History Headscratchers / Idiocracy

29th Mar '16 12:02:16 PM Akaihiryuu
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Beef Supreme was played by the brother of the actor who played Joe, so some of that may have been a casting gag.
29th Mar '16 12:01:22 PM Akaihiryuu
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Simple. The last smart people built up a huge automation infrastructure while they were still around. That infrastructure is still mostly running. But noone left knows how to fix anything, so when something breaks, it breaks for good unless it can be fixed by the system. The entire system is starting to break down by the point of the movie. See the first season Next Generation episode: "When the Bough Breaks" for another example of an advanced society that forgot how the stuff they built worked and became dependent on the machines that already existed. In that case, the machines still worked fine (the problem was something else entirely), but it's still an example.
1st Jan '16 5:00:16 AM erforce
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Except that Mike Judge isn't above sacrificing realism for the sake of making a point. The irrigation [[strike: sub]]plot is a perfect example; it's impossible to bounce back from decades of salting the Earth with sports drinks in a matter of days, but the movie goes ahead and does it so that we can see Joe save the world. Never mind that the same effect could have been achieved using a pot of clean dirt (they weren't spraying Brawndo on ''everything,'' after all, just the land they were trying to grow things in) and a seed. Similar problems exist with OfficeSpace, but that's another IJBM entirely. In fact, I'll be right back...

to:

** Except that Mike Judge isn't above sacrificing realism for the sake of making a point. The irrigation [[strike: sub]]plot is a perfect example; it's impossible to bounce back from decades of salting the Earth with sports drinks in a matter of days, but the movie goes ahead and does it so that we can see Joe save the world. Never mind that the same effect could have been achieved using a pot of clean dirt (they weren't spraying Brawndo on ''everything,'' after all, just the land they were trying to grow things in) and a seed. Similar problems exist with OfficeSpace, ''Film/OfficeSpace'', but that's another IJBM entirely. In fact, I'll be right back...
29th Jun '15 7:29:01 PM ManInGray
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Maybe they were tunneling or mining equipment.
28th May '15 3:35:23 PM Discar
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Except that the poor and less educated have ALWAYS had more kids than the rich and educated. Farmers used to have tons of kids because you need a lot of help to run a farm and most of them would die anyway. The amount of dumb peasants versus educated aristocracy hasn't really changed over time. In fact, with public schooling there are probably less dumb and undereducated peasants than there have ever been. And even then, you can be poor and smart. With lack of schools it will be harder to build on our current knowledge database, but if society really does regress there's going to be someone around to start rediscovering stuff. How do you think we found all this knowledge out in the first place?
*** That's not actually true. Population studies of England in the 16th and 17th centuries showed that everyone had lots of children, but that the rich had '''more'''. There was extensive downward social mobility as the upper class seeded the middle class which seeded the lower class. Farmers mostly sent their children to the cities to die of endemic/epidemic diseases.
*** The 20th century is the first in human history to have reliable birth control. In no other era have people been able to easily control the size of their families. Hence, people who are thoughtful, careful and responsible reduce the number of children they have, while people who don't think ahead produce children whenever they have sex. Also, education is more broadly available than it has been historically, meaning the intelligent are more likely to become educated (not always, but more often than in ancient times.)
**** Which is sort of true - people with higher levels of education tend to have less children. But again, being uneducated is not stupidity. Hell, "stupidity" is an incredibly vague term, anyways.
*** Until recently, though the dumb had a lot of children, the smart also had a lot of children but more of the dumb kids died. Now (via the movie's logic) we're in a culture that protects the TooDumbToLive from themselves, and to some degrees embraces their culture and values.
**** Absolutely: Just look for those people who bully the geek and like the stuff of popular culture (like everyone likes Paris Hilton just because she is beautiful even though she is a bit stupid).
*** Just to summarize: The 20th century was a turning point, where natural selection, which favored the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, began to favor different things (Idiots). With no natural enemies and humanity moving from predatory to herd-like state (remember, predators employ tactics like ambush and teamwork to bring down prey, while herds generally tend to just eat, sleep, fuck and run away), nature simply began to reward those who fucked more. And since intelligent people tend to be wiser and employ '''birth control''' methods for their own benefit, the idiots began to reproduce more, until everyone became idiots.
**** and this is 100% [[TruthInTelevision Truth In Movies]]; just look at warning labels on various products sometime.
***** It's the fault of the fucking lawsuits.
**** To be accurate, natural selection has always favored those with higher reproductive success and not necessarily if they were stronger, smarter, faster, etc. It just so happened that those who were stronger, smarter, and faster tended to provide better support for their children to grow up and propagate their own genes. Yes, yes, this carries implications of SocialDarwinism.
***** Natural selection hasn't changed since before Stone Age, but throughout most of humanity's history it was heavily nerfed by artificial self-selection. Screwing out of wedlock was forbidden and people didn't choose who they marry, their parents did and valued the potential candidate's ability to survive in the modern world and be a good spouse more than they did their ability to survive in jungle and sexual attractiveness. Nowadays only a natural selection is at work, so humanity reverts to its natural state: just one step above the animals. What really bugs me is the lack of violent gangs in the movie, you'd think such a future would just crawl with them. Besides, in addition to contraception point above, now is the first time in history abortion has become so available. Who knows, how many potential ensteins didn't make it to this world.
***** Also the movie does not explicitly state that the "dumbing down" of humanity is entirely the fault of genetics; there was also a strong societal trend towards a shallow, materialistic lifestyle. Sure there are still smart people around but as the movie implied, their talents went towards making money (e.g. penile extension drugs, automating Carl's Jr., and [[CorruptCorporateExecutive running megacorporations]]) than fixing the world's problems. After all they may have brains but like the rest of society they'd rather have cash and a good time than worry about the mess they are in. Its just that by the time the events of the movie rolls around, they are in such a minority and so acclimatized to their own society that the smart ones just don't try to be smart anymore.

