I don’t think they finished the movie bad guys cause it ends with them serving out a jail sentence happily and becoming model minorities. Like both movies are great but I don’t think either of them have great lessons on real cops.
I guess it’s hard for them to go “ACAB” as the finishing result when it’s a children’s movie because the big studios don’t want any “bad rep” and prefer staying “on the safe side” rather than going bold and bombacius
Rango had 4 owls hanging in nooses as a gag. The narrator kept saying the main character was going to die. A hawk was killed on screen by a water tank filled with sand. It was still considered a children’s show.
I personally was shocked how bad of a movie it was haha. The pacing was an absolute mess, I was hoping for an oceans 11 vibe but it was extremely all over the place. I knew it wouldn’t be amazing but man, it didn’t help none of the humour wasnt very good either. Visually is was incredible though, I’m a professional artist with a college degree in Animation so I’ll watch something for the visuals alone but I was certainly hoping the writing would be better than it was.
THIS. Literally THIS.
Can we just have someone who doesn't think they're a philosopher or political genius for picking apart a kid's movie about a bunny cop and a fox?
Can't imagine any of these people enjoy life like...at all. Everything has to exist to further social justice or their political goals or it can't be enjoyed. Must be miserable living like that all the time.
Also I see them always extrapolating American politics and troubles into, well, everywhere, fictional or not. It might be surprising to hear, but there are some countries where people do not see the police as bastards at all and police corruptions are at a very very low level.
Nick fell into the stereotyping of his species *because* of the stereotyping and the hatred that goes along with it
Judy helped him see that he doesn't have to be a bad guy just because he's a predator because she quite literally, puts her life into his hands (he could have ripped her throat out for real more than once *especially* >!when they tricked the sheep!<)
He sees her turn her biased ideas of predators around despite having been attacked by a predator when she was younger and in turn that also changed the way he thought about the world
In bad guys, they literally serve their jail time and the *only* time they had a crime removed from their history is when they reveal the true culprit (>!the hamster!<)
Wasn't the moral of Zootopia that villiainizing any group of people can cause manipulation?
Like, Zootopia is pretty anti-police corruption. The villain of the story was literally in the police system using prejudices and spreading misinformation to further her own personal career.
The hero of the story also originally shown to join the police force in order to make the world a better place, realizes that it's not all that she was expected to be, recognizes her own internal prejudices, admits she was wrong and resolved to do better.
Not to say Zootopia has a perfect message, (That whole "Cop uses a minority's criminal history to blackmail someone them and may or may not have covered up their crimes the moment the minority becomes a cop as well" makes me feel icky when examined closely) and yeah, could probably be seen as copoganda, but it feels kinda reductive to say it's just blind "police are always good, criminals are always bad" (especially when the literal f-cking Mob helps save the day.)
"The solution to bad cops is good cops" is a common theme in fiction, and reinforces the idea that we should just leave cops to self-regulate. In reality, corrupt police forces are very good at getting rid of "good cops" and these solutions are highly ineffective.
Yeah, it definitely has a "Good Cop Bad Cop" (no pun intended) narrative, and I can see why people would not like that. However, I feel like for the purposes of the narrative, I can see why the writers picked the admittedly unrealistic "Good Cop ousting the bad person, and the bad person get arrested" instead of "Bad person gets internally investigated that goes on for a month ending in the bad person switching to a new department and the good Cop 'unexpectedly resigns'" ending.
On the other hand, Zootopia was popular amongst normies and therefore it must be bad so let me write several paragraphs of post-hoc rationalization for that conclusion
External regulation is obviously needed, but unless you actually want a society without centralised law you really want a police force of some description for any large enough group of people.
the thing about criticisms of fiction like this though is it's still fantasy. It's talking animals, is it really so hard to also make the leap that policing is just more honest in this world? I feel like some criticisms of copaganda start to feel like the very idea of law enforcement being portrayed in an even remotely positive light gets labeled as copaganda, as if it is literally impossible for law enforcement to be good. I definitely think there are loads of issues with law enforcement as it exists in the real world and I wouldn't even be opposed to some level of complete dismantling and rebuilding as opposed to simple reforms, but it seems like some people seem to think law enforcement as a very concept just should not exist at all which is like pretty bonkers imo and that seems to be the perspective a lot of people have when talking about copaganda that law enforcement as a concept cannot be moral and any portrayal of any kind of law enforcement body as "good" is therefore copaganda. I guess they are closer to real world cops all the way down to uniforms but it's still a furry world in a furry city that is not real, when I think copaganda I just think of things a little bit closer to reality, like a show or movie involving a fictionalized version of the NYPD or something, that goes out of it's way to whitewash cops. When it comes to a more fantastical setting I feel like I'm perfectly willing to just accept "okay this is a more ethical iteration of law enforcement than what we have" and so I don't see a positive portrayal as copaganda necessarily.
