stevenkesslar

I think most Americans over 65 would generally agree with that statement, based on polls. Here's the thing. If turning Gaza into a parking lot involves turning thousands of innocent Palestinian women and kids into scraps of flesh and blood and brain, isn't that kind of like what Hamas just did? And can someone explain how this is the only course of action that will prevent a Palestinian Hitler from taking over and sending all the Jews in Israel to Palestinian extermination camps? That seems pretty unlikely to happen. Why? For starters, there's the entire history of how Israel always wins the body count when it comes to how many Palestinians have to die to avenge Israeli deaths. Israel has, by the way, already won the body count on this war, which hasn't even started. Holocaust II is an argument one can make. We know that, because many slightly less unrealistic arguments like this are being made. Regardless, many young Americans in particular see Israel as an apartheid state. They don't see this as preventing another Holocaust. They see it as apartheid. The idea that turning Gaza into a parking lot is okay seems to be what confirms their feelings. As far as the polls, since I'm the poll nuance guy, it is 1000 % clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans (and I think people in most countries, where polls have been taken recently) feel the US should "support" Israel after what can legitimately be called their 9/11. I'd also already read the CNN poll saying that about half of Americans feel a military response to a Hamas terrorist attack is "fully justified." My simple and I think correct interpretation of that poll is that if you ask people whether it's okay for terrorists to slaughter women and kids, most people will so no. Emphatically. And they'll say such a slaughter has to be responded to, probably with military force. Once you get beyond that, it gets very murky. Pro-Israel Democrats like Mellman can read what they want into the polls. But they are on shaky ground I think. For example, take a guess what people would probably say in response to this poll question: "Should Gaza be turned into a parking lot, even if it involves the mass extermination of Palestinian women and children, in order to protect Israelis regardless of whatever it takes?" I think most people would be against the mass extermination of Palestinian women and kids. Just like they are against terrorist attacks on Israeli women and kids. I stand by what I said. I think Israel has lost a pro-Israel US majority. What I mean is that there is broad and deep horror about a terrorist attack. And a feeling that it can't just be ignored. But is the US behind Israel, "whatever it takes?" No way. On the right, Trump is articulating the antipathy to the US being a global cop that seems to be at the heart of Trump's MAGA movement. On the left, people look at Israel and see an apartheid state. That doesn't make terrorism right. But it doesn't make apartheid right, either. A lot of what happens to US public opinion next will depend on what Israel actually does. That ABC poll you cited above, @EmmetK, actually supports my argument, not yours. It says a "plurality" - not a majority - in the US back what Israel is doing. There are as many different shades of that answer as their are nuances in poll questions. I think the thing that is very clear is that for Americans over 65, the bumper sticker "whatever it takes" does actually work well. That's the present, and past. For Gen Z, who grew up under the Israel of Netanyahu, "apartheid state" is a bumper sticker that works increasing well. That is the present, and future. If Israel does turn Gaza into a parking lot, I'll predict both US and global opinion about Israel will shift even more to "apartheid state." Good luck with that, Netanyahu. That said, it is all very fluid. I would not bet on how this plays out, either in terms of the war itself or US public opinion. I agree with @JKane that it probably means more violence, life gets shittier for Palestinians, and that lays the seeds for even more and worse horror and terrorism. I checked to see how polls turned out in similar situations in the past, like the US 9/11. I find this history instructive. Israel might want to worry about their 9/11, if they reflect on how the US 9/11 played out in the long run: The important distinction I will make is that Americans overwhelmingly agreed that our 9/11 was an unjustified horror, and something had to be done. I think the US and the world pretty much feel the same about Israel. Empathy, and support. When you just left it at that, polls at the time showed the world overwhelmingly sympathized with and supported the US. Where things got dicey, as the above polls document, is once you started to talk about a military invasion. Let alone its consequences years or decades later. And this was the GOOD war that most Americans agreed about. Once you get to Iraq, it was a divisive shit show right out of the gate. Overall, I think Iraq was the single worst US policy decision in my lifetime. Many commentators on both left and right would agree with me. Iraq set the stage for a weak and floundering US that is globally viewed as a hypocrite. Again, all that played out over years and started with the sympathy of the entire world on the side of the US right after 9/11. With the benefit of hindsight, if there is a lesson for Israel it is that a focus on legal mechanisms makes sense. Like kill the Hamas leaders or bring them to justice - if possible. And any military invasion (like Afghanistan) should have limited objectives and a clear exit strategy. That said, if I had to bet, Netanyahu's right-wing Israel will want to turn Gaza into a parking lot, permanently. It will play out as well as the US invading Afghanistan did. You heard it here first. So Israel has a lot to worry about when that sympathy fades and the new horrors of an invasion play out. Good luck, Netanyahu.

In this thoughtful Politico article pro-Israel Democrat Mark Mellman argues this is a "redefining moment" in which Americans will now side with Israel more, out of sympathy. As evidence there's a poll that 42 percent of Americans side with Israelis more than Palestinians, which is up 11 points since the attack. I think what is most interesting is the opposite. This is a redefining moment because Israel no longer has a pro-Israel American majority. If 42 % is the best they can do after an unimaginably horrific and unjustifiable rampage, Israel has a problem. US voters over 65 overwhelming (60 %) say Palestinians are more to blame for the violence. Gen Z is as likely to side with Palestinians than Israelis, even after the attack. They also are as likely to blame Israel as Palestinians for the violence. And the plurality blames both sides equally. I can remember a time when if you gave me a gun and a get out of jail free card to kill one global leader, I would have taken out Arafat. The context was he had just shit all over the Clinton/Barak effort to make peace. That was the last significant effort. And it would have left Palestinians far better off than they are today. It also was Israel's last Labor government. Times have changed. I think young Americans look at Israel and say, "It's an apartheid state, doing what apartheid states do. Why act surprised? It won't end well for anyone." One positive thought I had, big picture, is that the US dodged a bullet. Back when Golda Meir was PM of Israel most people would say the chance of having a Palestinian PM of Israel is about as great as the chance of a having a Black President of the US. The US has had a Black Democratic POTUS. And the party most associated with redneck racism (once the Democrats gave up their Jim Crow White supremacist history) now features a dynamic melting pot of Presidential candidates like Haley, Scott, and Ramaswamy. We have fully incorporated the "outsiders" into the US political system. I'm proud of that when I look at the deepening horror of Israel.

You're welcome, doctor. But I am surprised. To think, all of this time, I thought doctors were know it alls. Especially you. 🙄 Not sure if you are defending Spacey, or his lawyers. Or just being a know it all who has something important to say. Even though you don't seem to be saying anything. I stand by my point. Spacey hired lawyers who would make Trump proud, by being attack dogs trying to tear apart accusers to deflect from his serial disgusting and indefensible behavior. That quote of mine is from early in the thread. Subsequent to that I posted lots of thorough documentation of Spacey's chronic habit of being a predator.

No. Actually, it wouldn't. Why buy a symbol of neighborhood blight? Obama has much better taste than that. 😉

First, thanks for laughing at my dry sense of humor. Second, it could have been worse. I was actually thinking of posting this brand new interview between Bill Kristol and Jim Carville. Now you gave me an excuse to do it. The reason I started this thread is to talk about the reasons Biden might lose. The economy, stupid is definitely #1 on my list. But Biden's age and alleged senility is clearly #2. And that is what this interview focuses most on. I really like Kristol and Carville. That said, I was really conflicted watching this. It made me think about college Poli Sci classes with Paul Wellstone and the debate between "armchair political theorists" and quantitative data that actually proves something. These days Kristol and Carville are both armchair theorists, who may just be old and full of shit. That said, Carville in particular outs himself as a poll "bed wetter." (Poor Mary!) He sounds suspiciously like someone who cares a lot about winning. And therefore really cares about polls and focus groups that tell us what voters think. Weird, huh? So he is definitely wetting the bed about what polls and focus groups are telling us about Biden's age and perceived inability to serve for what would be more than five more years. That said, my sage Alan Lichtman basically uses objective quantitative analysis to determine who will win the Presidency, and why. And he's been right every time so far. He says age is not going to be an issue, unless Biden gets a lot worse. He says losing an incumbent is definitely a minus, history shows. And opening the possibility for a bloody internal party fight might not play out well, other than in the minds of armchair theorists like Carville and Kristol. I do think fate will decide. Not to sound harsh, but I won't be shocked if Biden just dies in the next year. Trump could, too. And if Biden's approval rating is 35 % in January, or if RFK comes close to beating him in some early primary like New Hampshire, there is going to be clamoring for others to jump in the race. If Plan Biden works and we dodge the recession bullet and inflation stays where it is now and the Fed starts cutting interest rates, that is a very different picture. One other thing jumped out at me, which echoed another recent interview Kristol had with another Clintonista political strategist, Doug Sosnik, which I cited. Sosnik argued that if Trump can make 2024 about which POTUS managed the economy better, Biden might lose. If the 2024 election is instead about whether we want more crazy, Biden will win. He predicted it will likely be the latter. While Carville is definitely wetting the bed, in his rambling and verbose Cajun common sense way he kind of made the case that most people don't want more crazy. In particular, he pointed out that the progressive woke police is a small faction in the Democratic Party. And they are losing the argument. Whereas MAGA is the Trump majority now among Republicans. And no matter what Trump does, you can never have enough craziness. If Biden and Trump are both alive and running against each other in November 2024, I would not be surprised if that determines who wins. Right now I would not bet on which way it will go.

