Tibbers said:

---

Then this thread should be locked and removed. I thought we were having a debate. I didn't realize you were feeling this way. For that, I apologize. No ill will to ya my dude. I really thought we were just debating two conflicting points of view.

---

That was more than a debate, and you know it. Still, I've been "fine" with it for most of the thread.

But the more people have kept insinuating, the more I've started thinking about those horror stories of people getting doxxed here, the multiple times posters have contacted people's work trying to get them fired, etc.

And some of that was for just, like, petty political arguments, whereas child trafficking feels like a whole other level.

I'm all for a truce, though.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

I don't doubt people said those things about you, but people here on both sides of this argument know that is just silly and would ignore it even if it was still up. Personal attacks are childish and uninventive. You don't have to defend that.

The attack angle the industry in general has taken against this film is also silly. The movie has nothing to do with the 20+ pages of arguments here and across the interwebs. The attacks that Ballard is doing bad or disingenuous work is as bad as people calling you names. The guy gave up so much to do what he thinks is right and his what he believes is his calling. He is making a difference in the world, especially compared to what most of us are doing. Taking down traffickers and pedophiles is noble work. Freeing people from slavery is a good thing.

I am just tired of it being right or left, liberal or conservative. Children are innocent and deserve that innocence. Why would we ever fight about this?

ETA: if anyone were to claim it was only liberals that participate in pedophilia or trafficking I would call that out too. If you sully a child's innocence you are unredeemable in my opinion.

---

I'm right there with you.

This whole thing started because the third post of this thread went straight to anti-Hollywood, anti-liberal conspiracy land. For absolutely no reason at all.

Then someone essentially countered with, "Oh, yeah, well what about QAnon."

The thread was already a goner at that point.

Still, I tried to stay out of it, and every fiber of my being told me I should, but I of course couldn't help myself, and once I gave in, what was admittedly a small kitchen fire then soon consumed the entire building. At this point, I think now the entire block has gone down in flames.

Hopefully we just put the fire out ourselves, though.

All I know is I'm all out of matches and gasoline.

And also bad fire metaphors.

Tibbers said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Tibbers said:

---

Then this thread should be locked and removed. I thought we were having a debate. I didn't realize you were feeling this way. For that, I apologize. No ill will to ya my dude. I really thought we were just debating two conflicting points of view.

---

That was more than a debate, and you know it. Still, I've been "fine" with it for most of the thread.

But the more people have kept insinuating, the more I've started thinking about those horror stories of people getting doxxed here, the multiple times posters have contacted people's work trying to get them fired, etc.

And some of that was for just, like, petty political arguments, whereas child trafficking feels like a whole other level.

I'm all for a truce, though.

---

Sounds good to me. We agree to disagree. Now go see the movie! Lol

---

TCTTS said:

---

Eso si, Que es said:

---

I don't doubt people said those things about you, but people here on both sides of this argument know that is just silly and would ignore it even if it was still up. Personal attacks are childish and uninventive. You don't have to defend that.

The attack angle the industry in general has taken against this film is also silly. The movie has nothing to do with the 20+ pages of arguments here and across the interwebs. The attacks that Ballard is doing bad or disingenuous work is as bad as people calling you names. The guy gave up so much to do what he thinks is right and his what he believes is his calling. He is making a difference in the world, especially compared to what most of us are doing. Taking down traffickers and pedophiles is noble work. Freeing people from slavery is a good thing.

I am just tired of it being right or left, liberal or conservative. Children are innocent and deserve that innocence. Why would we ever fight about this?

ETA: if anyone were to claim it was only liberals that participate in pedophilia or trafficking I would call that out too. If you sully a child's innocence you are unredeemable in my opinion.

---

I'm right there with you.

This whole thing started because the third post of this thread went straight to anti-Hollywood, anti-liberal conspiracy land. For absolutely no reason at all.

Then someone essentially countered with, "Oh, yeah, well what about QAnon."

The thread was already a goner at that point.

Still, I tried to stay out of it, and every fiber of my being told me I should, but I of course couldn't help myself, and once I gave in, what was admittedly a small kitchen fire then soon consumed the entire building. At this point, I think now the entire block has gone down in flames.

Hopefully we just put the fire out ourselves, though.

All I know is I'm all out of matches and gasoline.

And also bad fire metaphors.

---

I am sure tomorrow the phoenix will rise back up at the first gaslight.

where there is smoke, you know snoop dawg is close by.

this subject is obviously still very tinder

I saw this movie. I did not want to because the subject matter is just something I'd rather not watch a movie about unless it is in the mode of Taken and all guilty parties get dealt with properly.

