This video essay is LITERALLY A DOCUMENTARY. Check out http://www.audible.com/sarahz or text sarahz to 500-500 to get a 30 day free trial!------Support me: M...
Idiocracy always had a weird eugenics undertone to me. That undesirable people will out procreate desirable ones. I feel people misunderstand the message of the film. They come away thinking the idea we need to fix people, not systems that which people find themselves. I know it's all for laughs, but I think a lot of people who watched that and just thought the problem was individual acting “poorly” rather that the MEGACORPs/Systems that control everything. These systems limit individuals' agility to act (let alone act “well”). Worse yet, these systems can even reward “dumb” behavior or whatever. I felt its critique was of “dumb people” not of the systems that create and refuse to take care of those “dumb people” and also create cultures around them. It made fun of consumers rather than consumerism. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seemed ill-spirited, or at least misguided. The lack of structural critique makes it feel a bit icky.
It's not even really an undertone, since the opening is literally saying "smart people don't have enough kids and dumb hillbilly yokels have too many kids"
The eugenics angle pushed at the start of the movie is incredibly unfortunate because truly the problem is not breeding but culture. Anti-intellectualism permeates American culture and politics, and is pushed just as vociferously by Harvard and Yale legacy students as it is by hillbillies in trailer parks. It will be hard enough to keep the populous mentally stimulated in a push button automated world under removedSC, but it will be nigh impossible under a financialized, service-based capitalism were people got to be made dumb enough to continue falling for scams like credit default swaps, health insurance, and NFTs.
What the movie fails to account for is how fucking stupid rich and "successful" people can often be and how that doesn't prevent them from having lots of babies, and in fact they could very well have many more than they should and give them generational trauma by abusing and neglecting them. :my-hero:
What the movie fails to account for is how fucking stupid rich and “successful” people can often be
Isn't that exactly who guys like President Camacho and his staff parody? The rich and successful people are all just cultural icons rather than geniuses or exceptionally hard workers.
Bill Gates would "step aside" then set up a non-profit foundation to continue growing his wealth while slowly enacting his eugenicist agenda across the African continent
Idiocracy always had a weird eugenics undertone to me. That undesirable people will out procreate desirable ones.
That's the face-value pitch. American troglodytes keep breeding while the "good" people self-select into oblivion.
But I'd argue a funnier reading is that liberal intelligentsia produces sexless weirdos and losers more concerned with personal vanity and careerism than building a future they might actually want to live in. The run into a hereditary dead end as the American consumer culturalism they seek to master basically kills their libidos.
The David Duchovny movie "Evolution" handles this issue a bit more gracefully, as the things rapidly breeding and spreading are alien lifeforms rather than American chuds. The climax of the movie has the protagonists fighting a fifty foot tall alien amoeba. Duchovny's character bemoans how evolution doesn't favor any particular trait beyond habitat suitability and muses how sometimes the simplest organisms are the best positioned to thrive.
King of the Hill can be a similar experience at times, Idiocracy is just more overt. I get the feeling Judge was trying to "both sides" a lot of the issues his characters face and make fun of everything and everyone involved.
Idiocracy always had a weird eugenics undertone to me. That undesirable people will out procreate desirable ones. I feel people misunderstand the message of the film. They come away thinking the idea we need to fix people, not systems that which people find themselves. I know it's all for laughs, but I think a lot of people who watched that and just thought the problem was individual acting “poorly” rather that the MEGACORPs/Systems that control everything. These systems limit individuals' agility to act (let alone act “well”). Worse yet, these systems can even reward “dumb” behavior or whatever. I felt its critique was of “dumb people” not of the systems that create and refuse to take care of those “dumb people” and also create cultures around them. It made fun of consumers rather than consumerism. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seemed ill-spirited, or at least misguided. The lack of structural critique makes it feel a bit icky.
It's not even really an undertone, since the opening is literally saying "smart people don't have enough kids and dumb hillbilly yokels have too many kids"
An overtone, one could say.
It's at least a tone
Superliminal
The eugenics angle pushed at the start of the movie is incredibly unfortunate because truly the problem is not breeding but culture. Anti-intellectualism permeates American culture and politics, and is pushed just as vociferously by Harvard and Yale legacy students as it is by hillbillies in trailer parks. It will be hard enough to keep the populous mentally stimulated in a push button automated world under removedSC, but it will be nigh impossible under a financialized, service-based capitalism were people got to be made dumb enough to continue falling for scams like credit default swaps, health insurance, and NFTs.
plus America keeps cutting education budgets
What the movie fails to account for is how fucking stupid rich and "successful" people can often be and how that doesn't prevent them from having lots of babies, and in fact they could very well have many more than they should and give them generational trauma by abusing and neglecting them. :my-hero:
Isn't that exactly who guys like President Camacho and his staff parody? The rich and successful people are all just cultural icons rather than geniuses or exceptionally hard workers.
President Camacho could and did actually own up to being wrong and was mature enough to step aside if someone else had a better idea eventually.
I highly doubt that :billionaire-tears: would ever be able to do that and he's supposed to be the genius of the bunch.
Karl Albrecht, Warren Buffett, and Bill Gates less so. Not all these rich fucks are Musk.
Those people have egos just as big if not bigger than musk. It's just that their not trying to be zoomer shit posters as an adult
Bill Gates would "step aside" then set up a non-profit foundation to continue growing his wealth while slowly enacting his eugenicist agenda across the African continent
That's the face-value pitch. American troglodytes keep breeding while the "good" people self-select into oblivion.
But I'd argue a funnier reading is that liberal intelligentsia produces sexless weirdos and losers more concerned with personal vanity and careerism than building a future they might actually want to live in. The run into a hereditary dead end as the American consumer culturalism they seek to master basically kills their libidos.
The David Duchovny movie "Evolution" handles this issue a bit more gracefully, as the things rapidly breeding and spreading are alien lifeforms rather than American chuds. The climax of the movie has the protagonists fighting a fifty foot tall alien amoeba. Duchovny's character bemoans how evolution doesn't favor any particular trait beyond habitat suitability and muses how sometimes the simplest organisms are the best positioned to thrive.
King of the Hill can be a similar experience at times, Idiocracy is just more overt. I get the feeling Judge was trying to "both sides" a lot of the issues his characters face and make fun of everything and everyone involved.