As always, Ron Brownstein nails it. Granted, the man is verbose. I always believe true intelligence is measured in whether all deep thinking can be communicated in one simple tweet. 😉 But, other than that, Brownstein is spot on: Why ‘Middle-class Joe’ Biden may need upscale voters more than ever in 2024 I think that sums up exactly why it's a jump ball, if the election were held today. It is ironic that Biden has worked harder than any other Democratic POTUS in my lifetime to pander to the working class and non-Whites. And he may win re-election because he is, at the very least, less distasteful to lots of suburban Whites, who are middle class or affluent. If you want even more verbose (ugh!) thoughtfulness on the same issue of how or whether Biden can win in 2024, here's more: The Democrats' Oliver Anthony Problem Get ready for more education polarization. That's Ruy Teixeira's latest screed about how a minority of woke progressives are naively bending over backwards to alienate centrists that are required for a Democratic majority. I mostly agree with Teixeira. That said, if real wages rise for Hispanics and Blacks and working class Whites in the next year, I think a lot of Biden's problems go away. While woke progressives may be annoying, I think there is massive evidence that Biden's biggest problem is the inflation, stupid. And the resulting losses in real wages, stupid. But that turned around this Spring. The irony is that if Brownstein is right, it may not matter. And the fact that Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are predominantly - what's the word? WHITE! - may help Biden. Because those states are full of White suburban voters who make enough to not care as much about what a hamburger or a gallon of gas costs. They care far more about Donald Trump being an evil lying prick who is a threat to democracy, apparently. Who knew? 😉

True. But we have to start somewhere. The Hitler example (and Mussolini, and others) suggests that followers don't stop following leaders. But when the leader is no longer leading, their movements can fall apart.

And now for an opposing point of view: Inflation was so bad last year that real household income tumbled the most in 12 years, causing families severe economic pain I'm not sure I agree with the word "severe." But it probably helps explain how a lot of people feel. And it is certainly the tone Republicans are using. What isn't said, and Biden (or Trump) can't say, is that it could have been far worse but for all the stimulus in 2020 and 2021 that avoided a global depression. Like what we had after the last pandemic a century ago. Voters will focus on the pain they feel, and not how it could have been worse. Here's the Fed chart on real family incomes going back decades. So, as Lichtman's Keys would argue, it's the economy, stupid. But it's other stuff, too, stupid. A multi-year decline in real incomes did hurt Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2010. But Obama/Biden won in 2012, anyway. Incomes were at a plateau in 2000, but Gore still needed more. The last time it seems like a multi-year decline in incomes may have contributed to the demise of an incumbent was Bush 41 in 1992. Biden built the strongest safety net in U.S. history. Now it’s collapsing around him. The child poverty rate more than doubled in 2022 as Covid-era aid programs expired, erasing major economic gains for the poorest Americans. That's the other sad headline, and a chart that shows long term child poverty rates. I would not bet on whether this hurts Biden, or helps them. He has already laid the tatters of the strongest safety net ever at the feet of Republicans who refused to extend the child tax credits. Which helped Hispanics the most. And were more than any other single measure responsible for the stunning decline in child poverty. The Republicans will no doubt howl, "Inflation!" Without explaining how child tax credits that slashed poverty in the US caused inflation all across Europe. What the 2020 and 2021 experiments did prove is that hard work is necessary, but not sufficient, to slash poverty rates in a country where it is harder than ever to get by on a "working class" wage. Clearly, child tax credits targeted to the middle and bottom helped more than Trump's tax cuts. Which mostly went to the well off. Obama and Biden won in 2012 in part because Romney and Ryan were seen as hostile to the bottom 47 %. While Trump may try to sell himself, again, as the working class billionaire, Biden has the receipts for how his ideas actually helped the Americans working the hardest just to get by. Until the Republicans killed them.

So thanks to the Freedom Caucus impeachment inquiry, we are now set for a gigantic compare and contrast in 2024. Pretty much all the dirt on Joe Biden boils down to whether he took a bribe, directly or indirectly, from Ukraine. A surprising number of people are open to believing these unproven allegations. Which may have something to do with Biden's low approval ratings. If Monikagate boiled down to, "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," Burismagate may boil down to what the meaning of "some involvement" is. Meanwhile, there will be absolutely no doubt whatsoever whether Trump had "some involvement" in some very minor shit. Like trying to steal the 2020 election. Or creating an evil environment where Trumpies thought it was cool to threaten to kill the family of a Republican Secretary of State. Or inciting the MAAGverse to jubilantly and patriotically beat the shit out of the cops they love. How could senile old Joe possibly match the festive lies and pure evil of Trump and his MAGAverse? Oh. Did I mention a Senate Republican Committee already went through all this stuff in 2020, and couldn't find anything Joe Biden actually did wrong? Oh. Did I mention Republicans like Ken Buck are publicly admitting there is zero evidence of Joe doing anything impeachable, so far? Oh. Did I mention a bunch of moderate Republicans think this is mostly a strategy to create a backlash, so that Democrats take the House in 2024? Republicans are definitely rolling the dice. I get that at one level this is payback for trying to impeach Trump over Ukraine. But Ukraine was all about Trump's obsession with digging up dirt on Joe Biden. So add a government shut down. And it does create the impression that Republicans care more about digging up dirt on Joe Biden, endlessly, than on actually making sure the government sends out Social Security checks or keeps parks open. I think the conventional wisdom is that Clinton's impeachment hurt Republicans in 1998, leading to the demise of poor nasty Newt Gingrich. For a contrarian view, my sage Alan Lichtman argues the opposite. "Scandal" is one of the 13 keys he argues has helped end Presidencies. He argues that Clinton won the battle in 1998, but lost the war in 2000 when Republicans won the Presidency. He makes a good case. There is poll from 2000 I saw, which I won't bother to dig up since it debatable anyway, that a significant minority of independents chose W. because of concerns like "moral values." The problem for the MAGAverse is twofold. Most people agree that Bill Clinton did bring scandal on himself, and did lie. There is plenty of evidence that Hunter Biden brought scandal on himself. None so far about Joe Biden. So it is not clear whether this ends with "scandal" for Joe Biden, or just "backlash" for House Republicans. Second, even Karl Rove said the October 2000 surprise about W. having a DUI almost cost him the Presidency. Since it undercut his "moral values" pedigree. Does anyone who is not a comedian even think Donald Trump has a moral pedigree? It's a pretty good bet that 2024 is going to confirm that Donald Trump is an evil lying narcissist. While Joe Biden may not be a saint, I have a strong hunch he will look very "not criminal" by comparison.

