Bryan singer accused of evil things


Movies

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Sissyl wrote:
Indeed. The Polanski case felt quite surreal. It was... Quite a while ago now, and the victim didn't want anything to do with it, as I understood it.

Well other than the actual trial being in the 70s shortly after the events and Polanksi fled to France before being sentences and has essentially lived in exile ever since.


Grey Lensman wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


Sorry for poor wording. A better version is "Sex with a significantly imbalanced power dynamic runs the risk of being rape. Using this power dynamic to coerce someone into sex or using this power dynamic to create false pretenses that necessitate sex is definitely rape." Thus the line "I'm a doctor" is edging into uncomfortable territory. Whereas "I'm an immigration officer" to convince and illegal alien is rape regardless of whether or not you are an immigration officer.

But this is a movie producer, not an immigration officer. Not "paying" him with a movie role is breech of contract, not rape.

He would effectively be the employer in the power dynamic. That's enough to count as rape if the allegations prove to be true.

No. It isn't. Offering a job for sex is not rape if one doesn't follow through on the job offer. Even threatening to fire someone if they don't have sex is not rape. It may be in violation of sexual harassment law, which carries civil, not criminal penalties.

It IS rape because the young man was under the age of consent. He was legally unable to consent to any sexual activity.

Liberty's Edge

I thought this thread was going to be about the singer Luke Bryant and cds played backwards. . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There seems to be a fair amount of contradictory information floating about. The link offered above says the plaintiff was 17 when he met Singer, which I think would make him of legal age for sex in Hawaii, where that abuse was alleged to have taken place. Others say he was 15.

The issue of drugs, alcohol, and violence are troubling, but I think there are other factors at work here that also concern me. Someone like Singer, being openly gay, is particularly vulnerable to allegations like this. There are some fairly hedonistic gay subcultures within the US that have older gay teens willingly participating (as they pretty much always have) but where their willing participation is, by modern definition, abusive. If this lawsuit gains traction, participating in those subcultures, even infrequently, could have gotten even more dangerous. This whole case could even fuel more smears against gay men as predators.


Why should everybody be shocked or surprised?
Not the first time things like this comes out of Hollywood.
The term "casting couch" is not created for nothing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
There seems to be a fair amount of contradictory information floating about. The link offered above says the plaintiff was 17 when he met Singer, which I think would make him of legal age for sex in Hawaii, where that abuse was alleged to have taken place. Others say he was 15.

The same link also alleges abuse in California. The first quote took place at the M&C Estate, which is in Encino. Under California law 17 was not legal age, at least with an older person.

Quote:
The issue of drugs, alcohol, and violence are troubling, but I think there are other factors at work here that also concern me. Someone like Singer, being openly gay, is particularly vulnerable to allegations like this. There are some fairly hedonistic gay subcultures within the US that have older gay teens willingly participating (as they pretty much always have) but where their willing participation is, by modern definition, abusive. If this lawsuit gains traction, participating in those subcultures, even infrequently, could have gotten even more dangerous. This whole case could even fuel more smears against gay men as predators.

There are also plenty of subcultures in the US where straight female teens willingly participate in sex with men in their 20s or 30s. In many cases those teens are legally underage or at least underage for adults.

I get the problem with gay men being viewed as predators. OTOH, maybe a culture of sex parties with underage teens and older men isn't something we want to encourage. Whether it's gay or straight.


Abyssal Lord wrote:

Why should everybody be shocked or surprised?

Not the first time things like this comes out of Hollywood.
The term "casting couch" is not created for nothing.

Who's shocked or surprised? That it happens and we know it happens, doesn't mean it's OK.

Though in this case it is alleged to be actual rape, not a casting couch agreement. And the California part was apparently statutory as well. That makes it a bigger deal than "X director had sex with Y actor to get a part."


Grey Lensman wrote:


He would effectively be the employer in the power dynamic. That's enough to count as rape if the allegations prove to be true.

Sexual harassment possibly, but that's not rape here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is also worth noting that if every single sexual-related crime and questionable action is titled rape, you kind of wash out the moral value of the word. The outrage potential is going to fall pretty drastically.


thejeff wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:

Why should everybody be shocked or surprised?

