[afavour]

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 comedy, the satirical elements are heavily over exaggerated by fans.

[pixl97]

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?

[throw0101d]

> We elect people that are actively harmful to our well being.

People choose policies that will actively harm themselves and their family/friends:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness

[afavour]

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.

[pixl97]

I think you may misunderstand what the term "not a serious person" means. Just because someone is an ego driven performer doesn't mean their actions don't have consequences, it means you've fucked up if you follow them and take them for face value.

There has been a ton of analysis for why said stupid people vote for stupid people, but very little of it can prevent said behaviors.

[MisterTea]

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

Critical of what exactly?

[arw0n]

Just to be clear, the smartest person is still a minister in Idiocracy, and the whole premise hinges on the idea that the elite still recognizes intelligence as something desirable.

[spiderfarmer]

Trump voters identify with the idiots.

[lynndotpy]

It's not a eugenics-y vibe. The inciting incident is dysgenics, and the in-narrative apocalypse would have been prevented by eugenics.

It doesn't preclude the movie from being enjoyed or appreciated. The movie also came out at a time when test scores, literacy rates, and whatnot were all _increasing_, so that was the more salient lens to criticize it by.

That trend has reversed now, though. I don't agree with the dysgenic narrative, but I have often found myself thinking, "Gotta hand it to the movie Idiocracy, it's feeling familiar".

For all its flaws, I was a child at the time saturated in post-Y2K optimism that tomorrow would always be better than the day before. It was one of the first things that made me seriously consider, "What if humanity is not on a linear path of improvement"?

[Waterluvian]

This thread is a sort of extension to that, eh? Hacker News knowing the truth of a matter while observing Reddit down the barrel of a nose.

[wiseowise]

It’s a “I’m not like the other ‘not like the other’” virtue game.

[afavour]

Given the number of people in this thread saying “it’s a documentary” I don’t think there’s a significant difference. And there’s also plenty of criticism of Idiocracy on Reddit too.

[sdwr]

Right, because you see the situation so much better than them ;)

[Waterluvian]

No no no, see I’m at the very top of the hill. There’s no hill above me. No definitely not…

Oh gee, here he comes. Another person prepared to admit that what he knows is that he knows nothing.

[noahomrilevin]

Was thinking the same thing

[tremon]

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".

[lynndotpy]

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 species". The characters dramatizing the inciting incident in the introduction are introduced with their IQs. It's very explicitly a dysgenic apocalypse narrative, which could have been avoided with earlier eugenicist intervention. (They attempt "genetic engineering" later on, but they fail, as the unintelligent are able to win by sheer numbers.)

It's okay to like the movie, and it is fiction. But it's certainly a dysgenic narrative which has eugenicist implications.

[tremon]

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.

[lynndotpy]

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.

[Froztnova]

This is one of those threads that's making me feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Like, I don't think enjoying Idiocracy makes someone a bad person or anything like that, but it's pretty clearly making a eugenics argument without any mitigating counter-hypothesis.

It's particularly amusing because there are people quoting Neal Stephenson in this thread, ignoring the fact that when Stephenson tackles similar subject matter, he's very careful to make it clear that he's talking more about the cultural axioms which have a long-term effect on how people value learning and intellectualism. It's not even subtext, I've been reading The Diamond Age recently and very early on there's a line where a character clearly states that there's no coherent genetic theory of human intelligence, and the entire thesis of the book runs counter to that notion that intelligence is primarily genetic.

[senectus1]

"Stupid people raise stupid people" is probably a better way to put it.

but even then thats entirely too simplistic as well.

[FeloniousHam]

> It’s not a bad movie.

I hadn't seen it since it came out, but had a that kind of general movie recollection that it was as funny as it was prescient. Watched it again with my wife who had not seen it before: it's not funny. Maybe I'm getting too old.

(I do still laugh at the "Ow! My balls!")

[wiseowise]

> like establishing “stupid people breeding makes stupid people” as incontrovertible fact

That’s based on environment and not on genes. You might not be born “stupid”, but if you’re surrounded by retards (like in the movie), chances are you won’t be splitting atoms.