I remember the Susan Smith thing well. I recall seeing her on TV pleading with the kidnappers and other times speaking to reporters. She was seeking approval. I noticed something funny about her face, a strange way she smiled that wasn't appropriate for what was going on in the conversation, but I didn't put it all together at the time. The idea was just too incredible for me to entertain it; it wouldn't occur to me. Later I remembered what I saw and I realized she was gravitating to the sympathy shown her like a plant toward sunlight. I don't remember hearing much about her childhood but it wasn't great. I suspect she is more like Kemper than like those who are truly evil in their core. Not that what she did wasn't evil, but I think she was emotionally damaged like Kemper was. Even so, it is impossible for me to understand how she could make that decision to kill all her children as she did. I just cannot imagine coming to that decision.

Zachary Quinto. That guy couldn't pass for straight if his life depended on it. His face just screams GAY, and I would bet he is flamboyant as hell in real life. Like you, I support the right of anyone to pursue happiness and fulfillment in their personal life, provided that doing so doesn't infringe upon the rights of others, so if a man is only attracted to other men, fine.

But I don't like the brash, angry, 'screw you world' attitudes exhibited by the militant activist types, those who are angry and aggressive toward any they perceive as un-accepting, or as not embracing and promoting their flamboyant exhibitionism. Those people seek to offend the sensibilities of others as much as possible, whomever they are. Parents with young children are given no consideration. Their children are exposed to subjects and public displays of naked men engaging in various degrees of intimacy, sometimes even having sex on public streets. I am sure you have seen photos of such; just about everyone has. Their position, apparently, is that they find it 'unacceptable' for anyone to object to such flamboyant and explicit displays, and their solution is to continually make public displays of such, and to angrily label anyone who objects as a homophobe, bigot, and whatever other pejorative comes to mind.

They feed on a constant diet of angry, offended sandwiches, and that is emotionally unhealthy for anyone. It creates a vicious cycle of angry frustration, and the depression and rage which result from stewing in anger and posturing as an injured victim. It is absurd for them to think they are justified to insist that other people adopt their beliefs and points of view. Do they adopt those of others? Nobody will capitulate to such a tyrannical demand. Thus they are doomed to failure in the mission to dictate beliefs and viewpoints, and they see this failure as an outrageous injury, and an injustice. The cycle continues as they rally the other militant activists to take 'justified actions' against their 'homophobic oppressors'.
You cannot reason with someone who demands that you abandon your own beliefs and viewpoints and begin to parrot theirs, and behave as they demand. Any attempt at a reasonable conversation with such an individual is met with a word salad of the angry offended activist, full of pejoratives. Your comments are intentionally misconstrued. You are deemed to be ignorant and backward, etc. There is no good faith. And the militant activist types are recruiting the reasonable, nice, friendly gay people to their cause.

The best I can do is to avoid contact with them. They are emotionally damaged, and they do the damage to themselves.

second response. Wow. I googled Quinto and Groff and from there kept seeing links to more and more of their actor boyfriends, and their actor boyfriends, and so on. I quit looking at the links after a while. And those are just the ones who are out. I knew there were a lot of gay people working in Hollywood, but I was surprised to see so many gay actors, for some reason. It seems like if you're gay, you have an advantage for breaking in to the business. I read about Rock Hudson years ago. And I recall reading that there were gay producers and executives who seduced young male actors looking to get into the business, just as producers have long put girls on their casting couches. So I was aware Hollywood was like that, but somehow I was still surprised to see this long list of guys. Some of them look pretty gay, but others don't.

I know that if you're not a liberal you are blacklisted in Hollywood, unless you are already a star. I am beginning to think that it is almost that way with sexual orientation. This explains why so many straight actors make it such a point to 'value signal' their love of gay people, and their hate of Republicans. They really cannot work if they don't do so. Also, have you noticed how many straight male actors take at least one role in which they either play a gay person, or a crossdresser? I am wondering if that is something which is unofficially required of them in order to keep getting offers for movie roles.

By the way, Holt McCallany looks to be straight. I found pictures of him with his girlfriend Nicole Wilson. It looks like they have been together a while now.

