this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2024
779 points (91.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5575 readers
3007 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This still comes down to a nature vs nurture argument, and the movie tends to fall back on things like education being the primary issue.
Idiots raising idiots isn't necessarily an argument based in eugenics. Parents who never learned are not going to be able to teach their children. If there isn't something like a decent public education system, then what chance do the children of idiots really have?
Are we talking about the same movie?
The movie's "happy ending" is literally that the "smartest person" becomes the boss of all the stupid people. I think y'all don't really know too much about eugenics.
Yes, everyone knows about this scene. This still isn't claiming that intellect is a genetic trait that can only be inherited. It's claiming that intellect is no longer a valued societal trait that people find necessary to procreate.
I think the problem with your interpretation is it is focusing on biological evolution, when in reality the satire is based on societal evolution. Idiocracy is only set like 500 years in the future, not exactly enough time to see humans biologically adapt in any significant way.
I don't know what I can say. The movie literally focuses on the biology. It's literally in the text and you claim otherwise.
Edit: I noticed that my timestamp didn't work. It's pretty open at 1m58s
Does the movie touch on an "intelligence gene" that's passed down?
I don't believe it does, in which case, is it eugenics if no genes are involved?
r u serious?
Yes, goddammit. The idea is older than the discovery of genes. 🙄
Incorrect theories about hereditary effects have fueled eugenics, however the undiscovered underlying mechanism would still be genes.
My understanding is that the eugenics still necessitates genes being passed down, but I am no eugenics scholar and would cede to definitions that are contrary.
So? Darwin came before the discovery of genes. My whole point is that you don't need to talk about genes in order to talk about eugenics.
Sure, however there are traits passed down through generations that don't utilize genes. As an example, let's look at intergenerational wealth. Is that a form of eugenics? I would argue no - there are no biological traits being selected for, which afaik is the scope of eugenics. Instead I would propose that these are inherited environmental traits, which are more in the scope of public policy.
Let's then talk about intelligence. AFAIK, intelligence is a mixture of nature and nurture - genes and environmental impacts. What this means is when you claim the movie is about eugenics, you are choosing to ignore the environmental aspect, and instead focusing on the genetic aspect of intelligence. If we bring this back to inherited social traits, it is just as likely that it is the inherited environmental traits that resulted in the dumbing down depicted in the movie. The dumb example fella did not prioritize education, so why would his offspring?
You see: I believe that even your nuanced take on intelligence is selling the whole thing short. Intelligence is something that seems intuitive but actually isn't very well understood (but sadly: quite often used as justification for discrimination).
So, I don't believe any of those things about inheritabiliy of intelligence. Yet, the basic premise of the movie relies a lot on inheritability of intelligence. I'm saying that the whole setup of the movie is a thought experiment, based on eugenic principles.
I don't think that eugenics relies on genes, btw. Eugenicists actually always took an effort to ignore socio-economical issues. The core narrative of (negative) eugenics is "if the wrong people reproduce too much, we have a problem". The justification, be it genes, nature, or nurture, comes afterwards.
Reproduce, meaning procreate/have kids?
This clarification matters because if it's just about giving birth to kids, it fundamentally is about genes. The justification is whatever quality the eugenicist is hoping to encourage. The underlying mechanism, once again, is genes.
Here's a question that might further the discussion. Is it considered eugenics to control who gets to adopt babies? If it's not eugenics, then why does choosing who can have babies through procreation fall under the umbrella of eugenics? What's the difference between these scenarios?
It would be very helpful if you could share a source that discusses eugenics in the absence of passing on biologically inherited traits. The vast majority of definitions that I've seen focuses on this supposed passing on of biological inheritance of traits.
Yes, have kids.
But the mechanics don't matter, since eugenics don't rely on genes. Taking away the children of native American parents, since those were deemed "unfit to raise them properly" was once eugenicist practices. Eugenics doesn't rely on genetics at all.
It doesn't matter if the justification is "genes", or "capabilities of raising children", or cosmic radiation or whatever.
