6 ms·

One problem with satire (or cynicism in general) is that it's a cheap way to feel smart about one's self. Idiocracy really seems to have been designed to encou

One problem with satire (or cynicism in general) is that it's a cheap way to feel smart about one's self. Idiocracy really seems to have been designed to encourage this in people. However, the movie is divided into two parts, the first five minutes and the next eighty-five. The first part is basically an advertisement for eugenics, and the rest is slapstick. People always feel smart because they "get" the second part.

pvg 10y ago
Satire is not a form of cynicism.
defined 10y ago
I disagree. Idiocracy IMHO was designed to show one possible result - in satirical form - of the race to the bottom that we see every day. If it's a "cheap way to feel smart", then perhaps those that feel smart merely by watching the movie don't realize they are part of it. Others don't need to feel smart, and simply find it funny and disquieting. I thought it was a brilliant satire when I watched it some years ago.
- coldpie 10y ago
  By any measure, people are smarter today than they ever have been in the past.
  - dr_ick 10y ago
    I suspect we are better educated overall, but people are not "smarter". http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter-than-your-grandfather-probably-not-150402883/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter...
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > I disagree. Idiocracy IMHO was designed to show one possible result - in satirical form - of the race to the bottom that we see every day. It's pretty disturbing that it explicitly endorses eugenics to do that, though. Edit: If you disagree, please explain how "the world is going to hell because stupid people are breeding too much" isn't eugenics.
  - udfalkso 10y ago
    Perhaps they would encourage smart people to go against their instincts and breed more.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      That's eugenics, yes. And, just to be clear, it wouldn't actually work, because the whole decline-of-society thing that we're annoyed about is cultural, not genetic, and doesn't work the way you think it does. https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    That's not the definition of eugenics. Eugenics implies taking deliberate action to influence the gene pool in a direction that you believe/hope will be beneficial.
  - psyc 10y ago
    Because eugenics means doing something about it, usually with state power. Also, eugenics is the negation of the movie's premise, not the movie's premise.
linkregister 10y ago
I couldn't agree more about your analysis of Idiocracy. While the movie is entertaining, I found it surprising that it ignored the developing world (where intelligence/IQ/appropriate-proxy is increasing and poverty decreasing). The whole movie seemed to be a cheap dig on stereotypes of rural/redneck behavior rather than any meaningful look at society. The conclusion that it hand-holds the audience is that the "wrong" kind of Americans don't respect intellectuals enough and they will ruin the country. The movie literally ends by the educated savior being respected for being smart. I don't agree with your indictment of satire in general; I consider Idiocracy to be pretty ham-fisted in that regard. Especially compared to much better Mike Judge works like Office Space and Silicon Valley.
- rybosome 10y ago
  You're missing a big aspect of it: what about the ownership corporations have over society? That has nothing to do with "dumb rednecks", and it's certainly not subtle. From Carl's Jr. taking custody of a woman's children, many people named after brands, the diatribe on Brawndo owning the FCC and FDA, the Costco law school, language ("Listen, I supersize with you but you broke the law"), etc. I thought the main point of the movie was that people's intelligence deteriorated past the point to recognize that they had lost their agency. Mocking lowbrow culture was an aspect of the satire, but I didn't see it as the main point.
  - self-diversity 10y ago
    An apparent life lesson for Mike Judge: if you posit a bunch of "scary" stuff and associate it to stupidity, people will feel smart about being scared of the stuff even if it's implausibly ridiculous because it's in service of a comedy film.
  - linkregister 10y ago
    Thanks, I had missed that aspect of the movie in my analysis. To me the eugenics premise overshadowed the things you mention. Indeed, the fact that the entire economy is managed by automation and is outside of the control of actual people was an interesting look at the future.
_iao 10y ago
> talks about cheap ways to feel smart by posting scathing commentary on hacker news
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't do this here. If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't post until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    This was a substantive critique and well made. The grandparent post was barbed; people who dish out criticism must be willing to have it served back to them.
    - dang 10y ago
      If that's the game you want to play, or watch, HN is not the place. Here the game is de-escalation. It's sort of like leaving a campsite in better shape than you found it. The problem with trading barbs is that it triggers worse and ends in doom. There's plenty of room for critique that doesn't destroy the threads.
      - aanm1988 10y ago
        How exactly are comments like the one at the top of this chain constructive? It's been downvoted and people have responded in ways which do break the rules. It's essentially saying if you like this movie, you are either a moron or support eugenics. Earlier in the thread there is a post basically saying that people don't like KotH because they are arrogant coastal elitists who shit on small town culture because they don't understand it.
      - anigbrowl 10y ago
        I don't think you understood my point, Dan. You're not engaged in de-escalation, but in validating whoever goes low first by picking on the person who points out their behavior. It's essentially the same as putting the blame for a schoolyard fight on the person who threw the last punch rather than the one who initiated the conflict. It creates an incentive for people to talk negatively knowing that the consequences of any conflict are more likely to fall upon those who challenge the negative behavior. You're a good moderator but I've seen you do this many times (>10) and I'd like you to think about that.
aswanson 10y ago
Shut up. You went to a 4th rate school and are a 4th rate intellect doing backend web dev because you are 4th rate. Accept your lot in life, swallow it, and move on.

