does anybody else feel like something is going on?

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:21 AM, YO303 said:

lol i know you were making a joke, i was just trying to expand my nonsense ideas better

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:13 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

nah im not trolling, i suspected that you had this scene in mind, but to assume that he implies that stupidity is genetically transmitted is underestimating judge. he shows the parents' lifestyle after all.

 

but if intelligence isn't genetically transmitted in the movie, then why does judge invoke evolutionary theory in the beginning of the movie? why would, then, the fact that stupid/poor people have more children and rich/smart people have less children be relevant at all to society being dumbed down if he wasn't referring to genetics?

 

please explain this movie to me.

invokes ? he lightly plays with the concept more like. the fact that stupid people have more children is very well established, to me what he's trying to show is that if let the stupids will simply outbreed, but that too he didn't really take too seriously or scientifically.

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:35 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:13 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

nah im not trolling, i suspected that you had this scene in mind, but to assume that he implies that stupidity is genetically transmitted is underestimating judge. he shows the parents' lifestyle after all.

 

but if intelligence isn't genetically transmitted in the movie, then why does judge invoke evolutionary theory in the beginning of the movie? why would, then, the fact that stupid/poor people have more children and rich/smart people have less children be relevant at all to society being dumbed down if he wasn't referring to genetics?

 

please explain this movie to me.

invokes ? he lightly plays with the concept more like. the fact that stupid people have more children is very well established, to me what he's trying to show is that if let the stupids will simply outbreed, but that too he didn't really take too seriously or scientifically.

This is classism, you respect the values of "high class individuals" more than the culture and norms of people with lower socio-economic status.

i think you misuse the term, classism is stereotyping: poor>>stupid, rich>>smart. but there's nothing wrong about respecting someone's values more than others'.

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:44 AM, hautlle said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:35 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:13 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

nah im not trolling, i suspected that you had this scene in mind, but to assume that he implies that stupidity is genetically transmitted is underestimating judge. he shows the parents' lifestyle after all.

 

but if intelligence isn't genetically transmitted in the movie, then why does judge invoke evolutionary theory in the beginning of the movie? why would, then, the fact that stupid/poor people have more children and rich/smart people have less children be relevant at all to society being dumbed down if he wasn't referring to genetics?

 

please explain this movie to me.

invokes ? he lightly plays with the concept more like. the fact that stupid people have more children is very well established, to me what he's trying to show is that if let the stupids will simply outbreed, but that too he didn't really take too seriously or scientifically.

 

This is classism, you respect the values of "high class individuals" more than the culture and norms of people with lower socio-economic status.

I don't think he respects them any more than the breedin' hillbillies. From my perspective they seem to be portrayed as uptight, stuffy prigs. It's almost as if he's implying that their inability to procreate is at least in part because of some essential animal attraction missing from their relationship.

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:52 AM, eugene said:

i think you misuse the term, classism is stereotyping: poor>>stupid, rich>>smart. but there's nothing wrong about respecting someone's values more than others'.

There is actually a tremendous correlation between socio-economic status, wealth, and education in the USA.

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:59 AM, hautlle said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:52 AM, eugene said:

i think you misuse the term, classism is stereotyping: poor>>stupid, rich>>smart. but there's nothing wrong about respecting someone's values more than others'.

 

There is actually a tremendous correlation between socio-economic status, wealth, and education in the USA.

of course there is, there's also a correlation between race and socio-economic status..

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:03 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:59 AM, hautlle said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:52 AM, eugene said:

i think you misuse the term, classism is stereotyping: poor>>stupid, rich>>smart. but there's nothing wrong about respecting someone's values more than others'.

 

There is actually a tremendous correlation between socio-economic status, wealth, and education in the USA.

of course there is, there's also a correlation between race and socio-economic status..

So what are we talking about? Values/culture/norms are relative and imo none are better than the other. They all grow out of necessity and specific settings. That's like saying Christianity is better than Islam, or Paganism is better than Judaism. It all largely stems from how you were raised, one isn't necessarily better than the other in the end. One could argue more procreation is a good thing because it ensures the continuity of the human species. What general survival skills does a high school or higher education instill in us as a species?

you're making it easy for yourself with such comparisons. how about religion based vs. science based societies, while "better" is a term that's hard to work with, which one has better chances of providing materially for its people ? extreme relativism can lead to intellectual laziness.

i think you're much better off with higher education than the ability to procreate like crazy, in the west at least.