to:

*** ** Except that the poor and less educated have ALWAYS had more kids than the rich and educated. Farmers used to have tons of kids because you need a lot of help to run a farm and most of them would die anyway. The amount of dumb peasants versus educated aristocracy hasn't really changed over time. In fact, with public schooling there are probably less dumb and undereducated peasants than there have ever been. And even then, you can be poor and smart. With lack of schools it will be harder to build on our current knowledge database, but if society really does regress there's going to be someone around to start rediscovering stuff. How do you think we found all this knowledge out in the first place?
*** ** That's not actually true. Population studies of England in the 16th and 17th centuries showed that everyone had lots of children, but that the rich had '''more'''. There was extensive downward social mobility as the upper class seeded the middle class which seeded the lower class. Farmers mostly sent their children to the cities to die of endemic/epidemic diseases.
*** ** The 20th century is the first in human history to have reliable birth control. In no other era have people been able to easily control the size of their families. Hence, people who are thoughtful, careful and responsible reduce the number of children they have, while people who don't think ahead produce children whenever they have sex. Also, education is more broadly available than it has been historically, meaning the intelligent are more likely to become educated (not always, but more often than in ancient times.)
**** ** Which is sort of true - people with higher levels of education tend to have less children. But again, being uneducated is not stupidity. Hell, "stupidity" is an incredibly vague term, anyways.
*** ** Until recently, though the dumb had a lot of children, the smart also had a lot of children but more of the dumb kids died. Now (via the movie's logic) we're in a culture that protects the TooDumbToLive from themselves, and to some degrees embraces their culture and values.
**** ** Absolutely: Just look for those people who bully the geek and like the stuff of popular culture (like everyone likes Paris Hilton just because she is beautiful even though she is a bit stupid).
*** ** Just to summarize: The 20th century was a turning point, where natural selection, which favored the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, began to favor different things (Idiots). With no natural enemies and humanity moving from predatory to herd-like state (remember, predators employ tactics like ambush and teamwork to bring down prey, while herds generally tend to just eat, sleep, fuck and run away), nature simply began to reward those who fucked more. And since intelligent people tend to be wiser and employ '''birth control''' methods for their own benefit, the idiots began to reproduce more, until everyone became idiots.
**** ** and this is 100% [[TruthInTelevision Truth In Movies]]; just look at warning labels on various products sometime.
***** ** It's the fault of the fucking lawsuits.
**** ** To be accurate, natural selection has always favored those with higher reproductive success and not necessarily if they were stronger, smarter, faster, etc. It just so happened that those who were stronger, smarter, and faster tended to provide better support for their children to grow up and propagate their own genes. Yes, yes, this carries implications of SocialDarwinism.
***** ** Natural selection hasn't changed since before Stone Age, but throughout most of humanity's history it was heavily nerfed by artificial self-selection. Screwing out of wedlock was forbidden and people didn't choose who they marry, their parents did and valued the potential candidate's ability to survive in the modern world and be a good spouse more than they did their ability to survive in jungle and sexual attractiveness. Nowadays only a natural selection is at work, so humanity reverts to its natural state: just one step above the animals. What really bugs me is the lack of violent gangs in the movie, you'd think such a future would just crawl with them. Besides, in addition to contraception point above, now is the first time in history abortion has become so available. Who knows, how many potential ensteins didn't make it to this world.
***** ** Also the movie does not explicitly state that the "dumbing down" of humanity is entirely the fault of genetics; there was also a strong societal trend towards a shallow, materialistic lifestyle. Sure there are still smart people around but as the movie implied, their talents went towards making money (e.g. penile extension drugs, automating Carl's Jr., and [[CorruptCorporateExecutive running megacorporations]]) than fixing the world's problems. After all they may have brains but like the rest of society they'd rather have cash and a good time than worry about the mess they are in. Its just that by the time the events of the movie rolls around, they are in such a minority and so acclimatized to their own society that the smart ones just don't try to be smart anymore.