I thought Holt McCallany looked straight - he doesn't have the oil slick appearance of most gay men. I think they all grow the same baby beards - go to the same hairdressers - use the same moisturisers - pluck their eyebrows in the same style (not to mention other parts of their bodies) - work out at the same gyms - buy their figure hugging t shirts and jeans at the same stores - (which they usually wear half way down and half way unzipped) and talk in that flat nasal lisp so that they can recognise each other and we can too. It may be way off base but it seems to me that some men who aren't necessarily gay adopt a gay lifestyle because it is easier than dealing with a woman. A woman wants to dictate sexual terms - she is not always available - you have to please her - you have to maintain her - she is not amenable to rough trade - her sex drive is not always equal to a mans, and she may get pregnant to "trap" you. (Because of course you are so wonderful!!) It makes sense to adopt a life style that is closer to your own drives and needs. Besides which if you are an actor it is almost compulsory given the number of gay people in power in Hollywood. The only emotion I would express towards the militant gays you describe is not anger or disgust - they would feed off that - it is boredom. Note to Bill Gates and his mates - find a way to make them gay in overpopulated countries !!

@strangebedfellows said:

The only emotion I would express towards the militant gays you describe is not anger or disgust - they would feed off that - it is boredom. Note to Bill Gates and his mates - find a way to make them gay in overpopulated countries !!

Your reaction is reasonable. They have made their case so many times, expressed their righteous outrage over the injustices they perceive so many times, it is all so over done.
I don't get angry with them; each of them is already angry enough for ten people. I just avoid them.

I can't see getting roped into a discussion with them for the reasons I stated above. When I find I am speaking to one of them online, I make a graceful exit. There is no way to interact with them without being labeled an ignorant bigot of some sort. I am not "woke". So I avoid them. Thankfully not all gay people are like that. Milo Yiannopoulos is articulate, intelligent, and thinks for himself. He is also conservative on many issues. Liberals seem to hate him. They call him a homophobe even though he is gay. Which just goes to show that you cannot speak to those whacky liberals in good faith. They don't care about logic or facts, they care only about their feelings and group conformity. Disagree with them on the current hot button issues and you will be branded 10 kinds of evil. If you are black and conservative, they will call you a racist, an Uncle Tom, a traitor to his race, etc. But it was funny when Kanye West, an American rapper, tweeted something positive about Donald Trump. The liberals didn't know what to do. Kanye is very popular and has millions of fans. If the liberals called him a racist, Uncle Tom, etc. they would risk alienating millions of people who might then vote against the liberal candidate. hahaha. So they had to bite their tongues.

I started watching Better Than Us. I watched the first episode and I can see that this presumably military grade model is going to shake things up for that man and his kids. The daughter became the primary user, so apparently the robot's loyalty toward the girl will be paramount, and she will protect the family as well. I already saw that the son has trouble with some older street thugs, or toughs from his school maybe. I expect that the robot will intervene in his situation once she becomes aware of it. That will be fun to watch.

second comment:

I just saw this article and wanted to share it. It is a sign of the social engineering pushed upon every part of our society by the far left, militant, LGBTQ radicals.

Have you heard of "Drag Syndrome"? Some liberals who are seeking to rid "the culture of really damaging stereotypes" have enlisted people with Down's syndrome to dress up in drag and put on a show which will take place at a public arts festival.

Do you believe the people with Down's Syndrome decided to do this on their own? Do you think this is being done to help these people? Or do you think it is more likely that the LGBTQ militant radicals are exploiting a group of people with deficiencies in their abilities to think, reason, understand, and be social, manipulating them to further the LGBTQ agenda?

