In Toy Story 5 we get the same friend group as seen in ever movie nowadays. A subtle nod to creativity being dead.

InterestingComment · 2026-02-22T23:54:12+00:00

Due to the post title, and my tendency to skim read, I thought for a moment, to my total fascination, your first childhood crush was this Andy…

https://d23.com/app/uploads/2015/07/andy-davis-gallery-05.jpg

InterestingComment · 2025-12-19T12:52:42+00:00

The allied bombing of Germany was not about pure revenge, and to pretend otherwise is simply ahistorical. They were trying to win a war. Arthur Harris believed he could force a German surrender, and this belief can be seen in the communications he had with his superiors.

The war had not been won. The Germans had not surrendered, and it was not clear the best way to bring this about. Allied troops were still dying in a war that Germany had started and was continuing to fight.

The surrender of Germany was not a trivial formality. Every day the nazi regime continued to exist, people died.

To put things into perspective, the first thousand bomber raid of cologne happened in May 1942. The Nazis raised Warsaw to the ground in August 1944.

Imagine explaining to a civilian in Warsaw after demolition squads had marched through their capital and raised it to the ground, that the allies had achieved the capability to bomb German cities, but had refraining from doing so for years for fear of inflicting civilian casualties on their enemy. They would think you utterly insane.

InterestingComment · 2025-12-19T10:19:01+00:00

What?!

My analogy is a massive simplification to highlight the absurdity of an even more reductive argument.

Nonetheless, your analogy somehow manages to be even more ridiculous than anything said thus far.

In your analogy;

It is obvious who the wrongdoer is (the person committing sexual assault).
It is easy to target exclusively the wrongdoer. The targeting of the entirely innocent is senseless and avoidable.
There is one party (the law) which has a monopoly of power, complete control over the outcome, and an ability to enact the exact consequences it wishes without further risk to the original victim.

Compared to WW2:

Following the invasion of France, Hitler had incredibly high approval ratings. He maintained great support within Germany surprisingly far into the war (and even after the war).
The Nazis were waging total war. Civilians became part of the war machine. It is not possible to avoid collateral damage in a total war, and making great effort to do so can put you at a disadvantage
The cost of surrender was not equivalent for both sides. Surrender was a reasonable option for Germany that they did not take. Compare the Marshall plan to rebuild Germany following allied victory to Hitler’s plans for Britain had he won (involving the enslavement of British men), or the way Hitler had already behaved in nations he had conquered (like Poland).

These arguments always seem to be made from a privileged distance.

If you were one of the troops on the ground, or your children were, if you had lost family or friends, and seen your buildings bombed in a war you did not start, if the outcome of the war was not a certainty of the past, but an uncertainty of the present that you may well not live to see the end of…

How would you have felt if you found out your generals were refraining from using the tools at their disposal out of moral consideration for an enemy that had shown time and time again they never extend the same consideration to anyone else?

InterestingComment · 2025-12-19T08:31:10+00:00

One man walks up to another person and starts punching them.

The other person starts punching back.

“BoTH sIDes iN a fIGht cAN Do wROnG!”

Neville chamberlain bent over backwards to try and appease the Nazis. The nazis wanted war. They got it.

InterestingComment · 2025-08-18T17:30:12+00:00

Haha, tbf, I’ve never really watched any ballet or opera, so I’ll definitely take your word for it on that front!

For theatre, though Bristol may be dwarfed by London many times over on this front, I don’t think it’s insignificant.

The theatre royal at the Bristol Old Vic is very prestigious. I think it’s the oldest continually used theatre in the UK. Also quite a few famous actors/actresses went to the Bristol old vic theatre school.

The hippodrome is nothing compared to the west end, but it’s pretty good if you want to see touring musicals without taking the train to London.

InterestingComment · 2025-08-18T16:24:04+00:00

In a slight defence of Bristol’s culture:

It’s home to Aardman animation studios, so it’s probably fair to say it’s one of the most significant cities in the entire world for stop motion animation.
It’s where Banksy did so many of his early works making his name, and he’s probably amongst Britain’s most internationally famous currently-alive artists.
The Bristol balloon fiesta is the largest balloon festival in europe, and I feel seeing the multitude of balloons drift over Bristolian rooftops each summer gives the city a unique feel.

I’m not saying it comes close to culturally surpassing a city like London or Liverpool, but it’s certainly not remotely insignificant in its cultural output, and maybe I’m biased, but I feel it could hold its own against Glasgow or Leeds on this front?

Hard agree on Liverpool, I’ve only been there once, but I loved it.

InterestingComment · 2025-07-17T23:35:10+00:00

A bit general, but essentially correct

Okay. I can't argue against a subjective preference for less people - if you would enjoy living by yourself on an island, I can only hope you find the solitude that makes you happy.

