Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Find&Fuck Waifus ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Kidulthood R 2006 ‧ Drama/Crime ‧ 1h 32m (Patreon)

Published:
2022-09-26 01:56:38
Edited:
2022-09-29 01:03:09
Imported:
2022-10

Content

This Video will be Edited down and replaced soon to further comply with fair use copyright laws.

Full Reaction Temporary Google Drive Link-https://drive.google.com/file/d/154WLuqwUidA6MeF1ymihY0NmXsiOAzQV/view?usp=sharing

Full Reaction Temporary Media Fire Link-https://www.mediafire.com/file/fqhsc2x1fomjtte/Kidulthood_R_2006_DramaCrime_1h_32m.mp4/file

Full Reaction Temporary Onehub Link-https://ws.onehub.com/files/6rv5fo5m

Dailymotion does not allow content longer than 60 minutes.

Spoiler Alert !!!!   Spoiler Alert !!!!   Spoiler Alert !!!!    Spoiler Alert !!!! Spoiler Alert !!!!Spoiler Alert !!!! Spoiler Alert !!!! Spoiler Alert !!!! Spoiler Alert !!!! Spoiler Alert !!!!

Files

sddefault.jpg

Thanks for watching Stay Happy, Safe, and Healthy!!! CHECK OUT OUR ENTIRE LIBRARY OF FULL REACTIONS TO MOVIES AND SHOWS HERE https://www.patreon.com/AfterWorkReactions 🎞📊VOTE FOR OUR NEXT SHOW OR MOVIE AND REQUEST SOMETHING AS WELL!🎞📊 😎Thank You Patrons for your generosity!! 😎 😎Thank You Subscribers for Watching, liking, commenting, and sharing!! 😎 😭Thank You Trolls for making me cry!! lol jk you're ok in a weird way 😭 You all are the reason we can keep this fun ride going. Tay and I thank you! 🔻Click Below to subscribe it's Free !!!🔻 https://www.youtube.com/c/Afterworkreactions?sub_confirmation=1 __________ Video- Original Video- Daily Motion-https://www.dailymotion.com/Afterworkreactions ------------------ Twitter- https://twitter.com/AfterWorkReact Daily Motion- https://www.dailymotion.com/Afterworkreactions Instagram- https://www.instagram.com/afterworkreactions/ Facebook- https://rb.gy/qyknjr Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/AfterWorkReactions

Comments

Liam

Your story at the end reminds me of when I was a kid. Back when COD MW3 was popular I borrowed it from a guy in my class and didn't think much of it. We weren't really good friends but would talk to each other every now and then about games. Anyway that day was our last ever day at high school 🤣 so I never saw him again and after a few weeks of playing the game I remembered I was borrowing it and didn't really have a way of returning it. I didn't know where he lived etc. I still feel kinda bad about it now years later. I guess that means I'm a pretty decent person? Maybe? 😂

TheHigh

legendary soundtrack , so many real classic UK tunes in ere , akala, dizzee , roots, Klash , bit of streets🔥

Anonymous

This film reminded me to be happy I'm not at school anymore. Surrounded by so many people I don't like! Just that opening act leading up to the suicide was brutal enough. I'd never seen it til now, but I do remember the posters for it on the London Underground stations when it was released. 'Bullet Boy's another good one in a similar vein.

Anonymous

Hope you add adulthood to the next movie list, it carry’s on the story a couple of years later when they are obviously all adults! Anuva(another)hood is also a good film, more of a comedy/drama

Austin Stratton

Written by Noel Clarke, (Sam) in 2000.. it's eerily accurate to how London schools were back then.. I don't have any knowledge about how they are now however..

Anonymous
>>92374964

Definitely less White kids now. Most of the schools in W11 area have no white kids at all. (White British make up less than 50% of London in general now, officially.)

(Just) Steve

I hope you haven't had to pay money to rent this, and I hope you aren't going to watch the next two movies. Noel Clarke was the writer/actor of this movie and the writer/actor/director of the next two movies. He's sexually harassed, bullied and abused over 40 women. (that we know of) I don't want him to receive a single penny, even if it's from watching it via a streaming service. Fuck him.

Anonymous
>>92405833

Indeed. This movie never should have made the list. Fuck Noel Clarke.

Jay
>>92405833

Well that rules out the movies produced by Harvey Weinstein, who still profits from them. If we're going to take the stance of boycotting every movie done by a sex offender, then either we stay consistent or not jump on that moral outrage bandwagon. I agree that Clarke is trash, but every single time, moral posturing always comes across as selective, which makes it a rather redundant gesture.