Hard to believe it was over 30 years ago. I had just moved to Portland. Which is where the film was set, as you know. Gus Van Sant was a groundbreaker. Drugstore Cowboy was another one of his great early films. And, yes, that scene was remarkably tender, and sweet, and also sad. Probably the best part of a very good movie. Although there is also that brief memorable moment on the motorcycle. But only because Keanu looked so incredibly pretty. 😍

This is moving off Spacey. But it seems like just about everything that could be said about him has been said. This is about US public opinion. Although it aligns with what you are saying about Canada. The Democratic Party Left vs. the Center If you have not followed Teixeira, he was co-author, with John Judis, of The Emerging Democratic Majority back in 2003. The fact that he moved from being a liberal saying there was light at the end of the tunnel during the W/Iraq War era to being a liberal on the outs with "cultural leftism" does illustrate how much the Democratic Party has changed. Personally, I view it as a nice problem. Twenty years ago, Democrats were out of power. Now we have to be careful about losing power. Because what Teixeira calls cultural leftists do push hard and do turn the center off. That essay covers a lot of hot button culture war issues, as is typical for him. But trans issues, and especially medical treatment issues, are always front and center in the culture war. And I have no doubt Teixeira's polling is right. The issue he most focuses on is that this turns off White working class voters without college degrees, who are more aligned with the Democratic Party on issues I'd call economic populism - support for unions, tax the rich more, help the working class more. But Teixeira focuses just as much on moderate Hispanic, Black and Asian voters who are turned off by what they see as extremes. There's obviously a big difference between the 1990's, when you couldn't even be Gay and go die for your country, and today, when you can be married to a man and in the military. The issue now is whether the government should pay for your gender-affirming care. It's a nice problem in the sense that that what used to be viewed as extreme in the 1990's in now mainstream. That is a moving and also sad profile of what it was like for you, @forky123. I'm glad that's behind us, too. The only quarrel I have with Teixeira is how much these extremes are actually "Democratic" positions. He left a left-of-center think tank where he felt unwelcome, in order to join the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute. Which he felt was more open to broad debate. If he is talking about think tank circles in DC or Twitter "activists," I am quite sure he is right that they think they speak for the Democratic Party. But a lot of those moderates in his polls are Democrats. He is right that if Democrats want power we should be worried about pushing them away. This is, by the way, why I started a thread called "Have The Gays Gone Too Far?" To provoke a reaction. My answer is NO, I don't think we have gone too far, in general. I don't think same sex marriage or Gays in the military was going too far. Although many saw it that way at the time. There is no question that on some of these issues, like gender-affirming care, a small group of activists are feeding fuel into the culture war in a way that could backfire badly. Recall that "Gays in the military" was seen by most as a contributing factor to the massive electoral backlash in the 1994 midterms. Which led Clinton to moderate, which pissed off lots and lots of Gays. The good news to me is that nothing like that happened in 2022. That said, I strongly agree with Teixeira. He was right about getting the Democratic majority he wanted. And he is right again about how "cultural leftism" could sabotage it. We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate about groping and unwanted sexual advances. 😉

We agree on all the main points. I want to make sure what I said regarding the LGBTQ community is clear. I'll be brief. I started that other thread on being a queer actor today to separate different things. There is plenty of evidence that even if you are young, wildly hot, wildly popular, and Gay, it is STILL hard to come out as a queer actor in 2023. Getting better. But the people in the spotlight still obviously worry about ruining their career. Or protecting their privacy. Or both. So, like I said on the other thread, I think it is perfectly understandable that Spacey did not come out in the 1990's, when fame came to him. There's no reason to think he would have had it any easier than Gays in the military, at that time. I think the most positive way to say it is that coming out is not one size fits all. It is different for everyone. The specifics with Spacey is that he was also outed. But not because he was Gay and had a husband. Because he was Gay and was being accused of being a serial predator. It was that particular combination that put Spacey in a unique place that no other Gay actor I can think of who came out, or has been outed, has been in. I think organizations like GLAAD, which I cited above, were honest and fair. First, we empathize with you as a Gay man. Second, all these allegations are a completely separate matter from being Gay. But I agree with you that that some of the intolerant positions that what I'll call "Twitter Gays" - is it X Gays now? - have taken, like on queer baiting, are outside of the mainstream values - like tolerance and privacy - that most big LGBTQ organizations champion. That's the key point to me. We completely agree. It's over. Hopefully in a decade when fans learn actors they like are Gay, it will be as normal as simply assuming they are Straight. And won't even need to be discussed.

Will Chardonnay do? 😉 I agree with you, if we are talking about horse race polls. The fact that Trump and Biden are tied, despite the fact that most people are negative about the economy, is a bit encouraging to me. As I said, I don't think Trump can do much better, since he never has. I do think Biden can do better. Again, because he has. I think you agree. I double checked and my memory is correct. About a year before they were re-elected, polls showed Reagan losing to Mondale, Clinton losing to Dole by 9 points, and Obama losing to Romney. In Fall 1982 6 in 10 Americans said Reagan should not seek a second term. Does this sound in the least bit familiar? That's from June 2011. So much for horse race polls How unpopular is Joe Biden? The job approval and favorability polls are what worries me. The rule of thumb is that any incumbent under 50 % is potentially in trouble. I underlined the word potentially. I like that 538 page because it compares where Biden is now to where every other POTUS who has been polled was at the same time. And where they ended up. So right now Biden's favorability is ahead of where one POTUS was: Carter, who lost. He is tied with another POTUS who lost, Trump. He is 3 points behind where Obama and Reagan were at the same time. And 6 points behind where Clinton was at the same time. I think favorability numbers now matter, because they almost always change slowly. So by this point in their first term the favorability ratings for Obama, Reagan, and Clinton, as well as the economies they governed, were all at least starting to recover. And by election day all three of them ended up at 50 % favorability, or higher. That's not happening with Biden, yet. At some point, but not yet or even soon, Biden just runs out of time. And I know I am being schizo. And I am drinking Chardonnay. Because for somewhat different reasons than you, Alan Lichtman would agree that polls are of utterly no use. Period. Since I think Lichtman is right, both in his broad theory and in fact, I guess I should not care about polls. But if I go with Lichtman and forget about polls, it leads me to the same place: it's the economy, stupid. I know I have posted this multiple times, but it's my gold standard. Alan has predicted every race since 1984 correctly, in advance. Some people think the whole theory is bullshit. Other seize on one part of it and argue, "This time is different." But, so far, every time he is right. So in case that chart looks complicated, I'll decode it quickly and easily. History says if the economy is good, it is almost impossible for Biden/Harris to lose. The key number above is having 6 false keys. That's when the party in power (in this case Democrats) lost the Presidency every time going back to the Civil War. So far, Biden has 3 false keys. 1) Democrats lost seats in the midterm ("party mandate"). 2) He does not have a foreign policy success. 3) He is not charismatic. Which Lichtman defines as some like Ike, or Reagan in 1984, or Obama in 2008, who can win a landslide by transcending partisan divides. Based on what is happening right now, let's add a few more false keys. Republicans could impeach Biden. There could be a No Labels third party run that gets over 5 % of the vote. That's 5 false keys. Still not enough to toss out Biden, if history is a guide. As long as Biden has the economy on his side. Realistically, the only thing on that list that could add a 6th and fatal key against Biden is a military defeat. Presumably in Ukraine. Vlad is working hard on that. But I'm skeptical he can pull it off. Again, all of this is premised on the idea that we're not in a recession, and the economy is growing. I put up that chart again because this is precisely why I'm not a fan of the idea of replacing Biden through a bitter, contested Democratic primary. Again, Democrats are currently down 3 keys. If the candidate is not the incumbent, and she is nominated through a divisive primary, Democrats lose two more keys. That's 5. Meaning nothing else can go wrong. Add an impeachment of Biden, or a third party candidate that gets over 5 % of the vote, and a shitty economy, and Democrats have 9 keys against them. The last time that happened was 2008. History says that instead of Biden winning in a landslide as Veep, he would lose in a landslide as POTUS. I've seen interviews were people argue this theory may be right, in general. But this time is different on some key point. Specifically, a lot of people clearly feel in 2024 that if it would be better for Democrats if the incumbent did not run. And we instead had a contested primary. Even if it is divisive. What we know for a fact is that two years before he won in one of the biggest landslides ever, 60 % of Americans said Reagan should not seek another term. Turns out that was less about Reagan, and more about the economy, stupid. Lichtman has already said that unless there is some dramatic change in Biden's health, he thinks age will prevent him from winning in 2024 about as much as it prevented Reagan from winning in 1984. To make it even simpler, there are only three instances in that chart above when the overall economy sucked, and both economic keys worked against the incumbent party: 1992, 2008, 2020. In all three cases, the incumbent party lost. Even when the incumbent POTUS (like W. in 2008) was not running. Which is why I think it's the economy, stupid. Not Biden or Harris or age or race.