The movie was well done from the standpoint of evoking strong emotional reactions from the start.

It was a packed theater on a Wednesday night 6:45 showing. I watched it at a different theater than my normal because all other showings were sold out more than three hours prior to the showing. There are 4 theaters within 10 mins of my house and it was showing on 9 screens. There was one I screen for which could find 2 seats not on the front row. And the theater was absolutely packed.

They did a brilliant job marketing this movie. Absolutely brilliant. They targeted a market they knew would properly respond and they gave them a mechanism to do it. I personally think this method is what most scares the **** out if the left and why they are threatened to to the point of needing to tie it to Q-spiracy and downplay trafficking to hopefully minimize the response and potential future response to movies being marketed in this way.

Here is my problem with all this. It's not even Q related.

Our government is incredibly powerful. They can do whatever they want basically. Case in point, "climate change". They have changed America's way of life and will continue to do so in the name of climate change. Right or wrong, it's happening.

Human trafficking is a massive problem, but our government and media largely ignore it. Why is that? For a country that dwells on the horrors of slavery in our past, why do we do so little for the people experiencing slavery today?

Simply put, the government doesn't want to do anything about it. I don't know why that is, but it is a glaring fact. The media does very little reporting about this subject, if any. And now, when an important and significant movie about the subject is made, they try to minimize it, as if the whole thing is just a conspiracy theory.

It's bull **** and it pisses me off. So much so that I've decided to do something about it.

Currently I'm a truck driver. I make pretty good money, but I'm not doing what I need to be doing. I've been trying to figure out what I should be doing for a long time now, and I think I know finally.

I pledge that in the next 6 months, I will become an advocate for children in some way. Hopefully, I will figure out the best way to do that, and if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them. I've thought of becoming a foster parent in the past, maybe that's a possible path.

Ideally, I would like to be a person tasked with taking in children who have been traficked, protecting them, helping them find some hope, and giving them the promise of a new life where they can be safe, successful and happy.

An easy one is Habitat for Humanity. You might not be directly helping combat child trafficking, but you are providing homes for the most at risk parents and kids to the trade.

IMO, the pushback is solely to keep the border open. It is crazy that democrats have not only convinced people that an open border is good, they have weaponized people to proclaim with every fiber of their being that an open border is a necessity and anything less than an open border is a human rights violation/crisis. I am not arguing here why I think border topic has become so contentious, just that it is obvious that IN GENERAL people from the left support open borders and people from the right supports immigration control.

In reference to trafficking, not only do open borders allow for ease of trafficking, it encourages trafficking. It is well documented that children are used as pawns by nefarious adults to get into the country.

DISCLAIMER - I am not saying democrats are the only group peddling/exploiting children. I am saying democrats are hell bent on keeping the border wide open and conservatives want to close the border. A closed border is better when discussing trafficking. I think all roadblocks to this movie are actually about the border situation.

In summary. I am not saying right good, left bad. I am saying right wants closed borders, left wants open borders. A sane person who becomes aware of trafficking may look at the border situation and start thinking that is a poor way to handle the border of we want to be serious about trafficking.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

IMO, the pushback is solely to keep the border open. It is crazy that democrats have not only convinced people that an open border is good, they have weaponized people to proclaim with every fiber of their being that an open border is a necessity and anything less than an open border is a human rights violation/crisis. I am not arguing here why I think border topic has become so contentious, just that it is obvious that IN GENERAL people from the left support open borders and people from the right supports immigration control.

In reference to trafficking, not only do open borders allow for ease of trafficking, it encourages trafficking. It is well documented that children are used as pawns by nefarious adults to get into the country.

DISCLAIMER - I am not saying democrats are the only group peddling/exploiting children. I am saying democrats are hell bent on keeping the border wide open and conservatives want to close the border. A closed border is better when discussing trafficking. I think all roadblocks to this movie are actually about the border situation.

In summary. I am not saying right good, left bad. I am saying right wants closed borders, left wants open borders. A sane person who becomes aware of trafficking may look at the border situation and start thinking that is a poor way to handle the border of we want to be serious about trafficking.

---

POTD. Should lock thread now.

Would like to modify my previous post, the pushback is not solely to keep border open, as that is a byproduct. I am going to make general statements to try and avoid being derailed into the weeds.

