Sign into an existing account

It's got animals, would be a lot of a hassle if they got free. But it'd be the government's concern, not any of mine.

Zootopia was a phenomenally terrible movie about predators and prey living together. The comedy was just unfunny puns based on animal stereotypes - in a movie that's supposed to be about why stereotypes are bad (mmm'kay?), even by the standards of humor aimed at children aged below the target demographic of this film, it wasn't able to be enjoyed.

The story uses the fear that prey naturally have of predators as a commentary on the fear whites have of blacks.

Of course, the reason the prey fear predators is because predators have to eat them to survive, and the act of eating the prey tends to end with their death or permanent loss of body parts.

This is sidestepped by rarely talking about what anyone in this setting eats, simply assuming they could all survive on the exact same diet (rendering the distinction between "prey" and "predator" both arbitrary and meaningless, bringing to question how this world the categorization is being made), which in reality they could not, but in reality none of these animals could talk or walk on two feet, so yiu could suspend you disbelief there.

The fact remains that the prey have good reason to fear the predators, and it's not because of who they are, or even simply a matter of what they do, but one specific thing that they do (because they have to do it to survive) which directly affects them, in a big way, by causing them to die.

But the predators have no other choice besides killing the prey except to die themselves, the predators cannot survive without eating the prey, if the predator does not do so, they get sick, or starve, and either of these fates typically leads to their deaths.

The fox runs for his dinner, the rabbit runs for his life, according to George Washington that meant that the rabbit will win, but he fails to mention that for the fox, going without his dinner for too long means his death, he too is running for his life, his dinner and life are both chased in the same pursuit, this I say that the fox has double the cause to win, the rabbit could only live because there are so many more rabbits than foxes.

There's the additional possibility that the fox in this scenario is not merely hunting to feed himself, there is the chance that he has a den, with a mate and kits who depend on him to bring home the rabbit as their dinner, meaning that he is not chasing the rabbit for just his survival, but for the survival of his family as well.

So what does that say about this movie being used as a commentary on the real life relationship between blacks and whites?

Does it say that the reasons whites fear blacks is that blacks cannot help but cause whites harm? Is the message here that it is simply in the inescapable nature of black people to hurt whites people?

What should white people do with this revelation? "Well, white people should therefore.."

What? Accept getting hurt? Robbed, Raped, Killed? Just because blacks can't help themselves but eventually do those kind of things to us?

What about the inherent nature of whites? You know, that we don't want to get hurt?
Somehow we have have accept that blacks are unable to resist the urge to hurt us, but also that whites are somehow able to overcome their reluctance to allow themselves to to hurt by blacks?

First of all, it implies whites have a lot better control over themselves, while blacks can't be expected to resist their nature, whites can be.

Second, it's asking victims to accept their victimization, simply because their victimized cannot help themselves with their compulsion to harm them.

That's one of the kinds of rationale domestic abuse victims use for staying with their abusers, what does it mean to have unconditional love for someone when the conditions of loving them become intolerable?

Okay, moving on.

The story begins with the rabbit going to train as a police officer, she's quick and flexible, but weak and fragile. She's small, which offers her a mixture of advantages and downsides, but initially it looks like she's unfit for the position of is working towards.

Until she overcomes the limitations of her nature, finding ways to meet the standards set before her despite them, a big point in this part of the film is where she jumps and dropkicks a towering creature before her in the head.

Big problem, as mentioned before, rabbits are small, weak, and fragile. They weigh little, and have bones which are easily damaged.

Kicking that much larger and sturdier beast in the head is possible, but knocking him out with the kick is not, unless she breaks her delicate bones in the process, because that's what the required force would be doing to her body.

More likely she's going to push herself back a little and them fall to the ground, leaving herself open for the counter attack that will end her as a potential source of a threat to them, and maybe put that bigger animal a bit off balance for a momment, but not enough to prevent that fight from ending with her getting floored.

What's this say about whites? That we could do the impossible? Even ignore the laws of physics if we just wanted to do it hard enough?

Maybe it's a commentary on inherent abilities vs the desire to not be restricted by them, that the latter could, at least in some cases, overcome the former.

The reality is the opposite of that, everything comes with natural limiters, humans included (especially humans), one must learn to work within their limits, and accept the boundaries of their abilities when they find them.

But this is a movie made by jews, and jews make movies for the express purpose of telling their audiences that everything which is true, even obviously and undeniably so, is actually the opposite of what it is.

Jews love working in fiction, as it gives them full permission permission lie to people, to tell big whoppers of a lie, and sow confusion about the facts of reality, then they hide behind the tautological fact that "fiction is fictional", that seems reasonable to those who fail to grasp what is truly being asked here.

That is, until you bring up that you aren't questioning the fictional characters, settings, or storylines, but the validity of the way the work addresses elements of the real world with its use of fantastical elements to do so, the validity of the commentary is what you are challenging, not the existence of funny talking animals, but how they are intended to be used to criticize the relationship between blacks people and white people.

Here, in zootopia, even when you ignore the impossibility of these animals, you still have the tacit assumption that physics works the way it does in this world, this is not an issue of rabbits and dropkicks, it's an issue of mass, acceleration, and opposing forces. Apparently this is also something the setting makes an exception for.

