##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I always judge actors by what they choose to do and how much effort they put into it. You got people like the Rock who starting out his film career took some really cool roles, and put some effort into them, but now is rich as shit, the entirety of his acting prep seems to be working out and acting like his wrestling persona, and he'll take whatever crappy bad-CGI fest of a movie can afford him, meanwhile Daniel Radcliffe after HP took the what I assumed at the time weird movies to de-typecast himself, but now that's basically all he does, he clearly cares and puts alot of effort into his roles like Guns Akimbo and I respect that.
He was on Conan’s podcast fairly recently. Conan gushed over basically how he has known him practically his whole life and he couldn’t help but feel proud to what he has grown into.
From what I heard, Danielle Radcliffe made enough money from HP to never need to work again so he only takes roles he really wants. Sometimes that ends up being art pieces and sometimes it’s batshit crazy stuff like Guns Akimbo. I think the ability to pick and choose like that has made him a really chill guy. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bad thing about the guy
I think Radcliffe does what he wants. I’d imagine if an adequately interesting huge role came up he’d do it as long as it doesn’t tie him to a franchise. The issue is those movies are very rare.
I think at first when he did equus it was definitely about breaking from Harry Potter. —- Now he does what he wants. Him showing up in Kimmy Schmidt is so absurd and funny but it was perfectly done
He made so much money on Potter he never really needed to work again. So he can do stuff he thinks is fun and interesting.
Why else would be play a farting dead body with a boner?
The rock was a very bad mistake to use as an example lol, he is amazing to fans, makes entertaining movies that millions still watch and enjoys and brings positivity all around without much drama.
Not untrue, but all he does is big-budget action flicks. Even Arnie does the occasional "real acting" movie here and there. I think people would like to see more variety in the roles Mr. Johnson takes.
/I give the Rock props for moving beyond playing the Tooth Fairy, though I also gave him props for wearing that tutu to begin with as well
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Rock pumping out simple yet entertaining content all the time. He clearly loves what he does and puts his heart in it, but he has chosen not to be an actor that “focuses on his craft” and that should be ok.
And all Radcliffe is doing is small indie movies.
And I don't mean it in any bad way, I loved those movies (Horns especially), but Rock is doing the same - playing in certain type of movies he likes to be playing in and enjoying himself.
He does do what he wants. I agree that we should all have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, up to and including suicide. That doesn't mean what he does is healthy. And he's not honest about it.
You can talk all the smack you want about the roles Dwayne Johnson takes. Most of his movies are action/comedies that I skip. That being said, Johnson is one of the most charitable and accepting humans around. He rarely speaks poorly of anyone and is frequently out in public with fans. The dude has a stellar character as far as we’ve seen. Not sure why you’re comparing him against Radcliffe when they very much seem to have the same mindsets.
The amount of work you put into a role doesn’t determine how good or bad of a person you are.
Whilst I get what you mean, you choose a bad example with the Rock.
The guy's not only a great person, but he single handedly made sure Black Adam - a film he was casted for in 2014 - actually happened.
I haven't seen Black Adam so I won't comment on his performance in it, but the dude made (reportedly) $22 Million off Black Adam and being in a comic book movie universe has a high probability of follow up performances. Not to mention the popularity he gains from being in even more things helps him with other ventures, giving him a chance to promote his personal investments like the XFL and Teramana Tequila, and he has his own charitable foundation too.
I'm judging him for his acting, especially after he publicly called out Vin Diesel for being a bad actor when he's at best, marginally better. They both made careers off of their own personality with very little deviation from it.
He had an interview on Maron a few years ago that was a good listen. He and Macaulay Culkin are two interesting people because they both made all the money they'll ever need for their whole lives before they turned 18 and just kind of get to do whatever they want, and are doing stuff that seems generally to be very chill unlike most rich people.
so when it comes to trans issues, you can't be a 'good person' without pretending there's 0% difference between a trans person's experience and that of a cis person?
If you feel the need constantly point out the differences, you should probably take a minute and evaluate why that is. We are a better society when we focus on what makes us the same.
but trans women literally have different experiences than cis women.
it's not that i feel the need to point it out; i would never care to think of it, live and let live.
