Why do people suddenly have a problem with this sort of thing? Art has always used exaggerations and tropes to convey things to the viewer more effectively than being realistic would. Lasers don't actually make solid beams of light in the air, evil people don't generally have red eyes or maniacal laughs, and female skeletons don't really have eyelashes and bows. Hell, most women don't even wear bows anymore.
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.
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.
Because they're not all bad comics and I thought this one was kinda funny, so I wanted to read the comments.
read through the comments and pick the one comment that was rage bait to respond to
You mean the really highly downvoted person saying they downvoted the post? I didn't reply to them. I replied to the person asking a simple question.
provide a low effort "explanation" about why anyone should hate PCC with examples of the artist "retaliating" against her outspoken critics
What, did you expect me to write an essay on the subject?
not only that, you continue to return again and again to defend your position on an artist you claim you don't care about
I wouldn't be on forums like this at all if I wasn't bored. Are you frustrated that by continuing to reply, I've prevented you from getting the last word in?
give me a third option here, I'm not seeing a lot of other ways to view you right now.
I'm someone that used to like Pizzacake's comics and gradually went from excited when I recognized the art style in my feed to annoyed that it was probably going to be another comic without a real punchline, eventually just blocking her account entirely to stop it from showing up.
What exactly are you hoping to achieve here? I know why I'm here (boredom), but what are you trying to get me to say that would satisfy you? From my perspective, you seem to be attempting to manufacture bigotry where there is none so you can feel righteous indignation and have an enemy to tear down.
Depends on what you're trying to upscale.