Idiocracy 2006 Ok.ru

[Madelyn Westfall]

Anidiocracy is a disparaging term for a society run by or made up of idiots (or people perceived as such). Idiocracy is also the title of 2006 satirical film that depicts a future in which humanity has become dumb.

Directed and written by Mike Judge of Beavis and Butthead and Office Space fame, Idiocracy was released in 2006. It follows two people (played by Luke Wilson and Maya Rudolph) who awake after 500 years of suspended animation only to discover that the human race has become extremely stupid due to a commercialistic culture that discourages smart people from having children. Most memorably, Terry Crews portrays US President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, a gun-toting muscleman whose ineptitude and braggadocio make him a poor leader.

In political commentary online, people often use idiocracy (or allude to the film) to criticize governments and policies they seem ill-advised, foolish, or inept in some way. On social media, the term is especially used of President Donald Trump and his administration.

This is not meant to be a formal definition of idiocracy like most terms we define on Dictionary.com, but is rather an informal word summary that hopefully touches upon the key aspects of the meaning and usage of idiocracy that will help our users expand their word mastery.

What accounts for the continuing and increasing interest in the work of Ayn Rand? Clearly, the attraction of her ideas has much to do with it. This is true despite the fact that most people, even in America, are probably hostile to most of her philosophy. In a capitalist society, one need not please a majority in order to be successful; one need only find a market niche.

1. In terms of the psychological factor known as Agreeableness, I speculate that people who tend to lean libertarian tend to be low relative to the average person. We place relatively low value on going along to get along.

2. Those of us who are low on Agreeableness really resent situations in which Agreeableness confers high status. When we think that guys are winning approval, status, and girls by expressing nice-sounding political opinions, we get ticked off.

3. Rand makes a virtue out of being low on Agreeableness. This is almost unique in literature. Few other writers, if any, use their writing to express and advocate for low Agreeableness. Instead, most writers either are dispassionate or are strongly Agreeable. When people who are low on Agreeableness encounter Rand, they feel that they have found a rare soulmate.

4. In my own life, I have had to work very hard to overcome my low Agreeableness. I can think of many situations in which I failed to do so, at some cost to my position on the career ladder. To this day, people with very high status trigger my disagreeableness in ways that I cannot really control (see my posts on Jonathan Gruber).

I just like liberty. Always have, always will. I also like logic and rationality, but also a degree of humility. Your blog almost always gets high marks in the latter attributes. Hence, I like your blog.

This libertarian has no problem being agreeable, since being agreeable helps me to achieve my goals, the most important of which is making money. If I were always frank and generous in offering my views on the social, political and economic issues of the day, my life would turn into one long argument, ending in social ostracism, and empty bank accounts. What would be the point of that? You clearly enjoy contention, and value the excitement and the peculiar psychological rewards you get from a good dust-up, to the benefits of being agreeable and getting along with people. Many people who choose to be disagreeable hope that others will see them as victims of the idiocracy undergoing martyrdom for their principles. But the truth is, you guys simply like to fight, and sometimes you prefer the satisfactions of an argument to the satisfaction of having money. This libertarian prefers the money; or, at least, will wait till he has accumulated enough money to give him a comfortable vantage from which to undertake the pastime of grumbling.

Rand struck a pose: Egoist. But she did a very bad job defining egoism and altruism (she defined these two opposites by differing criteria!), and slipped into a sort of low-brow egoism as a result of her failed philosophical stance.

One of the great things about the libertarian movement today is that there is such a plurality of writers whose noses are not constantly out of joint. Rand now serves as a lump to leaven the bread, not the whole meal.

3a8082e126