Sound of Freedom || Discussion of The Movie And Its Producers Should be HERE and HERE ONLY || The Report Button Is Your Friend || Keep It Civil

[crazydom]

3 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Yeah, this is a genuine difference from the generic version of this sort of dumb negative polarization story where there's a goofy media backlash over a normal film with conservative leanings/praise in explicitly conversative outlets. There are some insane pieces written (see the guardian one that randomly decided the film was a dogwhistle about Bill/Hillary Clinton funding child sex trafficking?) but the actual hits on Caviezel seem pretty undeniable.  People really are massively downplaying how Caviezel stuff is pure smoking gun stuff. 

 

Because interview circuit != film itself and actor != film. The boring answer is that this film's creation in 2017 really looks like a pretty banal "based on true story" thing about a then buzzy NGO. 

 

I don't dispute the origin and creation of the movie is probably banal. But the director and script writers seem fine profiting off Caviezal at least tacitly connecting his insane conspiracy theories to the movie. 

 

The amount of legitimately dangerous takes Caviezal is putting out while promoting the movie makes the creators complicit if they refuse to disavow him.

[MrHardapple]

22 minutes ago, crazydom said:

 

I don't dispute the origin and creation of the movie is probably banal. But the director and script writers seem fine profiting off Caviezal at least tacitly connecting his insane conspiracy theories to the movie. 

 

The amount of legitimately dangerous takes Caviezal is putting out while promoting the movie makes the creators complicit if they refuse to disavow him.

It's a free country.

Freedom of speech and freedom of opinion.

 

I personally don't care what he believes in or what he thinks.

I want to watch a good movie which, in this case, is based on an important (shocking) topic.

The movie puts the topic child trafficking in the spotlight for sure, that's a good thing.

I'm positive there are many people who watched the film and are emotionally so involved now that they try to act now.

In whatever way this ist (donations or whatever).

Mira Sorvino wrote she got tons of questions how to help and she gave out the names of organisations to participate or to give money to.

This is way more important to me than the opinion of an actor or producer.

Edited July 17, 2023 by MrHardapple

[PlatnumRoyce]

Nothing in my comment is telling you how to weigh various goods. However, 

27 minutes ago, MrHardapple said:

Freedom of speech and freedom of opinion.

 

Sure, but, in the words of Stephen Spielberg

Quote

"[Spielberg] told me there's a time to be a human being and have an opinion, and there's a time to sell cars," [Labeouf] said. "It brought me freedom, but it also killed my spirits because this was a dude I looked up to like a sensei."

Press tour statements about a film are in a pretty direct sense marketing for a film ("selling cars") whether you want them to be or not. These are Caviezel press spots explicitly to promote Sound of Freedom and they're not random, wacky segments of the interviews positioned as unrelated to the underlying film. This stuff is part of his elevator pitch as to why the film is important. 

 

47 minutes ago, crazydom said:

 

I don't dispute the origin and creation of the movie is probably banal. But the director and script writers seem fine profiting off Caviezal at least tacitly connecting his insane conspiracy theories to the movie. 

 

The amount of legitimately dangerous takes Caviezal is putting out while promoting the movie makes the creators complicit if they refuse to disavow him.

 

I have the generic complaint that phrases like complicit or problematic in political discourse are probably too vague to be helpful. What they're going to be accused to be complicit of and to what degree are pretty significant things to nail down. However, in a general sense, sure.  

 

To be charitable, they're stuck in an inherently compromising position. 

 

There doesn't seem to be evidence that they want to distance themselves from Caviezal (beyond just generically denouncing QANON and decrying attempts to link the film to it) but even if they did, there's no permission structure for an off ramp here. 

 

 

Ironically, I'd argue they're ratfucked either way on QANON charges. The moment they disavow him, that's going to be treated as proof they're "pro-QANON" people who made a "pro-QANON" film who shouldn't be supported (because they're explicitly legitimizing the connection between the film and QANON). I see no reason to doubt they genuinely feel the film is important and raising awareness for a good cause. 

 

Without Caviezel doing interviews they don't really have a marketing campaign so the film probably loses millions. This is just all downstream of Caviezel losing his mind.