Not the first time things like this comes out of Hollywood.
The term "casting couch" is not created for nothing.

Who's shocked or surprised? That it happens and we know it happens, doesn't mean it's OK.

Though in this case it is alleged to be actual rape, not a casting couch agreement. And the California part was apparently statutory as well. That makes it a bigger deal than "X director had sex with Y actor to get a part."

More proof for those that called Hollywood the "Cemetery of Virtue".

In any case, it will only add fuel to the fire for Bible thumpers that all gays are pedophiles and sexual predators.

Whether we like it or not, what we do cast a reflection over everybody else...

Liberty's Edge

And it gets bigger here.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Singer Complaint wrote:

Soon after Plaintiff was introduced to Collins-Rector and Chad, he was often told by them in a bullying manner that they had “gaydar” and knew that Plaintiff was homosexual, a characterization which Plaintiff, who is heterosexual, categorically denied. He was told that he was part of the "group", referring to the numerous young males who were lured to the M & C Estate for the purpose of sexual contact with the adult males who visited the M & C Estate ostensibly for recreational and business purposes.

He was advised that those adult males controlled Hollywood and would destroy his hopes and dreams of an acting career if he did not keep them happy. They threatened to "eliminate" him and his family, and told him that they were monitoring not only his phone, but those of his family members, and asserted he would be "destroyed" if he ever disclosed the unconscionable activities that occurred at the Estate.

If the part I bolded is true, it would qualify as a threat of force.

Sovereign Court

this teenager looks older than Bryan Singer... life's been tough I guess....


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
this teenager looks older than Bryan Singer... life's been tough I guess....

He was a teenager back in 1999, when the events supposedly took place.

Sovereign Court

Shadowborn wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
this teenager looks older than Bryan Singer... life's been tough I guess....
He was a teenager back in 1999, when the events supposedly took place.

yeah but Bryan Singer looks like a teen NOW


I've got nothing to say about this case because it appears to be as clear as mud.

That being said, am I the only one who is disgusted that Singer keeps getting referred to as the director of the X-Men movies?

Vive le Keyser Soze!


meatrace wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.

The reason the lawsuit was filed in Hawaii was because the act alleged took place in Hawaii.

Since this wasn't filed in criminal court AFAIK this is probably just an attempt to extort money or get media attention.

Actually people don't get to decide when a criminal case will be brought. It is up to the government/police/DA/city attorney to bring a criminal action against a defendant. This might not happen for any number of reasons especially if the accused are influential people as in this case.

Further criminal standards in the U.S. are greatly different from civil standards. It is much easier to bring a civil case than prove a criminal one.


Abyssal Lord wrote:


More proof for those that called Hollywood the "Cemetery of Virtue".
In any case, it will only add fuel to the fire for Bible thumpers that all gays are pedophiles and sexual predators.

Whether we like it or not, what we do cast a reflection over everybody else...

Ah geez, and we know of course, just know, that gays are never pedophiles or sexual predators.

So tell me: If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, is it a duck? If not, exactly what is a duck?

Personally if I were a prosecutor, and somehow a case came to me where a gay man had sex with an underage male, I'd have no trouble prosecuting him, just the same as a case with a 22 year old man, and a 16 year old girl.

Or is it that if this particular case, regardless of the merits of it, goes against your own parochial interests then it is "fuel to the fire for Bible thumpers?"

I personally have no feelings about homosexuality one way or the other. To be honest if Brian Singer hadn't been involved with the X-Men film, I wouldn't have bothered reading about this case.

But while I do not particularly care about homosexuality, to the extent that I would never be involved in a measure you would oppose, neither would I do anything against such a hypothetical measure.

And to be blunt, if homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait, the fact that gays are no longer forced to "conform" in Western society is pretty effectively going to remove them from the gene pool in a few generations. Unless you are going to invoke the argument that it enhances the prospects of close relatives. If you do some reading that one is on pretty shaky mathematical ground.