Damn! I feel so embarrassed. I just assumed he was talking about my penis. Sometimes I forget that I am posting, and not reading old reviews. 😉 Seriously, I do feel a bit vindicated. Because I have never liked Twitter, and never had an account on it. Too easy to promote endless brief lies and shallow thinking. I'm hoping it is falling out of fashion. In this article on "queer baiting," Harry Styles appropriately targeted Twitter and said this:

We agree. Nicely, and succinctly, stated. I'll add some thoughts. Of course. 😉 I reread that list of 30 men above. We don't know whether the main point for most of them was legal action, including wanting Spacey jailed. Even if they had wanted that, they might have felt it would involve time, money, and reopening old wounds. And that they were the types of cases that have been hard to prove in the past. And still are. There is at least one allegation that involved "attempted rape," made by someone who is anonymous. Most of the allegations relate to "unwanted sexual advances" or groping. By guys who were, in at least some cases, being casual with him, or drinking with him, or possibly flirting - at least in his eyes, perhaps. There is a difference between being a gross man, and being a criminal. I think that factors in. One big lesson to Gay celebrities is "Don't be gross." That may sound silly. But it was THE takeaway from the Franken affair for every politician in America. I remember reading some article I found helpful, about some woman who wanted a photo with Franken at the state fair and felt he touched her inappropriately. Like his hand was on her butt. Some other Minnesota politician was quoted as saying something like this, going from memory: "Whenever a constituent asks me to take a photo, I am always very verbal and very explicit. I ask, May I put my arm around your shoulder for the purpose of taking a photo?" Joe Biden obviously didn't learn that lesson growing up. But even he has learned. 😉 I Googled "Gay celebrities accused of rape or sexual assault." Happily, I got nothing Gay. I did get lots of lists of male celebrities who have been accused. Here's one. As far as I know, Spacey is the only one who is Gay. 29 of the 30 are Straight. Just to show how making assumptions can be wrong, I thought one of them sure looked Gay. Nope. As soon as I Googled it, he's Straight. Here's my point. From rereading some of the articles from five years ago, it is clear that one reason Spacey caused a huge LGBTQ backlash is that he chose not to come out before. Which is his choice, of course. But when he did come out, it at least appeared to be that "I'm Gay" was somehow meant to explain or generate sympathy in the context of a whole bunch of allegations. All of which went to the core of every trope used against Gay men forever. We are pedophiles. We groom children. We can't control ourselves. In retrospect, it's perhaps a good thing he didn't come out. Because no prominent out Gay celebrity in the US, to my knowledge, has actually been accused of any of these things. If anything, it should help the world welcome Gay celebrities who just want to live normal and mostly private lives with their partners and families. Like most Straight celebrities do. Meanwhile, no one is compiling a list of Gay celebrities who hire escorts. Or Gay celebrities who go to Thailand to have sex with men. Mostly, no one gives a shit. And if they do, it is none of their fucking business.

I know I will post things with a whole bunch of points. So this one I'll focus on one point, which is repeating a point I made above. ‘Red, White & Royal Blue’ Sex Scenes Are Fueled by ‘Voracious and Animalistic’ Desire, Says Star Nicholas Galitzine The British actor stars in the LGBTQ rom-com with Taylor Zakhar Perez That is his interview with a Gay Variety writer. There's an audio version which is worth a listen. I view it as a nice contribution to this discussion about "queer baiting." He is right that it is a sensitive issue, and it should be openly discussed. This is an assumption on my part. But it assumes intelligence and empathy. I assume Galitzine and the director, Lopez, who he mentions, had to discuss this before the interview. So in addition to the fictional characters in the book and movie sending these really positive, welcome, tolerant, and queer-affirming messages around the world, the actors who play them seem to be doing the same. Galitzine is doing it overtly, it seems. It's of course possible that the question of whether Nick is a Straight actor playing a Gay role just happened to be asked by a well known reporter, who just happens to be Gay. But I strongly suspect this was written into the script, wisely. I'll speculate a little more. Galitzine seems more like the character he played in Handsome Devil than in RWRB. He was less experienced, and not as good an actor. He seems like a jock who likes rugby and doesn't wear his sexuality on his sleeve, whatever it is. Which is fine. He will not be the first or last handsome Straight actor who advances his career by playing Gay men. His career is now at a point where he can get just about any role he wants, probably. But I won't complain if he plays more Gay men. And if there is not an RWRB sequel, I will be extremely pissed. He does at least owe that to The Gays, regardless of how challenging it is for him to be outed on film. Or adored by millions, in real life. 😉 Taylor, ironically, has the opposite problem. Can a hot Gay boy play a hot Bi boy and still have a career? Right now, it's looking good. And so is Taylor, of course!

"Outed" may or may not even be the right word. Which goes back to my main point: I think we are just beginning to figure out how to talk about this. As a one liner, since I know I tend to go long and hard, I'm thrilled that we have a hot Gay actor who was cast in a beloved queer role. 🙂 That said, I've enjoyed watching Straight Nick in every Gay role he has played. 🙂 This website is the one I've been following, and where somebody posted that photo. Along with probably thousands of others. That thread started in 2020, circa Kissing Booth 2. I became aware of it around when RWRB hit. I think it was maybe 50 pages long then. I found it precisely because I was curious about whether he is Gay. And a Google search led me there. There's a thread on Nicholas Galitzine on that website, also. Which has an interesting discussion about "queer baiting" where people go back and forth. There's at least a few other websites that I ended up looking at, because somebody put a hyperlink on LPSG to some other lively, and sometimes nasty, fan discussion. I can't remember the name, but one website had hundreds of thousands of members and had a logo that said something like, "Celebrities are expendable. The gossip is precious." The thing that came closest to "outing" is somebody posted some of these pictures and videos on TikTok. Which seemed to make it incredibly clear that Taylor is Gay or Bi, and married to a man. That was removed by Tik Tok, but only after tens of thousands of other people viewed it. On the website I linked there has been a lively discussion about how Taylor's Chinese fans have been uncovering his entire social media history. And speculating about whether a fairly homophobic country will accept him more easily because he is married to a guy of Chinese origin. So the horse is out of the barn, without Taylor's consent. Which is I think what happened with Polo Marin. Although his somehow involved a masturbation video, which I'm guessing many of Taylor's fans wouldn't mind having been included with the package. 🙄 But I think 100 % of the content is something Taylor posted somewhere at some time. It was not hacked, as it was with Morin (and Taylor's character in RWRB). I went through that in detail to illustrate the issue, circa 2023. I'm not sure it counts as "outing" when fans are speculating about you on websites. Which then quickly includes pictures or videos you posted years ago, when you were nobody. Before you deleted or archived them because you cared whether somebody might reach conclusions based on pictures like the ones above. Problem is, somebody saved it on their hard drive, and reposts it, if I understand what is happening. You can also argue that it is the Gay actor's fault, because he never should have posted anything anywhere. There's a reason why a lot of people are very careful about what they post, because it could later impact their career. But it is a different world than the one Noel Coward was living in, when he could perhaps more easily choose not to be seen as Gay. I know how I feel about this. I think it's silly to argue fans should not, or will not, speculate. Or course they will. And of course every fashion or glamour magazine in the world will feed the speculation, to make money. So my view is don't blame it on me, or fans, or Taylor. I think the thing that needs to be talked about is the system as it is. And how it might work better for LGBTQ actors trying to make it, but also trying to be honest and out. I hope "queer baiting" is quickly becoming seen as a problem, not a solution. I also thing "fandom" is a two way street. I can relate to it easily as a past escort. There are lots of escorts who keep many secrets about many celebrities, Gay or Straight, they had sex with. So if the idea is that, simply as a fan of Taylor's, I have to spend the next 20 years hearing him talk about how he wishes Joey King would date him, I guess I can live with that. I think it would be better if he could just say he went to Joey's wedding, not as the groom. And he brought his husband with him. As I said above, Luke Macfarlane could come out in 2008 knowing that being honest with his fans would not ruin his career. Because his fans would accept the truth. And maybe also admire his honesty. Kevin Spacey did NOT feel that way in the 1990's. And I don't blame him for that. It's a work in progress. Taylor, like Kit O'Connor and Polo Morin before him, is going through a trial by fire, whether he chose to or not. And all these guys have millions of fans globally, not all of whom are queer, who probably now love them even more. I would not argue it helps their career. Or that it isn't hell on earth for them for a while. But this is not the Hollywood Kevin Spacey rose in. It's at least somewhat better. Some Gays feel RWRB is mediocre Hallmark fluff with Marvel dialogue. I fell in love with it. In part because the director and writer, Matthew Lopez, seems spot on about almost everything. He said something about how he cast the characters to be a little older than in the book because he wanted them to be at an age where they could confront these private issues publicly in an adult manner. I think that accurately reflects how this is actually playing out in real life. Kit O'Connor, at 18, was pissed about being forced to say anything about himself so soon. Polo Marin was in his mid-20s, and was clearly torn between wanting to come out and not wanting to ruin his career. Macfarlane, and I think a lot of America's top Gay actors, tended to come out and find their partners in their 20's or 30's. Taylor is 31. I'm thrilled that younger queer actors have choices that Spacey and others of his generation did not feel they had.