Kind of? That one's a grey area and it depends on e.g. motivation. Can gay people not adopt children? I'd say that reeks of eugenics. Can a household that clearly can't care for the well-being of a child not adopt? I'd argue that's not eugenistic.
Can you share a source that discusses eugenics without the context of biologically inherited traits? I did a search for "eugenics native American children" and all of the hits discuss forced sterilization, which reinforces my belief that mechanics do matter because eugenics does rely on genes.
When discussing taking away the children of native Americans, I believe that falls under genocide, instead of eugenics. Also bad, but different bad.
To get the conversation started, here's the definition of eugenics provided by a few common sources:
Not everything inheritaple is based on genes. If two people who love playing the violin get children,I'll guaranteeyou that their offspring will know one thing or two about violins.
Culture can be inherited, too. Which is mainly why first nation people were sterilized: to effectively genocide their culture.
I don't think that definitionss help too much with these kinds of discussion, since they ignore the historical context of a historical phenomenon.
We're in agreement on that - I was stating earlier that there are social aspects that can be "inherited", for example, the nurture segment of intelligence.
However at the end of the day, every definition I've seen for eugenics focuses on the biological inherited traits, and none mention these socially/culturally inherited ones. Intelligence is impacted by both biologically inherited traits as well as socially inherited traits, which is why I'm proposing that eugenics, which I've not seen defined to cover socially inherited traits, is only a potential driver. In the absence of the movie explicitly calling out the lack of an "intelligence gene", failing social nets not preventing socially/culturally inherited stupidity is an equally valid reason.
You're simply going to ignore the historical context, are you?
I've asked multiple times for sources discussing eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits.
If the historical context you're describing does not fall under that request, it's not relevant because we'd circle back around to eugenics necessitating biologically inherited traits. If the historical context you're describing does fall under that request, I'm all ears.
Similar to how I understand your example of taking away native American children to fall under genocide and not eugenics, I suspect there's a misunderstanding in the definition of eugenics.
Haven't you already given examples with sterilization of indigenous people?
Race "science" was always an excuse for racism. First racism, then race. Notthe other way around.
You can genocide people through eugenics (culturally repressive control of reproduction).
Sterilization is 100% in the realm of biologically inherited traits, as it prevents the passing on of genes, so no, that is not what I'm asking for.
You can genocide people through eugenics, true, but taking kids away is genocide without eugenics as defined by all authoritative sources that I've seen, none of which have been contested.
I'll ask for a 4th(?) time, are you able to share sources that discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits?
If not, then my take away is that you have a personal definition of eugenics that is not shared by society, and your opinions about the role of eugenics in this movie should be considered appropriately.
Even if that was the case (I don't think it is), you're talking about our current understanding of biology. Scientists used to think that having a low IQ is a mental illness ("feeble-mindedness"), or that promiscuity is inheritable.
Here's an example of what you asked for. I think it fits the premise of Idiocracy a lot.
..... sterilization would prevent the passing of genes by that individual by mechanism of no longer having kids. Biologically inherited traits are, by definition, determined by genes. These are facts. You can try to hand waive this away and say "who knows our current understanding of this may change in the future", but that then leaves us with "our current understanding of science informs us that your source did not discuss eugenics outside of the scope of biologically inherited traits"
That legal case is once again, about sterilization, which is eugenics by way of preventing traits from being inherited biologically. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what I mean when I ask for a source discussing eugenics outside the scope of biologically inherited traits.
Do you remember how you brought go that if two parents play violin, their kid probably will too? Would it be eugenics to prevent that kid from playing violin? Unless you believe coco to be a movie about the perils of eugenics, the answer should be no. Substitute passing down "a love for playing violin" with "not prioritizing education" and that explains Idiocracy, without eugenics.
You are choosing to explain the outcome of Idiocracy with eugenics and you're choosing to ignore equally valid alternatives.
That's not what I'm saying. I was talking about the historical context. And again: the movie implies heavily that stupidity is inheritable, just like the historical example. Be it via nature or nurture.
