Idiocracy Is a Cruel Movie And You Should Be Ashamed For Liking It | Hacker News Reader

Idiocracy Is a Cruel Movie And You Should Be Ashamed For Liking It

paleofuture.gizmodo.com

6 pointsfraqed10 comments

This is an awful lot of analysis on the social implications of a movie created by the guy who crafted Beavis and Butthead. If you are cultivating your outlook of the future from Idiocracy, then you probably care not about the real prospects of the future anyway. The author is taking this much too seriously.

Well, to be precise, the author is frustrated that other people are taking it much too seriously. I'm inclined to defend this: The time to stop being dismissive of a stupid story is when everyone else around you is holding it up as prescient.

It's a fair point, but the issue is agnostic to the subject matter. Rather, the root problem is that a person or people is/are inclined to look to a fictional comedy as a point of reference on social issues. I think it is unfair to the film.

Some people also look to Daily Show and Colbert Report as points of reference for social issues. Is that a commentary on those people, or the editorial postures of mainstream journalism?

Hmm, indeed. I would still argue that this is an issue of the individual, since they are ultimately the entity responsible for deciding what is a valid point of reference, regardless of if the source is more or less justifiable.

If millions of individuals independently make the same decision about which media they trust, it may be a social signal.

I guess the problem for me is that the lazy thinking that's required to accept the general premise is uncomfortably close to the kind of lazy thinking that people are prone to anyway, that makes it all too easy to treat each other badly.

Almost the exact same article could have been written about the original story "The Marching Morons" written in 1951 (with the much-smaller SF community of the time replacing the movie's audience). It makes similar lazy errors of casually mixing indicators of poverty with those of low intelligence, and of implying that fine degrees of intelligence (and not just the grossest levels of mental fitness) are strongly hereditary. In the story the problem is resolved via mass genocide of 99% of the human race. Kornbluth intended it as uncomfortable black satire, to be sure, but that hardly means that the premise can't be taken seriously.

The story was widely popular in the SF community despite its serious logical flaws (ironic given that community's ostensible preference for "hard SF" that rigidly adhered to good science). It's really all too easy to read it and think that because you "get" it, you are clearly not one of the marching morons. You can argue that people didn't take it that seriously, but my own experience wouldn't support that conclusion. (I think Asimov made similar observations as well, at some point in his career.)

"So we're starting from a position of believing that wealthy people are inherently more intelligent and, by extension, deserve their wealth. This link between intelligence and wealth is perhaps the most dangerous idea of the film and pretty quickly slips into advocating for some form of soft eugenics to build a better world."

Statically, isn't that true? Corruption and heritage might make this not true, but I don't think that's totally inepte to think there is a link between intelligence and the actual wealth of people.

Widely-cited movies often mean different things to different people. Their indeterminacy increases citations. Idiocracy parodies advertising, GMO farming, psychotropic mists dispensed by ATMs to calm down annoyed customers, and many other topics. Is that more or less helpful to society than vampire romance or robot mayhem movies?

Someone doesn't know the meaning of the word "satire".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com