Austin Stratton
>>92405833

As far as I know they are just allegations. There is no evidence and the police have said there won't even be an investigation after the initial questioning of the girls led to multiple discrepancies and changes of stories. Now you can argue that 'he gets away with it because he's famous' but that isn't really true anymore and police are far more likely to prosecute after Yew Tree. He was banned from the Bafta because of these allegations and he has said it almost drove him to suicide. But let's ignore that shall we? As far as the law goes, you are innocent until proven guilty, and he isn't even being investigated. Let's just hope if you all ever get accused of something, your family and friends aren't as quick to judge you as you are to Noel.

(Just) Steve
>>92405833

Harvey Weinstein does not make money from movies that he/his company produced any more because he's no longer part of said company, so that's a misnomer. Depending on the contract, an actor/director/producer/writer will still earn money from movies for years after it was released. As far as i'm aware, Noel Clarke still does from these movies. Whether he does or not, i'd still rather err on the side of caution and make sure he gets nothing, The absolute worst, even moreso than Weinstein, is Victor Salva (look him up if you haven't heard of him). How he was even allowed to make movies after Clownhouse is beyond my comprehension. He only served just over one year of his three year sentence, which in itself should've been many more years in the first place. Name me movies/people who you think we should be boycotting and i'll tell you whether I think they should be or not, and give you reasons why.

(Just) Steve
>>92405833

@Austin It's one thing if it's one or two people he's pissed off over the years who might want to wreck his career, but in this instance it's over 40 people! It's not like he's Brad Pitt where they think they might be able to get a great payoff from trying to sue him, he's a C-list celebrity at best! Where's the evidence for any of the Yewtree things? There is none other than memories from people, same thing with Clarke. The only difference is that he was not/is not as high profile as the rest of the people in the Yewtree investigation so it obviously wasn't worthwhile for the police to investigate it properly. And the Yewtree investigations were from the 60's onwards whereas his allegations were far more recent. You ask if we should ignore that it almost drove him to suicide, obviously not, but the fact that he sought professional help "to change for the better" should tell you something. Why would he try to change if he didn't believe there was something wrong with his behaviour?

Jay
>>92405833

@ (Just) Steve Regardless of whether Weinstein is still profiting from them, there is knowledge that others who were complicit in his actions are. There's also plenty of evidence that many others in Hollywood associated with movies are also complicit in predatory or illicit behaviour. It's common knowledge, and always has been historically. I'm sure you're correct regarding Weinstein not profiting anymore, but that's using semantics to dismiss a widespread problem of which Weinstein is the "poster child". If you or anyone else wants to take a strict moral highground on boycotting movies associated with illicit or predatory behaviour, then it's only right that you should stop watching movies full stop. Note the standing ovation the convicted rapist Polanski got when he won an Oscar, which was made by the majority of Hollywood's elite at the time.

Anonymous
>>92405833

@Austin - I hadn't heard about these allegations. But I agree, if he hasn't actually been found guilty of anything? Then he's innocent til proven guilty after police investigation. According to Official FBI Crime Statistics, rape is the most commonly lied about crime. Between 20-40% of all rape accusations are later admitted to being false. Most common reasons for the women lying about it is 1. Revenge; 2. To provide a false alibi. And there's almost no legal repercussions for the women who make false claims, so there's little deterrent, which is messed up.

Anonymous
>>92405833

Ah right so allegations are now proof of guilt are they? He's not been charged with anything and the Metropolitan Police aren't taking any further action. Now that doesn't automatically mean that he hasn't done anything but we live in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty (not guilty because Steve and Brett said so). Sorry if that inconveniences you and Brett who have decided to become judge and jury.

(Just) Steve

@Jay There is no "moral highground". You're either an arsehole who's been involved in abuse, sexual harassment and threats, or you aren't, and then it's up to the public to decide if they still want to view/listen to what someone has created. Saying someone should stop watching movies full stop is complete nonsense as not everyone in the movie business has done these sort of things. I don't recall the likes of Steven Spielberg, who has been a writer/director/executive director on many projects for decades, ever being involved in such controversy? (maybe i'm wrong, feel free to correct me) Polanski should've been highlighted as a flight risk, had his passport taken from him, sent to prison and had his nuts cut off, same thing with Victor Salva. I won't be watching either of their movies ever again, despite me loving Chinatown (by Polanski) and Clownhouse (by Salva), especially Clownhouse as it was on that movie where he abused the child actor. While sexual abuse of any sort shouldn't have "levels", I find it far more sickening when it involves children so I hope Polanski and Salva rot in Hell and spend eternity having Satan scorch their balls with a blowtorch.