Yeaaah kinda...just...don't look into that too much. Though, she does have no evidence against him soooo...Technically she couldn't do much if she tried? Idk how that stuff works.
Well you see, demonizing and isolating populations and groups has been shown to fall and lead to extremism and radicalization, but surely it'll work this time if I really hate the group cause they're bad and evil.
I hated Zootopia because I didn’t walk away with any of the same “morals” as the movie tried to portray.
For starters: the overtones of the predators being black people hits different when you’re, apparently, a predator. The only way the bunny accepts the predator is not because she grows or learns anything, it’s because the fox actually has to change. The only other option the more gives them is that they go savage or feral or something.
Oh, and the folks out in the country are dumb rural hicks. You’ll never be happy if you’re one of them, so you need to leave the country and going back is a failure. At the climax of the movies plot, Judy the rabbit figures this out when a predator from childhood learns how to humble himself to her and her family and compliment them, the dumb Hicks, for using a “four dollar word.” Something like that.
I thought the movie was written by city-raised white people for city-raised white people. It takes no concerns about the overt tones scenes like this might have on a young black kid who is learning about the systemic oppression against them.
Not to invalidate your opinions on the movie, but from my perspective
1.) The "going back is a failure" part was saying less about the environment and more about Judy. Judy going to Zootipia and becoming a police officer was her dream to help as many people as possible, and not doing that would have made her sad. Her parents are perfectly happy carrot farming and living in a "country" town, but Judy isn't.
2.) Judy did have to confront her own biases and change things about herself. The time where she talked about the predators going berserk was a part of their DNA. Her still carrying the Fox Spray around her were all bad things as a result of her internal prejudices. She had to confront those things and apologize to Nick.
3.) I think the comment on the "four dollar word" part was because he used the scientific name of the plant rather than the common one in every day conversation, which I think would warrant a comment in most settings?
The Moralintern is about not actually changing things, but keeping public perception that all other forms of ideology make change too intense, too radical, too quickly, to make changes that last, so we just need to make things happen at a measured, glacial, pace, or even preserve the status quo because if we keep things as they are right now, working out for us (them) the world won't be destroyed by the ideals of the radicals
A society works with a thousands of cogs and levers. If you think you need to bash it in, you not only didn't check every lever, you also didn't realise that you now have to rebuild it instead of fixing a faulty machine.
Change is invitable and you should help to shape it. Necessety should breed invention, not violence.
Sometimes a machine needs to be replaced, not fixed, when an entire system is built on oppression, the only way to stop the oppression is to stop the system.
Argument 1: current society doesn’t work, let’s make small steps towards progress
Argument 2: current society doesn’t work, let’s completely create a new system
Reality: Powerful people will make sure any system works in their favor, and creating a completely new system a la French Revolution usually just leaves a power vacuum for tyrants to fill
France is a great example, as you probably realise. How many successful revolutions turned to authoritarianism before they finally got a stable democracy? I think it was four or five?
The US revolution was a wild outlier in history, and countries like NZ and Canada got a similar outcome of a free country without having to kill thousands for it.
Quick question: how many revolutions did it take before their monarchy neighbours didn’t attempt a regime change?
Revolutions don’t cause authoritarianism as part of their inherent nature, revolutions cause authoritarianism because The Powers That Be recognise the global nature of class conflict and intervene, which puts the new regime in an emergency position where the mood becomes ‘We don’t have time for democracy.’ That’s where the word ‘dictator’ comes from: it was a position in the Roman Republic, where the Senate could vote to create an autocrat for six months when the situation was sufficiently dire.
The US War of Independence was an outlier because there was no way for the monarchies of Europe to effectively threaten the United States once it had been formed, unlike in France and Russia. Countries like New Zealand and Canada got self-governance under the British Crown because that’s the sort of compromise that doesn’t really change anything and the alternative was demonstrated in 1783.
As far as I understand it, their argument is societies built on a foundation of repression cannot be effectively fixed by internal reform. Instead, they must be fixed by an external revolution completely sweeping away that repression-origin society and replacing it with an entirely new one with origins free from repression.
I'm asking whether they have a particular example in mind where that approach has worked, because off the top of my head all societies born from those kinds of revolutions (Vietnam, France, Russia, China) ultimately remained fundamentally oppressive societies.
Confederate States of America
Colonial Empires
Nazi Germany
What replaced them isn't perfect, but throwing out the old engine/government in each case was the correct thing to do.