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:17 AM, eugene said:

you're making it easy for yourself with such comparisons. how about religion based vs. science based societies, while "better" is a term that's hard to work with, which one has better chances of providing materially for its people ? extreme relativism can lead to intellectual laziness.

Culture =/= Science. While you can apply science to study culture (anthropology/sociology) it is qualitative and subjective, not quantitative or objective and therefore cannot be thought of in a straight forward scientific manner. Everything you think is influenced by your culture and belief system. At the most basic level what really matters? How well your species lived or how well/long your species survived?

science and religion are easily both part of the culture in every mainstream understandings of what culture is, technology and science are products of culture just as religion is. i think you are forgetting that statistics is a huge part of sociological research.

now the last one is billion dollar question, perhaps it's more fulfilling to live as a hunter-gatherer and get torn apart by a lion at the age of 34 than living a safe life till 94 in a western society that we're familiar with.

i feel like there's something going on in my pants

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:45 AM, BCM said:

i feel like there's something going on in my pants

dammit you beat me to it.

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:38 AM, eugene said:

science and religion are easily both part of the culture in every mainstream understandings of what culture is, technology and science are products of culture just as religion is. i think you are forgetting that statistics is a huge part of sociological research.

now the last one is billion dollar question, perhaps it's more fulfilling to live as a hunter-gatherer and get torn apart by a lion at the age of 34 than living a safe life till 94 in a western society that we're familiar with.

My argument is that the contributions of religion are unquantifiable. How many people subside on faith/religion almost entirely? The poor are fine/happy a long as they have comfort in God and just enough to survive. “At the door of the miserable rich man sleeps the contented beggar.” - An Old Tibetan Saying (according to the Dalai Lama)

Rangoed.

this thread i mean

contribution in what sense ? it's easy to argue that religion does contribute something substantial to the republican party in u.s for example.

the second argument is difficult and enormous indeed, but then you could say that acquisition of more and more knowledge is also a part of happiness that you wouldn't want to give up. i think it'll be safe to assume that many religious people wouldn't want to give up the goodies that scientific method brought as well.

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:59 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:45 AM, BCM said:

i feel like there's something going on in my pants

 

dammit you beat me to it.

i had a very strange wank. i don't want to talk about it.

  On 1/20/2012 at 9:01 PM, Babar said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 7:58 PM, encey said:

Wait! I feel it! ... Something's about to happen ...

 

 

 

*farts*

 

then shit happens

  On 1/21/2012 at 2:48 AM, BCM said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:59 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 1:45 AM, BCM said:

i feel like there's something going on in my pants

 

dammit you beat me to it.

 

i had a very strange wank. i don't want to talk about it.

Come on - nothing? beat? nothing?

goddamnit.

*wolfs out disappointedly*

chen you have balls on your chin

you know, I never noticed that until just now.

  On 1/21/2012 at 4:17 AM, lumpenprol said:

chen you have balls on your chin

  On 1/21/2012 at 4:25 AM, chenGOD said:

you know, I never noticed that until just now.

lol

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:53 AM, sweepstakes said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:44 AM, hautlle said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:35 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:13 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

nah im not trolling, i suspected that you had this scene in mind, but to assume that he implies that stupidity is genetically transmitted is underestimating judge. he shows the parents' lifestyle after all.

 

but if intelligence isn't genetically transmitted in the movie, then why does judge invoke evolutionary theory in the beginning of the movie? why would, then, the fact that stupid/poor people have more children and rich/smart people have less children be relevant at all to society being dumbed down if he wasn't referring to genetics?

 

please explain this movie to me.

invokes ? he lightly plays with the concept more like. the fact that stupid people have more children is very well established, to me what he's trying to show is that if let the stupids will simply outbreed, but that too he didn't really take too seriously or scientifically.

 

This is classism, you respect the values of "high class individuals" more than the culture and norms of people with lower socio-economic status.

 

I don't think he respects them any more than the breedin' hillbillies. From my perspective they seem to be portrayed as uptight, stuffy prigs. It's almost as if he's implying that their inability to procreate is at least in part because of some essential animal attraction missing from their relationship.