I think they convinced these Down's Syndrome people to do this in order to deflect criticism of the drag show. If you criticize the show, then they will spin it as though you are being mean to the unfortunate people suffering from Down's Syndrome. They believe this makes their show bullet proof from any criticism.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/down-syndrome-drag-show-created-by-lgbt-activist-coming-to-michigan

I have just read that link and I have never seen anything so exploitative in my life. These unfortunate people have no idea that they are being used to further the agenda of the LGBTQ community. They should be ashamed - who gets the money from these shows? Not the performers I am willing to bet - probably an LGBTQ "charity". Where are the carers of these people? Where is the government? Surely there are departments set up to protect the most vulnerable in society from sharks like this. Who would go and see such a show? I doubt straight people would - it would enrage them - so it is a drag circus featuring mentally disabled people who don't understand what they are doing - the only audience I can imagine would be deviant freaks. It worries me if these people are being abused in other ways also - where are the social services? How much lower can the gay community sink? By the way - when I said about not getting angry or disgusted - I was not referring to you personally - I meant it on a more general scale - that the world at large should not react that way because that is a reaction they love to evoke - everybody should just treat them as world class bores. (which they are). I know from our previous conversations that you are like me inasmuch as you realise the futility of arguing with fanatics. That's why my "you will be put on ignore" warning is sometimes placed on my more controversial posts !! Nothing is bulletproof from my criticism !! I think that everything in the world comes and goes in cycles and these obsessions with gay issues and feminist issues and black issues etc will eventually fade from the public consciousness as constant repetition begins to bore them and their eyes begin to glaze over at the mention of it.

The truth is that I do sometimes find I get angry when dealing with such people, and I have to guard against it because, just as you say, they seek to elicit this from us. It is odd because even though I know they are disingenuous, I sort of automatically "reset to my default setting" and fall for the idea that they are speaking in good faith sometimes, until they intentionally misconstrue something I said, misquote me, etc. Funny that they even misquote me when my words are right above in writing.

But I generally catch myself before responding in sarcasm or anger, which is what they want. I prefer to let them spew and attack me without pushing back in anger, so they fall flat. I kind of put on a bit of an act, as though I don't notice their insults, sarcasm, and as though I believe their false portrayal of my position isn't an intentional thing, but due to a genuine misunderstanding of my point. I may even take the blame for the misunderstanding. Anyone reading the exchange sees a raving, angry, leftist who clearly isn't interested in solving problems or being honest, attacking someone who is sincere, reasonable, and honest about the issues. By assuming the blame for not expressing myself clearly, I can then patiently lay out my position in the amount of detail which would otherwise seem like I was condescending to them. It is kind of funny to do that because it makes the impotent, their only tactic fails, and I can get my point across in a manner which is hard to argue with. All those leftists have been schooled in Saul Alinsky's tactics as laid out in his book Rules for Radicals. They're not smart people, for the most part. They are resentful, dull, angry, and sometimes violent people who display one dominant emotion: hatred.

Generally I don't like to waste my time with those people.

In some ways I think that they find it harder to attack a woman who is critical of liberals than a man who is. It is hard to label a woman a male chauvinist, or misogynist, or whatever the current terminology is. So when a woman is critical of feminism on its merits, they have to find another avenue of attack for her. Of course there are loads of ways to call someone a bigot, and they don't care if what they say is true or not, only that it discredits you or angers you or puts you on the defensive.

On the Drag Syndrome thing, I find it to be very exploitative. Those Downs patients are being led to do this, being praised for doing it, and being trained to mimic their opposite sex. And most certainly they are being coached on what to say. "I fee-ul wike a gurwl. I like my pretty clothes." And I think that is the whole reason for this charade. Some militant gay person thought this would be the perfect way to advance or promote their talking points about their position on the transgender issue. They mean to piggy back their talking points on the sympathy everyone feels toward these sweet, innocent people.

I imagine it will be on the local news, and some national network will pick it up as a human interest story "Ahh, how cute!". The local news team will seek comment from some conservative person who has legitimate concerns about giving hormones to children who are not at the age when the body normally produces them, or who objects on religious grounds. With the magic of editing the conservative voice will be made to appear as cold, mean, and 'intolerant' as possible. And then a kind liberal will lament the fact that our society still has members who can heartlessly make these Down's Syndrome children feel bad about themselves.