(Just) Steve
>>92405833

@Nell Sun How can he be found guilty or not if the police didn't do a full investigation?! You're correct that there are lots of women who falsely claim rape, but that's usually a 1 vs 1 situation. As far as i'm aware, rape wasn't one of Noel Clarke's allegations. But he's been accused of sexual harassment, bullying, threats and verbal abuse by many women. Even if one woman of the 40 or so (that we know of) is telling the truth, and those are good odds, then he's obviously an arsehole who either needs to be behind bars or pay hefty fines at the very least.

(Just) Steve
>>92405833

@Christopher Horner Noel Clarke has more allegations against him than Rolf Harris did from the 1980's and he ended up in prison. Have you not heard of Operation Yewtree? Jimmy Saville had countless allegations against him for decades and the police didn't investigate them properly until he was dead. You obviously have more faith in the Met than I do.

Anonymous
>>92405833

Yes I'm aware of Operation Yewtree. It doesn't matter if it's one or forty allegations, he's still not been charged with anything or been founded guilty of anything in a court of law. Are you one of the police officers who questioned the women involved or involved in any part of the investigation? If the answer is no (spoiler alert the answer is no) then you're in no position to assume anything or judge anyone. Also the allegations against Clarke are nothing like the crimes that Rolf and Jimmy were found guilty of. Now if Clarke has done any of the things described in the allegations then he's a nasty piece of work.

(Just) Steve
>>92405833

@Christopher Horner Have you interviewed the women or been part of the investigation? If the answer is no (spoiler alert, the answer is no), then you're in no position either to decide he's innocent either. There's an old adage, "Where there's smoke there's fire". If it was one or two people, fair enough, it could be women trying to mess with him for whatever reason. When over 40 women are all claiming similar things, and he sought professional help "to change for the better", what does that tell you? Are you an Ostrich? I only ask because you seem to be great at burying your head in the sand.

Anonymous
>>92405833

I'm saying he hasn't been found guilty in a court of law so he's innocent in that sense. Sorry to break this to you but someone's guilt isn't predicated on the amount of allegations made against someone. I'd also love to know what your magical number is when it comes to the amount of allegations before you decide someone is guilty. Those allegations are made, the police question both the complainants, the suspect and any possible witnesses. If they think they have enough evidence they go to the CPS to request a charge and the CPS will authorise if they think there's enough evidence for a conviction. Then it goes to court and a jury listens to the evidence and if they believe that the person is guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" then that person will be convicted and is no longer innocent. Just to clarify that's an official court of law in the UK not your kangaroo court. I'm very sorry if that upsets you and makes you lash out because someone dared to challenge you. I'm not saying that means none of the allegations are true. In fact I even mention that in my first comment which you either didn't read or conveniently ignored. The fact he is seeking professional help shows that he realises his behaviour is wrong and is taking positive steps to deal with it. It also suggests that he has acted this way. So it has negative and positive connotations. You wrote yourself "Why would he try to change if he didn't believe there was something wrong with his behaviour?" Do you know why I know you wrote that? It's because unlike you I read the entirety of your comments instead of just cherry picking the bits I find convenient. I mean you can't even give him credit for trying to address his behaviour. If you had any kind of balance you would acknowledge that and not portray him as a completely irredeemable cartoon like villain. Also you don't know what behaviour he is trying to address do you? I don't either, maybe he's addressing the issue that caused the one allegation he actually admitted to. Doesn't mean that every allegation is true. Also how can you possibly know that the police "didn't do a full investigation"? Maybe they did maybe they didn't but unlike you I don't think in my wildest dreams think I would possibly KNOW one way or the other. The first allegations came to light in April 2021 and the Metropolitan Police only announced they weren't taking it any further in March 2022. That's 11 months they spent working on it, so your claim that they didn't do a full investigation looks pretty stupid. Would you look at that? Another part of your comment that I actually read, it's really not that hard. I think it may be YOU that has your head in the sand if you haven't learned the way our justice system works. I hope you're never called up for jury service, the accused would be guilty before the prosecution counsel uttered a word. You sure like to make assumptions about people and what they think or believe. Are you an arrogant presumptuous arse who doesn't bother to read comments? I only ask because you have a knack of misinterpreting (deliberately?) anything I have said. Though I will give you some credit by noting that unlike Brett you haven't unilaterally decided what should or shouldn't make the list. Now if all you have is snotty comments about me this conversation is over. I have better things to do.

