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

[MightGuy]

11 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

And the whole, but Caveizel! argument is so disegenous when talking about "understanding" the coverage, or the coverage being apropriate. Hollywood is full of awful addictive, abusive people who treat other human beings horribly, actual actions taken, and these people release movie after movie without every headline pairing a rape or abuse with the movie title.

The Flash wasn't called the child trafficker or woman choker movie in every headline. Polanski and Allen got to release movies without associating their titles with their abuse.

Everyone in the industry knows Bryan Singer abuses underage teens. Drew Bailey finished Superman Returns b/c Singer was ran out of Australia over an "incident".

But Caviezel a dad who managed to stay married to the same woman for 27 years is supposedly awful and dangerous b/c he thinks wrong and his movie should be labelled the qanon movie. Anyone who views life that way needs to get over self.

Lemme put a pin in the whataboutism. Didn't see The Flash for the reason you state, despite being a very big fan of the characters and acknowledging that the crew was much more than just Miller. Fine with cutting Majors, Polanski, Allen, Singer, and Spacey. I have no fear or problem in remaining remarkably consistent.

 

I've given you Caviezel's own words (Ballard too) in regards to promotion of the film. Nothing disingenuous there at all. I have not added or embellished anything.

 

If you want to go see the film, by all means. You're (theoretically) an adult. I don't know you. I merely want folks to acknowledge what is being tied to the film by proponents of the production, and how a success will raise all ships.

 

9 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

I think multiple things can be true at once:

 

1: The film itself, in a vacuum, appears to be a quality product that's not inherently conspiratorial

2: The film is produced by and frontlined by highly conspiratorial people

3: Child sex trafficking is a real problem, pedophilia in certain elite circles is a real problem

4: The film is acting as and being promoted within conservative media as a dog whistle for Qanon

5: The film's release rollout and box office success are worth studying

 

All in all, a perfectly engineered culture war trojan horse, which I'm sure was the intent of the producer and promoters. On the surface to a casual viewer, mostly innocuous stuff, but designed to get the uninitiated into the rabbit hole, while turning a profit from those already in the cult. All while churning the culture waters like we're seeing here right now.

I largely agree with all of this. My issue is in those who try to minimize or ignore 2 and 4.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by MightGuy

[rebelscum86]

13 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

I’m gonna nope you on that. 
I am not letting the Right claim some kind of moral high ground on caring for kids. 
I literally do more about it. And I have no problem saying I fail often and the system fails often. 
I encourage people to do more than watch a movie or defend a movie. I’ve said that in this thread. Watching the movie makes zero difference. 
If it makes you do a good thing, great. 
 

 

You are preaching to the choir on this one. My clients are NGOs. I audit and write grants for child programs. And your oh they just watched a movie is fake ass bs after a decade of representation matters, how we depict the world will affect it and change it! I have no faith you would be criticizing a slacktivist Hollywood movie on any other issue, for just existing and allowing people to lazily feel involved.

As someone who funds programs to work with abandoned and abused kids, my response to movie is great, make headlines, at the very least hopefully donations go up and at the best we get volunteers or more questions asked to power so we get those desperately needed investigations that get waived away without pressure.

You're attitude sucks and you come across bitter b/c you dislike a group of people more than you dislike the issue. I hate communisim, but if they were running an anti-drug program I'd agree with them and cheer them on b/c I hate drugs more and those would be the type of communists I'd rather have in the world.

[Mr Terrific]

8 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

I think multiple things can be true at once:

 

1: The film itself, in a vacuum, appears to be a quality product that's not inherently conspiratorial

2: The film is produced by and frontlined by highly conspiratorial people

3: Child sex trafficking is a real problem, pedophilia in certain elite circles is a real problem

4: The film is acting as and being promoted within conservative media as a dog whistle for Qanon

5: The film's release rollout and box office success are worth studying

 

All in all, a perfectly engineered culture war trojan horse, which I'm sure was the intent of the producer and promoters. On the surface to a casual viewer, mostly innocuous stuff, but designed to get the uninitiated into the rabbit hole, while turning a profit from those already in the cult. All while churning the culture waters like we're seeing here right now.