Now I don't care about homosexuality, other than a lot of them are organized into yet another interest group, one that curiously a number of "straight" people have acquired some notion of cachet in supporting.

But I do care about the idea that someone forcibly rapes someone. If this had been a straight male doing the same thing to a female, I'd wager you'd be all over that without the slightest misgiving.

That casting couch has existed for the whole history of Hollywood.

And if you want to be particular about homosexuality, the casting couch has existed for that in Hollywood for a long, long time as well. I was just trying to google something about John Travolta, something about him telling one of his "guys" that in the early years he did "things that would turn your stomach" when he was getting started in Showbiz.

I'm quite sure you can find all kinds of other historical venues that this sort of thing went on in. Using influence to acquire sex, or abuse people, well that is pretty par for the course.

Now I don't know you. And since we aren't going to have a long dialogue that doesn't matter. But I have no patience with someone who doesn't take a dispassionate God's Eye view of things, one who views things solely through the lens of his own self interest (a valid philosophical viewpoint if you roll that way), but hypocritically rationalizes it by being blissfully ignorant of both current and past events, and the logical implications of such things.

So in essence, move along here. Nothing to see. Just another potential crime that has to be investigated on the merits of the case. And if so, a suitable penalty enacted. Though I wouldn't hold my breath on that, it is pretty hard to get a conviction in this country of someone with money, and even harder for some reason, of a figure in the entertainment industry.

So rest easy. Unless the powers that be are suddenly in need of a court case to run 24/7 on the prurience channels, and they think the story has legs, I doubt it ever goes to trial.

Cause that is how America rolls.


sunbeam wrote:
So tell me: (1) If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, is it a duck? (2) If not, exactly what is a duck?

By this rubric, geese are ducks, but Muscovy ducks aren't ducks. Not a real good measure there.

(2) I can only assume this is rhetorical, and you won't accept factual answers involving genetics?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
So tell me: (1) If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, is it a duck? (2) If not, exactly what is a duck?

By this rubric, geese are ducks, but Muscovy ducks aren't ducks. Not a real good measure there.

(2) I can only assume this is rhetorical, and you won't accept factual answers involving genetics?

Well no cleverness in that quip. But please enlighten me about the genetics of ducks.

The "quack like a duck" line is a pretty well known rhetorical device. I'm not sure what to say besides that.

"The duck test is a humorous term for a form of inductive reasoning. This is its usual expression:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics. It is sometimes used to counter abstruse arguments that something is not what it appears to be."

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunbeam wrote:
Abyssal Lord wrote:


More proof for those that called Hollywood the "Cemetery of Virtue".
In any case, it will only add fuel to the fire for Bible thumpers that all gays are pedophiles and sexual predators.

Whether we like it or not, what we do cast a reflection over everybody else...

Ah geez, and we know of course, just know, that gays are never pedophiles or sexual predators.

So tell me: If something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, is it a duck? If not, exactly what is a duck?

Personally if I were a prosecutor, and somehow a case came to me where a gay man had sex with an underage male, I'd have no trouble prosecuting him, just the same as a case with a 22 year old man, and a 16 year old girl.

And you would be right to do so.

And of course there are gays who are pedophiles or sexual predators.

Nor did the poster you're replying to suggest otherwise for either statement.

However this case, being in the public eye will likely reinforce the common stereotype that all gays are pedophiles and sexual predators in a way that a similar case involving a female victim would not add to a stereotype of all heterosexuals as pedophiles and sexual predators. Abyssal Lord was lamenting that fact.

As an aside: This case, assuming the facts as alleged, would cast Singer as a sexual predator, but not as a pedophile. While the victim was a minor (for at least one offense and in one jurisdiction) he was old enough that it was not a matter of Singer being sexually attracted to a child. Psychologically speaking at least, pedophilia does not apply.


Sunbeam wrote:
And to be blunt, if homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait, the fact that gays are no longer forced to "conform" in Western society is pretty effectively going to remove them from the gene pool in a few generations. Unless you are going to invoke the argument that it enhances the prospects of close relatives. If you do some reading that one is on pretty shaky mathematical ground.