Interesting that all the likely Plan B's are from California. The betting averages RCP posts suggest that the most likely Democratic nominee, if it's not Biden, is my Guv, Gavin Newsom. It's not clear how that would happen, since he just said there is no chance that's gonna happen. Of course, they always say that. I like watching Bill Kristol's interviews. He is an inside player who clearly talks off the record with lots of very smart politicos. So I believe him when he says behind the scenes lots of Democrats will say that they wouldn't mind if neither Biden nor Harris were the nominee. But here's the thing, they say: how do you actually make that happen? The only way of course is Biden and Harris would both have to agree not to run. Which is a little bit like saying that maybe Trump and DeSantis will decide not to run and somebody like Nikki Haley will be nominated. Don't hold your breath. I can see two scenarios where Biden is not the nominee. The most obvious and likely one is he dies, or almost dies and has to resign. As you said, Plan B is Veep becomes POTUS. The interesting question then is, would someone like Newsom run against Harris, assuming there was time to do so? I would not bet on it. The polls say in a competitive primary, she'd beat anyone. Including Michelle Obama, who btw says she has zero interest in being POTUS. There would be a lot of public pressure to rally behind the new POTUS and let her focus on her day job. Privately, the same politicos that gossip with Kristol would be saying our best chance of winning is to rally behind her. Rather than have a divisive primary loaded with questions about whether people think Harris is not up to the job simply because she's a Black woman. It's interesting that everybody speculates about whether Trump will end up in jail, and nobody speculates about whether he will end up in a coffin by next year due to a heart attack. He'd seem to be a candidate for that, as well as Biden. If I assume Biden dies or can't run and Harris is POTUS and the nominee, I think that could be exciting. Immediately, age is an advantage for Democrats, who are presumably running against Trump. Yes, people will say Kamala Harris is not up to the job. That looks different when the alternative is Trump. Whose problem is that 53 % or so of Americans are horrified by the idea of putting him back in a job they never wanted him to have in the first place. The cherry on the icing on the cake for me, in this situation, would be name some like Gretchen Whitmer Veep. It obviously helps in Michigan. It adds experience to the ticket. And I think it would be a thrilling alternative to Trump. It would be like the female version of Clinton/Gore in 1992. Two younger figures that reinforce this dynamic image. And I also include it because Bill Clinton, like Harris, is someone who many Democrats thought was a problem that would lead us to disaster if nominated. It also solves the Hunter Biden problem. Kick his sorry little ass out of the White House permanently. I'm guessing Republicans would immediately lose interest in his art, bank accounts, guns, and past drug addictions. All that said, I still go back to the economy, stupid. If Harris is POTUS, she's still running on the incumbent Administration's record. The economy is the main thing dragging both her and Biden's approval ratings down. There is no getting around it. Which is why they are at least trying to turn it into a positive. Time will tell. Which leads me to the other Plan B I can see for Democrats. Assume by the end of 2023 the economy is tipping into recession, but despite that gas prices are on the rise again. The S & P tanks and is back to 3500, or lower. If we really want to speculate and channel 1968, assume Biden can't even get 50 % of the vote in the New Hampshire primary. RFK, Jr. humiliates the sitting President by nearly beating him with 42 % of the vote. That's the kind of situation where I could remotely imagine Biden and Harris being begged privately to step aside, for the good of the party. Like in 1968, it probably would not end well for Democrats. I love to worry. But these circumstances are so remote that I don't plan to spend time worrying about it.

Be a sweetie, and let's say we round it up to 40 %? Okay? 🙂 Since you want to talk math, I have a comment and then a math question. I'd love you to tell me how you think Trump wins. I'll go first. The comment is that I didn't start this thread to criticize Biden. Or to suggest he should not be the nominee. I started it because I think the economy is the reason Biden could lose. I'll cite Clintonista Democratic strategist Doug Sostik, who recently told this to errant Never Trump Republican Bill Kristol. If the 2024 election is about the economy, Trump has a strong case, he thinks. If it is about whether people want more crazy, Biden wins. Sostik said he thinks the 2020 and 2022 elections came down to whether people wanted more crazy. And both times Democrats did well. Asked what 2024 was more likely to be about, he said he thinks Trump will be the nominee. Which will make it about whether people want more crazy. Again. So Biden wins. I'm guessing you disagree. I know what the polls about Biden running again say. But it's not about whether Biden tops the ticket to me. It's about the economy, stupid. And, more narrowly, the inflation, stupid. What solves the economy problem, like with senile old Reagan in 1983, is if people feel the economy improves. So far Biden is selling. But the people he needs ain't buying, yet, as those articles I posted make clear. So here's my question. Right now Trump and Biden are exactly the same in the RCP favorability averages, 56 % unfavorable and 40 % favorable. Ain't that sweet? They're like two peas in pod. 😉 Even so, an overwhelming majority of Americans don't want a Trump/Biden rematch. So who do you think is more likely to be able to overcome that 40 % number, and win a majority or plurality? Trump or Biden? Call me biased, but I think Biden. Simply based on the math. I'll lay out my case, and you tell me yours. As you can see from that poll, Trump has never been viewed favorably by any more than 45 % of Americans. If we go by his approval ratings as POTUS, the very highest he reached, for a matter of weeks, was 47 %. He lost in 2020 by 46.8 % of the vote. So something like 47 % seems to be his hard limit. I can see one clear way to change that: by making Donald Trump NOT be Donald Trump. Which is what sucks about these trials, in particular. When Republicans line up to testify next year about how they told Trump he lost the election, or Mar A Lago employees detail how Trump ordered them to obstruct the FBI, Independents will be thinking, "Yup. Sounds like crazy Trump to me." Biden won with 51.3 % of the vote in 2020. Until about August 2021, his approval rating was over 50 %. Did I mention that his approval rating crashed below 50 % right around when inflation crashed above 5 %? Did I mention his approval rating hit bottom in mid-2022, when inflation peaked? Biden' average approval rating was 37 % then and 42 % now, according to RCP. Hence, whether I go by the poll numbers or what real people in those articles say, it's very clearly the inflation stupid. And the economy, stupid. So you can see where the math is headed, @Moses. Trump's chances of cracking 47 % for the first time since .................. NEVER! ........................ is pretty low. But if inflation continues to subside and the economy continues to improve, Biden has more than a 0 % chance of seeing his approval ratings improve. 50 % of Americans could vote for him, and did, not that long ago. Why might his ratings improve? The economy can and does change. Trump can't and won't change. Trump may be criminal, but he's not stupid. I think he knows that to win, it helps to run in a split field. Both in the primary and general. In 2016, Trump did worse than Romney in 2012 (47.2 %) or Trump in 2020 (46.8 %). He barely did better than McCain in 2012 (45.7 %). The reason 46.1 % was enough to win in 2016 was a relatively strong third party candidate, and the electoral college in the Rust Belt. So in addition to a weak economy, or a recession, Trump has to be hoping somebody like Manchin runs. I don't think Cornell West does it. But a recession and a No Labels third party candidate that could maybe get 5 % of the vote would open up a whole new MAGAverse. Vlad would love it, I'm sure. That's my scenario. What's your scenario? How do you see Trump winning when 53 % of Americans never have and never will vote for him?