Idiocracy used that as an jumping point. No one has mentioned that the two main characters are related to the intro. They are highlighted as the most average people on Earth (chosen for a military experiment and specifically picked for their 100 IQs, blah blah) who find themselves going from their apathetic lives now to actually being compelled to contribute to society when they travel to the future.

There's not even an implication of eugenics, it's commentary of how much we can become dependent on automation and convenience. One of the biggest targets is the corporate-government corruption. Remember the part where Carl's Jr. (the fast-food restaurant) checks someones barcode and tied bank account, finds they have no money, then declares it will take custody of their children? Well guess what, the FBI found that Megaupload was breaking the law, and now the site and its contents have been confiscated. That's why the movie is so brilliant imo. Mike Judge isn't classist, in fact most of his movies and shows have been from working-class/lower middle-class perspectives. Many King of the Hill episodes involved triumphs of Hank's common sense over stuffy, elitist characters. Likewise, Hank is regularly confronted with "uncomfortable" situations that end up expanding his perspective and tolerance of others. It's was a realistic but nonetheless positive show. But yeah, are genetics mentioned and tied in? Yes, but that wasn't the point. It's about social devolution driven by multiple factors.

  On 1/21/2012 at 4:53 AM, joshuatxuk said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:53 AM, sweepstakes said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:44 AM, hautlle said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:35 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:13 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:08 AM, eugene said:

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

nah im not trolling, i suspected that you had this scene in mind, but to assume that he implies that stupidity is genetically transmitted is underestimating judge. he shows the parents' lifestyle after all.

 

but if intelligence isn't genetically transmitted in the movie, then why does judge invoke evolutionary theory in the beginning of the movie? why would, then, the fact that stupid/poor people have more children and rich/smart people have less children be relevant at all to society being dumbed down if he wasn't referring to genetics?

 

please explain this movie to me.

invokes ? he lightly plays with the concept more like. the fact that stupid people have more children is very well established, to me what he's trying to show is that if let the stupids will simply outbreed, but that too he didn't really take too seriously or scientifically.

 

This is classism, you respect the values of "high class individuals" more than the culture and norms of people with lower socio-economic status.

 

I don't think he respects them any more than the breedin' hillbillies. From my perspective they seem to be portrayed as uptight, stuffy prigs. It's almost as if he's implying that their inability to procreate is at least in part because of some essential animal attraction missing from their relationship.

 

Idiocracy used that as an jumping point. No one has mentioned that the two main characters are related to the intro. They are highlighted as the most average people on Earth (chosen for a military experiment and specifically picked for their 100 IQs, blah blah) who find themselves going from their apathetic lives now to actually being compelled to contribute to society when they travel to the future.

  Reveal hidden contents

And yes, at the end they mention they end up getting together and having "the smartest kids on Earth" but it's an emphasis on their values.

There's not even an implication of eugenics, it's commentary of how much we can become dependent on automation and convenience. One of the biggest targets is the corporate-government corruption. Remember the part where Carl's Jr. (the fast-food restaurant) checks someones barcode and tied bank account, finds they have no money, then declares it will take custody of their children? Well guess what, the FBI found that Megaupload was breaking the law, and now the site and its contents have been confiscated. That's why the movie is so brilliant imo. Mike Judge isn't classist, in fact most of his movies and shows have been from working-class/lower middle-class perspectives. Many King of the Hill episodes involved triumphs of Hank's common sense over stuffy, elitist characters. Likewise, Hank is regularly confronted with "uncomfortable" situations that end up expanding his perspective and tolerance of others. It's was a realistic but nonetheless positive show. But yeah, are genetics mentioned and tied in? Yes, but that wasn't the point. It's about social devolution driven by multiple factors.

  On 1/21/2012 at 12:01 AM, Hoodie said:

  On 1/20/2012 at 11:59 PM, eugene said:

i don't think the film was implying that actually, where did you get that notion from ? what scene ?

 

are you trying to troll me?

 

[youtubehd]BXRjmyJFzrU[/youtubehd]

this is quite brilliant

at first sight it looks like zomg eugenics !

but actually it points out the opposite.

"retards" and "smart" people working together on a degenarative future. science masks or fixes problems only to make the problems worse in the next generations.

But in the very long run this will flat out again, fixable probelms become unfixable and Joe Sixpack will be there to save the day (evolution favors averageness)