*** Actually, there is no trend. Since the I.Q. is an average of all intelligence. So it has to be reset every couple years to keep it at the average. And every time, the standards are set higher. Ergo, people are actually getting smarter on average.
*** See: above. This movie, if it's trying to make a political point at ALL, is making a very lighthearted and easy one. It's a comedy, not a serious statement about the future of mankind. Relax.
*** Except that Mike Judge isn't above sacrificing realism for the sake of making a point. The irrigation [[strike: sub]]plot is a perfect example; it's impossible to bounce back from decades of salting the Earth with sports drinks in a matter of days, but the movie goes ahead and does it so that we can see Joe save the world. Never mind that the same effect could have been achieved using a pot of clean dirt (they weren't spraying Brawndo on ''everything,'' after all, just the land they were trying to grow things in) and a seed. Similar problems exist with OfficeSpace, but that's another IJBM entirely. In fact, I'll be right back...
*** "Ergo, people are actually getting smarter on average." Nevertheless, the logic of ''Film/{{Idiocracy}}'' that "predicts" the opposite trend ''seems'' to make sense. So what's it failing to account for? (Kinda like looking at a "proof" that 0=1 and trying to find the invalid step.)
**** It's failing to account for how the environment plays a very large role in the development of intelligence, and for how that portion that ''is'' genetic would be perpetuated when highly-intelligent people (philandering husbands, powerful men with ditzy mistresses, etc) breed outside their own grade of intellect. Being smart makes you a better cheater, after all; heck, dreaming up ways to trick each other is probably why humans got so smart in the first place.
* Perhaps the lack of intelligence is just a side effect of the real problem: ApatheticCitizens. As society degrades attributes like problem solving, thoughtfulness, logic, rationality, and a desire to be proactive in fighting future problems are all undervalued (considered "faggy" in the parlance of 2505), so kids don't grow up to value those attributes. This causes no one to be interested in either educating themselves or fixing the various obvious problems (the drought, the trash mountains, the leaking nuclear facility...)

to:

*** ** Actually, there is no trend. Since the I.Q. is an average of all intelligence. So it has to be reset every couple years to keep it at the average. And every time, the standards are set higher. Ergo, people are actually getting smarter on average.
*** ** See: above. This movie, if it's trying to make a political point at ALL, is making a very lighthearted and easy one. It's a comedy, not a serious statement about the future of mankind. Relax.
*** ** Except that Mike Judge isn't above sacrificing realism for the sake of making a point. The irrigation [[strike: sub]]plot is a perfect example; it's impossible to bounce back from decades of salting the Earth with sports drinks in a matter of days, but the movie goes ahead and does it so that we can see Joe save the world. Never mind that the same effect could have been achieved using a pot of clean dirt (they weren't spraying Brawndo on ''everything,'' after all, just the land they were trying to grow things in) and a seed. Similar problems exist with OfficeSpace, but that's another IJBM entirely. In fact, I'll be right back...
*** ** "Ergo, people are actually getting smarter on average." Nevertheless, the logic of ''Film/{{Idiocracy}}'' that "predicts" the opposite trend ''seems'' to make sense. So what's it failing to account for? (Kinda like looking at a "proof" that 0=1 and trying to find the invalid step.)
**** ** It's failing to account for how the environment plays a very large role in the development of intelligence, and for how that portion that ''is'' genetic would be perpetuated when highly-intelligent people (philandering husbands, powerful men with ditzy mistresses, etc) breed outside their own grade of intellect. Being smart makes you a better cheater, after all; heck, dreaming up ways to trick each other is probably why humans got so smart in the first place.
* ** Perhaps the lack of intelligence is just a side effect of the real problem: ApatheticCitizens. As society degrades attributes like problem solving, thoughtfulness, logic, rationality, and a desire to be proactive in fighting future problems are all undervalued (considered "faggy" in the parlance of 2505), so kids don't grow up to value those attributes. This causes no one to be interested in either educating themselves or fixing the various obvious problems (the drought, the trash mountains, the leaking nuclear facility...)



*** Most of the things we see are automated systems that could have been invented long ago, and now just need workers to push their buttons. Maybe the Dildozer and Assmaster were invented by the last few smart people, to sell to the growing market of the dumb.
**** But who maintains those automated systems? Who repairs them when they break down or glitch out? For that matter, who flies the planes that can clearly be seen flying overhead?
***** Nobody maintains them or repairs them. That's the cause of most of the problems that the people of the future were facing.
***** Basically. It's why the CEO of the sports drinks company was panicking, the company had long ago set up contingency protocols for a massive drop in stock market price, predicting no one would know what to do in such an event... and no one knew how to stop it.
***** By 2505, robots and computer systems have become so advanced and artificially intelligent, they have the capacity to repair themselves, electronically AND physically. (Not to mention maybe sneak in vital nutrients into the EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES or Brawndo so that the human race, viewed by AI robots as "useful idiots", doesn't die out.) Of course, some simpler robots, like the floor cleaner, may still develop programming glitches that can't be self-corrected.
***** Even so, how is President Camacho smart enough to ride a motorcycle? If motorcycles are anything like cars (not that I have any reason to believe they are, but whatever), then operating the clutch is ''not'' an intuitive operation. Even an automatic transmission seems like it would be beyond them. Plus, the bike would be pretty much useless without maintenance; eventually you'd have to change the oil.
****** He was the smartest person on Earth before Joe and Rita came along. It's probably a skill that's passed from generation to generation, along with the cycle, and now he's the last guy on Earth who know how to use and repair it.

to:

*** ** Most of the things we see are automated systems that could have been invented long ago, and now just need workers to push their buttons. Maybe the Dildozer and Assmaster were invented by the last few smart people, to sell to the growing market of the dumb.
**** ** But who maintains those automated systems? Who repairs them when they break down or glitch out? For that matter, who flies the planes that can clearly be seen flying overhead?
***** ** Nobody maintains them or repairs them. That's the cause of most of the problems that the people of the future were facing.
***** ** Basically. It's why the CEO of the sports drinks company was panicking, the company had long ago set up contingency protocols for a massive drop in stock market price, predicting no one would know what to do in such an event... and no one knew how to stop it.
***** ** By 2505, robots and computer systems have become so advanced and artificially intelligent, they have the capacity to repair themselves, electronically AND physically. (Not to mention maybe sneak in vital nutrients into the EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES or Brawndo so that the human race, viewed by AI robots as "useful idiots", doesn't die out.) Of course, some simpler robots, like the floor cleaner, may still develop programming glitches that can't be self-corrected.
***** ** Even so, how is President Camacho smart enough to ride a motorcycle? If motorcycles are anything like cars (not that I have any reason to believe they are, but whatever), then operating the clutch is ''not'' an intuitive operation. Even an automatic transmission seems like it would be beyond them. Plus, the bike would be pretty much useless without maintenance; eventually you'd have to change the oil.
****** ** He was the smartest person on Earth before Joe and Rita came along. It's probably a skill that's passed from generation to generation, along with the cycle, and now he's the last guy on Earth who know how to use and repair it.



*** "Salting the earth" is a ''metaphor''. Besides, rainwater would get rid of most of it fairly quick.
**** "Salting the earth is a metaphor". ....No, it isn't. It was a real practice in Ancient Times, just not always for the reasons most people think.

to:

*** ** "Salting the earth" is a ''metaphor''. Besides, rainwater would get rid of most of it fairly quick.
**** ** "Salting the earth is a metaphor". ....No, it isn't. It was a real practice in Ancient Times, just not always for the reasons most people think.



*** Which, again, are not any actual trends as explained closer to the top of the page as well as in [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] classic comic strip. One cannot overstate the importance of seeing through the extremely attractive illusion that other people, seen from a distance, are stupid.
*** The societal trends are that there are a lot of fucking stupid people behaving stupidly and wallowing in their stupid, stupid filth. Always have been. Never won't be. Do you not recognize the idea of exaggeration as comedy?
*** Exaggeration yes. ''Deliberate falsehood'' no. First of all, the existence of lots of stupid people is not a "trend" in the first place. A trend is a general direction of development. The fact that stupid people always have and always will exist is no more a trend than the fact that rocks always have and always will exist. Okay, you've established that those things exist. And your point in making this observation was...? Second, satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices. But the thing is, in order for the satire to be valid, the vices being criticized ''must be absolutely true''. If the societal vice you are criticizing does not really exist, you aren't making a satire, you're just lying. Or at best, misrepresenting the truth. Either way, the social criticism you were trying to make is invalidated because the thing you were criticizing isn't real. The fact is, even if it were true that uneducated people are out-breeding the educated (and I'm not convinced it is) society is not getting dumber as a result. No evidence has yet arisen for an overall drop or even a plateau in world/nationwide intelligence levels. It's an elitist myth based on an elitist fallacy.
**** The "idiocy" the movie criticizes is obviously consumerism, empty societal values, simplistic life goals and the overvaluation of money and sex. Material pursuits over intellectual ones. And this is clearly a trend in our society.
***** No, no it isn't. If that were the real message of the movie then there would be no need for all the "people are getting stupider" nonsense the movie tries to push on us. A satire of consumerism, empty societal values, simplistic life goals, and the overvaluation of money would be a very different movie (and a more interesting one in my opinion, but YMMV).
***** What it ''is'', however, is a satire of those elements of modern society Mike Judge considers stupid and idiotic. That's it. We can go back and forth on whether this society is ''actually'' coming to pass, but whether it is or not isn't really the point (or at least it isn't the ''entire'' point); the point is simply for Judge to highlight the elements of society he thinks are ridiculous, idiotic and unpleasant by blowing them up to form an entire society based around them, and the 'dumb people are outbreeding smart people' thing is simply a plot device to justify the world he's creating. It's a device that's been done in fiction since Thomas Moore wrote ''Utopia''; whether Judge ''actually'' believes that there is a potential for this to happen, I don't know (but I doubt it), but he's no more making an ''actual'' prophecy than [[Literature/NineteenEightyFour George Orwell]] was ''actually'' prophecizing that by 1984 the entire world would be a totalitarian hellhole. What both are doing is just using the future settings of their works as a tool to enable their satires of contemporary society and to demonstrate on a large scale why the things they think are bad about their society are very very bad indeed, especially if they get out of control. The viewer may disagree with the things that Judge is choosing to satirize, but then, it's his satire, not theirs; if they want to satirize something else, they can write their own. As for not being true, while it might not be the case that society is trending towards getting dumber, there certainly are a lot of very stupid things and very stupid people in modern society.
***** To add something else: the above troper is incorrect that criticism is automatically invalid if not all of it is true. You insist that because some part of the argument is wrong, ''therefore'' all of it must be. A person has to be 100% right, or he never is. That simply is not true, it's black-and-white-thinking. Suppose for example I accuse someone first of committing adultery, then of clubbing baby seals, then of killing dogs. Suppose I have evidence proving the first is true, but not that the second and third are. Well, the person I am accusing can point out that I'm full of shit because he most certainly does not club baby seals or kill dogs. The thing is, while I would be ''partially'' wrong and would have to apologize for it, if the guy is in fact cheating on his wife, then ''that'' part of my argument ''is'' true whether the other two parts were true or ''not'', and the guy would still be guilty of adultery. The same could be applied to this movie: let's say (hypothetically) that you don't bulldoze defendants, you don't water crops with Gatorade, but you do in fact repeatedly harass and attack people who use long words. In that case, then this movie would be wrong about you ''partially''...but if for some reason you are in fact doing the last part, you still deserve the movie's criticism simply because, ideally, you're the sort of person who's willing to adjust your behavior if it's proven to you that something you've done has caused distress for other people.