Jay
>>92421681

@(Just) Steve. My suggestion to stop watching movies full stop is apparently nonsense according to you, because "Not everyone in the movie business has done these sort of things", while ignoring the fact that many have. It's a flawed moral stance to cherry pick movies to boycott, as ends up as hypocritical in its nature. I noticed that you ignored my point about the standing ovation Polanksi got from the majority of the Hollywood elite, opting instead to reiterate basic moral outrage over Polanksi himself. That's pretty much dodging the point I made through virtue signalling, and reflecting the exact argument I am making. If someone is "an arsehole who's been involved in abuse, sexual harrassment and threats", then you should take into account all those that have supported or aided in that abuse, which would include all those who were complicit in Weinstein's actions (many of who still profit from his movies), the people who turned a blind eye to his and other's actions, which is the majority of Hollywood, or the ones who celebrate these abusers (again the majority of Hollywood elite that gave Polanksi a standing ovation). So I don't think it's nonsense at all to suggest that if you're going to take a moral highground on boycotting movies associated with abuse, then it's only right to boycott movies with all the actors, producers and staff involved or associated with that abuse. Which is pretty much going to be every movie made in Hollywood, and a large percent made outside of Hollywood. This is exactly my point, there's so much hypocrisy in jumping on that morality bandwagon, because it's always selective in its nature depending on what films people choose to carry on watching. It's completely fair to take a personal choice on what you wish to boycott, but it's rather redundant and hypocritical to use moral posturing as a means to influence or manipulate others into doing the same.

Anonymous
>>92421681

I also wonder if Steve boycotts:- Mel Gibson due to his anti-Semitism or for slapping an ex. QI episodes with Stephen Fry because he has a theft conviction. Mark Wahlberg because he was charged with attempted murder which resulted in him being convicted of assault which had a racial element. Yasmin Bleeth, Robert Downey Jr and Tim Allen for drug possession. Christian Slater due to drink driving and assault. Winona Ryder for shoplifting. Bearing in mind these are people who have actually been convicted of said crimes. He's already made a similar suggestion when he wrote:- "Name me movies/people who you think we should be boycotting and I'll tell you whether I think they should be or not, and give you reasons why." It'll be interesting to see what crimes he thinks are acceptable. I'm getting good at this reading other peoples comments lark, if you're reading this Steve I can teach you this valuable skill.

Sean Riley

Josh, any thoughts of putting stand ups along with movies? Would love for you to watch a full Lee Evans (or others) show in lieu of a movie

Austin Stratton
>>92421681

I want to make it clear that I, like you guys, don't know if Noel Clarke is guilty of this, and you make a point that 40 is a lot of accusations, (although I could only find 20 as a figure, but 1 is too many regardless) and if he is guilty, then I agree that he, like anyone else should be prosecuted. But my point stands that he has not been found guilty, and not having someone on Patreon watch his film is an odd stance to take on hearsay.. The justice system we have in this country is pretty darn good compared to most and I for one believe that if there was evidence to take it further, as with Mason Greenwood earlier in the year, then action would have been taken. You must also understand that with accusations like this on famous faces, these women stand to make a lot of money, and it was the case that for a long time, women could cry wolf and be paid a lot, because the guy has a lot to lose. As a guy I am thankful that this isn't the case anymore and that these accusations are looked into and that women can now be prosecuted for it. If you were to ask my opinion, I would say there is no smoke without fire and he probably has done stuff to fuel these accusations, but as I treat others how I would like to be treated, I am not going to condemn an innocent person until they are found guilty. @Christopher Horner also makes a valid point. If you are going to boycott media over crimes, that will leave your DVD library very light indeed.. and your CD rack for that matter..