Yeah. My original point was that Idiocracy is an eugencist movie by implying that stupidity is inherited. I don't believe that is the case, but the movie argues for it. Stop moving the goalposts.
Every definition of eugenics that I've seen only discusses inheriting by nature. You have yet to provide a definition that explicitly captures inheriting by nurture as well. The movie does discuss inheritance of stupidity, but is ambiguous about it being nature or nurture. Therefore, the so far uncontested societal definition of eugenics, which focuses just on nature, is only one way to look at how stupidity was inherited. There is the equally valid lens of looking at it through the inheritance of stupidity via nurture.
Choosing to claim that this is movie about eugenics necessitates you either ignoring that stupidity can be inherited via nurture (via deprioritizing of education, etc ), or by applying your own definition of eugenics in order to also include nurture. A definition that you have thusfar been unable to provide authoritative sources agreeing with you on, and that disagrees with the societal definition.
I refuse to believe thatstupidity is a thing, let alone can be inherited via nature or nurture!
So, you're just ignoring the historical context of eugenics... Cool /s
I'm not a big fan of appealing to authority.
Edit:
you haven't read the article, have you?
Apologies, I was using "stupidity" as shorthand for "lack of intelligence". Are we in agreement that intelligence is inherited as a mixture of nature and nurture? What I say next does depend on agreement here.
So remember when you said
Let's say Priddy sterilized someone, they met a partner who also loved playing violin, and they adopted a kid. The sterilization would do nothing to prevent the kid from knowing a thing or two about the violin. Do we agree? Do you see what I mean about sterilization not preventing the inheritance of non-biological traits?
Now swap out "love for the violin" with "deprioritizing education", and you have the seeds for Idiocracy. This works with or without involving eugenics, so you're choosing to look at the movie through the lens of eugenics.
What do you mean by intelligence? General intelligence has never been scientifically proven to exist. So in that sense: I don't believe in intelligence, either.
Apart from the morbidity of you using that historical example as a juming off point for a thought experiment: That's assuming that the law would have allowed for the sterilized person to adopt someone. It certainly wouldn't have.
That's a hell of a bomb to drop when we're waist deep in the discussion, and quite frankly not a can of worms I have the time to open, so I'm just going to peace out. Thank you for the civil discussion, have a good day!
How often did I say that this is not about real life, but the internal logic of the movie?
At 1m58sec they are talking about medical advancements....not genetics. Again, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Medical advancements that allow people to procreate at a faster rate is not biology, it's sociology.
It kinda seems you are dismissing the possibility of nurture attributing to the equation at all, which in and of itself is a eugenics based argument.
The joke is "this could have been prevented, if that guy became infertile, but unfortunately, modern medicine saved him". That's not jumping to codclusions, that's the literal text of the movie.
Seriously, what's wrong with your media literacy? It's so obvious.
Nice try. I'm simply interpreting the text of the movie.
Yeah, badly
It's in the friggin text, homie.
Yes.....it is. Preventing a deadbeat dad from abandoning even more families to poverty is not saying that his genes are cursed or something.
Have you not ever heard of nature vs nurture? Never heard of tabula rassa? You do know that intellect isn't determined by genes alone, correct?
Yes, through the lens of eugenics.....
The movie constantly focuses on genetics. It even ends with the naration that the (relatively smart) hero has a few smart kids and his dumb friend has a few dumb ones. The movie never interacts with *any socioeconomic factors, except for conflating poor people with dumb people.
The movie doesn't get into that argument.
What does "clean slate" have to do with this?
Yes, that's my point. The premise of the movie hinges on intelligence being mainly inherited.
It doesn't mention genes...... In the clip you are talking about where he has smart kids, you can see both of the parents actively teaching their kids how to read. It then pans over to his friends who had a bunch of dumb kids and he's teaching them to play with fireworks or something.
If it never interacts with socioeconomics how does it conflate poor people with dumb people?
It's the whole point of the movie.....
Lol, so no. You don't understand.
How are you making that determination? How does one delineate between the two within the context of the movie?