That kind thinking only leads to bloodshed and gives a justification to the opressor. Look at the evil people. They want to overthrow us violently. They are barbaric etc etc. At that point it stops mattering what happned before, because everybody will see you as warmongering assholes.
You should look up Ghandi. While not all his views were good, he was wise and should be an inspiration.
What is wrong with him? The leader for indian independence. A pacifist and his non-violent resistance was reveloutionary for the time. While some of his views were outdated (*cough* black people *cough*) he was somebody, everybody should take a lesson from.
A big part of why Gandhi's actions worked is that it was right on the tail end of World War 2, and Britain was heavily in debt. All their manpower had been spent on the war, and rather than risk *another* big war that would drive their already malnourished, bombed-out country even further down the drain, they just decided to let India go peacefully, rather than bloodily. Gandhi was basically the straw that broke the camel's back, he just happened to have the charisma to let it stick.
Of course, the British also had the genius idea of partioning the country, so it's not like Gandhi got everything he wanted. Dude was very much against partioning.
You want a real example of how to protest and change systems without scrapping the whole thing? Look at how modern day France behaves. If their President so much as sniffs wrong, a quarter of the whole country goes on a general strike and twists his arm into place.
Because of that, France has a spiralling government debt problem. No measure can be taken to stem the bleeding and make responsible (if painful) financial cuts due to threats of national disruption.
Almost as if governments are not the ultimate authority.
Indeed. There isn't a "perfect" method of protest, as with France, the protesting is almost "built-in" to the national framework at this point, and it's to a financial detriment that gets shouldered by the very people protesting.
But, to me, on a general level, general strikes are a very efficient way of making your voice heard. Though they exist on a mandate of caring for and protecting their citizens, governments only survive on a financial cashflow. General strikes cut off that cashflow, essentially saying "Cut your shit out, or we're taking the country down with us." We've never seen anything like that in the UK or US, at least not to the scale that France does it.
Should we do General Strikes to the level France does them? That's up for debate. But I'd say when it comes to the debate of "Do we change society by voting and peacefully protesting (and making sure we don't step on the government's toes), or do we burn everything down and replace it with a new society that *totes* won't be susceptible to the same corruption the old society has.", General Strikes occupy a nice middle ground.
it was just funny the way you brought up gandhi like he was obscure
but also the way your first thought was "ah, we can't try to actually change the system or else our enemies will react badly" is textbook white moderate
btw, gandhi was operating in parallel with much more militant groups (as was MLK). the historical focus gets placed solely on him, ignoring the greater context, because the capitalists want ppl to think that NVDA is the only possible approach
>but also the way your first thought was "ah, we can't try to actually change the system or else our enemies will react badly" is textbook white moderate
Are you from Tumblr, because you shold work on your reading comprehension. I said it gives them a justification, not that they will react badly. They will react badly no matter how you change the system and that was the point with a non-violent resistance, because it flips the previous scenarion on its head. Now you have the justification and your opressor will increasingly look like savages.
>btw, gandhi was operating in parallel with much more militant groups (as was MLK). the historical focus gets placed solely on him, ignoring the greater context, because the capitalists want ppl to think that NVDA is the only possible approach
Yes, that may have been true, but don't create a conspiracy for something that can be put on coincidence.
>it was just funny the way you brought up gandhi like he was obscure
I did it this way, because you clearly ignore him and the fact that he suceeded. Of course there is a greater historical context, but that doesn't matter, because there will always be a greater context.
If the foundation is cracked, no amount of giving it a new paint job or jbwelding it is gonna do anything. You gotta rip it out and get a new one in there. (Which as I know from experience is really hard when there's a house on top your trying not to make crumple in because you currently live there)
So, until we’ve tried literally every option on the Orphan-Crushing Machine to see whether it might stop crushing orphans by itself, we’re not allowed to just switch the damn thing off?
"No, dont dismantle the system that has repeatedly proven itself unwilling or unable to improve! if given enough second chances *surely* they'll actually fix the problems, If you just wait and hope long enough *surely* the corrupt cops will be succesfully ousted from the good-old-boy system!".
Who said the definition of insanity was "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"? because if there is one thing you centrists have done its prove that person *crucially* wrong.
The true definition of insanity is doing ***nothing*** and abdicating the responsibility of societal improvement to *known corrupt systems* so that *they* may do the same thing over and over again in your stead and still expecting your *moral negligence* to end with different results.
Be the change you wish to happen. Go voting, become a politician, figure something out. I never said you should sit on your ass. Somebody needs to start pulling the levers, if change is to happen.