I think that is the game plan

I used to be naïve - I used to believe that when people spoke to me they were telling me the truth - likewise (many years ago) the newspapers and the television. It never occurred to me that they were bending or changing the truth or just downright lying to suit their own agendas. I am amazed that I could ever have been so gullible - or maybe a better word is innocent. I have seen the world change to such a degree that now I believe nothing and nobody. I have to wonder if this sea change has been entirely down to society on it's own - or does this swirling cess pit of iniquities serve a deeper purpose - does it distract people from looking deeper into the world of those who wield true power. After all - if society is concentrated on feeding it's deepest and dirtiest inclinations they are hardly going to be looking at what their governments are up to. It started with the legalisation of homosexuality in the sixties ( in Britain) closely followed by the abolition of capital punishment - then the free love hippie era - and in the seventies the paedophile information exchange was accepted by a number of politicians and law enforcement and not deemed illegal - can you believe that? it lasted for 10 years (74/84) All downward spirals and nothing was done to reverse those trends. Why? It has just gotten worse and worse until virtually nothing is considered unacceptable or inappropriate - there has to be a deeper motive for allowing society to descend into a bottomless pit of filth. At present I have to believe that decent people outnumber the perverts - but unless they start fighting back God only knows what will happen to their children. In my day - if a show like that had made it into a theatre there would have been outrage - they would have probably burned the place down - but now we have become brainwashed into believing the self serving lies we are fed by deviants. I am telling myself to shut up now and talk about something more cheerful !! Are you still watching "Better Than Us" there are 19 episodes I think in series one - and I am not sure but I think there is a series 2. I found it more interesting when the liquidators were off screen.

I was very innocent and somewhat gullible when I was a young man. That's not such a bad thing; I mean, at least it indicates that I am honest. I just wrongly believed that most everyone else was like me.

And I think that was more correct then than now. I really do believe that quantitatively, society and the culture has degenerated a great deal. Back then, there certainly was deception practiced, but it was orchestrated and directed by fewer people, and far fewer people would have shrugged their shoulders about the dishonesty if they knew about it. In fact, as you indicated, the majority of people would have been up in arms about it if they knew.

Back about 1980 I recall a friend who worked at a gas station told me about some gay guy who grabbed his ass cheek at work one night. They still had 'full service' gas stations back then. Anyway the gay guy must have thought Larry was gay. Larry wasn't. Larry hit him hard and knocked him out. He was scared, thinking he might have killed him. He took the water hose and sprayed him in the face. The guy came to, jumped up and got into his car and sped away. Larry told a cop about it and the cop just laughed. Back then everyone knew the guy had it coming. Today Larry would have been arrested and his face and name splashed across the nation on news stories about homophobia.

Decent people still outnumber the dishonest, radical, leftists who feel it's alright for them to sexually assault others, who defend pedophilia (there is an organization here called NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association which promotes pedophilia), and who scoff at ideas such as patriotism, national sovereignty, personal responsibility, and so on. But some of those radicals have been active in positions of power and influence for many years. The "political correctness" idea was introduced in our school system, somehow. The idea that teachers would tell students that one political party was incorrect is absurd. And children are now subjected to behavioral conditioning so that they are afraid to denounce much of the illegal activity which was universally denounced in my youth. Why should students be afraid to denounce illegal activity? So even though most of them are not dishonest, radical leftists themselves, they have been conditioned not to speak their minds. The world has been turned upside down. But the pendulum swings both ways, and I hope that we will see more sanity in society soon.

I am watching Better than Us. I am up to episode 10. I like it a lot. Actually it is very similar to a 2015 series named "Humans", also about robots. And there was also a movement of people who hated robots and sought to destroy them. And there were some advanced ones which could not be distinguished from people easily. I have been hoping it would be renewed and we would see more of it.

Anyway, at this point Safronov is trying to get his family back from the Liquidators. I keep expecting Arisa to get involved but she stays put when told to do so. But I expect that at some point she will obey some more basic rule about protecting the family and take action despite having been told to do nothing.

Earlier I was surprised that she failed to detect the cameras located around the house. I thought her capabilities would have included the ability to scope out stuff like that.
I don't understand at this point why Toropov wanted Gleb to create the Liquidators. Why create a group to attack robots when you make robots? The only angle I can see there is that if the public saw this group as a bunch of lawless, heartless, thugs, then they would naturally side with those who support the use of robots. Is that your take on that? Did you see something different?