to:

*** ** Which, again, are not any actual trends as explained closer to the top of the page as well as in [[http://xkcd.com/603/ this]] classic comic strip. One cannot overstate the importance of seeing through the extremely attractive illusion that other people, seen from a distance, are stupid.
*** ** The societal trends are that there are a lot of fucking stupid people behaving stupidly and wallowing in their stupid, stupid filth. Always have been. Never won't be. Do you not recognize the idea of exaggeration as comedy?
*** ** Exaggeration yes. ''Deliberate falsehood'' no. First of all, the existence of lots of stupid people is not a "trend" in the first place. A trend is a general direction of development. The fact that stupid people always have and always will exist is no more a trend than the fact that rocks always have and always will exist. Okay, you've established that those things exist. And your point in making this observation was...? Second, satire is the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices. But the thing is, in order for the satire to be valid, the vices being criticized ''must be absolutely true''. If the societal vice you are criticizing does not really exist, you aren't making a satire, you're just lying. Or at best, misrepresenting the truth. Either way, the social criticism you were trying to make is invalidated because the thing you were criticizing isn't real. The fact is, even if it were true that uneducated people are out-breeding the educated (and I'm not convinced it is) society is not getting dumber as a result. No evidence has yet arisen for an overall drop or even a plateau in world/nationwide intelligence levels. It's an elitist myth based on an elitist fallacy.
**** ** The "idiocy" the movie criticizes is obviously consumerism, empty societal values, simplistic life goals and the overvaluation of money and sex. Material pursuits over intellectual ones. And this is clearly a trend in our society.
***** ** No, no it isn't. If that were the real message of the movie then there would be no need for all the "people are getting stupider" nonsense the movie tries to push on us. A satire of consumerism, empty societal values, simplistic life goals, and the overvaluation of money would be a very different movie (and a more interesting one in my opinion, but YMMV).
***** ** What it ''is'', however, is a satire of those elements of modern society Mike Judge considers stupid and idiotic. That's it. We can go back and forth on whether this society is ''actually'' coming to pass, but whether it is or not isn't really the point (or at least it isn't the ''entire'' point); the point is simply for Judge to highlight the elements of society he thinks are ridiculous, idiotic and unpleasant by blowing them up to form an entire society based around them, and the 'dumb people are outbreeding smart people' thing is simply a plot device to justify the world he's creating. It's a device that's been done in fiction since Thomas Moore wrote ''Utopia''; whether Judge ''actually'' believes that there is a potential for this to happen, I don't know (but I doubt it), but he's no more making an ''actual'' prophecy than [[Literature/NineteenEightyFour George Orwell]] was ''actually'' prophecizing that by 1984 the entire world would be a totalitarian hellhole. What both are doing is just using the future settings of their works as a tool to enable their satires of contemporary society and to demonstrate on a large scale why the things they think are bad about their society are very very bad indeed, especially if they get out of control. The viewer may disagree with the things that Judge is choosing to satirize, but then, it's his satire, not theirs; if they want to satirize something else, they can write their own. As for not being true, while it might not be the case that society is trending towards getting dumber, there certainly are a lot of very stupid things and very stupid people in modern society.
***** ** To add something else: the above troper is incorrect that criticism is automatically invalid if not all of it is true. You insist that because some part of the argument is wrong, ''therefore'' all of it must be. A person has to be 100% right, or he never is. That simply is not true, it's black-and-white-thinking. Suppose for example I accuse someone first of committing adultery, then of clubbing baby seals, then of killing dogs. Suppose I have evidence proving the first is true, but not that the second and third are. Well, the person I am accusing can point out that I'm full of shit because he most certainly does not club baby seals or kill dogs. The thing is, while I would be ''partially'' wrong and would have to apologize for it, if the guy is in fact cheating on his wife, then ''that'' part of my argument ''is'' true whether the other two parts were true or ''not'', and the guy would still be guilty of adultery. The same could be applied to this movie: let's say (hypothetically) that you don't bulldoze defendants, you don't water crops with Gatorade, but you do in fact repeatedly harass and attack people who use long words. In that case, then this movie would be wrong about you ''partially''...but if for some reason you are in fact doing the last part, you still deserve the movie's criticism simply because, ideally, you're the sort of person who's willing to adjust your behavior if it's proven to you that something you've done has caused distress for other people.