Yes. This. 
 

[Mr Terrific]

1 minute ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

You are preaching to the choir on this one. My clients are NGOs. I audit and write grants for child programs. And your oh they just watched a movie is fake ass bs after a decade of representation matters, how we depict the world will affect it and change it! I have no faith you would be criticizing a slacktivist Hollywood movie on any other issue, for just existing and allowing people to lazily feel involved.

As someone who funds programs to work with abandoned and abused kids, my response to movie is great, make headlines, at the very least hopefully donations go up and at the best we get volunteers or more questions asked to power so we get those desperately needed investigations that get waived away without pressure.

You're attitude sucks and you come across bitter b/c you dislike a group of people more than you dislike the issue. I hate communisim, but if they were running an anti-drug program I'd agree with them and cheer them on b/c I hate drugs more and those would be the type of communists I'd rather have in the world.

I dislike extremist right wingers and child trafficking at the same time. 
You’re making it a ridiculous choice. 
You’re making odd personal judgments about me that are false.

[rebelscum86]

17 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

I think multiple things can be true at once:

 

1: The film itself, in a vacuum, appears to be a quality product that's not inherently conspiratorial

2: The film is produced by and frontlined by highly conspiratorial people

3: Child sex trafficking is a real problem, pedophilia in certain elite circles is a real problem

4: The film is acting as and being promoted within conservative media as a dog whistle for Qanon

5: The film's release rollout and box office success are worth studying

 

All in all, a perfectly engineered culture war trojan horse, which I'm sure was the intent of the producer and promoters. On the surface to a casual viewer, mostly innocuous stuff, but designed to get the uninitiated into the rabbit hole, while turning a profit from those already in the cult. All while churning the culture waters like we're seeing here right now.

 

I honestly don't even know what Qanon means at this point other than it's derogatory and means false, but I originally thought it was a fake person making fake predictions about the govt? So it seems it needs to be said, not all conservatives believe in Qanon and not all people who believe in Qanon will be conservatives.

 

10 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

Caveziel refers to people who disagree with him as working with Lucifer!
I’m supposed to concede that someone who thinks me, my wife, most of my family and hundreds of friends are in league with the devil as a reasonable guy?

That’s laughable. 
This isn’t do I side with Depp or Heard. This is a highly political guy talking about the devil. 
He’s a dad! Me, too. I’ve only been married for 18 though.

I’m pushing my point aggressively because that is literally what the guy has asked for. Just read his wiki page and argue that he just wants to talk. 

 

And you don't refer to people who disagree with you with dismmissive labels that mean bad things. See the above about not all conservatives being Qanon. You have never called a conservative nazi or fascist? That has a worse implication in current day than luciferian. What do you think he is saying by saying you're with satan? Are you christian?

Edited July 10, 2023 by rebelscum86

[ChipDerby]

I'm not going to separate the "art" from the "man" on this one.

[robertman2]

2 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

I honestly don't even know what Qanon means at this point other than it's derogatory and means false, but I originally thought it was a fake person making fake predictions about the govt? So it seems it needs to be said, not all conservatives believe in Qanon and not all people who believe in Qanon will be conservatives.

 

 

And you don't refer to people who disagree with you with dismmissive labels that mean bad things. See the above about not all conservatives being Qanon. You have never called a conservative nazi or fascist? That has a worse implication in current day than luciferian.

qanon is inherently a conservative movement lmao 

[Mr Terrific]

21 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

I honestly don't even know what Qanon means at this point other than it's derogatory and means false, but I originally thought it was a fake person making fake predictions about the govt? So it seems it needs to be said, not all conservatives believe in Qanon and not all people who believe in Qanon will be conservatives.

 

 

And you don't refer to people who disagree with you with dismmissive labels that mean bad things. See the above about not all conservatives being Qanon. You have never called a conservative nazi or fascist? That has a worse implication in current day than luciferian.