The pushback is about influence IMO. Actors are the original social influencers, they have a wide audience and platform. IN GENERAL, Hollywood is left leaning, and the people who steer Hollywood understand that the actors are quite literally the face of entertainment. There are "kingmakers" in Hollywood who decide who gets in and who does not. We saw the absolute worst of those kind of "Queen makers" a few years back, so we know access into the club is somewhat controlled and highly desired.

Since Hollywood is left leaning, they are averse to giving someone with right leaning tendencies any influence when they can avoid it. They did not attack Caviezel and Ballard because Hollywood is full of pedophiles, that would just be weird and conspiratorial. Yes, there are some depraved people in Hollywood who are pedophiles but there are a some pedophiles across all of society. No, they attacked Caviezel and Ballard because they want to be able to steer the influence and it is obvious that Caviezel would never fall in line and push agendas that left leaning Hollywood wants to promote.

I am a business owner and I get to choose the people who represent my business. I try to select those who are honest and genuine, work hard, and foster a good team environment. Hollywood has an infinite pool of actors to choose from, literally millions of people would love to be a famous actor. Therefore, Hollywood can be very selective of who gets in. If you are a terrible actor, you are out. If you promote opposing viewpoints, you are out. There are legacy people who got in prior to the complete polarization of the world, but no right leaning actor who tries to break into Hollywood will get past the screening process unless a conservative studio emerges.

Angel represents that potential studio. Caviezel represents that actor. Hollywood has galvanized against potential competitors to ensure their continued business dominance and subsequently narrative dominance.

Outsiders need not apply.

It is entertainment, and we should consume what entertains us. However, it has shifted to a cultural battle and people have enough information in 2023 to see who is behind the project and decide if their beliefs align or not. Instead of debating the score, the costumes, or even the message of the film, we have now been reduced to debating the politics of the actor that are not even inserted into the film (even if it could be argues that they are adjacent to the film's topic).

I am guilty of considering an actor's politics as well prior to consuming their product.

So we can sum up this 26 page thread as a few, select people making ad hominem attacks on the producers/stars of a movie they haven't seen, being called out about it, and then throwing a subsequent tantrum

I wasn't gonna watch this movie, but the lefties are up in arms about it in here. It's like a stirred up hornets nest. Must be over the target. I'm in.

Isn't time for y'all to go back over to 16chan and rattle some sabers at the government then roll over when they eventually take what they want.

I haven't seen this movie yet and the following isn't about child trafficking but I passed by boys haven in beaumont yesterday and had long since forgot the days when I lived in a boys home and I decided that I need to do some volunteer work with their organization. I know how hard those kids have it and hopefully I can make a difference in their lives for the better. Good for you for making the commitment do something.

Having kids of my own, I thought it would be to tough to watch. So I bought some tix online just to put money in their pocket.

I think there is a seedy minority of libs are okay with "sex work" for minors. I had an argument with a lib once who claimed that if the kid wants to do it with an adult, then they should be able to. Several "pioneers" of the trans movement (from the 60s or whatever) said that openly. I've seen plenty of libs on Reddit who try to de-shame sex work as being honorable, and I have seen libs throw out other disgusting PC phrases like "minor attracted person" (rather than pedo). To many, it's becoming a "lifestyle choice" like being gay or trans.

Squadron7 said:

---

Having kids of my own, I thought it would be to tough to watch. So I bought some tix online just to put money in their pocket.

---

its a movie about hope and doing what you are called to do. Yes, there are some emotional moments but the message is hope

aTmAg said:

---

I think there is a seedy minority of libs are okay with "sex work" for minors. I had an argument with a lib once who claimed that if the kid wants to do it with an adult, then they should be able to. Several "pioneers" of the trans movement (from the 60s or whatever) said that openly. I've seen plenty of libs on Reddit who try to de-shame sex work as being honorable, and I have seen libs throw out other disgusting PC phrases like "minor attracted person" (rather than pedo). To many, it's becoming a "lifestyle choice" like being gay or trans.

---

If true, that is all really ****ed up

aTmAg said:

---

I think there is a seedy minority of libs are okay with "sex work" for minors. I had an argument with a lib once who claimed that if the kid wants to do it with an adult, then they should be able to. Several "pioneers" of the trans movement (from the 60s or whatever) said that openly. I've seen plenty of libs on Reddit who try to de-shame sex work as being honorable, and I have seen libs throw out other disgusting PC phrases like "minor attracted person" (rather than pedo). To many, it's becoming a "lifestyle choice" like being gay or trans.