 

 

[von Kenni]

17 hours ago, Ladybug said:

 

He is absolutely entrenched in QAnon. As early as a few weeks ago, while promoting this movie on Steve Bannon's (a well-known and documented conspiracy theorist) podcast, Caviezal verbalized his support of a fringe QAnon theory that elites are harvesting children's blood for eternal youth. He's got a documented past strongly supporting QAnon. If he's backpedaling from his past comments and actions now, it's because he's trying to distance himself from his extremist image and the overall controversy surrounding this movie. 

 

QAnon believers like to utilize the cause of "protecting children from sex trafficking" as a vehicle to recruit new followers into their group -- it's a palatable cause that the vast majority of persons, regardless of personal belief system, generally support. Like a virus, QAnon exploits popular media sites like FB and Twitter by creating and encouraging seemingly harmless content that is actually purposefully designed to gradually warm the average John and Jane Doe to extremist and nonsensical beliefs by appealing to a generalized sense of pathos. The cause of "protecting children" just happens to be a very easy means of doing that. What may start as liking a FB post from a QAnon-aligned parenting page about child safety gradually leads to exposure to posts from users who try to convince others that Hillary Clinton is chomping on babies. Before long, the average QAnon user won't be able to differentiate truth from fiction, and they truly will believe that movies like these do good things for children. 

 

But the truth is, QAnon does more harm than good when it comes to combating child trafficking. For example, when QAnon accused Wayfair of being involved in sex trafficking in 2021, QAnon believers flooded the Human Trafficking Hotline with false claims, overshadowing and sweeping under the rug called-in claims of actual victims. This film also misrepresents how most human trafficking happens -- the vast majority of victims are taken by people they know and trust, not by random or foreign strangers. Most kidnappers look like the average American John and Jane Doe, living in plain sight right here in the United States. Kidnappers come from all walks of life, from all different kinds of backgrounds. Even, yes, "people of faith" with "strong convictions" can be sexual predators. By misrepresenting the nature of human trafficking, the film obscures the real issue of crimes happening on our OWN SOIL, not in some foreign country.

 

But, QAnon followers don't want to see stories about Evangelical, MAGA-aligned pastors abusing children on the big screen (because that would be "woke" or something). They want to be angry at someone -- preferably someone not looking like them or their neighbors. They want movies about white, Christian Americans fighting scary foreigners living in scary countries, because those are the people QAnon has told them they should fear instead. Because that is far easier to digest for the average QAnon or American conservative than having to think critically and introspectively about their own country and culture.

 

That's why this film comes off as so disingenuous. It's made to present in a topic in a way that's easy to consume for the average QAnon supporter and/or conservative but is not necessarily accurate or representative of the very real issue that is human sex trafficking and its nuances. This film wasn't made to advocate for victims; it was made to entertain QAnon.

 

 

 

You might very well be right about the overall assessment of the film, why it was made, and how it is utilized. You described well the dynamics of how almost any one of us can be radicalized or brainwashed. I know it personally when having a loved one as a victim of a sex trafficking cult and feeling powerless to do anything about it, but ultimately him being saved almost by chance and having a new life. But I also think you might conflate things toward the end which I sometimes as well do.

 

What I've weighed since the start of this is:

 

1) Why shouldn't anyone see this film?

 

2) Do the QAnon and conspiracy theory-oriented takedowns and boycotting attitudes that we see on this thread but especially on the mainstream media fuel more extremism and radicalization or help to insulate those extreme parts so that they wouldn't spread?

 

3) Is there a path that would lead to more beneficial outcomes such as focusing on real conversations on child trafficking in the mainstream media without politicizing with "guilt by association" dynamics the real issue or creating common ground and constructive dialogue between left and right which would take the steam out of extremists using this film for their purposes such as recruitment?

 

I'm reading all the arguments on this thread and evaluating outside sources as well, and so far for

 

1) The film itself isn't conspiracy filled and is a good film based on reception so anyone should be able to see it if they want. As we do here, we can argue what kind of impact it can have outside the theater but because it's not conspiracy-filled or actively extremism-promoting for me, it's okay to go and see it as well as not to see it.

 

2) Now this is where I hope to be wrong. I feel that we don't do enough to try to understand why some people are more prone to be radicalized or might be halfway there already and because of that, our responses are right outcome oriented but with using counterproductive methods. This is a complex issue but as one example, what do you think of those people who feel disenfranchised and left alone that are skeptical of mainstream media and governmental institutions, how will they react when they watch the film and then look at the mainstream takedowns on it? Does it push them further to the fringes or do they suddenly start to believe the mainstream commentary instead of what they just saw? And this dynamics applies also without seeing the film.

