also a very very honest appraisal of where we're at as a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the original commenter questions whether anyone denies that earth has a climate, which would make "Climate Denier" an accurate and useful term. Of course, it's a rhetorical question to point out that the term is just used for effect, thereby reducing the utility of language. I believe you can apply Kant's categorical imperative to language as well and you'll quickly arrive at the point that misusing language to s…
This is a silly view of how language works. The point of language is to communicate ideas, which is why I asked about whether there was actually a failure to communicate ideas (there wasn’t). You might as well invoke Kant to complain about how hot dogs are not actually dogs, and they’re often sold in refrigerators so they’re not even hot!
The space for discussion is prematurely attacked by the overly simplistic frame of "climate denier". Perhaps the author isn't capable of operating in that space, therefore he requires defensive rhetoric. Maybe it isn't deliberate or conscious. Perhaps he is simply bleating the preferred partisan slogan?
Nuance is deliberately or unconsciously removed in lieu of shallow arrogance. That's ironic in my reading of the article and view of the movie. There's no feigned confusion in my comment above. Perhaps you misread it.