MovieChat Forums > ChoovieMatt > Replies
ChoovieMatt's Replies
I think it's left deliberately ambiguous, but given at the end Helen has become a similar supernatural entity, I'd err to accepting Candyman was/is real and committed the murders. Not too dissimilar to Freddy Krueger killing from another realm and the parents/police in that film thinking it was standard murder or suicide.
Exactly this.
Someone told me being vegetarian was 'woke' the other day.
"Kindness is a social capital, and it's not unlimited."
Coward's answer.
You're absolutely deluded if you think you're helping the situation with the things you post.
Starting threads about how 'disgusting' it is that there's a gay character in a film is not the action of a good person. You don't react to homophobic comments made by other posters preaching your 'good intentions' either, you just pour fuel on the fire.
You can continue to lie to yourself and others, but you know exactly what you're doing.
I forgot to include this observation previously:
"There is no impossibility, it's a scientific fact that majority of people who associate with the LGBTQIA+ community have been sexually abused as kids:"
So, according to your theory, most gay people were victims of abuse who will later go on to form substance abuse issues, live in shame, etc.
Please answer for me then, by you coming on here and calling them disgusting, saying they don't contribute etc., generally adding further abuse and shame to their psyche than that they have, according to *you*, already been victims of...
How are you any better than another abuser?
Yeah yeah everyone else is wrong but right-wing points of view etc... Heard it all before.
You're just regurgitating other people's work as fact, you cant verify it yourself because it's clear you've not mixed with anybody gay, so you have no credibility.
You say gay people 'contribute nothing', but maybe take a good long look in the mirror and ask what the hell it is you're doing.
It is pure confirmation bias - even the most cursory of internet searches brings up various counter studies.
"No one asks them that. They have to TELL them that. There is no such thing as someone being able to SEE your sexual orientation. People have to be INFORMED about it."
Again, you're further underlining the fact you've not been around any gay people.
"Catholic priests. Child groomers. Child predators. Childhood abuse. Relatives who are molesters, etc., etc., etc. Take your pick."
OK, so how many of the above must there be running around to 'indoctrinate' all gay people across the globe? Additionally, how about the children abused who DON'T turn out to be gay? Given that most abusers are men preying on girls you're suggesting ridiculous numbers of people are doing this. It doesn't add up.
"Not if the people lie about their childhood."
Yeah no. Gay folks are HUGELY vocal about their growing up experience because it's the first thing they're ever asked by strangers: "When did you realize?" Key word that - REALIZE.
All of this just compounds the fact that you've never even *spoken* with one of the people of whom you claim to be such an expert in the lives of, and no number of confirmation-bias studies you found online is going to compensate for that oversight.
Try again.
You talk overwhelming amounts of shit.
I doubt you've ever even met a gay person, let alone asked them about this.
There's not a single one I've ever encountered who has said they were 'influenced' into being gay, a theory which is further undone by the fact that most gay adults' childhoods will pre-date seeing ANY gay content on TV, so how were any of them indoctrinated?
Feel free to try your 'they were molested'/'recruited' comeback with all of its mathematical impossibilities. No recruitment drives (how would that even work?), no creepy older people seducing them. Stories of self-discovery are uniformal and consistent throughout the world.
Exactly.
Kukuxu said once before that 'woke' has a specific structured meaning and when asked - repeatedly - to provide a source to this mythical definition, he deflected. Every. Single. Time.
Seeing homosexual content where there isn't any and ranting about it is a textbook sign of repression.
But if we're going to wildly extrapolate, I guess we could also look at your username: First syllable CYG, not too far removed from CIG, as in Cigarette. British slang term for a cigarette is a fag.
See? Logical conclusions for all!
Agreed, I re-watched this recently and although the FX looked ropey in places, it's a much more thoughtful film than Armageddon.
I like the ensemble nature of Deep Impact and that it has more to say about the inevitability of our own deaths - although that probably explains why it didn't do as well at the box office.
Nor is bigotry but here you are.
If you think back a couple of years to when all this sparked, it did so because various conservative outlets started saying sexual predators would pretend they're women to access female bathrooms etc. Until then, trans folks just existed on the fringes.
The whole explosion of attention was driven by right wingers who shifted the crosshairs away from gays after DOMA was done with to another group they could drum up a hysteria of hatred towards. They completely played their own supporters into hating a group of people the supporters probably didn't even consciously consider up until that point.
Send out promo copies, stick up flyers, try to make it go viral on various platforms and *hope* that someone sees it, decides they've had their sexuality all wrong their entire life and makes the switch.
Your agenda is starting to show through the cracks.
Just own your prejudices and move on.
Uh-huh.
You've gone from your whole science-based approach about biology to a rant about politics. Tell me again you're not the unhinged one.
Why is it so difficult for you to read? Nowhere did I state I believed people were born gay.
Your eagerness to 'own' liberals seems to short out the rest of your cognitive functions, such as randomly bringing in Muslims and shooters to an entirely unrelated discussion - yet you have the gaul to say it's liberals who are unhinged.
Suggest you interview some giraffes and get their point of view on it rather than decide you know best.
Convenient that your reply only addressed a part of what I wrote also.
This question is outdated - is sex *only* for reproduction?
No. Plenty of people - and animals - enjoy recreational sex. Male giraffes have been observed to more commonly engage in 'recreational' sex with one another than female giraffes.
You talk about liberal agendas and the like, but the assertion that sex can only be about procreation as some sort of proof that biology doesn't throw in some curveballs now and then is conservative crap, otherwise there would be as much pushback against people who can't have children for other reasons, but seemingly as long as those people are heterosexual, right wingers conveniently forget this narrative.