 

I would be even more alert on any political or ideological groups using "protecting our children" as a means to an end. It has been used as part of building one of the most horrific regimes in history and is currently utilized in countries like Russia, Hungary, and yes, the US too.

 

3) This brings us to the question of whether there is a more constructive response than labeling it as a gateway to extremism and warning people why not to see it.

 

Yes, Caviezel is in the deep end as I mentioned early on on this thread (in my previous post I was talking specifically about Ballards interviews). If you want to see Caviezel's unhinged rants, that Steve Bannon interview (write on google: "sound of freedom jim caviezel steve bannon full interview" and e.g. click the rumble link from June 22nd). It is dangerous talk and of course Steve Bannon himself is a dangerous man for civil society and democracy itself. Caviezel seems to have some demons that he is fighting and goes into biblical righteous rants and implicates governmental agencies as being part of the trafficking. He seems to extrapolate and make fancy systemic claims based on anecdotal evidence or other flawed reasoning.

 

Still, how much Caviezel brings these rants and views outside extreme echo chambers like Bannon's War Room or QAnon meetings? E.g. I recommend watching these two interviews by Tony Robbins and Jordan Peterson (who starts early on by asking "doesn't the premise of the movie sounds like yet another right-wing conspiracy theory?"). Tim Ballard speaks mostly and Caviezel is in the background. They give context and express the human side of Ballard at least. A warning at 30 min mark in the Peterson interview, Ballard tells very graphically of his first encounter with child trafficking and you can see the suppressed emotions there. He tells about his PTSD and handling that over his work. Caviezel told how it took two years to recover after making the movie and being exposed to the subject matter.

 

Some interesting data points:

-Caviezel has three adopted Chinese children which Ballard says were connected to trafficking and that's why Caviezel joined the film.

-Ballard adopted two Haitian children from one of their trafficking operations when they didn't have any families to go to according to his own words.

-Ballard has left his OUR trafficking organization few days ago. Reasons unknown.

-Angel Studios had links where to donate in the beginning but don't anymore have them. Reasons unknown.

-Ballard was funded in the beginning by Glenn Beck (a known right-wing commentator) and I guess is still doing some kind of showing with Trump

 

Sure, here and in the mainstream media the affiliations of the people behind this could be made public but still, if the focus would be talking on the subject matter itself which is a real problem, I would see it much more productive and one that could take the steam out of utilizing this for some extremist recruitment. Now they have steam for that for sure.

 

I've always seen in mainstream media much more discussion about human and child trafficking in the parts of Europe where I come from than in the US. Even Ballard raises in the interviews below how the US is number 1 in demand, how many cases it's a family member, or otherwise a close one that is the perpetrator. They focus on sting operations which get a lot of criticism too but also actual results. It only shows a small part of what fighting human trafficking is about but as they say, the film tells a true story and it's not a documentary. All this could be the topic of mainstream media and it could be more of a win for all than now pushing people more to the extreme in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, crazydom said:

Caviezal has repeatedly connected the movie to QAnon conspiracy theories, including days ago on Charlie Kirk's podcast.

 

Why should all of you defenders on this forum be trusted to know the true purpose of the movie over the lead actor?

 

On Charlie Kirk’s show Jim Caviezel compares critics of QAnon to The Pharisees, who are opponents of Jesus in the New Testament.   He also says “It’s not QAnon. It’s Q and Anons,” which is a paraphrase of Q drop 4881.

 

This is what all the defenders on this forum are deliberately trying to ignore. Caviezal is using his conservative media tour for this movie to spread conspiracy theories that can get people killed.

 

I think you are generalizing there as everyone bringing new views, data points, and perspectives as some "defenders". I have mentioned Caviezel gone in the deep end early on here and also contemplated on the QAnon aspects, etc. but sure, I tend to look if there are countering points or views, if there is a lot of the other side brought to the table already. Personally, I don't think it is deliberately ignoring if you don't parrot the bad sides on your every post.

 

13 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Nothing in my comment is telling you how to weigh various goods. However, 

Sure, but, in the words of Stephen Spielberg

Press tour statements about a film are in a pretty direct sense marketing for a film ("selling cars") whether you want them to be or not. These are Caviezel press spots explicitly to promote Sound of Freedom and they're not random, wacky segments of the interviews positioned as unrelated to the underlying film. This stuff is part of his elevator pitch as to why the film is important. 