I don’t want to insult you, but are you being intentionally obtuse about this?
I would call someone a Nazi or a fascist if I thought they said or did things that fit those definitions. JC can call me or people with my beliefs crazy things. I don’t have to trust him though. 

I didn’t bring Q into this and don’t think I’ve mentioned it in this thread. 
You continue to make odd and incorrect assumptions about me. Not sure why that is part of this. 
 

I’m from a Catholic family, but I’ve not attended or practiced for a while. I do have many devout Catholics in my family who have used their faith as fuel to do very good real things. I don’t particularly like representing himself as a man of faith when I see him using doctrines in ways that are not at all universally agreed with by other Catholics. He has no more standing to talk about the Devil than I do. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Mr Terrific
Adding

[OncomingStorm93]

17 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

I honestly don't even know what Qanon means at this point other than it's derogatory and means false, but I originally thought it was a fake person making fake predictions about the govt? So it seems it needs to be said, not all conservatives believe in Qanon and not all people who believe in Qanon will be conservatives.

Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

 

"The core QAnon conspiracy theory is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters are operating a global child sex trafficking ring which conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office."

 

Started on 4chan or 8chan, one of those, by someone named Q claiming to be a Trump admin official, who kept talking about "the storm" that was coming that would bring this sex ring down, among other nonsensical promises. The roots are in a conspiracy theory about a sex ring operating out of a DC pizza joint frequented by known Democrat political operatives.

 

Many Trump officials publicly supported Qanon, including and probably most notably Trump's first Director of National Intelligence, Michael Flynn. Qanon supporters were a sizeable contingent in the planning of, and attempted carrying out of the January 6 insurrection designed to overthrow the democratic process in the United States.

 

Now you know. No more plausible deniability. Your welcome.

 

[rebelscum86]

12 minutes ago, ChipDerby said:

I'm not going to separate the "art" from the "man" on this one.

Do you watch any movies where the man involved physically hurt someone?

 

11 minutes ago, RobrtmanAStarWarsReference said:

qanon is inherently a conservative movement lmao 

 

it's inherently anti-govt and conspiritorial. I didn't know that was political. when I was a kid leftists were labeled as conspiracy theorists.

 

17 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

I dislike extremist right wingers and child trafficking at the same time. 
You’re making it a ridiculous choice. 
You’re making odd personal judgments about me that are false.

 

3 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

I don’t want to insult you, but are you being intentionally obtuse about this?
I would call someone a Nazi or a fascist if I thought they said or did things that fit those definitions. JC can call me or people with my beliefs crazy things. I don’t have to trust him though. 

I didn’t bring Q into this and don’t think I’ve mentioned it in this thread. 
You continue to make odd and incorrect assumptions about me. Not sure why that is part of this. 

 

You have crossed over into labeling normal people extremists for watching a movie instead of doing something else about trafficking and it smacks of yourself looking for any reason to dislike the movie. You don't think any movies have had wider affect? Didn't Philiadelphia increase HIV research funding? You mention you work with kids. Who overwhelming abuses kids in the home vs who does the public expect the abuser to be? Now who does family court favor? Opposite who is actually like to be the threat right?

how do you think people get such a skewed perception? it's media. media can have social affects, which I would hope you could be happy about a positive one.

"I would call someone a Nazi or a fascist if I thought they said or did things that fit those definitions." As for this your assessment is going to be different from the person you are labeling, and it's ironic b/c exactly what a Christian would say about saying someone was with satan. To them if you aren't Christian you're with satan and every religion does it, if you're not jewish your goyim, if you're not muslim you're an infidel. It's an odd thing to take such great offense to.

[Mr Terrific]

Oh good grief. 
People can make negative statements about me that I can disagree with. I can dislike that. 
I can make negative statements about other people. 
There is zero contradiction. 
Name one person that I’ve unfairly attached to extremism. 

[rebelscum86]

4 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

 

"The core QAnon conspiracy theory is that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters are operating a global child sex trafficking ring which conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office."