If the physics of Isaac Newton applied here, then bunnygirl's leg is busted in a practice session, thus failing the medical requirements of her desired job, or she gets defeated and fails her physical exam at this point, either way, she doesn't becibe a cop, her dream died before she was born, because she was born a rabbit in a world where all animals compete with one another. She'd be great as a courier though, provided her load doesn't exceed a certain weight.

We don't overcome our nature, we learn what our nature truly is, and make do as best we could with what we have handed to us.

Once again, moving on.

Now she meets a fox, he's currently running a con, he gets busted, but gets out of a full punishment by offering his services in catching a bigger perpetrator of a more serious crime.

Later is revealed that he only went into becoming a confidence man because he's a fox and foxes are stereotyped as being sneaky and clever tricksters.

Problem here is that this doesn't make much sense, it didn't matter if his species reputation made him feel like he had to be sneaky and clever, the fact was that he had a natural ability which gifted him at trickery, and it's concluded that this is a natural gift that runs in his entire species, since while he's taking about himself, he's also talking about foxes as a whole, all foxes have this reputation, and most foxes have the ability to live up up it.

His species is just naturally smarter and more charismatic than other species, so this is less about stereotypes, but them finding the niche thet could fill on society that other species were less gifted in, foxes are stereotyped as tricksters because they were uniquely good at it, they took the majority of roles where that's a useful talent to have, such as being a salesman or diplomat.

BTW, considering his racial skill set involves being an intelligent strategist, it's fair to say that that race cognate of the fox character isn't black, he's either jewish, or asian, or some other race with that as a part of their stereotypical traits, except white, because it's clear from all manner of characterizations given to the bunnygirl, that she's supposed to be white, and not just white, but a white of the rural origin variety, she's a country girl, not a girl from the city.

There'd also the fact that the studies on stereotypes affecting personality or performance are about as trustworthy as the studies done on the ability of Mozart music to increase intelligence quotients. The story of both in academia is also exactly the same, in fact.

One study found the effect, the effect was weak and very short lived, the study had very numerous flaws, such as it making claims about a group not being included in the study, and a laughably small sample size, but since it's claims validated the way people wanted the world to work, the conclusions were jumped on by everybody.

Ever irresponsible, pop science published articles on the tenuous claims of one solitary study as if it were a scientifically established fact, and greatly exaggerated the findings, as well as the claims themselves, going on to wax on and on about how it explains so much of the world, and why things are the way they are.

Then the attempts to replicate the results failed, reducing the effect found from so weak its barely noticeable, to no effect being found whatsoever.

The popsci community never said anything about this, because the news that a really interesting new discovery with great explanatory power and world changing implications was actually just found to be non existent would not sell new publications. Especially in a world where this finding would have given so much authority to the dominant political narrative.

Zootopia is a tool of jews to make you think what's true is false abd what's false is true. In this case, it's that stereotype threat is real, rather than the product of science popularizers letting their desire to sell publications override their duty to accurately inform the public about the true state of scientific knowledge.

People nowadays commonly think that the perception of what others think you are like could make you more like that person which you think that they think you are. They will be proud of "knowing" this to be scientifically established truth, when in fact it isn't even true, science had conclusively falsified the claim shortly after it was made.

Now we finally get past the setup and move onto the main story, some thing sonethingbwhites make blacks commit crimes by giving them access to drugs, them arrest them for crimes we forced them to commit. Something something whites run everything from behind the scenes and benefit from the blacks committing crimes against them, what are jews? They don't exist here (we could now rule out the fox as being a jew, and since he's not the same race as the bunny he isn't able to be white, so by process of elimination he's a stand in for an asian boy).

Oh look, everything you'd expect in reality is the opposite in (((fictionland))), how unexpected!

But we fully expect it, jewish media's been doing this so long that what used to be subversive to our expectations is now a cliche we expect to see, in fact, a lack of this kind of shit in our movies would would unexpected, especially one where the twist would confirm that the movie we are watching is promoting the (((dominant))) cultural narrative of our politcally correct society.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where the lack of one, where the truth of the important (controversial) matters of the real world are depicted in fiction as being as they actually are in reality, would be considered the most relivingly unexpected twist of recent cinematic history.

At this point, this post about a furfaggot flick being shown to children has gotten way too long by this point, except for one last thing, more people were interested in the zoophile R34 of this movie than they were in the movie itself, not because it's a movie catering to animal fuckers.

It's that everyone could predict what the plot would be, because they could predict what the message would be, even the "twist" ending was a by the book cliche play for the filmmakers.

The representation/comparison of racial and national stereotypes with those of animals had gone on so long that one could predict the general beats of the story just by looking at the characters, because you know that jews never make movies involving stereotypes in the plot where the stereotypes aren't reversed on or subverted in some way.

That is, unless those stereotypes are of white people, at which point it's just as predictable that not only will all the stereotypes be true, but depicted in the worst, most offensive manner possible, well past the point where any other race would get outraged at how they were being portrayed.

Whites, however, can be the exclusive and regular recipients of this treatment by kike movie magicians, and not only will they not get upset about it, they will shell put money to see their race be insulted, humiliated, and have hatred being incited against them.

One day, all these films that were made since the Second World War will be used as evidence of how much our race was willing to tolerate before reprisal against our oppressors.