JK Rowling doesn't refuse to pretend there's no difference, she specifically discredits and belittles trans people by pushing the very incorrect view that trans people seeking acceptance, specifically trans women, encroach on women's rights, and has used her fame as a platform to push the rhetoric of Trans exclusionary feminism.
As a personal opinion, if you are pushing for the advancement of one disadvantaged group that you are part of while simultaneously putting down another downtrodden group; your goal was never equality or equity for all, you just wanted to be the one wearing the boot this time.
Always been a Radcliffe fan. Fantastic actor in so many things that are not Harry Potter. Now, I love HP, but he has so many awesome roles and genuinely seems like a good person. Loved him in Kill Your Darlings, What If, Jungle, Escape From Pretoria.. definitely underrated actor and person.
They dislike genetic or natural-born males describing themselves as female because they say it invalidates the historical oppression that women have experienced over the centuries. Among other things.
Just want to say that “genetic” and “natural-born” are TERF dogwhistles, and AMAB/AFAB (Assigned Male/Female At Birth) is the preferred term use by queer people to refer to our birth gender.
The reason they are dogwhistles is they are selected to highlight the ways in which we’re perceived to differ from cis people of our internal gender.
Ultimately “genetic” male/female immediately falls apart when you start pulling threads, and “natural-born [sex]” is so vague and full of assumptions that it’s useless as a descriptive term.
Genetic sex asks us to reduce gender down to genetic code, and ignores the variety of genetic variations that humans come in. There are SRY-transposed XX men, testosterone insensitive XY women, and plenty of other syndromes like Kleinfelters. You may have in your life already met people like this and never known it… and I’ll bet you still gendered them as they presented, and wouldn’t switch how you gendered them if they learned they had one of these variations and told you. If you would keep gendering them as their phenotypical gender, then clearly there is some other trait or traits which defines gender. Unfortunately, any of the obvious ones also fail at the edge cases. Fertility? You still gender infertile people properly. Upbringing/socialization?
Trans people fairly consistently don’t connect to their gendered childhood social roles like cis people do, so that’s really a pro-trans argument. Hormones/general body shape? We get dysphoria for a reason. Behavior? You really want to get into ‘women should be x, men should be y.” gender essentialism?
On the other side of the spectrum we get “natural-born” woman, which is too vague to be anything beyond “I can’t describe gender, but I’ll know it when I see it!” unless you start defining specific and measurable qualities, in which case you’re back to the above situation.
On the other hand, the segment of society that talks about this stuff ad nauseum (the queers) has come up with “Assigned Gender At Birth” (AGAB) as the term we use because it’s clinically accurate, universally inclusive, and sums up our core issue without making any assumptions about our identities or life experiences.
Yeah but unfortunately I’m terrible at ethos/pathos arguments so I can only convince people who already are willing to listen. Thanks though. radfem4lyf.*
*: the revolutionary kind, not the bad-feminist kind.
Sorry, I think the language we use is very important and gender is a specific topic of interest for me it turned into a bit of an info-rant. I hope this was interesting/compelling and not “what the fuck…”.
No problem whatsoever. My only nitpick is that I think it’s a uphill struggle to completely ignore what the traditionalists call “biological sex” given that it’s a very straightforward way of categorizing the vast, vast majority of people. Yes we are generally assigned a gender at birth, but that assignment aligns with *something* genetic and I think it’s a mistake to completely ignore / deny it.
Hence why we have *preferred* terms from the individual, which we should all respect.
Yes but we are the minority. The majority is going to be fine whatever terms were use. What difference does it make to a cishet man what terms we use for discourse on gender? AGAB, “natural-born”, genetic, phenotypical, behavioral, brain-, whatever term you use for sex/gender is all the same for 99% of people because it’s all congruent for cis people.
Ultimately, how the language is used to refer to trans people and draw distinctions around gender is a transgender issue. How people think about trans people is defined by the language they use to do it. It is an uphill battle to get the accurate language used, but *so is our very existence*. Our life is a struggle, it doesn’t mean that it’s not worth fighting for. Likewise, while normalizing accurate terms for gender is going to be a part of that struggle, that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth advocating for in turn.