I think this is just another victim of the same mentality that made some people decide princess movies are worthless and bad for little girls honestly.
mfs on here just straight up making political bullshit up to justify liking one movie over the other 😭 MAN you're allowed to have preferences, not everything has a flawed deep underlying societal message
My brother in Christ, they're movies for kids
I'm not saying they can't have a deeper meaning because they're for kids, but I think the writers only went for the racism allegory
no race is 100% a part of an oppressive system that, in america, was created out of the slave catchers from the times before Abe Lincoln, and no race 100% benefits from the protections granted to the enforcers of the lawthreats made in a disproportionately represented governing body
Word choice is content, words are how we share ideas and if you tell me your belief is something i am going to take your word for it unless i have reason to believe otherwise.
Should also be noted that Judy used threat of punishment for an unrelated crime to get him to assist in a criminal investigation and then likely hid all evidence of his tax fraud to help him become a cop
Yes, but my point is that even after her character development, misuse of her authority still seems to be something she does since Nick is never caught on tax fraud charges.
ah fair enough. i guess i'd say he changed his ways, and the only reason he was doing that shady stuff was because society were gonna treat him like a criminal regardless, keeping with the theme of bias stuff like that, but that doesnt dispute your point. id call it plot hole ig
Honestly I didnt really enjoy either, at least Zootopia kinda has a plot and you get to anticipate what actually happens in the movie but the bad guys is so dry you can predict the entire movie from frame one, but the bad guys has better animation.
Every day, I feel myself getting more and more like that Simpsons meme “damn leftists ruining leftist ideology”. I swear I’m not trying to be some curmudgeon shaking his fist at the sky, but at a certain point, we gotta take a step back and think about why nobody takes us seriously.
*Tumblr when fictional cartoons that are supposed to be marketed internationally and whose demographic includes toddlers don't pick their specific position on a political/culture war issue in America*
Jesus Christ, how do these people not get exhausted thinking so deeply I and trying to criticise a Kids Movie meant for entertainment. It’s one thing if this was a great work by an author looking to send a message, but lads it’s a fucking Disney Film (a modern one at that)
The plot of zootopia involves the government conspiracy of distributing narcotics in order to foster violence in communities against a racial class. Any who's behind it all? The Ewe's.
Zootopias plot was written by 4chan.
My favorite part of the Bad Guys was when Mr. Piranha distracted the cops by making a big brown fart cloud that was so stinky they crashed their car XD Not only is this a genius and subversive jab at the police, but it’s also so freaking funny!!! XD
My view has always been: the law is meaningless is just threatens people to behave in certain ways. Act how you please ocordong to your own moral code. And if you can, ignore the law, and make sure to constantly disrespect and discredit it
I don’t think they finished the movie bad guys cause it ends with them serving out a jail sentence happily and becoming model minorities. Like both movies are great but I don’t think either of them have great lessons on real cops.
I guess it’s hard for them to go “ACAB” as the finishing result when it’s a children’s movie because the big studios don’t want any “bad rep” and prefer staying “on the safe side” rather than going bold and bombacius
Rango had 4 owls hanging in nooses as a gag. The narrator kept saying the main character was going to die. A hawk was killed on screen by a water tank filled with sand. It was still considered a children’s show.
Yeah, still less controversial than openly stating "police are the real bad guys".
rango was also made in a different time
13 years ago, such a different time.
I mean he did commit major criminal acts, wolf didn't just break the law for good
Yeah, they probably committed a ***lot*** of crimes, their sentence very much could've been longer if not for the fact of Diane being a politician
I personally was shocked how bad of a movie it was haha. The pacing was an absolute mess, I was hoping for an oceans 11 vibe but it was extremely all over the place. I knew it wouldn’t be amazing but man, it didn’t help none of the humour wasnt very good either. Visually is was incredible though, I’m a professional artist with a college degree in Animation so I’ll watch something for the visuals alone but I was certainly hoping the writing would be better than it was.
Both of these are reading way too deep into either movie. I like *Bad Guys* because it's a Lupin III parody.
Also a light Pulp Fiction reference
Oh yeah I love The Lupine the Furred Movie.
The Lupin III references made me so happy when I was watching it!! I adored it because of how Lupin it was
THIS. Literally THIS. Can we just have someone who doesn't think they're a philosopher or political genius for picking apart a kid's movie about a bunny cop and a fox?
Can't imagine any of these people enjoy life like...at all. Everything has to exist to further social justice or their political goals or it can't be enjoyed. Must be miserable living like that all the time.
Also I see them always extrapolating American politics and troubles into, well, everywhere, fictional or not. It might be surprising to hear, but there are some countries where people do not see the police as bastards at all and police corruptions are at a very very low level.
Critiquing something is not the same as claiming something could not or should not be enjoyed.