Dude, modern eugenics was invented almost 40 years before they knew genes were even a thing. Do you expect them pointing at a double helix and saying "this is the stupid gene", before you accept a premise that's based on breeding having an eugenic message?
Nice cherry-picking. In the rest of the clip, they're constantly ref renceing, how much "stupid" people breed. One punchline is specifically that a stupid person's junk was saved.
Do you know what "except" means?
When? When does it reference the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture.
"Tabula rasa" is used in German as an equivalent of "clean slate". I read that stuff up... the movie explicitly negates these behaviorist ideas. (Again: it focuses almost exclusively on breeding)
You would have a point if it would have focused more on the poor children being badly cared for, instead of slutshaming the poor.
Yes, and this movie was written in the 2000s... If we want to get pedantic with the science aspect, then your theory is out the window to begin with. 500 years is not long enough for a species to radically alter their intellect on a societal scale.
The rest of the clip? It's literally the end of the movie..... And again, there's no way to delineate if the stupidity in question is a byproduct of parenting vs "breeding" as you put it.
Lol, and how does it conflate poor people with stupidity? Just out of the blue....no context?
Lol, no it doesn't.
Lol, what are you talking about? I've brought up the care of children several times, and havent brought up sexual provocation at all?
I think you need to take a nap or something.
Keep at it homie. I got you way down here.
Lol, I really don't know what this guy's going on about. I feel the only way you could be this obtuse about nature vs nurture argument is if you actually believe intellect is a purely inherited trait.
What theory? Eugenics doesn't work in real life. I'm critizising the movie on its' own premise, not on scientific pedantry.
Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?
the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don't. You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.
Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white "trash" trailer park people (except the President, maybe).
Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie? The first five minutes is back to back jokes about reproduction (fucking). Where are the behaviorist scenes?
But you aren't.... There isn't any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they're implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.
The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it's hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children's intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn't raise.....
So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of "smart parents" was raised by idiots, and remained smart...... Then it's impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.
I was talking about the end of the movie.....that's what we were talking about from what you quoted.
At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.
People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education..... America being a land of inequality based on social status isn't exactly a new idea.
In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity.... Not exactly great parenting.
I did not get that impression..... Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?
How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the "idiots" in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?
Ok, that's like... three "nurture" mentions (although being smart doesn't make you a good parent and being dumb doesn't make you a bad one, so I'm already generous) against... how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?
But you've clearly made up your mind and refuse to see the obvious classist notions of the movie. I can't do any more than pointing out the obvious if you don't want to see it.
Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn't make you a good parent, but that's not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.
So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?
We're talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: "If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we'll have a problem of stupidity."
That's a eugenicist stance. Period. It doesn't rely on nature or nurture, or anything else. Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were "unfit for parenthood" due to eugenic arguments. Not, because of their genes, but because of their lacking capabilities of nurturing.
No, but that's literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄
That's your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social "devolution". Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.
The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.
The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn't have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.
Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked "racial science", and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It's not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.
Lol, there are only two "smart" people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker..... They also have three kids.
So I don't really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.
I think you're getting a little caught up on concepts like "breeding", which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it's just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.
The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.
You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I've provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I'm "cherry picking", which really isn't an argument.
Damn, you must be a Yogi, if you're that great at bending over backwards to make a point.
lol, wut?
That included the "mental illness" of "feeble mindedness" and "promiscuity" of Carrie Buck. "Feeble mindedness" was once determined by IQ tests, btw. Noticing a pattern already?
Yes, so far, so good
Why not? Where in the handbook of eugenics does it say that it has to be explicitly racist? The whole idea of the "wrong people" having "too many" kids leads to a "degeneration" of society is the basic justification behind negative eugenics!
I'm talking about the setup. You can see the IQ of the smart couple in the beginning.
I'm judging by the internal logic of the movie, not on the real world. I know that the real world doesn't work like that at all. 🙄
No, you! /j
I disagree
You're misrepresenting the movie by cherry-picking, which invalidates your arguments.