Deep Thoughts

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 1,036 comments
  • 70,310 views
Another irrelevant though Im thinking way too hard on.

So with the buzz on sequels of animated movies going around and Zootopia being one of them (and my idiot former self thought of fan fic ideas here Im glad I got out of). I rewatched the movie and realised that Judy ends up becoming quite a corrupt Police Officer at the end of the movie.

She has the Mafia in her pocket and is the godmother to Mr. Bigs grandchild which Judy did use to threaten Weaselton into a confession, no doubt she has this "weapon" at her disposal and will likely not stop the Mafia from any infractions. Also the whole Nick Wilde Tax Evasion is allowed to be swept under the rug meaning Judy just let him escape from the IRS and is now working with the law alongside her.

No matter what Zootopia 2 tries (and most likely fail as its a Disney sequel) to do, Judy essentially being the most corrupt Police Officer is an interesting element to think about after the credits role of the 1st movie
 
Last edited:
I always thought of jerk as just light term for calling someone a bad or mean spirited person.

Today I just randomly realized that it's short for another phrase.
 
Danoff
I always thought of jerk as just light term for calling someone a bad or mean spirited person.

Today I just randomly realized that it's short for another phrase.
Click to expand...

"The first time derivative of acceleration"?
 
Last edited:
I just started wondering something - is saying "I love you" to someone for the first time in a given relationship really that profound? Or does it just confirm that which was unspoken and implied until then? Indeed, I don't think I'll find an argument when I say that love itself is more than those three words alone. Is it not something that isn't so much proclaimed as it is expressed on a consistent basis?
 
Last edited:
Its a statement of ultimate affection. But then again it can also be a weaponised statement.
 
MIE1992
I just started wondering something - is saying "I love you" to someone for the first time in a given relationship really that profound? Or does it just confirm that which was unspoken and implied until then?
Click to expand...

I told my friend I loved her, after that she was my lover. I don't know if it was profound, but it was certainly pivotal.
 
MIE1992
I just started wondering something - is saying "I love you" to someone for the first time in a given relationship really that profound? Or does it just confirm that which was unspoken and implied until then? Indeed, I don't think I'll find an argument when I say that love itself is more than those three words alone. Is it not something that isn't so much proclaimed as it is expressed on a consistent basis?
Click to expand...
It's very much contextual, so it's hard to make sweeping generalizations about the circumstances and intended meaning associated with this phrase.

It could be a formal recognition that you are aware of the feeling rather than a recognition of the feeling itself. In other words, you could tell someone "I love you" and, even if they already knew that, it could be significant because they now realize that you are aware of it. Alternatively, they may not have been aware of it it formally even though you were, and so it could be significant because you're making them aware of it.

It can also be significant as a formal reminder for something that may have been forgotten or taken for granted.

Love is definitely something that is "proclaimed" for many reasons. But it should also be something that is "expressed on a consistent basis". The words lose their meaning if not paired to action. The reverse is true as well but to a more limited extent.
 
Last edited:
Compared to some of the behaviour you come across on various undergrounds/metros around the world, i'd say this is a preferable experience to most.
 
HenrySwanson
Are you talking about crime or antisocial behaviour?
Click to expand...
Thankfully never come across any crime, i'm probably not a frequent enough user of them, but there's always plenty of antisocial stuff going on. To varying degrees.
 
TheCracker
Thankfully never come across any crime, i'm probably not a frequent enough user of them, but there's always plenty of antisocial stuff going on. To varying degrees.
Click to expand...
Would you rather have a sterile experience every time you use the train or the chance to be surrounded by conversations and other aspects of humanity even if it comes with an increased chance of witnessing antisocial behaviour?
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
Would you rather have a sterile experience every time you use the train or the chance to be surrounded by conversations and other aspects of humanity even if it comes with an increased chance of witnessing antisocial behaviour?
Click to expand...
Totally depends on the situation. If i was travelling alone for a short distance, it wouldn't bother me either way. If i was travelling with others i would probably be too occupied with interacting with them to notice either way. If i felt starved of social interactions, even just missing observing the world go by, i would probably relish a bit of variety on the train. If i had to commute to work and back day in, day out, i would likely prefer a quieter experience early in the morning or after a long day at work.

As i mentioned before, i'm an infrequent user of public transport, whether that's an underground, train, bus, coach or tram, so i'm not really bothered whatever the experience. But if i was forced to use any of them daily, i'm sure a more 'sterile' experience would be more relaxing. As long as i was getting a dose of 'interacting with the world' elsewhere in my life.
 
If I wanted to interact with humanity on a personal level, I wouldn't have wanted to drive everywhere in a car.
Depending on where you are in the world, public transport can be fine or stressful.
I'd much prefer an empty train to one with many passengers.
 
Did we accidentally take marginalized oppressed groups of people and stick them in a room with marginalized oppressors?

The internet is a great tool for marginalized groups of people to find others like themselves and support each other. So, for example, if you're a very unique individual in some respect, there might not be very many people like you in your city. So going online can help you link up with other people who have that same characteristic. And if it's an oppressed characteristic, you might commiserate and support over your day-to-day oppressed experiences.

But here's the thing, jerks are marginalized too. The oppressors, the people who mistreat these very same people, are also maybe not very common in their city, and so they also go online and look for likeminded jerks who want to bully others.

So we have marginalized groups online, and we have the people who most want to marginalize those groups online. And they both use youtube, and they both use facebook, and they both use redit. Each distorts the other's view of society, and they push each other into extremes as they bump into each other in shared social networking space.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back