 

Started on 4chan or 8chan, one of those, by someone named Q claiming to be a Trump admin official, who kept talking about "the storm" that was coming that would bring this sex ring down, among other nonsensical promises. The roots are in a conspiracy theory about a sex ring operating out of a DC pizza joint frequented by known Democrat political operatives.

 

Many Trump officials publicly supported Qanon, including and probably most notably Trump's first Director of National Intelligence, Michael Flynn. Qanon supporters were a sizeable contingent in the planning of, and attempted carrying out of the January 6 insurrection designed to overthrow the democratic process in the United States.

 

Now you know. No more plausible deniability. Your welcome.

 

 

that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters are operating a global child sex trafficking ring

true. Jeffery Epstein. Anything evil is called satanic by christians so we are splitting hairs whether they actually practice satanism

 

which conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office."

 

Started on 4chan or 8chan, one of those, by someone named Q claiming to be a Trump admin official, who kept talking about "the storm" that was coming that would bring this sex ring down, among other nonsensical promises. The roots are in a conspiracy theory about a sex ring operating out of a DC pizza joint frequented by known Democrat political operatives.

 

Many Trump officials publicly supported Qanon, including and probably most notably Trump's first Director of National Intelligence, Michael Flynn.

agreed this is nonsense conspiracy theory

Qanon supporters were a sizeable contingent in the planning of, and attempted carrying out of the January 6 insurrection designed to overthrow the democratic process in the United States.

we are now into the left's own conspiracy theories

[rebelscum86]

1 minute ago, Mr Terrific said:

Oh good grief. 
People can make negative statements about me that I can disagree with. I can dislike that. 
I can make negative statements about other people. 
There is zero contradiction. 
Name one person that I’ve unfairly attached to extremism. 

 

I thought when you were criticizing the film for being slacktivist do nothing nonsense you were talking about the people going to see it. But I would much rather hear your input on the outsize view of who abuses children in the home.

Since you work with abused kids, you know it's overwhelmingly mothers which accounts for 70% of abuse and murderes, then step fathers, and the least likely is actually the father. Yet everyone thinks of fathers as being abusive so much that family court slightly favors mothers. What accounts for such a large discrepancy in perception?

I think it is clearly media which I use as evidence that media is important and effective.

[Mr Terrific]

Gonna dip out of this thread for the night. Maybe I will permanently as I’ve undeniably taken up a good chunk of space. 
Peace

(Really)

[rebelscum86]

1 hour ago, Mr Terrific said:

Caveziel refers to people who disagree with him as working with Lucifer!
I’m supposed to concede that someone who thinks me, my wife, most of my family and hundreds of friends are in league with the devil as a reasonable guy?

That’s laughable. 
This isn’t do I side with Depp or Heard. This is a highly political guy talking about the devil. 
He’s a dad! Me, too. I’ve only been married for 18 though.

I’m pushing my point aggressively because that is literally what the guy has asked for. Just read his wiki page and argue that he just wants to talk. 

 

this is great and I'm sorry it got lost in all the other points, but being married for a long time is very good evidence of positive character traits like loyalty, care, and respesct especially when children are involved.
 

Edited July 10, 2023 by rebelscum86

[von Kenni]

Thanks for the interesting discussion for all!

[MightGuy]

24 minutes ago, Mr Terrific said:

Gonna dip out of this thread for the night. Maybe I will permanently as I’ve undeniably taken up a good chunk of space. 
Peace

(Really)

It is good to realize when folks won't meet in the middle and walk away. No reason to waste one's precious time fighting on the internet too long. Cheers.

[filmlover]

7 hours ago, XXR Electric Touch said:

 

I don't think anyone thinks child trafficking isn't real nor an enormous problem. I think the only contention around this film is that the people who are responsible for it are wildly conspiratorial and are using a very real problem to layer their conspiracies on it via promotion. The actual film not having these conspiracies is moot to the point people are bringing up. 

Bingo!