1) Its possible its not genetic, its something that happens in the womb/very early development.

2))Even IF homosexuality is genetic it might be more complicated than 2 genes. [even more hypothetical than usual]Lets say that its 10 genes, 10 being completely strait, 1 being 10 being completely homosexual. 10 could make you SO MANLY that you have trouble relating to women and decrease your chances of finding a mate, so its worth it to have a few copies of the genes around, even if it does occasionally wind up being too much of a good thing that drops the reproductive rate[/even more hypothetical than usual]

3) Even IF its binary, then there are recessive genes far worse for your chances of reproduction than homosexuality that have been with the human species for millennia.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sunbeam wrote:
And to be blunt, if homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait, the fact that gays are no longer forced to "conform" in Western society is pretty effectively going to remove them from the gene pool in a few generations. Unless you are going to invoke the argument that it enhances the prospects of close relatives. If you do some reading that one is on pretty shaky mathematical ground.

1) Its possible its not genetic, its something that happens in the womb/very early development.

2))Even IF homosexuality is genetic it might be more complicated than 2 genes.

3) Even IF its binary, then there are recessive genes far worse for your chances of reproduction than homosexuality that have been with the human species for millennia.

Though he's right to a certain extent. The prejudice against homosexuality certainly contributed to homosexuals marrying and breeding despite their preference. With the prejudice gone, it's reasonable to assume that will happen less often.

OTOH, not desiring heterosexual sex doesn't mean people don't want kids and many do arrange to have them, whether through traditional or artificial means.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


1) Its possible its not genetic, its something that happens in the womb/very early development.

2))Even IF homosexuality is genetic it might be more complicated than 2 genes. [even more hypothetical than usual]Lets say that its 10 genes, 10 being completely strait, 1 being 10 being completely homosexual. 10 could make you SO MANLY that you have trouble relating to women and decrease your chances of finding a mate, so its worth it to have a few copies of the genes around, even if it does occasionally wind up being too much of a good thing that drops the reproductive rate[/even more hypothetical than usual]

3) Even IF its binary, then there are recessive genes far worse for your chances of reproduction than homosexuality that have been with the human species for millennia.

I kind of think your #2 is more along the path of what will actually be discovered about this. I suspect it is pretty complicated, when all is said and done in about 40 years when they figure it out and finish arguing about it.

Look, homosexuality is something that has been around for a long time, in a myriad of cultures around the world.

As a simplistic argument, if there were a particular gene that made you homosexual, it would disappear as a matter of course. If a gene decreases your reproductive fitness, then odds are it is going to disappear in a hurry, relatively speaking. And strictly for the purpose of passing your genes along directly, I don't see how it can be argued it is detrimental to reproductive fitness. Remember we are only a way for genes to make more genes. And the case of lesbians is particularly baffling in this context.

But it has been around for a while, and all over the world. It seems to me that it is totally a lifestyle choice/cultural conditioning, something that happens for some reason in the womb, or through some environmental factor (aside from other people) or...

That it serves some purpose that hasn't been discovered yet. Two genes for sickle cell is pretty bad, one copy and you are better off in an environment where malaria applies. I think this is the most probable explanation, but from what I've read of the close relative argument, it doesn't make a lot of sense.


Of course, even "something that happens for some reason in the womb" is a biological cause that can be selected against. Or for.


thejeff wrote:


OTOH, not desiring heterosexual sex doesn't mean people don't want kids and many do arrange to have them, whether through traditional or artificial means.

That is certainly true, but the numbers of people that consciously try to do this is dwarfed by the numbers of people to whom births "just happen."

If our race had depended on people rationally deciding to have kids, well we wouldn't be here now.

Sorry I don't know how to link a clip at a certain point, and you probably already have seen it.

But Clevon at 1:09 in this clip is the embodiment of the main mode of reproduction that has been practiced by the human race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8


sunbeam wrote:
The "quack like a duck" line is a pretty well known rhetorical device.

Not only well-known, but beaten into the ground, because every social conservative in the world has an irresistable need to quote it at the slightest provocation.