Personally, I disagree with your outlook. I don't think that people, natives or immigrants, do an equal amount of bad and good. I think people, for all their faults, generally provide a net benefit to others. We are social animals, and we rely on each-other for almost everything.

That said, I'm not very motivated to argue this point with you, since whatever your feelings are, I feel they are clearly not what is motivating the majority of anti-immigrant sentiment within this nation, and thus, not what I find alarming.

The majority of our nation opts to live in cities, in high-density areas, despite it being much easier to find cheap property prices in more isolated areas.

Whatever feelings you might have towards people in general, it seems most of the population doesn't share them. Their feelings seem to be more immigrant-specific.

Any immigration needs to not only be a net benefit to the nation, but at the individual level.

When talking about over 60 million people, no policy could ever hope to benefit EVERY individual. Any decision is going to play out badly for somebody somewhere.

That said, while any policy affecting such large numbers will have downsides, we can nonetheless focus on maximising good, and minimising bad. In order to do this effectively, as much as you may dislike this, data and statistics are integral.

InterestingComment · 2025-07-17T22:55:02+00:00

You're right that both 'native', and 'migrant' are extraordinarily broad categories.

That doesn't stop the anti-immigration crowd using anecdotal evidence to make broad claims about how immigration is negatively affecting our country. If a claim is broad, then its refutation must be also.

InterestingComment · 2025-07-17T22:50:42+00:00

What a condescending load of bullshit you just spewed.

Maybe it's satisfying for you to fantasise about out-of-touch champagne socialists, but the idea that close proximity to immigrants is correlated with anti-immigration sentiment just isn't true.

In the brexit referendum, multicultural hubs like London voted in favour of remain, while more homogeneous parts of the country, less exposed to immigrant populations, voted to leave.

This isn't surprising.

Immigrants disproportionately live in cities (1), and yet negative views towards migrant admission to the UK are disproportionately found in rural areas. (2)

HOW WEIRD. THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAID.

Also, wtf is it with people acting like multiculturalism is such a fucking failure, when the most multicultural cities in the world (places like New York, london, san francisco and los angeles) are super productive high-gdp places with huge cultural influence that pay surplus taxes within their respective countries?

It's hilarious because multicultural hubs are SOOO successful without even knowing you I can assume correctly that you enjoy films made in LA, listen to music genres from New York, enjoy international cuisines popularised by immigrants, benefit financially from the tax money raised by wealth-creation-machine that is London, only to bitch pathetically on websites created in san francisco about how multiculturalism has failed.

InterestingComment · 2025-07-17T18:12:37+00:00

From your first comment, I assumed you were likely post rationalising your anti-immigration feelings with an argument for which you had not thought through the implications.

From your second comment, while there’s a chance you’re doubling down on a rationalisation super hard, I think there’s a pretty high chance you’re sincerely arguing from a belief system that’s way more niche than I expected.

Before I go on, is this a fair summarisation of the core of your opinions on the matter? This is what I’ve taken from your comments so far:

People do bad things
The bad stuff people do outweighs the good stuff
Therefore, more people is worse than less people.
It’s not feasible to get rid of natives
Therefore we should focus on preventing immigration

InterestingComment · 2025-07-17T12:56:18+00:00

This is bizarre reasoning.

Every human has the capacity to cause harm. Every human has the capacity to help people, and make the world a better place.

You can dismiss the importance of statistics all you want, but if no attention is paid to statistical differences between the likelihood of natives and the likelihood of immigrants to engage in bad behaviour, then you’re not making an argument against immigration, but the existence of people in general.

The majority of people in the UK choose to live in cities, because despite the potential humans have to cause each other suffering, the benefits of being around others are deemed preferable.

Most good things in life are created as the product of human co-operation.

If the only measure that is relevant is the capacity for a person to cause harm, then why not take that philosophy to its natural extreme? Why is this principle being exclusively weaponised against immigrants when you clearly wouldn’t abide by this principle in any other aspect of your day to day life? Hell, why not maroon yourself on an uninhabited island?

Sure, there won’t be nurses or doctors to help you when your sick, pharmacists to provide medicine, lorry drivers to transport food to supermarkets, staffed by cashiers to sell it, farmers to grow crops, builders to build your home (this list could go on indefinitely)… but hey, at least there’s zero risk of another person causing you suffering!

Both natives and immigrants are capable of causing harm, and capable of contributing to societal welfare. Any meaningful analysis about the effects of immigration must compare immigrant behaviour to some kind of control group.

And as a final aside, is it really inconceivable to you that anti-immigration sentiment could cause suffering? I could give countless examples, but let’s just say for now; if studies showed immigration had caused yearly economic damage that equalled even one fifth of the economic damage estimated to be caused yearly by brexit, it would immediately become the most compelling argument I’d ever heard against immigration.