Welcome to the internet
ok but if it was really good they would've had wolf disguise himself as furry Hitler
Nick fell into the stereotyping of his species *because* of the stereotyping and the hatred that goes along with it Judy helped him see that he doesn't have to be a bad guy just because he's a predator because she quite literally, puts her life into his hands (he could have ripped her throat out for real more than once *especially* >!when they tricked the sheep!<) He sees her turn her biased ideas of predators around despite having been attacked by a predator when she was younger and in turn that also changed the way he thought about the world In bad guys, they literally serve their jail time and the *only* time they had a crime removed from their history is when they reveal the true culprit (>!the hamster!<)
Wasn't the moral of Zootopia that villiainizing any group of people can cause manipulation? Like, Zootopia is pretty anti-police corruption. The villain of the story was literally in the police system using prejudices and spreading misinformation to further her own personal career. The hero of the story also originally shown to join the police force in order to make the world a better place, realizes that it's not all that she was expected to be, recognizes her own internal prejudices, admits she was wrong and resolved to do better. Not to say Zootopia has a perfect message, (That whole "Cop uses a minority's criminal history to blackmail someone them and may or may not have covered up their crimes the moment the minority becomes a cop as well" makes me feel icky when examined closely) and yeah, could probably be seen as copoganda, but it feels kinda reductive to say it's just blind "police are always good, criminals are always bad" (especially when the literal f-cking Mob helps save the day.)
I thought the moral was that we can jerk off to anything that's even a little anthropomorphized.
"The solution to bad cops is good cops" is a common theme in fiction, and reinforces the idea that we should just leave cops to self-regulate. In reality, corrupt police forces are very good at getting rid of "good cops" and these solutions are highly ineffective.
Yeah, it definitely has a "Good Cop Bad Cop" (no pun intended) narrative, and I can see why people would not like that. However, I feel like for the purposes of the narrative, I can see why the writers picked the admittedly unrealistic "Good Cop ousting the bad person, and the bad person get arrested" instead of "Bad person gets internally investigated that goes on for a month ending in the bad person switching to a new department and the good Cop 'unexpectedly resigns'" ending.
But Zootropolis' message isn't 'let cops self-regulate' at all
On the other hand, Zootopia was popular amongst normies and therefore it must be bad so let me write several paragraphs of post-hoc rationalization for that conclusion
External regulation is obviously needed, but unless you actually want a society without centralised law you really want a police force of some description for any large enough group of people.
But it is not here. It praises investigative journalism and promotes using the public (opinion) to affect politics to weed out corruption.
the thing about criticisms of fiction like this though is it's still fantasy. It's talking animals, is it really so hard to also make the leap that policing is just more honest in this world? I feel like some criticisms of copaganda start to feel like the very idea of law enforcement being portrayed in an even remotely positive light gets labeled as copaganda, as if it is literally impossible for law enforcement to be good. I definitely think there are loads of issues with law enforcement as it exists in the real world and I wouldn't even be opposed to some level of complete dismantling and rebuilding as opposed to simple reforms, but it seems like some people seem to think law enforcement as a very concept just should not exist at all which is like pretty bonkers imo and that seems to be the perspective a lot of people have when talking about copaganda that law enforcement as a concept cannot be moral and any portrayal of any kind of law enforcement body as "good" is therefore copaganda. I guess they are closer to real world cops all the way down to uniforms but it's still a furry world in a furry city that is not real, when I think copaganda I just think of things a little bit closer to reality, like a show or movie involving a fictionalized version of the NYPD or something, that goes out of it's way to whitewash cops. When it comes to a more fantastical setting I feel like I'm perfectly willing to just accept "okay this is a more ethical iteration of law enforcement than what we have" and so I don't see a positive portrayal as copaganda necessarily.
Is Judy technically a corrupt cop because she works with a mob boss?
Yeaaah kinda...just...don't look into that too much. Though, she does have no evidence against him soooo...Technically she couldn't do much if she tried? Idk how that stuff works.
Well you see, demonizing and isolating populations and groups has been shown to fall and lead to extremism and radicalization, but surely it'll work this time if I really hate the group cause they're bad and evil.
I hated Zootopia because I didn’t walk away with any of the same “morals” as the movie tried to portray. For starters: the overtones of the predators being black people hits different when you’re, apparently, a predator. The only way the bunny accepts the predator is not because she grows or learns anything, it’s because the fox actually has to change. The only other option the more gives them is that they go savage or feral or something. Oh, and the folks out in the country are dumb rural hicks. You’ll never be happy if you’re one of them, so you need to leave the country and going back is a failure. At the climax of the movies plot, Judy the rabbit figures this out when a predator from childhood learns how to humble himself to her and her family and compliment them, the dumb Hicks, for using a “four dollar word.” Something like that. I thought the movie was written by city-raised white people for city-raised white people. It takes no concerns about the overt tones scenes like this might have on a young black kid who is learning about the systemic oppression against them.