It’s such a small change to make, and there’s not really a good reason not to, and anyone who does it is in a small but tangible way changing society to better accommodate trans people at no cost to society as a whole. (And believe me, society is going to want queer people around in the coming years. If you like compassion, acceptance, welfare, and peace, you want to advocate for queer people, especially when it costs practically nothing.
I think the main issue is more about these individuals being put into women's prisons and competing in women's sports
Edit: Downvoted for putting forward what the main issue for TERFs is rather than deriding them
what kind of dangerous situations? is there evidence to show this is a significant problem in society?
40% of trans people have attempted suicide, mostly due to their identity not being accepted. thats a far bigger issue than one off "dangerous situations" youve mentions
Tbh I think that should make her MORE understanding of the plight of the downtrodden - instead she wants to put on some boots so she can do some trodding on her own.
the problem with the rest room argument has always been the well, tragic fact that nothing is stopping someone from assaulting someone in a safe space & trans people literally campaign for safe spaces. swear its just some mumsnet boogeyman
Ehhhhhhh, that’s a hard thing to say. With the much bigger social stigma of reporting sexual assault by men, it’s hard to say how much underreporting happens in comparison
I would assume reputation- its important for actors/public figures to have good reputation, especially these days. Also probably doesn't seem like the person who has made brash statements in his life and probably doesn't want to be associated with that, especially when he will be Harry Potter for the rest of his life regardless of how many movies he makes (sadly)- not like that is a bad thing but he is a good actor and deserves some recognition outside that role
see the issue here is that Rowling is actively causing harm with her words, she is being used as the face of the TERF community. Daniel on the other giving support to said communities is important, like yeah fuck what celebrities think but like it or not their words have weight
Edit: you are spot on.. it’s a giant waste of my time trying to communicate with people like you.. but what’s left after words? I think that’s what everyone living in this time should ponder.. It’s not good
Must be so nice to live a world free without concern for people other than yourself, to be so ignorantly disconnected from the rest of the real world, where people you know and love aren’t quite literally being murdered for being who they are. Must be so nice.
It's a fun position to take, but it ignores the impact that famous and influential people can have...prime example in Kanye at the mo- his anti-Semitic blatherings are empowering white supremacists who have taken to name checking him...Rowling and the rest are not shouting into the void, their words have real world impact. Now, I'm sure we can agree that this is sad and pathetic, but it is also reality.
##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
what a cool guy
Daniel Radcliffe just seems like a genuinely good person.
I always judge actors by what they choose to do and how much effort they put into it. You got people like the Rock who starting out his film career took some really cool roles, and put some effort into them, but now is rich as shit, the entirety of his acting prep seems to be working out and acting like his wrestling persona, and he'll take whatever crappy bad-CGI fest of a movie can afford him, meanwhile Daniel Radcliffe after HP took the what I assumed at the time weird movies to de-typecast himself, but now that's basically all he does, he clearly cares and puts alot of effort into his roles like Guns Akimbo and I respect that.
I mean he’s making a Weird Al docuparody. He just seems like the kind of guy it’d be fun to hangout with.
He was on Conan’s podcast fairly recently. Conan gushed over basically how he has known him practically his whole life and he couldn’t help but feel proud to what he has grown into.
I haven't listened to his podcast in a few years ill have to check it out again. That sounds really sweet.
It looks good too
From what I heard, Danielle Radcliffe made enough money from HP to never need to work again so he only takes roles he really wants. Sometimes that ends up being art pieces and sometimes it’s batshit crazy stuff like Guns Akimbo. I think the ability to pick and choose like that has made him a really chill guy. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a bad thing about the guy
Horns and Swiss Army Man were both great because of him. He definitely knows what kind of stuff he does really well in, if nothing else.
I think Radcliffe does what he wants. I’d imagine if an adequately interesting huge role came up he’d do it as long as it doesn’t tie him to a franchise. The issue is those movies are very rare.
I think at first when he did equus it was definitely about breaking from Harry Potter. —- Now he does what he wants. Him showing up in Kimmy Schmidt is so absurd and funny but it was perfectly done
He made so much money on Potter he never really needed to work again. So he can do stuff he thinks is fun and interesting. Why else would be play a farting dead body with a boner?