Saul
>>92421681

Re. Steve's comments and the people claiming he should stop watching films altogether...there are degrees of morality. Stephen Fry stealing something when he was younger is not as serious an allegation as forty women coming forward with allegations of serious abuse. Winona Ryder shoplifting is not on the level of Roman Polanski drugging then anally raping a teenage girl. I don't think it's as cut and dried as Steve says, but he's definitely got a point. You reject his position that certain works of art should be boycotted due to the behaviour of the artists involved. But that implicitly places you in a very extreme position yourselves. Do you really have no qualms at all about what an artist does? To push your argument to the same extremes as you've pushed Steve's, how do you feel about using Gary Glitter's music and thus paying a lifelong pedophile rapist to license his tunes? I have to assume you're fine with it. Same with Polanski. You're fine with directly paying a violent rapist for their work. Because to admit that there are exceptions to your own rule is to admit that Steve is right, and that certain artists should be boycotted. The only difference is where you draw the line.

(Just) Steve
>>92421681

@Saul I'm literally typing up my responses now and you've just stolen my Ace! How anyone can put shoplifting on the same level as sexual abuse, and using their status to potentially destroy a career, is beyond my comprehension. "Better Call Saul". ;)

(Just) Steve
>>92421681

I'm going to respond to a number of you in this message. We're obviously not going to agree, and that's fine as that is your right. @Jay - Watching a movie featuring an actor, or someone who directed/produced a movie in the past is one thing, they've already been paid. What you can do is not then provide them with more money by paying for said movies or future movies now that you're informed, whether it be renting/streaming or going to the cinema. - It is most certainly not a "flawed moral stance" to cherry pick movies, or TV shows, based upon the actions of people involved in those movies. With regards to Weinstein, he was fired from his own company years ago. Do we know everyone who was aware of what he was up to? Of course not, it's impossible. But how are we, the public, able to have any influence on someone like a lighting rigger (for example) when we can't directly affect their employment if we don't know they were involved/turned a blind eye? - You're essentially claiming that every Hollywood movie has someone involved in such things as abuse in one way or another. That is what's nonsense by saying that I should, "stop watching movies full stop". You're tarring everyone in Hollywood with the same brush. - Not everyone who has supported Polanksi has stuck with that. Natalie Portman and Emma Thompson, for example, withdrew their support for Polanksi. - I haven't told anyone what to watch or not to watch. My original comment merely stated that I hoped Josh didn't have to pay to watch Kidulthood, and that I hoped he wasn't going to watch the sequels so that Noel Clarke received no money. At no point did I say, "DO NOT WATCH THIS OR THE SEQUELS!". That's up to Josh and anyone who read my comment/s. It's no different to someone suggesting a movie/TV show to Josh, except in this instance it's not due to something superfluous like, "I don't think this is funny/entertaning". - I've mentioned Victor Salva a number of times. I unknowingly watched Jeepers Creepers without realising he was involved in the movie. I haven't watched Jeepers Creepers 2, 3, 4 or the new reboot (all of which he'd make money from). Knowing that he created these movies and has earned money from them is simply disgusting. Once I knew who was the creator/writer/director and thought back to the first movie, it's very obvious due to his previous convictions that it was a way to continue his sexual fetishes without being arrested. Quentin Tarantino obviously has a foot fetish, which is blatantly shown in a lot of his movies, but that's completely innocent in comparison. (even if it is a bit weird that his female actors are willing to do it when it's well known) - The fact that it took you three attempts to post your comment (which others won't see) isn't lost on me. @Christopher Horner I might be wrong on some of these but: - The last movie I watched with Mel Gibson in was Signs, which was before his drunken anti-semitic rant. - Had no idea about Mark Wahlberg, the last thing I saw him in was Boogie Nights. But looking at his convictions that was in the early days of the internet (and i'm in the UK) so hadn't heard about them. - With regards to Stephen Fry stealing something, that isn't even close to being on the same level as sexual harassment/abuse, unless you think they warrant a similar prison sentence? - Yasmine Bleeth?! Really? That's one you're pulling out of your hat? I haven't seen or heard of her since Baywatch! lol (utterly hilarious that you've used Yasmine Bleeth as an example - is that you, Chandler?) - Tim Allen was charged in 1978 for drug possession. I've only seen him in Galaxy Quest. I wasn't even born in '78 and with me being in the UK combined with the early days of the internet in the late 90's I wouldn't have known about it. (still not the same as abuse) - Christian Slater I likely saw last in Broken Arrow, again in the early days of the internet. - Winona Ryder I saw in Alien Resurrection, before her shoplifting, and not close to being anywhere near sexual harassment/abuse. - As you're so adamant about them being "convicted" of crimes, do you think OJ Simpson was innocent? If you do then I don't know what to tell you... - The fact that you either removed your previous comment or edited it isn't lost on me after you called me a "pompous prick". (something that people won't see, just like Jay's comments) @Austin Stratton - You've clearly only read the first few lines of his Wikipedia page regarding controversy. If you read further then you'll see that more women have provided allegations against him. - If you think the justice system in this country is pretty darn good then you need to open your eyes. I could name numerous people who should be in prison, but they've been given a slap on the wrist and provided with suspended sentences. Are you in the UK? I don't think i've ever heard any one use the word "darn" here? - As mentioned before, of course people can potentially win a lot of money via accusations, but Noel Clarke is hardly an A-lister with bags of cash. - Not all crimes are equal. Feel free to respond or not, entirely up to you. Call me names and talk nonsense all you want, I won't be replying to the comments any more so you'd only be wasting your time. (and i'm not some "internet numpty" who will go against their word)