 

 

I have the generic complaint that phrases like complicit or problematic in political discourse are probably too vague to be helpful. What they're going to be accused to be complicit of and to what degree are pretty significant things to nail down. However, in a general sense, sure.  

 

To be charitable, they're stuck in an inherently compromising position. 

 

There doesn't seem to be evidence that they want to distance themselves from Caviezal (beyond just generically denouncing QANON and decrying attempts to link the film to it) but even if they did, there's no permission structure for an off ramp here. 

 

 

Ironically, I'd argue they're ratfucked either way on QANON charges. The moment they disavow him, that's going to be treated as proof they're "pro-QANON" people who made a "pro-QANON" film who shouldn't be supported (because they're explicitly legitimizing the connection between the film and QANON). I see no reason to doubt they genuinely feel the film is important and raising awareness for a good cause. 

 

Without Caviezel doing interviews they don't really have a marketing campaign so the film probably loses millions. This is just all downstream of Caviezel losing his mind.

 

 

 

[von Kenni]

Background about the distribution and how the Angel Studios came into picture just this year. Also relates to the core of the marketing. If you can turn those 100,000 crowdfunders into proponents or even those 7,000 it can take you a long way when getting started.

 

Distribution

The film was completed in 2018 and a distribution deal was made with the Latin American subsidiary of 20th Century Fox.^[14] However, when that studio was purchased by the Walt Disney Company, it shelved the film. After Disney acquired Fox, the filmmakers bought the distribution rights back from the studio.^[15]

Verástegui approached Angel Studios with the release rights. Angel presented the film to an online group of 100,000 investors in its past projects called the Angel Guild, which gave it a "yes" vote within days.^[1] In 2023, Angel Studios had acquired the worldwide distribution rights, with a planned release during the second half of 2023.^[15] In May of the same year, it received a release date of July 4, 2023.^[16]

Angel used equity crowdfunding to raise the funds needed to distribute and market the film. Seven thousand people invested, allowing Angel to meet its $5 million goal in two weeks.^[1] They also encouraged patrons to "pay it forward" to allow people who might not otherwise see the movie to watch it in theaters for free.^[17] Sound of Freedom is Angel Studios' second theatrical release after His Only Son.^[18]

 

[von Kenni]

FYI, they asked Caviezel about his next films and he told that he is going to do next a sequel to Sound of Freedom which is based on another raid that Tim Ballard was part of.

[ChipDerby]

2 hours ago, von Kenni said:

FYI, they asked Caviezel about his next films and he told that he is going to do next a sequel to Sound of Freedom which is based on another raid that Tim Ballard was part of.

 

Did Tim lie about that one too?

[Ladybug]

On 7/17/2023 at 5:33 PM, von Kenni said:

 

You might very well be right about the overall assessment of the film, why it was made, and how it is utilized. You described well the dynamics of how almost any one of us can be radicalized or brainwashed. I know it personally when having a loved one as a victim of a sex trafficking cult and feeling powerless to do anything about it, but ultimately him being saved almost by chance and having a new life. But I also think you might conflate things toward the end which I sometimes as well do.

 

What I've weighed since the start of this is:

 

1) Why shouldn't anyone see this film?

 

2) Do the QAnon and conspiracy theory-oriented takedowns and boycotting attitudes that we see on this thread but especially on the mainstream media fuel more extremism and radicalization or help to insulate those extreme parts so that they wouldn't spread?

 

3) Is there a path that would lead to more beneficial outcomes such as focusing on real conversations on child trafficking in the mainstream media without politicizing with "guilt by association" dynamics the real issue or creating common ground and constructive dialogue between left and right which would take the steam out of extremists using this film for their purposes such as recruitment?

 

 

Knowing that supporting this film monetarily adds fuel to the fire by financing future projects by these filmmakers is enough for me, and many others, not to pay for tickets to this movie, regardless of the cause/subject matter. There are far more effective means of combating human trafficking than watching this film, such as educating yourself and others about human trafficking and how to contact help when you believe someone may be a victim, fundraising for and/or donating to organizations (both local and national) dedicated to combating human trafficking and supporting victims, working with local communities (i.e. faith communities, school communities, etc.) to raise awareness and provide training in protecting the vulnerable from human trafficking, and so much more.