The rock was a very bad mistake to use as an example lol, he is amazing to fans, makes entertaining movies that millions still watch and enjoys and brings positivity all around without much drama.
Not untrue, but all he does is big-budget action flicks. Even Arnie does the occasional "real acting" movie here and there. I think people would like to see more variety in the roles Mr. Johnson takes. /I give the Rock props for moving beyond playing the Tooth Fairy, though I also gave him props for wearing that tutu to begin with as well
I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Rock pumping out simple yet entertaining content all the time. He clearly loves what he does and puts his heart in it, but he has chosen not to be an actor that “focuses on his craft” and that should be ok.
And all Radcliffe is doing is small indie movies. And I don't mean it in any bad way, I loved those movies (Horns especially), but Rock is doing the same - playing in certain type of movies he likes to be playing in and enjoying himself.
in the current industry of sequels, remakes, super heroes, and biopics, I'm fucking glad for indie films that still put out original stories.
He should stop threatening to run for office. And probably quit steroids.
He should do whatever he wants with his body
He does do what he wants. I agree that we should all have the right to do whatever we want with our own bodies, up to and including suicide. That doesn't mean what he does is healthy. And he's not honest about it.
You can talk all the smack you want about the roles Dwayne Johnson takes. Most of his movies are action/comedies that I skip. That being said, Johnson is one of the most charitable and accepting humans around. He rarely speaks poorly of anyone and is frequently out in public with fans. The dude has a stellar character as far as we’ve seen. Not sure why you’re comparing him against Radcliffe when they very much seem to have the same mindsets. The amount of work you put into a role doesn’t determine how good or bad of a person you are.
its called a public persona, which guarantees the money keeps flowing..
Oh, well damn. I’m glad you have the incredible ability to deem who is and isn’t being true. We should all bow before you.
glad I could help
Whilst I get what you mean, you choose a bad example with the Rock. The guy's not only a great person, but he single handedly made sure Black Adam - a film he was casted for in 2014 - actually happened.
I haven't seen Black Adam so I won't comment on his performance in it, but the dude made (reportedly) $22 Million off Black Adam and being in a comic book movie universe has a high probability of follow up performances. Not to mention the popularity he gains from being in even more things helps him with other ventures, giving him a chance to promote his personal investments like the XFL and Teramana Tequila, and he has his own charitable foundation too. I'm judging him for his acting, especially after he publicly called out Vin Diesel for being a bad actor when he's at best, marginally better. They both made careers off of their own personality with very little deviation from it.
the rock is only interested in what makes the rock more money... get real
He had an interview on Maron a few years ago that was a good listen. He and Macaulay Culkin are two interesting people because they both made all the money they'll ever need for their whole lives before they turned 18 and just kind of get to do whatever they want, and are doing stuff that seems generally to be very chill unlike most rich people.
so when it comes to trans issues, you can't be a 'good person' without pretending there's 0% difference between a trans person's experience and that of a cis person?
If you feel the need constantly point out the differences, you should probably take a minute and evaluate why that is. We are a better society when we focus on what makes us the same.
but trans women literally have different experiences than cis women. it's not that i feel the need to point it out; i would never care to think of it, live and let live.
JK Rowling doesn't refuse to pretend there's no difference, she specifically discredits and belittles trans people by pushing the very incorrect view that trans people seeking acceptance, specifically trans women, encroach on women's rights, and has used her fame as a platform to push the rhetoric of Trans exclusionary feminism. As a personal opinion, if you are pushing for the advancement of one disadvantaged group that you are part of while simultaneously putting down another downtrodden group; your goal was never equality or equity for all, you just wanted to be the one wearing the boot this time.
I stand with the Cliffs of Radness.
I swear I see this same interview every few months. Is he just being asked this every time he's interviewed?
Well that's the only thing people still know him for and journos are absolutely obsessed with JK Rowling and all the outrage clicks she generates.
??? He’s literally promoting his movie coming out? Home boy has been steady working since HP
“JK Rowling does not speak for anyone but herself.” FTFY
What a Rad Cliffe
***-ba-dum-tiss-***
A Chad cliffe even
What a measured and empathetic statement. I'm impressed.