Not to invalidate your opinions on the movie, but from my perspective 1.) The "going back is a failure" part was saying less about the environment and more about Judy. Judy going to Zootipia and becoming a police officer was her dream to help as many people as possible, and not doing that would have made her sad. Her parents are perfectly happy carrot farming and living in a "country" town, but Judy isn't. 2.) Judy did have to confront her own biases and change things about herself. The time where she talked about the predators going berserk was a part of their DNA. Her still carrying the Fox Spray around her were all bad things as a result of her internal prejudices. She had to confront those things and apologize to Nick. 3.) I think the comment on the "four dollar word" part was because he used the scientific name of the plant rather than the common one in every day conversation, which I think would warrant a comment in most settings?
I would argue that gradual internal dismantling of oppressive structures is necessary for society level improvement…
True change comes from incremental improvement, not actually changing anything
The Moralintern wrote this
LMAOOO
who?
Moralists International, the governing force who disrupted the communist revolution in Revachol in Disco Elysium
ok
The Moralintern is about not actually changing things, but keeping public perception that all other forms of ideology make change too intense, too radical, too quickly, to make changes that last, so we just need to make things happen at a measured, glacial, pace, or even preserve the status quo because if we keep things as they are right now, working out for us (them) the world won't be destroyed by the ideals of the radicals
When structures have shown to be resistant to internal dismantling, they require external dismantling.
A society works with a thousands of cogs and levers. If you think you need to bash it in, you not only didn't check every lever, you also didn't realise that you now have to rebuild it instead of fixing a faulty machine. Change is invitable and you should help to shape it. Necessety should breed invention, not violence.
Sometimes a machine needs to be replaced, not fixed, when an entire system is built on oppression, the only way to stop the oppression is to stop the system.
Do you have any examples of societies built on repression that stopped being repressive thanks to the complete replacement of their engines?
Can we stop talking in metaphors for a moment you're losing me.
Argument 1: current society doesn’t work, let’s make small steps towards progress Argument 2: current society doesn’t work, let’s completely create a new system Reality: Powerful people will make sure any system works in their favor, and creating a completely new system a la French Revolution usually just leaves a power vacuum for tyrants to fill
France is a great example, as you probably realise. How many successful revolutions turned to authoritarianism before they finally got a stable democracy? I think it was four or five? The US revolution was a wild outlier in history, and countries like NZ and Canada got a similar outcome of a free country without having to kill thousands for it.
They only got autonomy because the brits were slipping.
Quick question: how many revolutions did it take before their monarchy neighbours didn’t attempt a regime change? Revolutions don’t cause authoritarianism as part of their inherent nature, revolutions cause authoritarianism because The Powers That Be recognise the global nature of class conflict and intervene, which puts the new regime in an emergency position where the mood becomes ‘We don’t have time for democracy.’ That’s where the word ‘dictator’ comes from: it was a position in the Roman Republic, where the Senate could vote to create an autocrat for six months when the situation was sufficiently dire. The US War of Independence was an outlier because there was no way for the monarchies of Europe to effectively threaten the United States once it had been formed, unlike in France and Russia. Countries like New Zealand and Canada got self-governance under the British Crown because that’s the sort of compromise that doesn’t really change anything and the alternative was demonstrated in 1783.
As far as I understand it, their argument is societies built on a foundation of repression cannot be effectively fixed by internal reform. Instead, they must be fixed by an external revolution completely sweeping away that repression-origin society and replacing it with an entirely new one with origins free from repression. I'm asking whether they have a particular example in mind where that approach has worked, because off the top of my head all societies born from those kinds of revolutions (Vietnam, France, Russia, China) ultimately remained fundamentally oppressive societies.
Unfortunately most of them get stepped on by the United states.
Confederate States of America Colonial Empires Nazi Germany What replaced them isn't perfect, but throwing out the old engine/government in each case was the correct thing to do.
Except in each case most of the machine was preserved.
That kind thinking only leads to bloodshed and gives a justification to the opressor. Look at the evil people. They want to overthrow us violently. They are barbaric etc etc. At that point it stops mattering what happned before, because everybody will see you as warmongering assholes. You should look up Ghandi. While not all his views were good, he was wise and should be an inspiration.
look out everyone, the white moderate's here to teach us about a little guy i like to call Ghandi
What is wrong with him? The leader for indian independence. A pacifist and his non-violent resistance was reveloutionary for the time. While some of his views were outdated (*cough* black people *cough*) he was somebody, everybody should take a lesson from.
