Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are We Idiocracy Yet?

idiocracy.wtf

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 582 posts

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#391

Post by [deleted] »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #259
bko wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people don't like Onion stories because they're not funny, they're just pretentious and political. For instance, their famous 'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article they post all over their page whenever there is some high profile gun related crime. It's all over their page and no doubt they get a bump in traffic from smug people who feel it's clever. It's just so exha…

I'm not in the USA, but I think the issue is not so much the joke getting tiresome, but the repeat school shootings. Maybe if there was work done to stop the shootings, then the joke wouldn't keep getting repeated.

[deleted]

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#392

Post by IAmBroom »

dist-epoch wrote: post #234
marxisttemp wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the film itself implies that the idiocracy is due to stupid people breeding more, a classic tenet of Nazism and eugenics alike

Is Darwin natural selection eugenic? Was the rise of humans from chimps an eugenic like event?

Humans didn't "rise" from chimps, and natural selection doesn't promote "rising".

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#393

Post by jkestner »

rkomorn wrote: post #11
8-prime wrote: post #8

Funny, just today I talked with a co-worker about how be both feel like we are approaching Idiocracy. His nephew 'watered' their plants with Coke. Not quite Mountain Dew, but also not far off.

Why would he water plants with Coke? Coke doesn't have electrolytes, and that's what plants crave.

I bought some actual Brawndo back in the day. An energy drink company had licensed the brand. Did not share with my plants, having learned better from the movie.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#394

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #332
relativeadv wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely activates something within people. Maybe I'm just terminally online, but there is always _always_ someone who will say "Idiocracy isn't satire, its a documentary."

And they're mostly correct.

It's satire. It's effective satire because it's not all that much more extreme than the thing it's satirizing.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#395

Post by whamlastxmas »

catapart wrote: post #344
semiquaver wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are a scientist directly engaging with the literature, you and your relative are both doing the same thing: trusting the opinion of peers and high-status people in your political clan about what is happening in the world. It just happens that people in your clan are telling the truth while the other one is lying. Neither side’s behavior can be considered “more intelligent” when you consider the vast majori…

you don't have to be a scientist to directly engage with the literature. from mathematical proofs to directly observed phenomena to statistical certainties - it's all out there for you to engage with and feel secure in your findings just by having an internet connection. there's a qualitative difference in that evidence from the "sides" and therefore there is a qualitative and practical difference in the "more intell…

If the side you follow says the science community is political and biased, then "just look at the literature" isn't going to help. It's like telling an atheist they'd believe in Jesus if they'd just read the bible.

We are lied to constantly by people who influence our lives. You can't even go to the grocery store without being lied to - being told breakfast cereals are healthy, that low fat options will make you less fat, shrinkflation, misleading unit pricing. It's no wonder people are so distrusting

Even if you're a democrat you still have to admit that democrats lie, a ton, and it's super obvious. Maybe if our leadership in general, on both sides, was capable of being decent humans then we'd be able to build trust and stop doing dumb shit as a civilization

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#396

Post by [deleted] »

bko wrote: post #314
Goronmon wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have a message and point of view, but don't put activism over comedy. The "joke" in this case is people's reactions to school shootings. And people's reactions haven't changed, so I don't see why the article should change. It's just so exhausting. This has some real "The worst thing about school shootings is knowing that The Onion is going to repost that article I personally am tired of seeing" energy to it.

It's not a joke if you repeat it 100 times. That article has some real "The best thing about school shootings is we get to have literally every article on our website be this clever headline we wrote 10 years" energy to it.

[deleted]

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#398

Post by MisterTea »

afavour wrote: post #366
pixl97 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of funny when you say the movie isn't making serious statements when the highest of our publicly elected officials isn't a serious person. We elect people that are actively harmful to our well being. These people say things so incredibly stupid it can be painful. And then you wonder why people look at the movie like it's a documentary?

He might not present as a serious person but he is. The nativist impulses, the gutter racism, the “F you I’ve got mine” attitude, the party establishment that enabled him despite all that… these are all serious things worth serious analysis. “Stupid people vote for stupid guy” is exactly the kind of analysis I’m critical of Idiocracy for.

> “Stupid people vote for stupid guy” is exactly the kind of analysis I’m critical of Idiocracy for.

Critical of what exactly?

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#399

Post by input_sh »

lelanthran wrote: post #385
input_sh wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the opening scene, where poor, "low IQ" couple complains about getting another child again by accident while a suburban "high IQ" couple was hesitant to start making children until it was too late (the husband dies). "Low IQ" couple's son grows up into a stupid, sexy jock and it goes on from there for generations. So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the…

> So yes, eugenics was pretty much an integral part of the premise. IQ bubbles even pop up on the screen during those scenes, just to remove any shadow of a doubt. Is that really how we use the word "eugenics", though? That scene you refer to explicitly explained that Natural Selection does not necessarily select for intelligence. So while some people are calling it "Eugenics", it's what we more typically call Natura…

I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.

I still like the movie, but like with any 20+ years old comedies, I can recognise issues with its premise which would be more-or-less unacceptable today. In 2006... not as much. The future is now, old man!

Post reply on HN