I'm referring to he two actors in Red White and Royal Blue. Pictured in the GIF in my post above. TZP on the left, Galitzine on the right. Nicholas Galitzine is a British actor who has played I think about half a dozen Gay or Bi characters. So for a decade, probably starting with Handsome Devil, there has been speculation about whether he is Gay. And as much as anyone else, he's an object of all these questions about "queer baiting," or whether Straight guys should be taking so many Gay roles. As I said, he just acknowledged he is Straight, and that this is a sensitive issue that needs to be discussed, in a Variety interview. Taylor Zakhar Perez's biggest role prior to RWRB was The Kissing Booth 2, in which he played the Straight sex symbol, Marco. So in case I was assuming people knew things they don't, part of the catalyst to this post is that the film, which is a Gay fairy tale filmed by an out Gay director, is a global hit. It's not clear to me why this would not have happened a few years ago, when The Kissing Booth, also a global hit, came out. But Taylor has been outed as a Gay married man on social media. Probably one reason is that suddenly he is very hot, as a star, in addition to the fact that he has always been very hot, as a guy. And some of it is probably because of all the views about queers playing queer roles. I was clueless when Mexico's Polo Marin was outed in a similar fashion several years back. But I don't think there's any going back, even though it's all on social media for now. Add Heartstoppers Kit O'Connor, who recently came out as Bi at 18 on Twitter after being bullied on Twitter for allegedly "queer-baiting" his fans. I would not call any of these three the most prominent Gay actors ever. But they are among the most prominent Gay actors of the moment, in the US, Mexico, and the UK. And they all were outed, in one fashion or another. It's a nice problem to have, in that none of this would be happening if queers were not being represented in cinema in new ways, or the movies were just flops. My main point is I think we're just starting to be able to talk about queer actors and coming out - as opposed to the queer characters some actor, queer or not, plays.

First, thanks for recommending Happy Together. I've heard of it, and knew it has great IMDB scores. It's on my list of films to watch. Second, you may have predicted Nicholas Galitzine's next Gay role - LOL. He's doing Mary & (bi) George now. Can a movie where he plays Noel Coward be far behind? I'm joking, of course. Galitzine brought up in the Variety interview that some of his friends in the LGBTQ community feel more of these queer roles should be played by queers. Others friends don't care, he said. The issue isn't going away. More important, the issues around coming out for queer actors aren't going away. I think we're going to be talking about this for a long time. The point about Noel Coward is a good one. Arguably, it was easier when the solution was simple: you just didn't come out. But that was hardly simple, for Gay actors or Gay anyone. I'm not sure any actor wants to be known first and foremost as Gay. But I think Macfarlane is probably right. Whether they've felt "tortured and ruined," which is a bit dramatic, most queer actors probably don't want to have to lie and live in the closet. I think we know that simply from the increasing number of popular and successful actors who are out. But it is very much a work in progress. Matthew Lopez said there are as many queer stories to tell as there are queer people. To use 1995 and The Celluloid Closet as one starting point, the explosion of good LGBTQ cinema since we've started talking about how queers are represented in movies proves Lopez is right. So if we use these recent awkward if not awful coming out dramas for Gay or Bi actors as a starting point, hopefully this leads to an explosion of queer talent in the decades to come. The only thing I disagree with you about is I think the world is an increasingly fair place. At least on these issues. We do have same sex marriage in many nations. We do have more and better queer cinema. Now we can even have fairy tales with happy endings. The Oscars So White pushback appears to be working - slowly. Both at the bottom, in terms of more actors, writers, and directors who are not White men, and the cherry on the cake - who is nominated for and wins Oscars. That itself raises a touchy issue. If queer actors, writers, and directors are not out, how do we know these things? Do we even want to know? Like I said, we'll be talking about this for a long time. Those numbers suggest Latino representation is a big problem. Lopez has said that queer Mexican American representation is what really drew him to RWRB. And, it seems, to TZP. I strongly agree with your point that acting is extremely competitive. They're actors, not activists. So I wouldn't begrudge a queer Hispanic actor for being more worried about what he has to say to get a role than he is about how he represents the queer community.

Actually, he was found to have done something wrong. I agree with the idea that if we're going to judge Spacey, we ought to have a reason. So I spent a few more hours going through this. Some of this refreshed my memory. I was not aware of the trials, and I did not follow them. I remember when this first all came out I followed it closely enough to conclude that Spacey sure sounded like a serial predator. Kevin Spacey must pay over $30 million to "House Of Cards" makers, judge rules So no individual victim who alleged Spacey groped or sexually assaulted him succeeded in court. As far as I can tell, there were two jury verdicts. One in New York on the initial allegation by Rapp. And the London verdict that was described by Spacey's lawyers as people who just wanted to pile on for the money. A third allegation of groping the son of a prominent local newscaster in Nantucket in a bar was dropped. As that quote indicates, the basis of the LA judgement had to do with Spacey being fired for ongoing sexual harassment of the film's crew. So it does sound like they were able to prove there was a "there" there. As far as why the 30 or so allegations did not result in 30 or so convictions, here's something to keep in mind: Why are we so bad at prosecuting sexual assault? Less than 1% of sexual assaults lead a conviction. Here’s what you can do to fix that. I agree that just because 30 or so people accuse you of something, it doesn't make it true. That said, my own standard is that Weinstein, Cosby, Trump, Clinton, and Spacey are also not innocent simply because a jury could not find them guilty. Of the three, Weinstein, Cosby, and Trump actually have been found guilty relating to specific incidents of harassment and/or rape. I'm not a lawyer, but Spacey's $30 million judgment seems to fall in a different, but related, category. The closest Clinton got to a conviction was making an $850,000 settlement with Paula Jones, based on allegations about oral sex and groping similar to the allegations about Spacey. Again, I'm not a lawyer. But it's easy for me to see why these individual allegations would be hard to prove. Mostly because they were a long time ago. And I am pretty sure they were never reported at the time. If I understand correctly, the Nantucket case fell apart because the alleged victim refused to testify about some text messages his mother, a prominent local newscaster, said she deleted from the phone before she gave it to the police. The texts related to her son's "frat boy activities," the mother said. So Spacey sounds like he had good lawyers. Because I think the tried and true method to defend yourself is to discredit the victim. This is why I believe Spacey is doing exactly what Trump, or Clinton, did. Don't give an inch. Deny everything. Blame the victim. I'm not saying that makes Spacey guilty. But it doesn't make him innocent, either. The House of Cards allegations were more recent, and apparently easier to prove I think the legal part is finally over. So now what we're left with is social media or, more broadly, public opinion. I recoil from the idea that we should just forget about all the "toxic" allegations, proven and unproven, and assume 30 or so alleged victims just made up a bunch of shit. That said, that is what "Frank" would like us to do. I looked around to see if, at any point, Spacey offered any explanation for why so many men happened to think there was a consistent pattern over the course of decades of predatory behavior. There is nothing I could find in his voice that addresses the allegations, except this: Kevin Spacey Posts Video as Frank Underwood to Seemingly Confront Sexual Assault Claims "You wouldn't rush to judgement without facts, would you? Did you?" Spacey asks in a video posted to his social media accounts. I scanned some of the comments. The one that by far got the most likes was this one, with almost 9000 likes and 200 comments: Not surprisingly, the 200 comments on that comment were all over the map. This comment which I strongly agree with, was liked by 213 people: I think an example of that is Al Franken, who I mentioned above. He was respectful to the women making allegations, and stated the Ethics Committee needed to look into the facts. He also could have gotten into character and tried to explain it, or lampoon the alleged victims. Mostly, he's just tried to be the nice guy we thought we knew. And it seems to be working better. He hosted The Daily Show for a week before the strike. The audience loved him. Again. It was presumed at the time that Spacey's video above was in part an audition for getting his job as Frank back. If so, it didn't work. I'm not surprised. I understand Spacey's legal strategy boxed him in. If he was being sued by alleged victims, he can't really explain his behavior to us. His lawyers no doubt have been telling him to keep his mouth shut, for years. Even retracting his apology to an alleged victim, which I think looked awful, arguably served a legal purpose. Being sorry suggested he might have done something wrong. I get all that. This is why I want Spacey to go away. What I'm sure he feels he had to do legally precludes anything in the ballpark of understanding, apology, reconciliation, or rehabilitation. To me, it does mean he has to be just like Trump. I was right. I was wronged. These people are liars. Why would you believe them? Believe me. It would be an embarrassment for the LGBTQ community to get behind Spacey in the way MAGA gets behind Trump.