It surprised me too that the super bot Arisa did not detect the house cameras - and Safronov seemed pretty disinterested in their presence there - mind - he seems unimpressed by most things. Why would Toropov want Gleb to create The Liquidators? I am not sure - it doesn't make any sense - at least not yet because we don't know his future plans. Right now the Liquidators are attacking the first and second generation models - the metal men and the house and office worker types - I don't know how far you have got so I wont enlarge upon it but there is another intention which is equally puzzling. I think it is all to do with the "pension plan" where people will be forced to retire at 45 and let robots take over their jobs - this is going to cause massive upheaval - is he planning to capitalise on that and escalate it into a revolution because in that event the liquidators will be looked upon as heroes - they will be elected to positions of power - the present government will be overthrown and he of the peculiar nose will probably end up as president - and Toropov owns them. If he controls them - he controls the country. It is an interesting exploration of Asimov's rules of robotics - I can't remember for sure - but I think that originally there were about seven rules and these were accepted as sufficient for years - but nowadays these rules have been expanded to about 300 !! I used to read a lot of Isaac Asimov - he was my preferred Sci-fi writer. Have you watched "Blade Runner"? my favourite sci-fi film. The original that is - not the sequel which I didn't like at all. I like Rutger Hauer - I was sorry to hear of his passing - he wrote that dying scene on the roof - it was so moving. I wish they would leave classic films alone and not try and "improve" on the original - most of the time it just doesn't happen.

Yeah, I loved Blade Runner. And that death scene was really good. Harrison Ford was terrified, realizing he was about to die. And Hauer used that terror to teach him how the replicants felt being hunted to their deaths by him. The whole futuristic aspect of it was cool. The original was a great stand-alone film. I think they just made a sequel for the money, to cash in on the name of the original. I think most sequels are like that.

Most of the time I prefer the originals over remakes and sequels. There are a few exceptions. The original Dracula from the 1920s was awful, but the one with Bella Lugosi from 1931 will always be the best one in my opinion. I have binged through the first season of Better Than Us. I have a theory about the next season, which I hope is on the way. Tell me if you have finished episode 16 yet and I will run it by you.
I never did understand clearly why Toropov wanted Gleb to create the Liquidators. Probably there was some bit of dialogue I missed which explained it.

I have finished the last episode of "Better than us" (enjoyed the outtakes which really humanised the actors) I am not convinced by the reason that the Liquidators were created - it was supposedly explained in one off the cuff remark by Maslovsky - (unless I too missed some other bits of dialogue - the two of us doing that is not really feasible) he said "he can't open the new factory - the technology just isn't there". Now if the technology just isn't there - how does Arisa exist? She is a prototype yes - but all the plans and schematics that created her are still available so how couldn't he make more of them? I have not heard any dialogue to say why it would be impossible to do that. Why did he want to fake his own death - there were a million reasons he could have given to cease production of the new model - nobody would have been any the wiser and it would have been business as usual. No - I like my version better !!! I also got bored with the Romeo and Juliet type sub plot - they could have left that out and nobody would have missed it (except perhaps the target teen audience!) I have a theory about Season 2 - run yours by me and we'll compare theories !! Whilst we're sort of on the subject - do you subscribe to the theory that Deckard was a replicant himself? I don't think he was - I would have to watch the film again but replicants don't feel love or compassion or a desire to save people from emotional hurt - all of which Deckard displayed. I think that is just another lets turn it on its head theory the likes of which annoy me no end.

Deckard was human. I think the idea that he was a replicant is just one of the tin foil hat theories which fanatical fans who wish they were writers like to create. Some of them seem to favor the most illogical and unsupportable ideas and get a thrill from offering pretzel logic in defense of their ideas. Talking to some of them is a pointless exercise.

Arisa was made in China. She was made because....due to their preference for male babies the Chinese had somehow developed policies and practices which left them with an over abundance of males, males who could not find a wife. So the story is that some genius robotics guy created Arisa to at least give these guys a type of wife. (Did they harvest eggs from human females and create children for her to raise? I don't know, I missed it if they said that.) But the Chinese government objected to the program and shut it down (and possibly dictating the destruction of the plans and software?)