 

Unfortunately, extremism and radicalization towards conspiracy theory fringe groups like QAnon can happen when the group feels "threatened." When a QAnon member sees that someone wants to boycott a film they support, their first thought may be that someone wants to "silence" their beliefs (despite the act of boycotting being moreso an act of ethical consumerism than thought suppression), which adds to the sense of victimhood that conspiracy believers often feel. That's inevitable, unfortunately. But, in the long run, it's much more ethically sound to shine a light on the unpleasantries behind a film and its crew and inform the public rather than keep them in the dark. 

 

 

[von Kenni]

13 minutes ago, Ladybug said:

 

 

Knowing that supporting this film monetarily adds fuel to the fire by financing future projects by these filmmakers is enough for me, and many others, not to pay for tickets to this movie, regardless of the cause/subject matter. There are far more effective means of combating human trafficking than watching this film, such as educating yourself and others about human trafficking and how to contact help when you believe someone may be a victim, fundraising for and/or donating to organizations (both local and national) dedicated to combating human trafficking and supporting victims, working with local communities (i.e. faith communities, school communities, etc.) to raise awareness and provide training in protecting the vulnerable from human trafficking, and so much more.

 

Unfortunately, extremism and radicalization towards conspiracy theory fringe groups like QAnon can happen when the group feels "threatened." When a QAnon member sees that someone wants to boycott a film they support, their first thought may be that someone wants to "silence" their beliefs (despite the act of boycotting being moreso an act of ethical consumerism than thought suppression), which adds to the sense of victimhood that conspiracy believers often feel. That's inevitable, unfortunately. But, in the long run, it's much more ethically sound to shine a light on the unpleasantries behind a film and its crew and inform the public rather than keep them in the dark. 

 

 

 

I agree much of what you say. I still think it has value of raising awareness without being an educational documentary on the subject that gives a more accurate view on child trafficking.

 

You might be right on the approach on the long run too. We both agree on the threat of extremism and fighting against it. Your approach is perhaps more of a direct karate whereas I'm looking it more as a judo where trying to use their applying of force as an opportunity to turn it against themselves and make it powerless that way.

 

I was more on the karate side 5-10 years ago while being aware of the roots starting from Gingrich and beyond, manifesting in the Tea Party movement, although QAnon is also a beast of itself, but I've had a lot of effort to trying to understand the root causes (not saying that you haven't) and while growing up in a less polarized environment but with the same dynamics and e.g. seen the divides between rural and cities, I think that both extremes fuel each other and being tough against tough just makes things worst, even in the long run, which you described well.

 

I don't see a way out unless we go extra miles in finding common ground, make people felt heard, and find common causes. That said there will always be that 5-15% extremists on both sides that you can't much deal with but how we deal with them matters to the rest in the middle. As much as politics is the art of compromise, so is building a functional and forward looking society.

[PlatnumRoyce]

Something to keep an eye out for: I'm not sure exactly how accurate this is (struggle a bit to get Movio's weekend data to perfectly match box office grosses) but it looks like the story of SoF's second weekend was to use the attention of its breakout to market itself to a new, younger audience. Does that hold on especially with Barbie juggernaut or is there enough audience differentiation to reduce drops?

y axis should read "$ (Millions)"

Edited July 21, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[SpiderByte]

I'm gonna not comment on the politics at all but I am gonna say that this is...very obviously astroturfing. The fact that one of the common responses is "it was sold out but it was TOTALLY empty, what is AMC hiding from us" is a pretty clear indicator that the overperformance is artificial, and once that ends expect a massive immediate drop

[Ryan Reynolds]

 

[MrHardapple]

57 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:

 

So the white man Paul Schrader tells the hispanic audience what to think about this movie.

Plus, he implies them being dumb 'not seeing the irony.'

THIS is the real irony.

[ChipDerby]

1 hour ago, MrHardapple said:

So the white man Paul Schrader tells the hispanic audience what to think about this movie.

Plus, he implies them being dumb 'not seeing the irony.'

THIS is the real irony.

Look up the definition of irony

[von Kenni]

I went to see Oppenheimer with my partner yesterday and he wanted to go and see Barbie too but was suddenly suggesting this film called Sound of Freedom instead. I hadn't talked to him about it and wondered where he had that idea. His woman latino friend had talked about it and planned to see it herself because it promotes an important cause. I told that the main actor is associated with QAnon conspiracies and the makers are portrayed as right-wing people in mainstream media. My partner said that don't care if it is for a good cause. My partner is latino too and they both are in their early 30s and both are apolitical and non-religious.

