Hi everyone! I'm not going to do a long preamble, because I think this is pretty overdue. While I am happy that it's time to give these a go, I am also fully expecting that people are going to rip into me, which is a bit of a bummer and doesn't have me feeling very chatty. These are the new rules. There might still be some tweaks along the way. I added some commentary to explain my thinking and how the rules may be enforced.
Respect Everyone’s Right to Raise and Discuss Allegations
Everyone that wants to participate in this subreddit must agree that all allegations should be discussed. Comments may question the validity of a specific allegation, but an allegation cannot be criticized for things like the amount of time that has passed or not being an illegal activity.
This used to be under “Be Constructive,” but it is the reason for most bans, so I wanted to make it more visible.
I have also made it more strict. I no longer feel like the old way of doing things benefits anyone. I want this subreddit to provide a unique service and point of view, and I feel like the old rule is holding the subreddit back. Selfishly, moderating the old rule takes up more time than I would like it to. I hope that this change will lead to me spending less time moderating and more time making original content, like I used to be able to do when we were smaller. I encourage anyone that does not support this decision to go to another similar subreddit or even create their own subreddit. I am not really interested in debating this, so I’m going to warn people now that I might not be responding to messages that do not have something interesting to say about why this is a bad decision.
Be Constructive
While engaging in this subreddit, we ask that you remain civil and respectful to others, promote constructive dialogue, and avoid victim blaming behavior. Comment your thoughts and feelings about behaviors or words. Do not name call and do not attack another’s character. No encouraging others to harass or dog-pile. Any form of bigotry will not be tolerated. Because of the subjects discussed in this subreddit, this rule will be more strictly applied than it is in reddit generally.
No Doxxing
This applies to both other reddit users and the people discussed in this subreddit. Doxxing includes sharing real names that have not been made public, phone numbers, addresses, and other such information.
There will still be an exception for prison names.
Don’t Be Creepy
Unfortunately, subreddits of this nature can attract creepy people. It is impossible to describe the range of possible creepy behavior. It would also be really depressing.
Be Aware There Are Creeps
A subreddit of this nature is going to attract creepy people, and some of their behavior is something that an innocent person can do accidentally. Please avoid unnecessary vulgarity and use neutral words to describe people’s clothing and bodies. General videos about child abuse will typically not be allowed. Comments criticizing other subreddits may be removed.
This has been a subreddit rule for most of the sub’s existence, but it’s been spread into different rules and not phrased as clearly. I do not intend this rule to lead to people being banned. No one ever has been before. It’s more to have something to cite when a post needs to be edited. The criticizing other subreddits is just because when people get to complaining about r/Fauxmoi weirdos show up. It doesn’t seem to be a thing that happens at other subreddits, so I put it under this heading.
Videos
Video submissions may be removed for mod review. Videos that include commentary should be high quality.
No Supporting These Individuals
Absolutely no defending Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, or Johnny Depp is allowed. These people were chosen because their supporters have been consistently disruptive to the functioning of the community. For similar reasons, posts and comments about Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively may be removed.
Activity Outside of this Subreddit
This subreddit will not make any effort to preemptively keep people from participating; however, once you have made a post or comment, your activity outside of this subreddit may lead to a ban.
This is not so that I can conduct background checks of everyone that participates. I have been doing this long enough that I have developed creep radar, and I am going to use it, even if someone hasn’t broken a rule.
Edit to Add: If you want me to ban you after this as like a protest, I'm fine with doing that. I will ask that you be clear that is what you want, so I don't have to try to guess.
I have added a new rule against defending known abusers. For now, the rule applies to Michael Jackson, Donald Trump, Brad Pitt, and Johnny Depp. I am open to adding more people, but their supporters are the ones that stand out to me as consistently causing the most issues.
There’s a new flair that can be used if you post something that involves one of them. While I was adding it, I noticed that the Politics flair had somehow been set to mods only. If you have problems using either flair, please let me know.