*** Salt water is corrosive and would damage the plumbing, so the automatic systems that keep the toilets working would tap fresh water from underground. Plus, there's probably water available for washing, as cleansing things in Brawndo would obviously leave them messier than when you started.

to:

*** ** Salt water is corrosive and would damage the plumbing, so the automatic systems that keep the toilets working would tap fresh water from underground. Plus, there's probably water available for washing, as cleansing things in Brawndo would obviously leave them messier than when you started.



*** Hector Camacho was a boxer. Frito Bandito was a corn chip mascot. Who gives a fuck.

to:

*** ** Hector Camacho was a boxer. Frito Bandito was a corn chip mascot. Who gives a fuck.



[[folder:Miscellaneous]]

to:

[[folder:Miscellaneous]][[folder:Subject 3]]



*** Who says that's why he's in the future? He probably just converted his sentence into agreement to be part of another experiment, or somesuch. It'd be a whole lot of trouble to get hybernated and all just to [[spoiler:find one of your whores and get a few hundred bucks back]].

to:

*** ** Who says that's why he's in the future? He probably just converted his sentence into agreement to be part of another experiment, or somesuch. It'd be a whole lot of trouble to get hybernated and all just to [[spoiler:find one of your whores and get a few hundred bucks back]].back]].

[[/folder]]

[[folder:Backwards]]



*** Heh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. I think that TheStinger implies that unlike Joe and Rita, [[spoiler:Upgrayedd]] will fit in the future just fine, and the backwards hat is a part of that. [[DontExplainTheJoke Did I kill the joke?]]
*** Well, he ''is'' a forefather to a huge chunk of the American of population. What's ''really'' going to bake your noodle is the amount of ancestor incest that he's about to unleash.
*** I just figured it was a part of the pimpin' style that I wasn't familiar with.
*** Who says it wasn't his descendants who ''started'' the custom of always wearing hats backwards, like their ancestor did?

to:

*** ** Heh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. I think that TheStinger implies that unlike Joe and Rita, [[spoiler:Upgrayedd]] will fit in the future just fine, and the backwards hat is a part of that. [[DontExplainTheJoke Did I kill the joke?]]
*** ** Well, he ''is'' a forefather to a huge chunk of the American of population. What's ''really'' going to bake your noodle is the amount of ancestor incest that he's about to unleash.
*** ** I just figured it was a part of the pimpin' style that I wasn't familiar with.
*** ** Who says it wasn't his descendants who ''started'' the custom of always wearing hats backwards, like their ancestor did?did?