However, as I pointed out, it makes erroneous predictions, both false-positive and false-negative. The implication, of course, is that other similarly overly-simplistic "rules" have the same problem.

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
sunbeam wrote:
The "quack like a duck" line is a pretty well known rhetorical device.

Not only well-known, but beaten into the ground, because every social coservative in the world has an irresistable need to quote it at the slightest provocation.

However, as I pointed out, it makes erroneous predictions, both false-positive and false-negative. The implication, of course, is that other similarly overly-simplistic "rules" have the same problem.

Yeah, but Kirth - if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...aww, forget it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does it need batteries?


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Not only well-known, but beaten into the ground, because every social coservative in the world has an irresistable need to quote it at the slightest provocation.

However, as I pointed out, it makes erroneous predictions, both false-positive and false-negative. The implication, of course, is that other similarly overly-simplistic "rules" have the same problem.

You know I have my own special ideology. One that enables me to look, with the same contempt you have for social conservatives, on liberals, libertarians, monarchists, free market fundamentalists, and well social conservatives. And there are lots more groups I have contempt for.

Now as regards what you specifically said.

Hmmm I have a simple rule of thumb: "If you buy a powerball ticket, you aren't going to win. Christ, if you buy a thousand of them, you still aren't going to win. It is a waste of money, and a hidden regressive tax, though voluntary."

Now someone wins the Powerball lottery on a regular basis. Does my rule of thumb lack all validity because it is simplistic, and is not true 100% of the time, regardless of whether is is true 99.99999% of the time?


sunbeam wrote:
Now someone wins the Powerball lottery on a regular basis. Does my rule of thumb lack all validity?

Answer: Not Enough Information. Do we know that Powerball isn't rigged? Do we know that the winners are for real, and really get their stuff?

Also, there's a point at which a chance is statistically indistinguishable from zero. With ducks, I'm sitting here busting out counterexamples off the top of my head, so "close to zero" isn't coming into play, and in fact it does pretty much lack validity. And with sexual behavior (back on topic), I've personally seen enough variance that I can think of no rule of thumb that neatly captures it and ties a nice little bow.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Answer: Not Enough Information. Do we know that Powerball isn't rigged? Do we know that the winners are for real, and really get their stuff?

Well there we go. I am now convinced that I do not know for a fact that ANYONE ever wins the lottery. For all I know personally they totally make up stories about someone winning them, the powerball commission and state governments pocket all the money and always have.

But how do I know Zanzibar actually exists? I have never been there, and don't know anyone from there. And if someone claimed to be from there, well they might be lying.

How do I know the world is round? I haven't gotten out my stick and measured shadows and directions at different times of day. Plus I'd have to doublecheck the math from ground zero, you know in case someone was pulling a fast one in the books.

I'm pretty sure that I believe the addition and subtraction rules, I've verified it with collections of rocks. Obviously a limited number, but I'm pretty confident it keeps on working, and isn't a false positive. But you never know, maybe if you go past 1001 rocks, things blow up.

In short if I take your statement at face value, there isn't a single thing we can argue about, because none of us know anything, or can be sure of what we know.

Dark Archive

sunbeam wrote:

Well there we go. I am now convinced that I do not know for a fact that ANYONE ever wins the lottery. For all I know personally they totally make up stories about someone winning them, the powerball commission and state governments pocket all the money and always have.

But how do I know Zanzibar actually exists? I have never been there, and don't know anyone from there. And if someone claimed to be from there, well they might be lying.

I own and have seen the movie The Road to Zanzibar: Staring Bing Crosby and Bob Hope...or was it Bob Hope and Bing Crosby?

I have seen this movie, and thus, thusly Zanzibar it exists! Even if it's a fictional Zanzibar on a Paramount set made for the movie then there still is a Zanzibar - thusly!


It comes to down to evidence.

I have plenty of evidence of the existence of Zanzibar, and for a spheroid planet. I have evidence of ducks that don't quack, and geese that do.

I personally have no evidence regarding lotto rigging, one way or the other.