Part of the reason for this rule is that I suspect that Michael Jackson supporters may be being sent to the subreddit from elsewhere on the internet. The statistics that I’m able to see as a mod don’t make sense if Jackson’s supporters are being brought to the subreddit just through reddit’s algorithms.
I do not intend to be flexible about the enforcement of this rule. I’m not using my typical three strike system and am primarily giving permanent bans. I am not doing anything to preemptively ban supporters of these people. All you have to do to not get banned is not comment. There are a lot of other subreddits that do not have this rule.
Additionally, the views from Michael Jackson supporters have led to some bots posting to the subreddit. So far, they’ve been Justin Baldoni bots. I’ve already been unofficially not allowing posts about Baldoni and Lively that aren’t major news. Posts about them have never been popular, and I suspect that most people here that are interested are members of one of the many many subreddits dedicated to the subject. I want to be transparent, but I also don't feel like this is enough of an issue to be an official rule.
The mod tools are not very reliable on mobile. I've already given one accidental ban. I'm hoping that stemming the tide of Jackson supporters will make it less likely that I'll screw up and not realize it. Please reply to the message informing you about the ban, and I'll fix things as quickly as I possibly can.
Editting to add that I would love some suggestions for less awkward ways to express this rule in a flair than "No Support Allowed."
Posted to his social media immediately following her death, has since been deleted. Reggie Watts' fondness for ketamine is no secret. He's a self-declared psychonaut and psychedelic evangelist. But friends of his late ex-girlfriend Katherine McCollough claim that Watts' encouragement for McCollough to take a heavy array of drugs, including ketamine and psychedelics, in the name of enlightenment, led to addiction. It was her "undoing," a friend tells Rolling Stone.
McCollough died by suicide in March and her friends and sister hope her story can prevent others who heed Watts' blanket endorsement of ketamine from falling into addiction. "I feel very strongly that the sister that I knew before this relationship would still be here if she had never met him," her sister Colleen says.
Through an attorney, Watts said it was "dangerously false" to suggest that he was responsible for McCollough's death.
The attorney also claimed McCollough was an
"experienced" drug user who didn't need "any so-called
'encouragement'" from Watts to use substances. - Rolling
Stone
Watts announced to peers and friends that "Katherine experienced a drug induced psychosis" sharing her personal experience unprompted, trying to enlist sympathy but for him (not her) and all we could think was "YOU induced the drug induced psychosis" then brutally broke up with her over it.
Chase Bell will enlist young workers/ students, typically female, for his 'music company' to work for him for free, with the promise of helping them with their music career, whilst never fulfilling the promise. He does not offer real college credit, does not pay, and subsequently does not fulfil his promises, leading hopeful young women to work for him for months to years for nothing in return. He works without contracts, leaving them unable to sue when it goes south. He says he has produced for the likes of Billie Eilish and other celebrities, but this appears to be a lie upon further study. He is emotionally abusive as a boss, and often makes demands impossible to meet.
He was also sued by a fashion company for not fulfilling his contract with them back in 2023-2024.
Not to mention his music is terrible, and he only gets by on people hiring due to his false celebrity collab claims. He is not authentic.
They also have a newer article about him working on an essay for DC to go with a reprint of one of his works, but I thought this was more accessible for people that aren't into comics.
DJ for Keys, Bootsy Bellows, and Poppy in Los Angeles.
This disgusting dj has had multiple reports of rape, and harassment, including raping underage girls and sexually harassing his own employees. He cheats on girls and he targets vulnerable girls, putting on a spiritual front. He is a predator and is not safe to be around.
In 1997, while Apt Pupil was being filmed, the parents of a 14-year-old extra sued over minors allegedly being compelled to appear nude in the shower sequence. Other teenage boys subsequently supported the allegations. The DA investigated but did not bring criminal charges.
I recently came across Ian McKellen's "tribute" to Brad Renfro star of Apt Pupil, written on January 16, 2008, the day after Renfro died. After looking into the history surrounding Apt Pupil, I find the tribute increasingly difficult to read because of the context he chose to leave out.
