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.

Ohhh okay, I didn’t know that.

I appreciate your nuanced view. I’d love to live in a world where personal cars were obsolete. It just needs a lot of infrastructure.

While I would like to avoid divulging too much personal information, there are disabled people I know for whom not being able to get there by car would make it a non-starter. Public transit isn’t great where I live (US) and the nearest bus stop is outside of their walking distance. Maybe it’s different in the UK.

Different people have different needs. Some people can’t get around by car unless someone else is driving, myself included. Other people can drive, but can barely walk. If they have nowhere to park, that hurts some disabled people. It’s not like not having somewhere to park magically converts the entire area into an idyllic car-free utopia with trams running every which way.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

It doesn’t sound like they typically check for most items, just the expensive ones and the date on the receipt. That makes it even more theater and less practical.

Of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that if you know someone stole something, you can stop them. Under the prerequisite conditions section, it is stated that:

The shopkeeper has reasonable grounds to suspect the particular person detained is shoplifting.

Wouldn’t that mean that someone who has done nothing suspicious other than refusing the check would not be giving anyone reasonable grounds to stop them? Or does just refusing count as reasonable grounds and make the check effectively legally mandatory?

someone who can is waiting(and the salarymen can, shopkeeper’s privilege apparently in the US)

Can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard of it.

Captchas are actually a great tool for reducing spam and botting. Depending on the platform, they can directly benefit you. Captchas and manual approval for Lemmy account signups are directly responsible for the lack of spambots on this platform. The problem is that captchas got co-opted to force people to give companies free AI training data.

You can get better at understanding accents by listening to them more, so yeah, that’s probably why.