So I'm starting this thread to put a positive spin on where we are in 2023. There are three threads that start with negatives - Spacey's court verdict, an Asian boy band predator, and an overall discussion about "wokeness" in films and plays. Tangentially, we could throw in Bernstein and Bradley Cooper as a ridiculous example of "nose-baiting," which I guess is kinda like "queer-baiting." 🤔 So this will be a long rambling think piece. But I'll summarize my two main points. First, I'm delighted that we have broader, better, and more positive representation of queers in films than ever before. I'll use Red White & Royal Blue, Heartstoppers, and Uncoupled as examples. I'll throw in Your Name Engraved Herein to make a few points, too. Second, while it's easier to be a Gay character in a film, it seems like we still have a mess on our hands in terms of whether it's actually okay to be a Gay or Bi actor. At one extreme, the concept of "queer-baiting" suggests everyone should come out, even by force, and mostly or only play roles that match their real life sexual orientation. In real life, Kit O'Connor was forced out, with this idea used as an excuse for cruelty. TZP is being outed right now, all over the world. Not for queer-baiting, but for being queer. But what that means is fans are collecting and commenting on things he posted on social media for about a decade. I would not call it cruel. But I would call it a mess. Meanwhile, we have what I'll call the Luke Macfarlane standard. Which is "just be honest about who you are." That seems to work these days. That's one of my favorite clips from one of my favorite LGBTQ films, The Celluloid Closet. So I'll use it to do a compare and contrast between three time periods over a quarter century apart: 1962, 1995, and today. When The Celluloid Closet came out in 1995, it was itself a sign that it was just becoming okay to talk about how queers are portrayed on film. I'm a fan of Lillian Hellman. But I agree with MacLaine. They had no idea what they were doing. They were totally unaware. Had they been lesbians, in real life, they almost certainly would have been more aware. And they almost certainly never would have been cast, or had successful careers. MacLaine is being a bit hard on herself, and her character. What was one supposed to do in 1962, when most people still thought being a lesbian actually was a disease? The spate of new Gay films I named, all rom coms or love stories, suggest that we really have learned a lot about representation of queers in film since 1995. There's a nice thread on Company Of Men of posters' favorite LGBTQ films. Almost all of them were made after The Celluloid Closet. This is why. I love both Heartstoppers and RWRB. I've read the criticisms of RWRB. That it's a mediocre Hallmark movie, based on fan fiction that reads like Marvel dialogue. But I think the book and film are so successful because they summarize and dramatize decades of learned LGBTQ wisdom. I'll single out one line that I've seen criticized repeatedly as Marvelesque: "Starting today I shall no longer be the prince of shame and secrets." That line, and much of the movie, could have been written as a direct response to The Children's Hour. Finally, we have Gay adults, in Uncoupled, and a Gay and Bi teen, in Heartstoppers, and a Gay prince and Bi First Son, in RWRB, who are willing to fight for their queer love. No wonder the world loves it. I'll throw in Your Name Engraved Herein. One person who posts here commented that it's one of the saddest movies he ever saw. I agree that it is sad. But I also see it as hopeful. I loved it. It is significant that it was the most successful LGBTQ movie ever in Taiwan. And the most successful movie of 2020 in Taiwan, period. I thought both the movie and its success was a recognition of how growing up in a culture like the one portrayed in The Children's Hour makes it challenging, but not impossible, to live a happy queer life with a partner. The other Asian movie I finally saw this year that I'd compare it to is Bishonen, from Hong Kong in 1999. It did prove you could cast gorgeous young Straight ABC actors, who would become friends in real life and have very successful careers. But the film was a flop. And like The Children's Hour it carried the message that these queer romances never end well. These are two examples of good LGBTQ cinema that makes it very easy to understand why audiences, especially young audiences, love the idea that we really can have queer fairy tales now. Where boy meets boy and does live happily ever after. In terms of whether boy actor can meet boy and fall in love in real life, I feel like we are at about 1995. Meaning we are just starting to be able to talk about it. In that TIME article I hyperlinked, Your Name Director Patrick Liu talked about using a trumpet as a symbol of "a sound quality of wanting to say something, but not being able to get it out." That seems to be where we still are. One anecdotal proof of concept is Kevin Spacey himself. He won his first Oscar right around when The Celluloid Closet came out. I don't blame him for prioritizing privacy, and his career. We know how Don't Ask, Don't Tell turned out in that era. So you can take that as an indicator that it was better for him not to tell the world he was Gay at that time. Kit O'Connor, 18, did not want to come out as Bisexual. He did mostly thanks to the cruelty of Twitter, in his own words. But taken to its extreme, "queer-baiting" means any actor, even a teen, should be required to declare his sexuality. Then we know whether it matches the character he plays. It's ridiculous. Polo Marin, Mexico's most popular Gay actor, was outed twice in his mid-20's. What he said in this interview captured some important nuances: Then there is Luke MacFarlane, who along with a lot of other Gay actors - like much of the cast of Uncoupled - is setting what I view as the gold standard. There's also the argument that, essentially, fans should not be fans. Or even human. We have no right to know anything about these people. One really good response I read from some actor to some question once was, "I like to keep my private life private." That's fair. That said, what both Marin and Macfarlane capture is that this does not happen in isolation. And it is a two way street. Marin wanted to be a role model for others. And now he is. Macfarlane made a pragmatic decision that he could afford to be honest to his fans. First, there's absolutely zero evidence that fans are going to stop acting like fans just because you are Gay. Second, he calculated he could be honest because his fans would love him and respect him for who he is. He was right. Plus, being honest is always easier. Out of curiosity, I Googled to see who the most private celebrities in the world are. I came up with this list. I think it is telling. If these are the most private celebrities in the world, we know a hell of a lot about them. Like their spouses, whether they have kids, their divorces. So if the idea is that fans are evil for wanting to know these things, good luck with that. I'll single out Matt Damon. Like MacFarlane, he seems to be a wise guy who figured out how to get ahead of the curve. Several friends have told me the story about how Damon is the kind of down to earth guy who would meet his wife in a hotel bar, where she was bartending. He is not so private that he didn't share with the world that his wife helped him through a period of depression. It makes perfect sense that celebrities who value privacy for their family try to manage it by curating what their fans get to know. I think they are wise. On the other hand, Harry Styles has proved you can do very well by essentially saying, I could care less what people say about me or my sexuality. He said there is going to be a set of narratives, anyway. And he feels no need to control or shape them. Although I suspect Harry can say that because it actually helps shape the Harry Styles mystique. It still means that his fans know he is dating Olivia Wilde, who wisely calls Harry's fans "kind." And now Taylor Zakhar Perez is in the global hot seat. Which is more proof that we're now better at portraying queers in film than we are at knowing how to talk about queer actors in real life. It is easy enough to blame TZP for about a decade's worth of queerish content he posted on social media. It is also easy enough to blame fans (or not fans) for caring about queerish content he posted on social media. I don't feel either are very fair to TZP, or his fans. But it does prove that if you are a nobody who becomes a big somebody on social media, keeping your private life private is next to impossible. So, like Damon or MacFarlane, it probably makes sense to think that through as early as you can. On Company Of Men I have raved repeatedly about how Galitzine finally came out as Straight in an interview with a Gay reporter at Variety when RWRB opened. It's funny that some fans on social media still think it's a ruse, and he didn't really say it or mean it. Fans will always be fans. I'm guessing that Galitzine and RWRB Director Matthew Lopez had to have talked about that interview. Galitzine kind of put Lopez on the hook by saying he wanted to discuss this with the openly Gay director right out of the gate, before he was cast. I view the interview as an honest and wise way to get ahead of any possible queer-baiting or outing adventures regarding Galitzine and RWRB. It is too much to hope that it will permanently end queer-baiting, and more cruel attacks on actors like Kit O'Connor. But it is a big step in the right direction. Even though RWRB was brilliantly scripted as a movie, and there seems to have been a script to undermine any possible queer-baiting backlash in real life, there is no apparent script for dealing with the fact that one of the two lead actors is Gay, or Bi, and married to a man. TZP could have gone to Variety and talked about being a queer actor in a queer movie. If these guys are as smart as I think they are, it suggests maybe there is a script. Like Harry Styles, TZP may have decided he is fine with fans developing any narrative they want. For now, at least. Fans are already deep into speculation about whether he shares his husband's somewhat more conservative political beliefs. That's a good reason to value privacy these days! I do hope this results in a lot more behind the scenes reflection on how Hollywood can do better. We now have lots of examples of queer actors who were outed. So it makes perfect sense that in the future queer actors should factor in that if they get their wish, and are wildly successful, they may not have a choice. The concept that curious fans should stop being curious fans is ridiculous. This is fun for me in part because it so NOT me. When I watched My Policeman with a Gay friend recently, he actually had to explain to me who Harry Styles is. I'd never heard of him. I skipped Kissing Booth 2 because I could care less about TZP, but wanted to know how the cheesy story in Kissing Booth 1 ended. Now I've been following gossip websites I've never heard of, and reading articles in magazines I never read, to see how we got to TZP being outed. So I'll point to one example of an article that is kind of innocuous, but also a perfect example of the problem. Right when Kissing Booth 2 was being released, TZP was interviewed by Glamour. Here's a few snippets: First of all, let's stop pretending that magazines like Glamour, or almost any other magazine or website in the world, are going to stop asking questions like that. So sexuality is on the table. Because they know that's what fans want to know. None of those answers are dishonest. But they are somewhat misleading, and a bit transparent. A few months later, if you Google it, there are all these articles in which TZP says he is not dating Joey King, who is a friend. And he wonders where fans even got that idea. Geez, who knows? 😉 A few people in these 100+ page "outing" discussions on TZP have speculated that Galitzine, having more experience, is more media savvy. That may be true. Glamour is clearly not doing upcoming queer actors any favors by asking these questions. I'm guessing TZP might have been thinking, "I could tell you. But then I'd have to kill my career." I'd be fine if we all just forgot about queer-baiting and instead focused on how the entertainment industry can help the LGBTQ actors who are starting to break through to just be who they are. We know Hollywood could exist for most of its history without outing queer actors. The old solution was they had to lie and be something they were not. I'm fine with the new solution being silence. At least for some people, for some time. If queer actors like Macfarlane want to tell the world they're Gay, and married to a guy, great. My bias is I'd rather they all come out. But if they don't want to, edit the question out of the interview. It's clear that a lot of this is discussed with directors and publicists in private. At least with some actors. So change the script. That said, now that TZP has gotten his wish, after what sounds like a decade or so of endless auditions, I'm guessing 99 % of the world will overlook these trivial things. If it makes anyone look bad, it should be the industry that insists on pigeonholing sex symbols into stereotypes. I have no idea what a better solution is for the awkwardness of being queer but not being ready to come out. The good news to me is that the increasingly viable long term solution is what Macfarlane did in 2008. Be honest. It did not end his career. He actually says it has helped his career. I hope he is right.