 

My take on all this is: I had not even heard of this movie about a week ago, and from the sounds of it, it's basically a generic thriller that might've starred, say, Chris Hemsworth had a major studio put it out (although one almost did when it was made five years ago) with little actual political affiliations in the movie itself. The main issues come from not only the people who made it and their shady backgrounds, but also the hypocritical nature of the demographic that's mostly embracing for it. The chief demo for this has become conservatives who think seeing a Hollywood-esque thriller about a topical issue is a "that'll show 'em!" lesson to those so-called evil woke Hollywood liberal elites (they're not: all they're doing is contributing to the bank accounts of those who made the movie instead of achieving any kind of social movement), and wouldn't be caught dead going to the theater to see Mission: Impossible or Barbie or any big movie this summer (or so they claim, this group tends to be the most shameless offenders at showing off their failures in actually practicing what they preach).

 

I haven't seen the movie, and I don't intend to even though I commend that it's trying to bring awareness to (child trafficking) is a difficult but important topic. But that's also where I can't help but sort of side eye the folks who are embracing it, mostly because I assume it must share an overlap with the pro-gun crowd, a view that's become increasingly out-of-fashion with all the devastating school shootings we've had to witness. One would have to work overtime to bury their head in the sands of their politics to ignore the ramifications of about 20 small children senselessly slaughtered by an AR-15. The goal should be to protect our children no matter what and no matter the cost (something that should be especially true of those who pride themselves on being "pro-life"), not just when it's convenient in the name of the political game. It's the ultimate example of picking and choosing your battles. But that's a far bigger topic for a completely different thread.

 

For the most part, all the handwringing over this movie has been an online thing and not something that's actually moved into the real world. Personally, I'm mostly just stumped on the whole "pay it forward" thing that's basically inflating the gross lmao. If I didn't know better I would've guessed that Frances Fisher is, after the drama over her tactics during awards season (see: the saga of Andrea Riseborough's To Leslie nomination), trying to see if she can work the box office system too.

[interiorgatordecorator]

lol 

if this movie is already generating such annoying discourse, with people on both sides making things up to be mad about, imagine how much worse and/or funnier it's going to be when Passion 2 opens to around 100 million (1 adjusts to around a 150 million 3-day ow and a 215 million 5-day )

 

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by interiorgatordecorator

[rebelscum86]

41 minutes ago, rebelscum86 said:

 

that a cabal of Satanic, cannibalistic child molesters are operating a global child sex trafficking ring

true. Jeffery Epstein. Anything evil is called satanic by christians so we are splitting hairs whether they actually practice satanism

 

which conspired against former U.S. President Donald Trump during his term in office."

 

Started on 4chan or 8chan, one of those, by someone named Q claiming to be a Trump admin official, who kept talking about "the storm" that was coming that would bring this sex ring down, among other nonsensical promises. The roots are in a conspiracy theory about a sex ring operating out of a DC pizza joint frequented by known Democrat political operatives.

 

Many Trump officials publicly supported Qanon, including and probably most notably Trump's first Director of National Intelligence, Michael Flynn.

agreed this is nonsense conspiracy theory

Qanon supporters were a sizeable contingent in the planning of, and attempted carrying out of the January 6 insurrection designed to overthrow the democratic process in the United States.

we are now into the left's own conspiracy theories

 

Had a final thought on this. So what is enough to make someone be labelled Qanon? At an academic level disbelieving any part of the above means you do not believe in Qanon. For a statement to be true all it's propositions must be true. This is how fact checkers operate. It is unfair to apply fact checking standards to everyone else, but not to media.

Now it is true that fact checking can be seen as pedantic, so we could say the leading proposition of Qanon is that a govt official was making anonymous promises. I would definitely say that someone has to believe this part to be called a Qanono believer.

But maintain since the media uses fact checkers, their headlines should be held to the standard of fact checking which is all propositions must be true for the statement to be true. It's good to be mindful of how media plays with language like this.

Edited July 10, 2023 by rebelscum86