 

It's very anecdotal, but I think this kind of thinking and perception of the film is popular. The QAnon or other more extreme people might go watch the movie and talk about it in their echo chambers but the majority see only the film and its cause, AND might see the mainstream reaction against it which begs them to think, why can they be against a film that is against child trafficking!?

 

Most don't see or care who made the film, the things they represent, or are associated with. For those, it isn't a gateway to extremism and frankly, the only thing that might push some in that direction is how they see in their minds the unfair treatment and pushback for the film in the mainstream, and that helps once again the right-wing's goal of portraying the left as radical in their minds and taking it further, in independent voters' minds.

 

To sum it up, 1) the mainstream reaction to this film gives the right and Republicans more ammo to win elections including the upcoming presidential elections which would be an unsettling thought to say the list in my personal view, 2) fights against the long-term sustainable solutions for lessening divisions and polarization by building bridges on common ground, on something that we all can agree on, like fighting against child trafficking.

[ChipDerby]

19 minutes ago, von Kenni said:

I went to see Oppenheimer with my partner yesterday and he wanted to go and see Barbie too but was suddenly suggesting this film called Sound of Freedom instead. I hadn't talked to him about it and wondered where he had that idea. His woman latino friend had talked about it and planned to see it herself because it promotes an important cause. I told that the main actor is associated with QAnon conspiracies and the makers are portrayed as right-wing people in mainstream media. My partner said that don't care if it is for a good cause. My partner is latino too and they both are in their early 30s and both are apolitical and non-religious.

 

It's very anecdotal, but I think this kind of thinking and perception of the film is popular. The QAnon or other more extreme people might go watch the movie and talk about it in their echo chambers but the majority see only the film and its cause, AND might see the mainstream reaction against it which begs them to think, why can they be against a film that is against child trafficking!?

 

Most don't see or care who made the film, the things they represent, or are associated with. For those, it isn't a gateway to extremism and frankly, the only thing that might push some in that direction is how they see in their minds the unfair treatment and pushback for the film in the mainstream, and that helps once again the right-wing's goal of portraying the left as radical in their minds and taking it further, in independent voters' minds.

 

To sum it up, 1) the mainstream reaction to this film gives the right and Republicans more ammo to win elections including the upcoming presidential elections which would be an unsettling thought to say the list in my personal view, 2) fights against the long-term sustainable solutions for lessening divisions and polarization by building bridges on common ground, on something that we all can agree on, like fighting against child trafficking.

 

THIS IS LITERALLY WHY PROPAGANDA WORKS

[The GOAT]

On 7/20/2023 at 6:32 PM, SpiderByte said:

I'm gonna not comment on the politics at all but I am gonna say that this is...very obviously astroturfing. The fact that one of the common responses is "it was sold out but it was TOTALLY empty, what is AMC hiding from us" is a pretty clear indicator that the overperformance is artificial, and once that ends expect a massive immediate drop

TBF to AMC, it receives 50%+ of the ticket revenue. As a declining business, AMC needs all the help that it can get. 

[SpiderByte]

3 minutes ago, The GOAT said:

TBF to AMC, it receives 50%+ of the ticket revenue. As a declining business, AMC needs all the help that it can get. 

Oh I'm not saying the ticket sales aren't real, they're just all being bought up by a few people.

[von Kenni]

4 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

 

THIS IS LITERALLY WHY PROPAGANDA WORKS

Yeah, I still think that the motives of the people behind the movie were mostly for a good cause even though each of them has their own secondary alternative motives for how to use the film. I think that their making the movie was some grand plan in 2015-2018 in order to foresee QAnon and help Trump win elections etc. is also fantasy thinking.

 

But what makes it work as a propaganda or tool for manipulation as I described in my last post, is the mainstream media's and left's reaction to it. They took the bait, even though the bait didn't even really exist in the first place. 

 

Following US politics since the 90s and studied it before, this is just a continuation of the Left's and Democracts' lousy communication, messaging, and understanding of how to win elections, especially in the last 20 years. When there are bigger things to deal with, you can count on the left's eagerness for righteous lecturing on every small minute culture war issue which will be turned against them and Democrats in the minds of moderate independents, and suddenly elections that should be clear wins for Democrats become tight or if not loses.

[Ryan Reynolds]

imagine if SoF beats Indy 5, MI7, and Dune2 domestic , that be amazing