I had never heard of that case, @PeterRS. But it took me about 10 seconds on Google to figure out who you were talking about, and what he was accused of. I agree with your characterization. There were a lot of stories at the beginning about an arrest and allegations. Fewer about when and why he was cleared. But there were some stories afterward, including in The Guardian. There is a pattern here, I think. It was one allegation. Nothing I read sounded like he portrayed himself as a victim, or blamed anybody. He did cancel events, gracefully stating that he did not want allegations against his person to cloud anything. The main sense I got is what you communicated. He was intent on clearing his name. And he did. There were statements about how the investigation helped surface a child sex ring. Whether that was true, or simply a way to defend what the cops did, I have no way of knowing. What's interesting about it to me is that it is not particularly difficult to figure out the rules as they apply to the media and the police. Or the laws around prostitution, for that matter. The more I read about Spacey, the more he seems like one of the world's leading poster children for how to do it wrong. Here's another recent example that rubs me completely wrong: Kevin Spacey appears in court and blames publicist for sexual misconduct apology I read that as a big step backward. The problem isn't that I might have done something wrong. The problem is that I apologized, thanks to my stupid publicist. For some strange reason, there are something like 30 men, many with names attached and some of them underaged at the time, who accused him. Yet in his narrative, what comes through is that Spacey is always and only a victim. When he uses words like "privacy," it is like in the context above. Somehow, vaguely, this is just about me being a normal Gay man who wants my privacy. He really has no explanation for why so many Gay men seem to feel that he really did something wrong. I hyperlinked to an article about GLAAD saying Spacey is trying to deflect from his problems by making this about principles of LGBTQ liberation. I agree with GLAAD. We know the most prominent Gay actor in Mexico invoked privacy and discrimination to explain why he only came out by being outed. By all appearances, the world believes him. TZP is in the middle of his worst nightmare right now, for the same reason. But at the same time, it's a nice problem to have. When he made The Kissing Booth, which was quite successful, nobody particularly cared to figure out whether he was Gay. Now that he played a Bisexual man in a global blockbuster, all of a sudden people all over the world care. I feel bad for Taylor. But I also feel very happy for him and his husband. As with Polo Marin, I think it is going to end well. These are two very good examples of where we are at in 2023 regarding positive discussions about privacy. And whether or not it is possible to be honest about being Gay without ruining your career. I'll start a thread on that, because I think it's a very good discussion the world is having, and needs to have. The media does need an update, I think, in terms of how NOT to create an environment where Gay men have to be afraid of coming out. Spacey has nothing to do with that. The only time privacy became important to his public life is after there was a shit storm of allegations regarding predatory behavior. There are some other very clear examples of things that celebrities shouldn't do, that most can figure out. Hugh Grant and George Michaels are two examples, one Gay and one Straight, that demonstrate why celebrities, in particular, probably don't want to be in a position where they are soliciting sex in public. There's a solution. I have or have had several friends who worked for escort agencies decades ago. I was shocked when I heard a few of the names of celebrities they had sex with. There's a lot of typical names that everybody knows, I think. There are other ones that, as far as I can tell, nobody knows. I'm guessing some of these guys, who are big celebrities married to women, are or were Bi-curious. They may have just wanted to experiment when they were young. But somehow they were able to figure out how to climb the heights of Hollywood and become beloved actors, without the stigma of being Kevin Spacey. Good for them. They deserved, and got, their privacy. There are a few countries I traveled to as an escort where I was a little worried about whether I might end up in jail there. Thailand was not one of them. So to answer the question about how social media would deal with an adult man having sex with an 18 year old male prostitute, it happens all the time. If anything, Thailand was easy. Because there are known bars and resorts and spas you can go to, in privacy, to do your thing. Or to hire other local escorts to take home for the evening. The clients I went there with were not celebrities. We could go out to a bar, hire other escorts, and take them home. Once you become a celebrity, the rules change immediately. My impression is most celebrities understand that. The person Kevin Spacey actually reminds me of is Donald Trump. Deny everything. Don't give an inch. Play the victim. Don't apologize to all these people who for some reason feel like victims. And if you do apologize to them, apologize for apologizing. It is not a good look. And, like Trump, it leads us backward. Not forward.

Spacey has never been found guilty. The actor who sued him for molesting him as a child, Anthony Rapp, lost his case. I didn't follow it. But it sounds just from reading that article like almost every other sexual abuse or rape case. Goal # 1 is to discredit the accuser. At least enough to make things cloudy. Which it sounds like Spacey's lawyers were able to do. The nice thing for Democrats is Bill Clinton can now just be part of our past. Unlike Trump for Republicans. Biden deserves a mention here, mostly as someone who is NOT like the others. He was accused, but by one woman. Who was not particularly credible, for lots of reasons. There's no comparison with how many people accused Spacey (or Trump or Clinton) of serially engaging in the same behaviors. My main point is that the LGBTQ community has not, and should not, treat Spacey the way Republicans treat Trump and Democrats treated Clinton at the time. I think this was clear, but when I used "tortured and ruined" it certainly was not an excuse for any of the things Spacey was accused of doing. As has been noted, Spacey himself used a version of "tortured and ruined" - his White supremacist neo Nazi father - as a way to explain why he never came out until he was accused. That's very understandable. My hope is that Spacey, and the whole concept of "tortured and ruined" Gays, is increasingly just a symbol of the way things used to be. Including how we were viewed: as predators. As this article spelled out nicely: