Live data from Hacker News

Are We Idiocracy Yet?

idiocracy.wtf

401–410 of 582 posts

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#401
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satire really breaks when the target doesn't recognize itself as the target

The Boys is a modern example of this.

I have met Trumpers that think The Boys is a liberal attempt to make strong men look weak and psychotic.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a documentary

It really isn't. "Poor, dumb people outbreed rich, smart people and make the whole world dumb" is not real. And the mechanism by which our world harms people is not because everybody involved is an idiot. Executives of corporations that are destroying the environment aren't just doing it because they don't know better. Leaders within the Trump admin and the GOP more broadly are often extremely well educated at top un…

I agree it isn't a documentary.

However, modern politics of the right absolutely prey upon, and encourage, ignorance. Ridicule of intelligentsia and advanced education (often by Ivy League graduates!) is a key part of the strategy.

That smart people are cultivating an ignorant voting bloc doesn't negate the fact that ignorance is fundamental to the plan.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#403

I attended an audience testing screener for Idiocracy before the film's final edit. I could not believe my eyes and ears, I loved it unlike anything I'd seen before, it was the hardest US culture satire I'd seen up to that point. Then the lights came up and the audience started giving their reviews, in an open mike fashion. They all identified with the "idiots" and were indignant insulted, and angry. I remember makin…

Indignant behavior may have been a result of a perceived attack on viewers belief system. Possibly combined with no 2nd order awareness of thought. Additionally, a subtle “critique” framing from the screening host or “open mic” framing may prime the participants to command attention. Outrage is the easiest when one has no conceptual lens to add interpretive value.

I did feel that the use of an open mic encouraged the negative opinions to cascade. Once one of them voiced negativity, it really turned into a "me too! I was insulted by..."

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just 'other girls'. That happens, but also, it's a theme that has been around a long time. The 'Maga' movement existed before Trump. This is 1992 Was also in Snow Crash. "All these beefy Caucasians with guns! Get enough of them together, looking for the America they always believed they'd grow up in, and they glom together like overcooked rice…With their power tools, portable generators, weapons, four-wheel-drive…

Snow Crash came to mind, but so did several other Neal Stephenson books!

yes, I think his book "Reamde" had the concept of "Ameristan" which was the redneck-Idaho equivalent of many racial/religious/socioecon tropes.

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's hard for some to believe, but there are people in my family who are otherwise very intelligent but will not change their opinions on some things. Like climate change.

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…

I really love the way you communicated this and wish HN posters could more routinely invite curious conversations like this. Which isn't to say I'm perfect at it either

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#406
post #235
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, same. I also felt like this when watching Office Space and Sillicon Valley. Hits too close to home. I know that through comedy you are supposed to get a sense of catharsis and a sort of relief, but to me it was just frustratingly sad. I guess I just take life too seriously.

I know one guy who can't watch Silicon Valley because it triggers him. He had a tech startup himself in the valley back in the day.

i wouldnt say it triggers me but its not fun to watch after a long day of stupid IT bs

same with mr robot. like i'm going crazy because of cybersec issues, i dont want to spend my free time watching a guy go crazy because of cybersec issues

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel Idiocracy is irresistible bait for 'not like the other girls'-types. Everytime this movie comes up, droves of people mention how they get it, while others don't. It's becoming a trope in itself.

Agreed. It’s cited so often on Reddit by people who want to establish their superiority over the masses. “It’s a documentary!!” is a meme unto itself. It’s also got a kind of weird eugenics-y vibe to it (like establishing “stupid people breeding makes stupid people” as incontrovertible fact) when you step back and examine it as a movie that’s making Serious Statements. But it isn’t. It’s not a bad movie. But it’s a c…

I never understood that eugenics criticism of the movie. They make zero references to genetics in that opening sequence, and the nurture side of that argument is readily trotted out as a truism even here on HN: "people from affluent parents have easier access to education".

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Th…

> Come on, use your brain a little:

Classy

> does that scene imply that we should do something to tilt the scales in the opposite direction?

No, it did not.

> 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.

And, to you, "Do something about this" means only one thing - forcefully stopping classes of people from reproducing?

Re: Are We Idiocracy Yet?

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe if there was work done to stop the shootings It's odd that you seem to believe no work has been done. Lots of work has been done. Lots more work is blocked by people who steadfastly refuse to punish criminals - claiming instead that it's not their fault that they're violent. I'd love to hear any additional ideas you have other than violating the rights of citizens.

> I'd love to hear any additional ideas you have other than violating the rights of citizens. That's a strange take. There's citizens' rights involved in not being shot at and also the right to own guns, but when people are being killed, I would think that the right to life would take precedence over introducing some rule over gun ownership. Here in the UK, we have strict rules on gun ownership (which I'm not particu…

> I would think that the right to life would take precedence

Well, let's do a thought experiment to test this. Which of these two rights takes precedence: (1) life (specifically in this case, the right to not be murdered) or (2) freedom of movement

That's an easy question, isn't it? (1) takes precedence. But how many 9's of protection are you willing to "purchase" at the expense of (2)? How much of (2) are you willing to give up in order to get a little more of (1)?

If we reduce (2) to 0 ...by locking every person in a padded cell, then we can achieve 99.99% protection of (1).

Presumably though, you don't like that idea. Presumably, you'll want to be let out of the padded cell, and get a bit of right (2) back. But giving you a bit of (2) back is going to cost someone their life! If we let you and others out of the padded cell, someone somewhere is going to get murdered.

What this thought experiment demonstrates is that the issue is not as simple as, "(1) takes precedence over (2)" - the thought experiment demonstrates that there is an amount of (2) that you will not spend in order to purchase a marginal increase in (1) - a situation where (2) actually takes precedence.

> Here in the UK, we have strict rules on gun ownership

And I totally respect that. Just to be clear though, "gun ownership" isn't really the issue. Gun ownership is a proxy for the actual right: self defense. You place a low value on the right to defend yourself and your family. Again, I totally respect that. You've "spent" that right to purchase lower gun crime. Have I mentioned how much I respect your personal decision?

As for me, I value the right to self defense above all. I've looked at the data, and I've realized that I'm much more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than I am (well, was when I was in school) to be in a school shooting.

So to me, having actually looked at that data, it seems obvious that the right to self defense should take precedence. I think that my way of thinking is perfectly rational, and I think you're way of thinking is not ...but I totally respect your personal decision. I'm sure you also respect mine.

Post reply on HN