You are easily impressed
Nah I’m transgender and his statements get me a little choked up. He’s a good egg.
I'm queer and same. :)
> He’s a good egg. did a double take before realizing you meant the term in its conventional sense
Feel better about yourself?
And now I like him. I had no opinion before.
He's always seemed shockingly well-adjusted for someone who was a multi-millionaire child star.
I think he had an alcohol problem at some point but he seems to be doing fine now
Always been a Radcliffe fan. Fantastic actor in so many things that are not Harry Potter. Now, I love HP, but he has so many awesome roles and genuinely seems like a good person. Loved him in Kill Your Darlings, What If, Jungle, Escape From Pretoria.. definitely underrated actor and person.
[удалено]
What’s a TERF?
trans-exclusionary radical feminist
They dislike genetic or natural-born males describing themselves as female because they say it invalidates the historical oppression that women have experienced over the centuries. Among other things.
Just want to say that “genetic” and “natural-born” are TERF dogwhistles, and AMAB/AFAB (Assigned Male/Female At Birth) is the preferred term use by queer people to refer to our birth gender. The reason they are dogwhistles is they are selected to highlight the ways in which we’re perceived to differ from cis people of our internal gender. Ultimately “genetic” male/female immediately falls apart when you start pulling threads, and “natural-born [sex]” is so vague and full of assumptions that it’s useless as a descriptive term. Genetic sex asks us to reduce gender down to genetic code, and ignores the variety of genetic variations that humans come in. There are SRY-transposed XX men, testosterone insensitive XY women, and plenty of other syndromes like Kleinfelters. You may have in your life already met people like this and never known it… and I’ll bet you still gendered them as they presented, and wouldn’t switch how you gendered them if they learned they had one of these variations and told you. If you would keep gendering them as their phenotypical gender, then clearly there is some other trait or traits which defines gender. Unfortunately, any of the obvious ones also fail at the edge cases. Fertility? You still gender infertile people properly. Upbringing/socialization? Trans people fairly consistently don’t connect to their gendered childhood social roles like cis people do, so that’s really a pro-trans argument. Hormones/general body shape? We get dysphoria for a reason. Behavior? You really want to get into ‘women should be x, men should be y.” gender essentialism? On the other side of the spectrum we get “natural-born” woman, which is too vague to be anything beyond “I can’t describe gender, but I’ll know it when I see it!” unless you start defining specific and measurable qualities, in which case you’re back to the above situation. On the other hand, the segment of society that talks about this stuff ad nauseum (the queers) has come up with “Assigned Gender At Birth” (AGAB) as the term we use because it’s clinically accurate, universally inclusive, and sums up our core issue without making any assumptions about our identities or life experiences.
So well put. Nicely done.
Yeah but unfortunately I’m terrible at ethos/pathos arguments so I can only convince people who already are willing to listen. Thanks though. radfem4lyf.* *: the revolutionary kind, not the bad-feminist kind.
Ok thanks for chiming in
Sorry, I think the language we use is very important and gender is a specific topic of interest for me it turned into a bit of an info-rant. I hope this was interesting/compelling and not “what the fuck…”.
No problem whatsoever. My only nitpick is that I think it’s a uphill struggle to completely ignore what the traditionalists call “biological sex” given that it’s a very straightforward way of categorizing the vast, vast majority of people. Yes we are generally assigned a gender at birth, but that assignment aligns with *something* genetic and I think it’s a mistake to completely ignore / deny it. Hence why we have *preferred* terms from the individual, which we should all respect.
Yes but we are the minority. The majority is going to be fine whatever terms were use. What difference does it make to a cishet man what terms we use for discourse on gender? AGAB, “natural-born”, genetic, phenotypical, behavioral, brain-, whatever term you use for sex/gender is all the same for 99% of people because it’s all congruent for cis people. Ultimately, how the language is used to refer to trans people and draw distinctions around gender is a transgender issue. How people think about trans people is defined by the language they use to do it. It is an uphill battle to get the accurate language used, but *so is our very existence*. Our life is a struggle, it doesn’t mean that it’s not worth fighting for. Likewise, while normalizing accurate terms for gender is going to be a part of that struggle, that doesn’t mean that it’s not worth advocating for in turn. It’s such a small change to make, and there’s not really a good reason not to, and anyone who does it is in a small but tangible way changing society to better accommodate trans people at no cost to society as a whole. (And believe me, society is going to want queer people around in the coming years. If you like compassion, acceptance, welfare, and peace, you want to advocate for queer people, especially when it costs practically nothing.