pvg 10y ago

Satire is not a form of cynicism.

defined 10y ago

I disagree. Idiocracy IMHO was designed to show one possible result - in satirical form - of the race to the bottom that we see every day. If it's a "cheap way to feel smart", then perhaps those that feel smart merely by watching the movie don't realize they are part of it. Others don't need to feel smart, and simply find it funny and disquieting. I thought it was a brilliant satire when I watched it some years ago.

coldpie 10y ago
By any measure, people are smarter today than they ever have been in the past.
- dr_ick 10y ago
  I suspect we are better educated overall, but people are not "smarter". http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter-than-your-grandfather-probably-not-150402883/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-you-smarter...
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> I disagree. Idiocracy IMHO was designed to show one possible result - in satirical form - of the race to the bottom that we see every day. It's pretty disturbing that it explicitly endorses eugenics to do that, though. Edit: If you disagree, please explain how "the world is going to hell because stupid people are breeding too much" isn't eugenics.
- udfalkso 10y ago
  Perhaps they would encourage smart people to go against their instincts and breed more.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    That's eugenics, yes. And, just to be clear, it wouldn't actually work, because the whole decline-of-society thing that we're annoyed about is cultural, not genetic, and doesn't work the way you think it does. https://xkcd.com/603/ https://xkcd.com/603/
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  That's not the definition of eugenics. Eugenics implies taking deliberate action to influence the gene pool in a direction that you believe/hope will be beneficial.
- psyc 10y ago
  Because eugenics means doing something about it, usually with state power. Also, eugenics is the negation of the movie's premise, not the movie's premise.

linkregister 10y ago

I couldn't agree more about your analysis of Idiocracy. While the movie is entertaining, I found it surprising that it ignored the developing world (where intelligence/IQ/appropriate-proxy is increasing and poverty decreasing). The whole movie seemed to be a cheap dig on stereotypes of rural/redneck behavior rather than any meaningful look at society. The conclusion that it hand-holds the audience is that the "wrong" kind of Americans don't respect intellectuals enough and they will ruin the country. The movie literally ends by the educated savior being respected for being smart. I don't agree with your indictment of satire in general; I consider Idiocracy to be pretty ham-fisted in that regard. Especially compared to much better Mike Judge works like Office Space and Silicon Valley.

rybosome 10y ago
You're missing a big aspect of it: what about the ownership corporations have over society? That has nothing to do with "dumb rednecks", and it's certainly not subtle. From Carl's Jr. taking custody of a woman's children, many people named after brands, the diatribe on Brawndo owning the FCC and FDA, the Costco law school, language ("Listen, I supersize with you but you broke the law"), etc. I thought the main point of the movie was that people's intelligence deteriorated past the point to recognize that they had lost their agency. Mocking lowbrow culture was an aspect of the satire, but I didn't see it as the main point.
- self-diversity 10y ago
  An apparent life lesson for Mike Judge: if you posit a bunch of "scary" stuff and associate it to stupidity, people will feel smart about being scared of the stuff even if it's implausibly ridiculous because it's in service of a comedy film.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Thanks, I had missed that aspect of the movie in my analysis. To me the eugenics premise overshadowed the things you mention. Indeed, the fact that the entire economy is managed by automation and is outside of the control of actual people was an interesting look at the future.

_iao 10y ago

> talks about cheap ways to feel smart by posting scathing commentary on hacker news

dang 10y ago
Please don't do this here. If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't post until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  This was a substantive critique and well made. The grandparent post was barbed; people who dish out criticism must be willing to have it served back to them.
  - dang 10y ago
    If that's the game you want to play, or watch, HN is not the place. Here the game is de-escalation. It's sort of like leaving a campsite in better shape than you found it. The problem with trading barbs is that it triggers worse and ends in doom. There's plenty of room for critique that doesn't destroy the threads.
    - aanm1988 10y ago
      How exactly are comments like the one at the top of this chain constructive? It's been downvoted and people have responded in ways which do break the rules. It's essentially saying if you like this movie, you are either a moron or support eugenics. Earlier in the thread there is a post basically saying that people don't like KotH because they are arrogant coastal elitists who shit on small town culture because they don't understand it.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      I don't think you understood my point, Dan. You're not engaged in de-escalation, but in validating whoever goes low first by picking on the person who points out their behavior. It's essentially the same as putting the blame for a schoolyard fight on the person who threw the last punch rather than the one who initiated the conflict. It creates an incentive for people to talk negatively knowing that the consequences of any conflict are more likely to fall upon those who challenge the negative behavior. You're a good moderator but I've seen you do this many times (>10) and I'd like you to think about that.

aswanson 10y ago

Shut up. You went to a 4th rate school and are a 4th rate intellect doing backend web dev because you are 4th rate. Accept your lot in life, swallow it, and move on.