[[/folder]]

[[folder:National Anthem]]




[[/folder]]

[[folder:Beef Supreme]]




[[/folder]]

[[folder:Stupid men]]



** http://xkcd.com/603/ :
-->'''Hat Guy''': New Theory: Stupid people reproduce more because the alternative is sleeping with YOU.
19th Aug '14 11:31:51 AM TMOverbeck
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***** By 2505, robots and computer systems have become so advanced and artificially intelligent, they have the capacity to repair themselves, electronically AND physically. (Not to mention maybe sneak in vital nutrients into the EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES or Brawndo so that the human race, viewed by AI robots as "useful idiots", doesn't die out.) Of course, some simpler robots, like the floor cleaner, may still develop programming glitches that can't be self-corrected.
2nd Mar '14 9:58:02 AM Aiguille
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I actually think this may be the case. Smart people stopped caring about the overpopulating parasites and left the world to die out (the plot of AtlasShrugged), or became the {{Corrupt Corporate Executive}}s running the {{Megacorp}}orations and highly-advanced BreadAndCircuses systems. Who else do you think makes and maintains the automated machines, infrastructure, television shows, Ass Master, etc? Also, using the comparison between the stupid guy and the smart couple from the beginning, the smart couple is overly cautious, not wanting to bring their future child into a world they see as not being ideal. Conversely, the stupid guy just doesn't give a shit, spreading his DNA wherever he cares to. This causes a spread of ApatheticCitizens, as conscientious people die out or give up, resulting in a world where people just don't give a shit that they are on the brink of starvation and/or being suffocated by their own garbage.

to:

** I actually think this may be the case. Smart people stopped caring about the overpopulating parasites and left the world to die out (the plot of AtlasShrugged), ''Literature/AtlasShrugged''), or became the {{Corrupt Corporate Executive}}s running the {{Megacorp}}orations and highly-advanced BreadAndCircuses systems. Who else do you think makes and maintains the automated machines, infrastructure, television shows, Ass Master, etc? Also, using the comparison between the stupid guy and the smart couple from the beginning, the smart couple is overly cautious, not wanting to bring their future child into a world they see as not being ideal. Conversely, the stupid guy just doesn't give a shit, spreading his DNA wherever he cares to. This causes a spread of ApatheticCitizens, as conscientious people die out or give up, resulting in a world where people just don't give a shit that they are on the brink of starvation and/or being suffocated by their own garbage.
9th Dec '13 3:42:48 PM Zark
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Maybe Clevon was just really good at courtship. It's not like every woman he fucked planned to marry him.
9th Dec '13 3:17:22 PM Zark
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

***** Natural selection hasn't changed since before Stone Age, but throughout most of humanity's history it was heavily nerfed by artificial self-selection. Screwing out of wedlock was forbidden and people didn't choose who they marry, their parents did and valued the potential candidate's ability to survive in the modern world and be a good spouse more than they did their ability to survive in jungle and sexual attractiveness. Nowadays only a natural selection is at work, so humanity reverts to its natural state: just one step above the animals. What really bugs me is the lack of violent gangs in the movie, you'd think such a future would just crawl with them. Besides, in addition to contraception point above, now is the first time in history abortion has become so available. Who knows, how many potential ensteins didn't make it to this world.
29th Oct '13 2:14:10 PM SharleeD
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Who says it wasn't his descendants who ''started'' the custom of always wearing hats backwards, like their ancestor did?
This list shows the last 10 events of 73. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Idiocracy