TCTTS said:
This is the final thing I'm going to say on the subject, before heading out to grill and celebrate with my heathen Hollywood friends...
People here keep talking about "the truth," while actively participating in a bad faith effort to accuse a number of us of not wanting to get to the bottom of that truth. Because we either have something to "hide," or "protect," or because we're making excuses for Hollywood, or whatever other bullsh*t talking point nonsense. Even though we've repeated over and over and over again that child trafficking = bad.
The thing is, QAnon doesn't care about the truth. Instead, what QAnon does is choose a number of targets on the left, and then reverse engineers fabricated stories to paint those targets in the most hideous light possible, truth and consequences be damned.
Are there some kernels of truth to their stories? No doubt - just enough to make the most gullible believe the overall lie.
You guys say things like, "Politics plays no part in human trafficking. Only the perpetrators regardless of political affiliation should be exposed." And guess what? I agree 100%. However, it's QAnon who *injects* politics into human trafficking, maintaining that the perpetrators of only *one* political affiliation be exposed.
As for the movie itself, in a vacuum, it sounds innocuous enough. I'm genuinely glad to hear that there don't seem to be any QAnon/conspiracy elements embedded into the story, that it's not blaming only one side politically, etc. That's great!
What I have a huge problem with is the real life subject of the movie itself, Tim Ballard, and the actor who plays him, Jim Caviezel, using the movie, in their promotion of it, to prop up wild, batsh*t insane QAnon conspiracy theories. Because, again, those conspiracy theories aren't after "the truth." Rather, they're engineered *specifically* to demonize and target a *specific* group of people, politically speaking, whether those people have anything to do with child trafficking or not. To be clear, this does not mean I endorse the left, or believe that they're completely innocent in the matter. I'm simply calling attention to the fact that if Ballard and Caviezel were genuinely after "the truth," they wouldn't be so deep down the QAnon rabbit hole.
Seriously, how does it not irk some of you that Ballard and Caviezel use this subject - and thus the victims - to peddle their own political nonsense? To demonize people who have absolutely nothing to do with child trafficking? To enrage the right to hate the left to such a ridiculous, delusional degree? Again, this is the kind of sh*t that leads to nut jobs showing up at pizza parlors with guns, yet some of you could not care less about that aspect. It's all about "the children." Well, if you truly cared about the children, you'd also care that they were being used to peddle nonsense by the very people telling this story. Which should make any sane person suspicious of their motives, and thus of the movie they made. Never mind the fact that it's also pretty clear that Ballard has fabricated elements of his story, which makes me question the events of the movie even more, as innocuous (and emotionally effective) as it apparently is.
In short, the point I'm trying to make (or, rather, repeat for the dozenth time) is that it's possible to despise child trafficking, yet also find the filmmakers' intentions dubious. The two thoughts aren't mutually exclusive, and those of you who continue to suggest that believing the latter means endorsing child trafficking, frankly, need to get a life.
That has zero to do with the moving. The movie is a depiction of one story of two trafficked kids. No politics and no pointing fingers, just shedding light on a problem America wants to ignore.
What YOU read into says more about you than what the movie says.
In my opinion it should be front page news 24/7. Modern day slavery is alive and well. NOTHING is being done. Why?