The idea that Arisa was unique and not something they could reverse engineer was loosely supported by a few different scenes. When the brain tumor girl finally got into Arisa's programming and got in touch with the protege of Arisa's genius, Chinese, creator, he told her that nobody had ever cracked her code before, that his late mentor had made it so difficult to do that if someone attempted to do so it would wipe her clean, or something like that, sort of like downloading her memory would do. I was actually kind of sleepy while watching that segment so I may be a little off on that. I don't know. And Toropov's nerdy tech guy made some comments about his inability to get into her code. I recall a comment about it being written in her hardware, but that was for the benefit of people who know nothing about computers I think. They were just throwing terms around. [The protege also told brain tumor girl that he had promised his mentor on his death bed that he would find a 'home' for the Arisa prototype. So he sent her to Cronos.]

In the real world, there are artificial intelligence (AI) computers which, when tasked with advancing their AI programs (yes, they tell them to write and upgrade the AI software) wind up creating their own programming languages. So human software engineers are not always able to decipher the code written by the AI systems! I imagine they could ask the AI computer to create a cipher to translate the new code into a known programming language, but it may not translate easily. The bits they understand show that the novel code is elegant and direct and in some cases more efficient to the task. Of course this raises the whole "Skynet", 'computers which think for themselves without human interaction' issue. If we cannot tell what the AI code says, how do we trust it?

So maybe we are meant to think of Arisa as some system with very advanced safeguards against hacking, or reverse engineering, except created by a genius programmer instead of an AI system.

Toropov initially wanted to win the contract to make the Arisa line, and then, since he wasn't able to create such a line, he wanted to abscond with the money to a "tropical country with no extradition treaty". The Russians would have no problem sending rendition teams to grab him up, torture him until he transferred the money back, then kill him. So I think he wanted to fake his death to keep anyone hunting him down. Of course they would be looking for the money. I don't know how he planned to manage hiding what happened to the money. Follow the money and you find the bad guy, an old law enforcement trick. But criminals listen to their greed instead of thinking logically or morally. So I think Toropov wanted to fake his death to keep people from looking for him and hope the money didn't lead them to him.

By the Romeo and Juliet subplot, do you mean the interplay between Soronov and Arisa? Between him and brain tumor girl? The bit between him and Arisa I think was meant to support the ideas that her programming would 'evolve after it rebooted', as protege told brain tumor girl, and that Arisa was designed as a substitute wife. Arisa always stressed her mission was to protect the family and to be a mate.

second comment:

By the way, I want one. An Arisa robot that is. I have a bad back and am pretty disorganized so I need help on housework. She would be perfect for that. And in other ways she is like the women of days gone by who were inclined to love and give emotional support to their man. Arisa would NEVER complain that I was "man-splaining" things to her, that I wasn't "woke", that I had white male privilege, or that I wanted sex.

Thank you for making the reasons they couldn't replicate Arisa clear to me - you always seem to be able to do that !! To be perfectly honest I found sections of this series rather slow and boring and I may ( I repeat - may !!) have dozed off now and again. I had completely forgotten the Chinese origins of Arisa and when people start talking technical stuff I do tend to switch off because I am not technically minded. However what you say now makes the entire scenario make sense. By Romeo and Juliet I meant his son Egon and Jeanna - we could have left them out and nobody would have noticed. I thought the whole brain tumour girl and Saronov ending up together (what ever happened to "I love this woman - Alla) -and him getting to keep his son and have a substitute daughter a bit schmaltzy. With regard to your second comment - well my man you cannot have one!! She might end up killing you - by accident of course. You obviously have not paid attention to most movies that feature android characters - don't you realise that ALL androids develop human feelings and your Arisa would definitely end up accusing you of having man-flu - of not paying enough attention to her - not appreciating her cooking - taking her for granted - treating her like a servant - not being in touch with your feminine side - preferring sport to her - shall I go on or have you given up on owning an Arisa yet !!! I await with interest your thoughts on series 2.