---

Wow

California Democrats gonna democrat:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/youre-horrible-california-assembly-blocks-bill-making-trafficking-of-minors-a-serious-felony

They cannot possibly give the Rs a win on anything, even if it means cracking down on slavery. F'in POSs.

Would be interesting to see if the 6 Dems point at the "QAnon" marketed movie as justification for their vote.

TCTTS said:

---

Since you clearly joined the party late, just to pile on, I'll reiterate for the 400th time that haven't said a word about the contents of the movie itself, but okay. Whatever floats your boat.

---

I joined this party late too. What an incredible read. Just a few weeks ago, the headline news featured parade chants of "we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children" and also pics of a surgically modified man showing his fake boobs along with our feckless POTUS. So, from your comments about a movie focused on protecting children from sex trafficking, it appears that your views are aligned with the leftists who are trying to remake America into Sodom and Gamora. This will end the same way it did back then.

Mark Wahlberg has entered the chat


Edit, deleted uncooroberated

Be careful with fake news

Cosmetics with foreskin particles? You'd have to be real d***head to use it.


…


I'll see myself out

The movie is still just clicking along in 2,952 theaters and just topped $50M total revenue. Still doing a very respectable $1,500 per theater (which was the same $ per theater it did last Wednesday on day 2). I keep looking at my local theaters and they remain packed, every showing. 11 showings today between the 2 theaters and essentially just front row seats available during the middle of the day.

TCTTS said:

---

DargelSkout said:

---

TCTTS, I have a question.

First off, I'm a conservative that never got into the whole Qanon stuff. I really don't even understand what it is. I do remember seeing it on F16, but thought it was some big troll job.

Do you think that most people hear about movies through the promotional interviews that you posted?

I don't think that they do. I think most people are like me and see trailers while watching other movies/shows or learn about upcoming movies through word of mouth. I found out about this movie while watching The Chosen. When I saw the trailer, I never got a hint of Qanon stuff or anything political.

Nor did I even know the political leanings of the actor and creators of the film. It wasn't until you injected that into this thread that I learned they're into Qanon stuff.

Admittedly, I don't keep up with hollywood gossip or actors beliefs. I know a few of their political thoughts, like Penn and Baldwin, but still enjoy their movies.

---

My argument isn't that "most people" - especially those on the left - are watching Jim Caviezel interviews with Steve Bannon.

Because they're not.

Obviously.

The issue is that the mainstream media/social media get wind of those interviews, and more importantly the crazy stuff Caviezel says in them, and *that's* what leads to nearly every headline of every mainstream review of this movie saying things like "Sound of Freedom, the QAnon adjacent film…"

In other words, if in promoting the movie, Caviezel didn't use QAnon talking points while speaking to controversial figures like Steve freaking Bannon, the mainstream media/social media would have nothing to latch onto in that regard, and then many here wouldn't be up in arms at them associating the movie with QAnon.

Which, again, is no one's fault but Jim Caviezel's. So blame him.

And I know a number of people here like to downplay QAnon, or talk about how they know nothing about it, but A) that isn't the flex you think it is, and B) a ton of Americans are still super skittish about January 6th, which was directly incited by QAnon, so now there's an overzealousness to label anything with a whiff of QAnon *as* QAnon, and stomp out anything associated with it.

Anyway, I've explained this multiple times in this thread now, and there will no doubt be all kinds of goal post moving and dumb excuse making in response, as per usual, but whatever.

---

This has to be a ChatGPT post or one of the greatest Copypastas of all time. Jesus Christ, dude. Give it up and move on. It's been a horrible look.....





.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Jsimonds58 said:

---

Are we really playing gotcha here by trying to say that because he didn't say Qanon by NAME, that his peddling of all the horse**** conspiracies is somehow better and different?

I mean is that what this argument has devolved to at this point?

---

This is what they've been reduced to. The goal posts have been moved so many times, and their pretzel logic has become so twisted, that I don't even know what to say anymore.

---

So where did Caviezel or Ballard introduce Qanon into their marketing?

---

And with that, I think we've officially reached the end of our time here.

This question has been asked and answered what feels like a hundred times now, to the point of absurdity, where I just can't believe that someone is seriously, genuinely asking it again now.

We have to be getting played at this point.

You guys have fun!

---

How many times has this guy been done with this thread?

---

And it just keeps rolling.....

'Angel Studios' 'Sound of Freedom' passes $50 million at the US box office'
https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/angel-studios-sound-freedom-passes-50-million-us-box-office