Austin Stratton
>>92421681

Steve, nobody is calling you names, try not to be so sensitive on the internet. And if you think people are talking 'nonsense' just because you don't agree with their points then you're not someone that I want to have a conversation with. However, to answer your questions, yes I am in the UK, just because you haven't heard someone use the word darn, doesn't mean they cannot possibly live here. The UK isn't all focused on your little street.. Secondly, if you had read my point, you would have seen that I said the UK justice system was better than most, I didn't say it was the best. You could live in Brazil or Mexico where the police and criminals have a lot more in common than not. And regardless of how much cash Noel Clarke has (according to Forbes he is worth $3m which contradicts your 'doesn't have bags of cash' argument) he is a well known face and the ladies stand to make more from accusing him than they do for not. And finally, I don't know if he's guilty or not. All I said was that he shouldn't be boycotted until he is found to be guilty because I'm DARN sure that's how you and the rest of the people here would like to be treated.

Austin Stratton
>>92459649

Would love to see Josh react to some Kevin Bridges but I don't think he would understand half of his act XD

Anonymous
>>92421681

Steve, you actually threatened to kill me then edited your comment. Therefore you should be banned from this Patreon. That's how it works, right? Doesn't matter that my allegation hasn't been proven to be true. In fact you should be sent to prison for your heinous crime. I'm currently sitting here at home scared for my safety because of your threats. You were the one who replied to me with your condescending tone so don't act all pious. You don't like being challenged do you Steve? Then when you are you speak down to people then whine when you get anything back. Your idiotic and frankly asinine comment regarding convictions isn't the gotcha you think it is. It's just idiotic and asinine. Also your comment about OJ Simpson shows what a presumptuous little prick you are. Your sarcasm and condescension means that I have to say that you ARE a pompous arse who is very quick to speak down to people who don't kiss your arse and agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't think you're an 'internet numpty who will go against their word'. I don't think you're an internet numpty. You're just a general all purpose numpty.

Steve Read
>>92361579

I hadn't seen this trilogy for a long time. I really hope Josh will watch the next 2 films.

Jay
>>92421681

@(Just) Steve ignoring your flawed response to my arguments, the last point about you noticing that It took me three attempts to reply... I'm not sure how that is supposed to be some kind of winning "gotcha" comeback, which perhaps implies I'm somehow stupid, unsure in my response or an assumption that I've responded with a nasty vitrolic comment. Bottom line is that I have a neurological issue, which means that it's sometimes difficult for me to type out sentences and form correct grammar and punctuation. Non stop brain fog, which in that instance was me accidentally hitting 'send' before finishing, as well as two other responses that had grammatical errors or came across as (probably more) nonsensical than what I finally put. It was an interesting discussion, which I was happy to take part in without any vitriol or ill feeling. Yet it's clear by your rather childish response to mine and others, that you clearly have a very fragile ego when it comes to others disagreeing with your arguments. And before you suggest it (which I can imagine it's something you'd come back with), I'm not playing the "disability card", I'm just elaborating on why I deleted three previous comments. Not that I even have to explain, but there's alot of ignorance surrounding disability and how certain behavioural oddities can be misconstrude as rudeness or stupidity.

TheHigh

jesus , came back to the comments section , what a mess! you guys should write a book each lmao xD imagine being that triggered haha poor guys

Luke Barron
>>92405833

I know it's trendy to share outrage about literally everything these days, but how about just opting to not watch it if it causes you offense and leaving it at that? I for one don't really care about your virtue signaling and am perfectly capable of making my own moral and ethical decisions. Most people come here for light entertainment, not to disucss wokeism or politics.

Anonymous

Would you consider watching adulthood it’s a sequel to this film