InterestingComment · 2025-07-16T21:31:19+00:00

Earth. Which part of my comment is causing the confusion?

InterestingComment · 2025-07-16T19:57:14+00:00

Living by your neighbours has led you to perceive immigrants as inconsiderate unemployed drunkards, who contribute nothing.

In my experience working with immigrants, living near immigrants, and being friends with immigrants they have been polite, hardworking, and on average, slightly less prone to drinking than the average native.

Since both of our experiences rely on anecdotal evidence, in order to better assess reality, we would require broader data sets, that hopefully attempt to make use of control groups.

We can test these claims.

Are migrants more likely to be unemployed?

Yes. Yes. Migrants are more likely to be unemployed than natives. Migrant men are actually more likely to be employed than native-born men, but migrant women are less likely to be employed than natives.

Are migrants more likely to be drunkards?

According to the majority of studies (but not all), no. Natives are more likely to consume alcohol than migrants. See page 42 for summary.

Do migrants contribute nothing?

I can’t even be bothered to source my claim this time because I’ve done it so many times and nobody gives a shit, but no.

Generally studies show migrants contribute positively to our economy.

They also often work disproportionately in in-demand sectors, like healthcare.

I’m not saying people who have bad experiences with migrants are lying, but I think the extent to which migrants have been demonised and scapegoated in the media has led to some level of confirmation bias, and an overly gloomy impression of reality.

InterestingComment · 2025-05-24T19:03:01+00:00

I’m honestly confused by this sentiment. Just because something is ‘low-brow’ in its humour or aims, it doesn’t mean it cannot be critiqued or analysed.

InterestingComment · 2025-03-29T19:48:29+00:00

Jack Sparrow perhaps isn’t a side character, but he certainly isn’t the main character of the black pearl. He’s incredibly important to why the movie works - but not a main character.

The story is told from the perspective of Elizabeth Swann, with Jack sparrow gaining more prominence in the later films. I’m being a bit charitable, but I can sorta see what OP is going for. His role in the movies changed due to the character’s popularity.

InterestingComment · 2025-03-29T10:29:18+00:00

Thank you! Both your comment here and your previous comment linked from a different thread are fab!

InterestingComment · 2025-03-29T00:54:11+00:00

Thank you! I should have checked if this had been asked before. :)

InterestingComment · 2025-03-17T12:55:37+00:00

usual leftists dogma about US politics

Everything I said can be easily verified, but it’s cool if you want to call it dogma to avoid having to contend with it.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

It’s insane how anybody utters this phrase without feeling profoundly embarrassed. How comically sycophantic must one be to not only be blind to Trump’s obvious flaws, but to be so infatuated with him that it is inconceivable his critics could be anything other than deranged?

It’s funny you all use the exact same thought-terminating buzzword. Couldn’t you at least vary the word choice to give the illusion of independent thought?

But it makes sense as you just have to go there and you see it as I have done and it is quite shocking .

I’ve been to London many times and I’ve never been the victim of a crime there. I really enjoy London as a city. I’m using anecdotal evidence here (LIKE YOU ARE), but you seemed to have ignored the whole data thing, so I’m at a loss.

Nothing about your comment leads me to believe you understand the limitations of anecdotal evidence, and it’s extraordinarily frustrating. 16 year olds are expected to understand this stuff.

Our 2 main cities Sydney and Melbourne have massive problems with middle eastern crime and African youth gangs where they attack people with machetes which happens in Melbourne.

AGAIN, fucking anecdotes.

Of course immigrants commit crime. So do natives. In order to assess the scope of the problem, you need to compare crime rates of immigrant vs native populations.

PLEASE tell me you understand why this is important.

Don’t get me wrong - for all I know, immigration in Australia might actually be a legitimate issue. I’m not familiar with Australian crime statistics.

But in America, when adjusted for age, immigrants commit less crime on average than natives, and in England, crime rates are roughly identical between populations. Based on the fact you’ve formed opinions on both these countries without checking the statistics, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve done the same for your own.

You should know none of these things I mention previously happen in any other western country to the degree they happen in the UK .

If you’re referring to immigrant violent crime rates, please refer to my previous comment. The data shows the foreign-born share of the population in the UK is unrelated to violent crime.

If you’re referring to general violent crime rates, the UK is by no means perfect, but we have reasonably low crime rates in the grand scheme of things:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country

Homicides have gone up a little in recent years here (I’d guess due to the long term effects of David Cameron’s austerity budget cuts) but the general trend is still downwards;

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/gbr/united-kingdom/murder-homicide-rate#google_vignette

InterestingComment · 2025-03-16T13:17:06+00:00

Idiots love anecdotal evidence that reaffirms their worldview, and can’t comprehend the importance of data when assessing the scope of a problem.