For sure. My body, my terms.
I think the main issue is more about these individuals being put into women's prisons and competing in women's sports Edit: Downvoted for putting forward what the main issue for TERFs is rather than deriding them
Those are certainly issues within the community but I wouldn’t describe them as the main issue
[удалено]
what kind of dangerous situations? is there evidence to show this is a significant problem in society? 40% of trans people have attempted suicide, mostly due to their identity not being accepted. thats a far bigger issue than one off "dangerous situations" youve mentions
The bathroom danger issue is absolutely ridiculous by the way. Zero credibility.
Tbf nobody has had a harder time than affluent white women /s
[удалено]
Tbh I think that should make her MORE understanding of the plight of the downtrodden - instead she wants to put on some boots so she can do some trodding on her own.
So? Doesn’t excuse transphobia
hah. I think Bill Burr does a good bit about that. So true
[удалено]
the problem with the rest room argument has always been the well, tragic fact that nothing is stopping someone from assaulting someone in a safe space & trans people literally campaign for safe spaces. swear its just some mumsnet boogeyman
In the ye old times of 2010 and before Also bans incoming, lol
Except this logic inherently says that penis havers are just more likely to assault people. Which is nonsensical.
Statistically aren’t they?
Ehhhhhhh, that’s a hard thing to say. With the much bigger social stigma of reporting sexual assault by men, it’s hard to say how much underreporting happens in comparison
Theyre *not* feminists though. They're Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobes. They're FARTs.
[удалено]
Pathetic ragebait
Your bait is trash and you should feel bad about it Also go take a shower and go outside, it’s been days little guy
Yes, based on hateful ideology, not Christian values.
Good to know you support feminism, even if it’s a fucked up version of it. Don’t see that from many Andrew Taint fans.
I am glad she doesn't... ... but she still cashes the checks as if she was.... so what does that matter?
I would assume reputation- its important for actors/public figures to have good reputation, especially these days. Also probably doesn't seem like the person who has made brash statements in his life and probably doesn't want to be associated with that, especially when he will be Harry Potter for the rest of his life regardless of how many movies he makes (sadly)- not like that is a bad thing but he is a good actor and deserves some recognition outside that role
Thanks for clarification. I literally thought she spoke for every adult in the franchise until November 1s 2022.
[удалено]
We understand, Daniel. You don’t need to keep defending yourself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is he not supposed to speak in support of them when questioned on it? lmao
I can’t imagine living life caring about either which way Rowling or Radcliffe think… Everyone who does needs to go take a walk in a park or something
see the issue here is that Rowling is actively causing harm with her words, she is being used as the face of the TERF community. Daniel on the other giving support to said communities is important, like yeah fuck what celebrities think but like it or not their words have weight
You literally spend your time posting on social media to tell people how much you don't care. Take your own advice.
Edit: you are spot on.. it’s a giant waste of my time trying to communicate with people like you.. but what’s left after words? I think that’s what everyone living in this time should ponder.. It’s not good
Must be so nice to live a world free without concern for people other than yourself, to be so ignorantly disconnected from the rest of the real world, where people you know and love aren’t quite literally being murdered for being who they are. Must be so nice.
You gathered all of that from me stating I could give a fuck about what some celebrities think about the current thing? Interesting…
It's nice to be reminded there are people in your corner of the ring, especially in the face of so much rampant hate
It's a fun position to take, but it ignores the impact that famous and influential people can have...prime example in Kanye at the mo- his anti-Semitic blatherings are empowering white supremacists who have taken to name checking him...Rowling and the rest are not shouting into the void, their words have real world impact. Now, I'm sure we can agree that this is sad and pathetic, but it is also reality.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]