I have a great deal of counterevidence indicating that gay =/= predatory any more than straight = predatory, but a lot of evidence that many people nevertheless assume that all gay men are sexual predators who target underage victims to "convert" them.

Finally, as an addendum, odds matter. 1 in a bajillion is different from 4 in 5, and they're both different from 100 in 100.


Sunbeam wrote:
As a simplistic argument, if there were a particular gene that made you homosexual, it would disappear as a matter of course.

There are a few reasons this isn't true. It could certainly decline but it won't be disappearing

This would take a very, VERY long time if its recessive. A recesive carrier of a lethal gene can reproduce with virtually no hindrance to their reproductive fitness if their descendants avoid inbreeding, keeping the gene in the population.

You can also have new mutations arising: genetics aren't locked after all, and mutations do happen.


Possibly neither genetic, nor "learned," so waiting for a "gay gene" to disappear is probably pointless, as is assuming homosexuals are "recruited" or whatever.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sunbeam wrote:
As a simplistic argument, if there were a particular gene that made you homosexual, it would disappear as a matter of course.

There are a few reasons this isn't true. It could certainly decline but it won't be disappearing

This would take a very, VERY long time if its recessive. A recesive carrier of a lethal gene can reproduce with virtually no hindrance to their reproductive fitness if their descendants avoid inbreeding, keeping the gene in the population.

You can also have new mutations arising: genetics aren't locked after all, and mutations do happen.

I agree with most of what you have written. However explain why homosexuality has been observed worldwide, in many different culture. I might add it is observable in mammals besides humans as well.

I kind of disagree with something else. I have seen genetics arguments of the likelihood of a single beneficial gene spreading through a population, and the odds aren't that good. Evolution happens, so don't think I am saying that. It's just that if you do a back of the envelope calculation (and our understanding of genetics is good enough to perform this simple task), probably most beneficial mutations have not survived to propagate through a population.

The odds are worse for a deleterous mutation. That is actively selected against, for want of a better way to put it.

And at least some lethal genes have some benefit, like sickle cell and malaria. I think I remember reading once that one of the oddball genetic diseases found in Jews gave a carrier of one gene a resistance to TB, which was a big deal for a long time in Europe (most urban populations were constantly in the process of being replenished by rural immigrants, due to the unhealthy living conditions of European cities up till... heck plumbing I guess.

If you are a biologist or something similar, I'll take your word for it. I've done a bit of reading in this field because I find it interesting, but it wouldn't take much to go past my knowledge. But I'm pretty sure the odds of a particular gene spreading through a population are pretty low when a mutation happens, and they are worse for a strictly bad gene.

Edit: Just wanted to add something. Avoiding inbreeding, well most cultures have taboos against immediate family, though some have cousin marriages out the wazoo. But historically most populations... well if you wanted to avoid marrying someone who had totally different great-great-great grandparents than you, well it was going to be hard in a small English village.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Possibly neither genetic, nor "learned," so waiting for a "gay gene" to disappear is probably pointless, as is assuming homosexuals are "recruited" or whatever.

There's also probably more than one way to get a hairless cat.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Possibly neither genetic, nor "learned," so waiting for a "gay gene" to disappear is probably pointless, as is assuming homosexuals are "recruited" or whatever.

Fascinating. Should post it in the other thread as this one is more about Singer.

I would be interested in how that relates to someone who is trans however...and if there is a correlation between finger lengths.

Scarab Sages

Freddie Mercury was born in Zanzibar! Whoa...


Didn't racists use to argue that blacks and asians and such were genetically different from us good ole normal white folk?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Didn't racists use to argue that blacks and asians and such were genetically different from us good ole normal white folk?

Yes.

I'm pretty sure they ate pizza too. I'm not going to stop everything some bad person somewhere has done.

There are genetics for skin color (which are rather well known)

Its not noticing these things that makes someone a racist, its that thinking it makes you better that makes someone a racist. I mean its really hard to lord my vitamin D production abilities over someone...


Actually, thinking you are better makes you a chauvinist. It is thinking they are worse that makes you racist.

51 to 93 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Bryan singer accused of evil things All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Movies
Dune - Part 2