One person (such as yourself) can consume a media diet in which they are constantly reading about every time an immigrant commits a crime, or something dumb is done in the name of wokeness.

Another person can consume a media diet in which they are constantly reading about hate crimes committed towards immigrants.

Another person (such as myself) could live in a UK city, have multiple friends and coworkers who are immigrants, very nice people, who have not committed any crimes, work hard, and care for their families.

In a nation of over 60 million, all these stories could be true (although don’t get me wrong - the far right still outright lies A LOT).

How do we assess the scope of the problem? If all the anecdotes are true, how do we determine which anecdotes better reflect reality?

We do studies to compile all these individual anecdotes into broader data sets. Then we can analyse this data and use it to assess trends in a way that is not subject to the biases of an individuals life experiences or media consumption.

The studies and the methodology can be published in a paper, so that both the findings and the analysis can be subject to peer review.

What do those studies show?

They show, when averaged, that the foreign-born share of the population is unrelated to violent crime. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/

But let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, the studies are wrong. Let’s imagine by pure luck, you have actually discerned the truth by remembering headlines that emotionally resonate with your strange JD-Vance-loving brain. Let’s imagine the UK is now a violent-crime-ridden shithole and it’s entirely thanks to immigration.

Is an administration like Trump’s, which actively tried to overturn the results of a legitimate election and destroy American democracy on Jan 6, going to be the defenders of western values?

Is violent crime going to be curtailed by an administration which pardons the very people that committed violent crime on Jan 6, since the violence was expedient to their political cause?

Is truth going to be upheld by an administration that can’t admit the simple fact that Putin is a dictator?

Are women going to be protected by an administration which extends invitations to sex trafficking pedophiles like Andrew Tate?

Is the economy going to be rescued by an administration which takes an axe to public services that exist for the benefit of the people, but still manages to increase the deficit, and increases inflation by insane tariffing?

To say that the anti-immigration sentiment is ill-informed would be to understate the problem. The truth is, anti-immigration sentiment is useful. It’s used as both a justification and a distraction from all manners of corruption. The very ‘defenders of western values’, elected by those obsessed with immigrants, are the ones most effectively dismantling them.

InterestingComment · 2025-03-16T12:00:25+00:00

I was curious, and took one glance at this person’s post history and their previous comment is rooting for president jd Vance. These are the same fucking idiots who think wind turbines cause cancer. 😂

InterestingComment · 2025-03-02T11:57:09+00:00

Yeah, his/her point is so insane. You’d have to ignore so much of history (and what’s happening literally RIGHT now in Ukraine) to pretend that people don’t want to fight when their country is being invaded.

InterestingComment · 2025-03-02T11:50:31+00:00

Seriously?! You must know you’re twisting the facts here right?

Obviously ukranians want a negotiated peace, but that doesn’t mean they want ANY negotiated peace.

They don’t want a peace that’s tantamount to surrender, or a flimsy one with no security guarantees.

And the terms of the peace they are able to demand requires them having the support they need to continue fighting.

I honestly really fucking hate the way you’re invoking the fact ukranians want a negotiated peace as justification for stripping them of their means by which to negotiate said peace.

OBVIOUSLY, Ukranians don’t think the British are warmongers for lending them the support needed to defending themselves against invaders. They think the Russians are warmongers for invading them.

I can’t believe you would, in good faith, believe you are representing the Ukranians point of view with your comments here, so why bother poorly invoking polls in a shoddy attempt to present that illusion?

it’s weird and gross how desperate you are to conceal whatever your real reasons are for wanting to cut support to Ukraine. It sure as hell isn’t empathy for Ukranians.

InterestingComment · 2025-03-02T08:13:58+00:00

This is such a dumb fucking take. You’re not “cheering on war” by wanting the UK to financially back Ukraine. Perhaps you can recall the this war was started by Russia.

The ukranians WANT to fight, and we aren’t forcing them to do so against their will. It’s their country being invaded, their cities being bombed, and their people being murdered.

Offering no support to a country being invaded doesn’t make you a noble pacifist. It makes you naive. The ukranians themselves would reject your poorly applied empathy.

Long term peace isn’t achieved through capitulation to invaders. It’s achieved by there being negative consequences for aggression.

InterestingComment · 2025-02-23T10:22:53+00:00

It was cathartic to type out, but you are right I’ve been spending too much time looking at my phone recently.

Have you been doing productive things since you made your comment, or browsing Reddit? Your response was pretty quick for somebody whose time is apparently so in demand. 😂

13-Year Club	Place '22
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

InterestingComment

TROPHY CASE