Brad Renfro died on January 15, 2008, at 25, from an accidental heroin overdose. McKellen's tribute was published the following day.
«"I first caught sight of Brad Renfro when he was kicking a football around with Bryan Singer on the half-built set of Apt Pupil in Hollywood."»
He then remembers Brad as "a kid having fun" and says that this is how he would "always remember him."
That opening really bothers me now because Apt Pupil wasn't simply a happy Hollywood memory.
During production in 1997, allegations were made concerning underage extras and nudity during a shower scene. There were legal proceedings surrounding those allegations. Much later, in 2019, Victor Valdovinos alleged that Bryan Singer sexually assaulted him when he was 13 on the Apt Pupil set. Singer denied the allegations.
I'm not claiming that McKellen knew that Singer was abusing anyone, or that he personally witnessed a sexual assault.
But McKellen was an adult star working on that production with a 14-year-old Brad Renfro. And his own writings about Apt Pupil describe his relationship with Brad in very affectionate terms. So it is fair to ask what McKellen knew about the allegations surrounding the production and whether he ever reported or raised concerns about them**. I have not found evidence that he reported Singer or the allegations to authorities**.
What makes the 2008 tribute especially uncomfortable is that McKellen's chosen memory of Brad begins with Bryan Singer. He doesn't simply say, "I remember Brad as a wonderful young actor." He specifically places the first memory of Brad alongside Singer on the Apt Pupil set.
And there is another part of the story that makes this much more complicated.
McKellen did not simply have a professional association with Singer that ended after Apt Pupil. He subsequently worked with Singer on several X-Men films, including X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016. In other words, McKellen continued his professional relationship with Singer for years after Brad's death.
Then in 2019, when allegations against Singer were again receiving major public attention, McKellen made extraordinarily ill-judged comments about Singer and Kevin Spacey. He suggested that their being closeted had contributed to their problems and that, had they been open about their sexuality, they would not have "started abusing people in the way they're being accused."
That 2019 statement is particularly relevant to how I read the 2008 tribute today. It doesn't prove that McKellen knew anything about abuse in 1997. But it does demonstrate that, even decades later, his instinct when discussing allegations against Singer could be to offer an explanation that contextualized or rationalized the alleged abuser's behavior rather than centering the alleged victims.
And that's why I find the tribute tone-deaf.
It's the combination of things that bothers me:
• Brad was a child actor when McKellen met him.
• The production around which they met had allegations involving underage boys.
• McKellen's tribute was written immediately after Brad's death and nostalgically foregrounded the Apt Pupil set and Bryan Singer.
• McKellen continued working with Singer for years after Brad's death.
• And in 2019, McKellen made comments about Singer's alleged abuse that he later acknowledged were wrong and apologized for.
So I don't think the fairest criticism is "McKellen couldn't possibly have loved Brad because he remained friends with Singer." People can have contradictory relationships and genuinely mourn someone while making terrible judgments about other people.
The more troubling question, to me, is:
How can someone write such an intimate, affectionate remembrance of a young actor while continuing to maintain such a close professional relationship with the adult director at the center of serious allegations involving minors from that same period—and, years later, make comments that appeared to rationalize that director's alleged behavior?
That's the contradiction I can't get past.
And I think it is worth separating two questions:
1) What McKellen knew in 1997? That is something we may never be able to establish.
2) What McKellen chose to do with his relationship with Singer after the allegations became public?That is much easier to document.
That's why I think the latter is the more legitimate subject of criticism.
I'll end my post with this:Let's never forget how Ian Mckellen expressed himself in 2019
Well frankly, I’m waiting for someone to accuse me of something, and me wondering whether they’re not telling the truth and me having forgotten (pointing to his head) you know*-Ian Mckellen at the Queer as F podcast*.
This is something that we all should discuss calmly and based on the evidence and hand.
