It is a bit more complicated than that, mostly because the US isn't a signatory to unclos, while China is. However, China does not recognize the agreed upon terms of unclos, while America for the most part does.....

but news media needs to quit exploiting the fact that readers don't know the difference between different types of waters to manufacture "more-interesting" stories.

The problem is that there is conflicting information on how the states in question interprets what they and others can do in EEZs, and how the EEZs are constituted in the first place.

In reality an international body of laws like unclos is only enforceable if the international court is willing to confront its members with hard power. Withholding that, it's just a dog and pony show that has the possibility of validating an international conflict if someone oversteps their mark.

OG conservatives, it was originally founded by Nixon and then run by kissenger for years.

Someone needs to start a Trotsky decoy. There is no stronger reflex in tanky culture than to pursue leftist infighting.

Not necessarily, just that post industrialized nations tend to swing harder right when people begin to lose faith in the democratic process.

I think part of that is due to the lack of strong mutual aid groups and worker organizations that industrialization creates as a byproduct.

If we look at revolutionary movements in the 20th century for the most part the industrialized nations were the ones who were overtaken by fascism, while unindustrialized countries like Russia and China transitioned to socialism.

It was one of the wildcards that early socialist didn't really forsee, which is why everyone was so surprised that the first revolution to succeed was in Russia instead of Germany.

Well first, I think it depends on your perspective. The French revolution and the 1rst Republic were overthrown by Napoleon. While Napoleon was one of the more liberal dictators, he was still an agent of some pretty terrible imperialism.

Secondly, there's a reason why I specified post industrial societies. The most successful leftist governments had the advantage of being able to industrialize their nations. Being able to increase the power of a centralized government while simultaneously improving the quality of life of its citizens is one of the more powerful carrots in the revolutionary arsenal.

I mean, it kinda depends on what you think will make things better..... Accelerationist ideology is mostly only effective for fascist. Fascism gains power by blaming current problems on the ineffectiveness of parliamentary governments, promising to provide stability with the use of a strong leader.

The left on the other hand relies on ideas like mutual cooperation and mutual aid, things that require more political and structural organization to bear fruit.

In post industrialized nations, it's hard to imagine why things would have to regress in order to eventually progress from the current status quo.

Since the electoral system is managed at the state level, one must wonder why the democrats haven't implemented this easy win mode in the states they control.

Because political parties are more concerned about donations and influence than democracy. Destroying the two party system would see their monopoly of influence slowly dwindle away

They don't see Republicans as an existential threat, they see the Republicans as a canary in a coal mine. The Republicans act as a gauge to see exactly how low their own constituents will allow them to sink before they get in trouble. So long as Democrats can look good by comparison, they will continue to serve their donors and themselves over the needs of the people.

Ehhh.... It depends on what you mean by human cognition. Usually when tech people are talking about cognition, they're just talking about a specific cognitive process in neurology.

Tech enthusiasts tend to present human cognition in a reductive manor that for the most part only focuses on the central nervous system. When in reality human cognition includes anyway we interact with the physical world or metaphysical concepts.

There's something called the mind body problem that's been mostly a philosophical concept for a long time, but is currently influencing work in medicine and in tech to a lesser degree.

Basically, it questions if it's appropriate to delineate the mind from the body when it comes to consciousness. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that that mental phenomenon are a subset of physical phenomenon. Meaning that cognition is reliant on actual physical interactions with our surroundings to develop.

We're talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: "If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we'll have a problem of stupidity."

That's your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social "devolution". Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.

It doesn't rely on nature or nurture, or anything else.

The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.

Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were "unfit for parenthood" due to eugenic arguments.

The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn't have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.

Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked "racial science", and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It's not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.

No, but that's literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄

Lol, there are only two "smart" people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker..... They also have three kids.

So I don't really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.

I think you're getting a little caught up on concepts like "breeding", which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it's just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.

The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.

You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I've provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I'm "cherry picking", which really isn't an argument.

although being smart doesn't make you a good parent and being dumb doesn't make you a bad one, so I'm already generous)

Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn't make you a good parent, but that's not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.

how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?

So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?

What theory? Eugenics doesn't work in real life. I'm critizising the movie on its' own premise, not on scientific pedantry.

But you aren't.... There isn't any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they're implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.

The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it's hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children's intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn't raise.....

So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of "smart parents" was raised by idiots, and remained smart...... Then it's impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.

Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?

I was talking about the end of the movie.....that's what we were talking about from what you quoted.

At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.

the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don't.

People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education..... America being a land of inequality based on social status isn't exactly a new idea.

You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.

In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity.... Not exactly great parenting.

Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white "trash" trailer park people (except the President, maybe).

I did not get that impression..... Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?

Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie?

How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the "idiots" in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?

Lol, I really don't know what this guy's going on about. I feel the only way you could be this obtuse about nature vs nurture argument is if you actually believe intellect is a purely inherited trait.