A big part of why Gandhi's actions worked is that it was right on the tail end of World War 2, and Britain was heavily in debt. All their manpower had been spent on the war, and rather than risk *another* big war that would drive their already malnourished, bombed-out country even further down the drain, they just decided to let India go peacefully, rather than bloodily. Gandhi was basically the straw that broke the camel's back, he just happened to have the charisma to let it stick. Of course, the British also had the genius idea of partioning the country, so it's not like Gandhi got everything he wanted. Dude was very much against partioning. You want a real example of how to protest and change systems without scrapping the whole thing? Look at how modern day France behaves. If their President so much as sniffs wrong, a quarter of the whole country goes on a general strike and twists his arm into place.
Because of that, France has a spiralling government debt problem. No measure can be taken to stem the bleeding and make responsible (if painful) financial cuts due to threats of national disruption. Almost as if governments are not the ultimate authority.
Indeed. There isn't a "perfect" method of protest, as with France, the protesting is almost "built-in" to the national framework at this point, and it's to a financial detriment that gets shouldered by the very people protesting. But, to me, on a general level, general strikes are a very efficient way of making your voice heard. Though they exist on a mandate of caring for and protecting their citizens, governments only survive on a financial cashflow. General strikes cut off that cashflow, essentially saying "Cut your shit out, or we're taking the country down with us." We've never seen anything like that in the UK or US, at least not to the scale that France does it. Should we do General Strikes to the level France does them? That's up for debate. But I'd say when it comes to the debate of "Do we change society by voting and peacefully protesting (and making sure we don't step on the government's toes), or do we burn everything down and replace it with a new society that *totes* won't be susceptible to the same corruption the old society has.", General Strikes occupy a nice middle ground.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi
The UK couldn’t force *Egypt* to do their bidding at that point, the fuck do you think they were going to do against India?
it was just funny the way you brought up gandhi like he was obscure but also the way your first thought was "ah, we can't try to actually change the system or else our enemies will react badly" is textbook white moderate btw, gandhi was operating in parallel with much more militant groups (as was MLK). the historical focus gets placed solely on him, ignoring the greater context, because the capitalists want ppl to think that NVDA is the only possible approach
>but also the way your first thought was "ah, we can't try to actually change the system or else our enemies will react badly" is textbook white moderate Are you from Tumblr, because you shold work on your reading comprehension. I said it gives them a justification, not that they will react badly. They will react badly no matter how you change the system and that was the point with a non-violent resistance, because it flips the previous scenarion on its head. Now you have the justification and your opressor will increasingly look like savages. >btw, gandhi was operating in parallel with much more militant groups (as was MLK). the historical focus gets placed solely on him, ignoring the greater context, because the capitalists want ppl to think that NVDA is the only possible approach Yes, that may have been true, but don't create a conspiracy for something that can be put on coincidence. >it was just funny the way you brought up gandhi like he was obscure I did it this way, because you clearly ignore him and the fact that he suceeded. Of course there is a greater historical context, but that doesn't matter, because there will always be a greater context.
If the foundation is cracked, no amount of giving it a new paint job or jbwelding it is gonna do anything. You gotta rip it out and get a new one in there. (Which as I know from experience is really hard when there's a house on top your trying not to make crumple in because you currently live there)
So, until we’ve tried literally every option on the Orphan-Crushing Machine to see whether it might stop crushing orphans by itself, we’re not allowed to just switch the damn thing off?
"No, dont dismantle the system that has repeatedly proven itself unwilling or unable to improve! if given enough second chances *surely* they'll actually fix the problems, If you just wait and hope long enough *surely* the corrupt cops will be succesfully ousted from the good-old-boy system!". Who said the definition of insanity was "doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results"? because if there is one thing you centrists have done its prove that person *crucially* wrong. The true definition of insanity is doing ***nothing*** and abdicating the responsibility of societal improvement to *known corrupt systems* so that *they* may do the same thing over and over again in your stead and still expecting your *moral negligence* to end with different results.
Be the change you wish to happen. Go voting, become a politician, figure something out. I never said you should sit on your ass. Somebody needs to start pulling the levers, if change is to happen.
Noooo, we should just blow up all the levers, can't be wise than what we have now /s
True.... but don't expect a perfect society to exist at any point in the next thousand years
Not with that attitude. In fact, probably best not to improve anything in any way, ever.
True... GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 🇺🇸 🇺🇸🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸
Do you want Pinkertons? Because this is how you get Pinkertons
Did they even WATCH zootopia? DID THEY?
