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

571–580 of 582 posts

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#571

Post by mindslight »

Vektorceraptor wrote: post #536
mindslight wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't make it obvious - I don't see much difference between your first comment and one that goes on to conclude something something "both sides". There is plenty of criticism to go around when analyzing how we got to Grump, but keeping it in the right context is key.

To me is lying about the obvious more "idiotic", than acting in a "bad manner". Again - I don't see a point in arguing here. If I show you the color "red" and you claim "it's blue", for political reasons or what ever, that is already idiocracy. I don't know what you are defending or what you are attacking or what you are even talking about. I wont change my mind or change my comment. It is what it is - learn to deal…

It's not a "bad manner", but rather a question of what larger point a criticism is ultimately making.

Keep on at it if you're fine effectively supporting the current idiots. But don't be surprised when people call you out for it.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#572

Post by mmmmmbop »

Timon3 wrote: post #556
mmmmmbop wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany, for many years we had been told that climate change is the most important thing ever, that we need to change our habits or else the world will go down, that if we don't act now, we will all be doomed. Then the Ukraine war happened, and suddenly nobody was talking about climate change anymore. I'll admit, I'm a simple man and I don't know the science behind all of this. But as a citizen, it does feel confu…

Plenty of people in Germany (on all social/political levels) still talk about climate change, and have done so without pause before, during and since Ukraine. If you think that everything "seems to be fine after all", you're in for a very rude awakening.

Is that your perception, or do you have data to back this up?

For context, here's one source saying public concern for climate change has fallen in Germany from 42% to 34% from 2022 to 2025, in line with other European countries. [0] This was a study done by a German sustainability non-profit.

Here's another source stating that globally, news coverage about climate change has diminished by 38% from 2021 to 2025. [1]

Here's a third source stating that the share of German citizens who claim to be "very concerned" about climate change has dropped from 50% to 33% from 2019 to 2025. [2]

[0] https://fsc.org/en/newscentre/general-news/climate-change-fa...

[1] https://mecco.colorado.edu/summaries/special_issue_2025.html

[2] https://carbon-pulse.com/482517/#entry-482802

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#574

Post by Timon3 »

mmmmmbop wrote: post #572
Timon3 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of people in Germany (on all social/political levels) still talk about climate change, and have done so without pause before, during and since Ukraine. If you think that everything "seems to be fine after all", you're in for a very rude awakening.

Is that your perception, or do you have data to back this up? For context, here's one source saying public concern for climate change has fallen in Germany from 42% to 34% from 2022 to 2025, in line with other European countries. [0] This was a study done by a German sustainability non-profit. Here's another source stating that globally, news coverage about climate change has diminished by 38% from 2021 to 2025. [1]…

Seems like you've answered your own question.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#575

Post by teddyh »

vkou wrote: post #546
belorn wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know if its a large portion of the population if media and politicians label people deniers just because they have a difference in opinion about what actions should be done? In absolute terms, the portion of the worlds population that deny that the climate is changing is a single digit percentage, and that include the US ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_chan... ). The portion is…

> How would you know if its a large portion of the population if media and politicians label people deniers just because they have a difference in opinion about what actions should be done? I don't need to trust what the media tells me about them, I can just listen to what those people and the politicians elect actually say , and what they say is flippin' 'Climate change is a chinese hoax' lunacy. There's no need to…

> I can just listen to what those people and the politicians elect actually say, and what they say is flippin' 'Climate change is a chinese hoax' lunacy.

You probably don’t actually listen to what they say. You probably instead listen to what your preferred media channels report on, and selectively quote from, what they say. You think these two things are the same, since you think that your news sources are perfectly accurate. But those who actually listen to those people, and prefer different media channels, probably have other opinions.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#576

Post by lynndotpy »

tremon wrote: post #540
lynndotpy wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The introduction describes it as a "turning point in human evolution", and that "natural selection ... began to favor different traits". These are some of the very first sentences of the movie. The thesis is given: "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 sp…

That's not a eugenics argument, that's merely an evolutionary argument (identifying a change in selection pressure). The eugenics argument would first have to make the case that the people are stupid/intelligent because of their genetic lineage rather than their upbringing.

To repeat, in narrative, they attempt genetic engineering to fix the declining intelligence.

On top of that, it is explicitly a dysgenics narrative, which comes with an implicit eugenics argument unless it's explicitly addressed.

I'm not trying to argue you can't like the movie (it is fiction, after all), but the eugenics argument is right there in the text.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#577

Post by ern_ave »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #495
ern_ave wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great! So, let's start with your first study. Note this quote: > it is possible that conservatives’ relatively low accuracy about political information is a by-product of the fact that issues used in forming this assessment were selected with an eye toward detecting misperceptions among the political group That's definitely a way to bias a study against conservatives. It's good that this study claims it avoided that…

If you don't want to accept sources you disagree with. Then isn't that part of the problem? The onus is on you, to tell me what would be acceptable sources for you. You didn't really debunk any of these sources, just supplied some random sampling of your own creation. Interestingly, I have gone back and watched the full video of both of those quotes. He did say all of those things, but 'in-joking'. That is a common t…

[dead]

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#578

Post by ern_ave »

fzeroracer wrote: post #539
ern_ave wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great! So, let's start with your first study. Note this quote: > it is possible that conservatives’ relatively low accuracy about political information is a by-product of the fact that issues used in forming this assessment were selected with an eye toward detecting misperceptions among the political group That's definitely a way to bias a study against conservatives. It's good that this study claims it avoided that…

So you don't have an argument, you just reject sources that you either can't understand or don't like. Which is just proving the parents point.

> you just reject sources that you either can't understand or don't like

That's a lie. I rejected the source for a valid reason. You could try addressing my rebuttal.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#579

Post by ern_ave »

withinboredom wrote: post #466
ern_ave wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having a hard time understanding your point. Here's what I think just happened: Me: I value the right to self defense You: Guns are used for self harm more often than self defense [as an aside, I don't disagree that this is true - I've heard this stat many times] You: This is ironic! Please help me to understand why you think that's ironic. What do you feel would be a non-ironic position? Is it this.... Me: I val…

Ok. Now this is logic I understand. Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to self defense. The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

> The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

Great question. The answer is: bad people are often significantly stronger than their victims.

Have you ever seen this video [1]? The woman is 72 years old. She might be able to defend herself with a gun, but she has no chance with fists.

How about this video [2]? I have many, many examples like this. It's honestly kind of terrible that you hadn't considered this: guns give average women a better chance against strong, violent men.

So the question should be: why do you seek to deny women this right?

[1] https://imgur.com/a/OVaMWHB

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvXDLTTdQFE

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#580

Post by withinboredom »

ern_ave wrote: post #579
withinboredom wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Now this is logic I understand. Nobody is saying you don’t have a right to self defense. The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight?

> The question should be: why do you have a right to bring a gun to a fist fight? Great question. The answer is: bad people are often significantly stronger than their victims. Have you ever seen this video [1]? The woman is 72 years old. She might be able to defend herself with a gun, but she has no chance with fists. How about this video [2]? I have many, many examples like this. It's honestly kind of terrible that…

Are you serious? Like, actually serious?

Killing someone for pushing you over is not "self defense". This is a category error.

Post reply on HN