How would a general strike change anything? The oligarchs know they can wait normal people out. Even if half the population went on strike for a week, the only result would be the people who organized the strike getting “disappeared” so that the dip in profits doesn’t happen again. We lost, full stop. Peaceful means will not end Trump’s tyranny.

And after 200 years of matriarchy, people would be saying that women are evil and we should have a patriarchy. Whoever holds the power always ends up oppressing whoever doesn’t.

I’d love to live in a society where no particular gender held most positions of power or had more legislative influence.

Housing is more complex and the proposed solution may not work, but there are some problems that could be solved by someone with absolute power pretty easily. For example, if we shipped health insurance CEOs off to El Salvadorian labor camps instead of innocent immigrants, people would stop having their claims denied and the concept of a deductible would go the way of the dodo.

Why do we have to pretend the constitution matters when our enemies don’t?

The people responsible for doing that should be in prison or dead.

Ah, so the three-body problem (not the movie) has screwed us all. ^{worthitifitlookscooltho}

It must be a pretty big secondary moon, then!

If they needed more energy to grow food than to replicate it, replication would be so dirt-cheap that nothing would make any sense.

Even nerf bullets can hurt you if they’re shot at you in sufficient quantities.

I don’t mind them adding ads.

I’m gonna stop you right there.

Serial killers have to serve time added up from each individual murder. Corporate scumbags stealing from millions of people should be sentenced to prison for millions of years.

Why did you self censor by saying “dot”?

What stood out to you as particularly bad on your rewatch?

You’re absolutely right that access to education can greatly improve intelligence. Critical thinking skills are just that - skills that must be learned. Genetics are just one of countless factors involved in how intelligent someone ends up being.

I saw Idiocracy a while ago, so I can’t remember every detail to bring up examples, but I think the characters surrounding the main character did show growth and a willingness to try to learn things. I don’t think we see much of an education system in that movie’s portrayal of the future either.

It’s also worth noting that while your genetics absolutely affects your brain structure and chemistry, parents can pass on stupidity or intelligence to their children in more ways than just genetically. After all, most people learn more from their parents than from anyone else.

If one believes the accuracy of film’s central premise—that the dumb are reproducing at a higher rate than the smart, which will lower the world’s intelligence until idiocy reigns supreme—it’s only natural to want to stop that from happening. From there, it’s not at all that great a leap to begin believing that maybe there should be some kind of policy only allowing intelligent people to reproduce—in other words, sterilize the dumb.

This is just the author asserting their own absurd leaps in logic as the intended message behind the movie, which it clearly isn’t.

A 2015 Pew study looked at how many kids that women with postgraduate degrees have given birth to over the past half-century. In 1994, 30 percent of women with a master’s degree or higher were childless, a number that’s since dropped to 22 percent. In 1976, 10 percent of said women had one child, while in 2014 that numbers up to 18 percent; those with two kids rose even more dramatically, from 22 to 35 percent.

The author draws the wrong conclusion from this data. Just because women with degrees are having more kids now than in the past doesn’t mean that women without degrees haven’t always had more kids than women with degrees. It’s very telling that they never bring those numbers up.

If you automatically assumed that intelligence having a hereditary component to it meant that I was trying to say that all dumb people’s children were also dumb 100% of the time, you might not be as smart as you think.

I don’t think it ever actually promoted eugenics. It just explored the natural consequences of two facts in a comedic way:

• Intelligence has a hereditary component to it.
• Stupid people have more kids.

It never tries to push any eugenics-based agenda. It would have if they tried to say that dumb people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids, but they never went anywhere near that.

Maybe, but there’s also a more long-term force in the other direction. Bringing content from other platforms to Lemmy means that Lemmy has more content and people are less likely to go elsewhere to get their fill. If the best of Reddit is available on Lemmy, why bother going to Reddit? It’s the same thing as how Reddit used to have lots of Twitter screenshots on it back when Twitter was worth screenshotting. The people taking the screenshots likely use both anyway and wouldn’t stop if they weren’t allowed to post Reddit stuff here.

A screenshot doesn’t give them traffic. A link does.