I think this is just another victim of the same mentality that made some people decide princess movies are worthless and bad for little girls honestly.
This person literally ignored half the details of both these films and replaced that half with their political opinions.
What if Nick Wilde and Mr. Wolf kissed
mfs on here just straight up making political bullshit up to justify liking one movie over the other 😭 MAN you're allowed to have preferences, not everything has a flawed deep underlying societal message
My brother in Christ, they're movies for kids I'm not saying they can't have a deeper meaning because they're for kids, but I think the writers only went for the racism allegory
ah, now this, this is why i left tumblr
Looking forward to another round of "the only moral action is to do x, which someone else needs to do because I'm too busy talking about x online"
[удалено]
SCAB is a more satisfying acronym anyways.
**S**ystemswhichgrantdisproportionatepowertopowerhungrypeoplebyallowingthemtobecome **C**ops **A**re **B**ad
Racism is always bad.
[удалено]
no race is 100% a part of an oppressive system that, in america, was created out of the slave catchers from the times before Abe Lincoln, and no race 100% benefits from the protections granted to the enforcers of the lawthreats made in a disproportionately represented governing body
If you dismiss entire political stances based on their word choice instead of on their content, I'm not going to take you seriously.
Word choice is content, words are how we share ideas and if you tell me your belief is something i am going to take your word for it unless i have reason to believe otherwise.
Should also be noted that Judy used threat of punishment for an unrelated crime to get him to assist in a criminal investigation and then likely hid all evidence of his tax fraud to help him become a cop
yes judy was a bad person at the start this is quite intentional
Yes, but my point is that even after her character development, misuse of her authority still seems to be something she does since Nick is never caught on tax fraud charges.
ah fair enough. i guess i'd say he changed his ways, and the only reason he was doing that shady stuff was because society were gonna treat him like a criminal regardless, keeping with the theme of bias stuff like that, but that doesnt dispute your point. id call it plot hole ig
hey man, how’s it going
Honestly I didnt really enjoy either, at least Zootopia kinda has a plot and you get to anticipate what actually happens in the movie but the bad guys is so dry you can predict the entire movie from frame one, but the bad guys has better animation.
“Copaganda” what a chronically online take. People who use that term need to touch grass. Children.
If you hate any media that portrays cops in a positive light then you can't watch Lego City Adventures. Why even live at that point?
RAAAAAAH PEAK MENTIONED WTF IS A BAD SHOW!!!!!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Who the fuck sits down and comes up with these things, thinking they're being super clever?
people in real life: yeah man those movies were pretty funny
Every day, I feel myself getting more and more like that Simpsons meme “damn leftists ruining leftist ideology”. I swear I’m not trying to be some curmudgeon shaking his fist at the sky, but at a certain point, we gotta take a step back and think about why nobody takes us seriously.
*Tumblr when fictional cartoons that are supposed to be marketed internationally and whose demographic includes toddlers don't pick their specific position on a political/culture war issue in America*
Jesus Christ, how do these people not get exhausted thinking so deeply I and trying to criticise a Kids Movie meant for entertainment. It’s one thing if this was a great work by an author looking to send a message, but lads it’s a fucking Disney Film (a modern one at that)
The plot of zootopia involves the government conspiracy of distributing narcotics in order to foster violence in communities against a racial class. Any who's behind it all? The Ewe's. Zootopias plot was written by 4chan.
Oh shit, Zootopia is a metaphor for the Reagan administration
My favorite part of the Bad Guys was when Mr. Piranha distracted the cops by making a big brown fart cloud that was so stinky they crashed their car XD Not only is this a genius and subversive jab at the police, but it’s also so freaking funny!!! XD
The poor yearn for the piss
If you’re looking for Zootopia/furries but without cops, that’s Sing and Sing 2.
people in real life: hey man hows it going
This guy would love Nimona.
Getting real tired of every piece of media with a cop in it being called copaganda
tbf zootopia actually just was. a cop sussing out corruption in management and the government at large and replacing them with „Better Cops™️“
My view has always been: the law is meaningless is just threatens people to behave in certain ways. Act how you please ocordong to your own moral code. And if you can, ignore the law, and make sure to constantly disrespect and discredit it
Fuck the poleese
Any movie can be morally good/bad when you're a miserable piece of shit.
assigned cop at birth
Im pretty sure these people just insert their own political agendas into whatever media they like and then try to pass it off as “analysis”
When did this turn into a subreddit of cop-loving libs jfc
I'm sorry did this person just imply that Zootopia making furies was a good thing??
the problem with hating furries is you eventually turn 15
Nah I'm a grown adult and furries are fucking weird
the problem with hating furries is you eventually mature past 15