Aztec1948 said:

---

https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/12/on-the-psychology-of-the-conspiracy-denier/

---

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

At what point does this thread get moved to the politics board?

---

We already have one of our own an do not need this one.

Seriously, I spend almostvewial time on F16 and here. This thread has way too much politics going on. It should not be a surprise; any time a negative post is made about switching the sex or race of an established character, some posters go ballistic about us peasants not knowing what we are talking about.

I stay on this board to find out what new shows are streaming on what services.

MiniShrike said:

---

I'm certain I'll catch a perma in the morning, and I know the rules so it's justified.

But there arw lots of folks on this thread who painted with awfully broad brushes with their insults who won't, and others who were just being dicks.

What's messed-up in my opinion is that when we go see Barbie, or Oppenheimer( both of which I will see this weekend), the precedent has been set that this producer or that actor has views that offend some people. And so we start again.

Is that where we want this to go?

---

For me, it comes down to being consistent in one's beliefs/complaints. I've accepted the fact that there is a small but loud contingent on this board who feels the need to view every last thing in their lives through a political lens, especially the entertainment they consume, and then complain about it endlessly. But if they don't want to watch something because of the political views of someone involved, or the corporation making it, that's completely fine. More power to them, no one's forcing them to watch, etc.

What gets to me is that, when the tables are turned, those very same people come completely unhinged. They suddenly become the most offended people ever, literally labeling those who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking as being pro-child-trafficking, of being evil, of derailing threads, etc. When these EXACT people have derailed countless threads doing the exact same thing here, for years and years. Except those of us who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking aren't even griping about the movie itself, and most of us aren't saying we're not going to see it. Which makes the opposing side all the more hypocritical.

As for my personal convictions, I'd say it's case by case. I can't stand what Tom Cruise believes, but his movies are so entertaining, and he cares so damn much about entertaining me, that I can check his beliefs at the door. But would I ever pay money to see, for instance, a Dinesh D'Souza movie? Hell no. And I don't care if others feel the same way about someone they don't like. It's just when the shoe's on the other foot, at least be consistent, and have the wherewithal to not absolutely rail against the person so many here have been in the past.

MiniShrike said:

---

Mods, how is this thread still alive, and how haven't there been a slew of bans? On every "Side?"

Yes, I'm openly questioning moderation, which in this case is richly deserved.

Do better.

---

Crazy thought…don't click on the thread.

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Some of ya'll need to pay attention to who you're "aligning yourself with." When a pedo Advocacy Group is making the same arguments you are, maybe...juuuuust maybe you've believed a lie, and should turn away from the issue alltogether.

==Former Pedophile Advocacy Group Spokesman Writes Bloomberg Hit Piece On 'Sound Of Freedom'==

The group's blog posts have mentioned "kink" and "child protection" in the same breath. Prostasia has also argued against criminalizing fantasy child pornography and in favor of keeping child sex dolls legal.

Besides his stint as communications director for Prostasia, Berlatsky has a long social media history of defending pedophiles.

"Pedophiles are essentially a stigmatized group. Certain people get designated as deviants, people hate them," Berlatsky tweeted in February, 2017, according to a screenshot.

"The issue isn't that people care about the victims. The issue is that pedophiles are loathed," Berlatsky tweeted the same day in 2017.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-pedophile-advocacy-group-spokesman-writes-bloomberg-hit-piece-on-sound-of-freedom

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

---

Literally no one here is "making the same arguments" as these pieces of sh*t. Not even close. Not remotely in the same ballpark. Not on the same f/cking planet.

That you would even insinuate as much is incredibly f/cked up, continues to show your true colors, and I legitimately hope you get banned for posting sh*t like this.

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with some of you, that you KEEP having to make these comparisons? How feeble is your position that this is all you can resort to?

Also, who's going to "associate" us with these losers besides a bunch of message board morons? Is that somehow supposed to sway people? Are you threatening us now? "Whether you like it or not…" WTF is this?

TCTTS said:

---

MiniShrike said:

---

I'm certain I'll catch a perma in the morning, and I know the rules so it's justified.

But there arw lots of folks on this thread who painted with awfully broad brushes with their insults who won't, and others who were just being dicks.

What's messed-up in my opinion is that when we go see Barbie, or Oppenheimer( both of which I will see this weekend), the precedent has been set that this producer or that actor has views that offend some people. And so we start again.

Is that where we want this to go?

---

For me, it comes down to being consistent in one's beliefs/complaints. I've accepted the fact that there is a small but loud contingent on this board who feels the need to view every last thing in their lives through a political lens, especially the entertainment they consume, and then complain about it endlessly. But if they don't want to watch something because of the political views of someone involved, or the corporation making it, that's completely fine. More power to them, no one's forcing them to watch, etc.

What gets to me is that, when the tables are turned, those very same people come completely unhinged. They suddenly become the most offended people ever, literally labeling those who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking as being pro-child-trafficking, of being evil, of derailing threads, etc. When these EXACT people have derailed countless threads doing the exact same thing here, for years and years. Except those of us who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking aren't even griping about the movie itself, and most of us aren't saying we're not going to see it. Which makes the opposing side all the more hypocritical.

---

I honestly can't tell if this post is supposed to be about tibbers, phoenix and atmag or about yourself, Doug and Sapper.

Another Doug said:

---

tk for tu juan said:

---

There was a thread in one forum that had hundreds of pages and thousands of replies until it was deleted in 2020 or 2021, yet no one from that forum has any knowledge of what was inside it.

---

There are two types of forum16 posters on Texags, those who posted on Q-anon, and those who's account were conveniently created after the thread was deleted.

---

Re-read the thread. Sapper immediately jumps in and inserts Q into the discussion then his merry band of ET posters piled on the Q stuff. Most of the conservative posters (except one who I assumed was trolling based on his posts) on this thread kept highlighting how this movie has nothing to do with politics, or Q or whatever and wondered why such a visceral reaction. 99% of Q related posts were from ET board regulars. Then you turn around and accuse everyone else of being Q followers without a shred of evidence.

So to put it in snarky terms you'll understand…there are two types of entertainment board posters on texags, those who insult and ridicule others based on their own ignorance and…just kidding…that seems to be the only type here.

TCTTS said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Some of ya'll need to pay attention to who you're "aligning yourself with." When a pedo Advocacy Group is making the same arguments you are, maybe...juuuuust maybe you've believed a lie, and should turn away from the issue alltogether.

==Former Pedophile Advocacy Group Spokesman Writes Bloomberg Hit Piece On 'Sound Of Freedom'==

The group's blog posts have mentioned "kink" and "child protection" in the same breath. Prostasia has also argued against criminalizing fantasy child pornography and in favor of keeping child sex dolls legal.

Besides his stint as communications director for Prostasia, Berlatsky has a long social media history of defending pedophiles.

"Pedophiles are essentially a stigmatized group. Certain people get designated as deviants, people hate them," Berlatsky tweeted in February, 2017, according to a screenshot.

"The issue isn't that people care about the victims. The issue is that pedophiles are loathed," Berlatsky tweeted the same day in 2017.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-pedophile-advocacy-group-spokesman-writes-bloomberg-hit-piece-on-sound-of-freedom

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

---

Literally no one here is "making the same arguments" as these pieces of sh*t. Not even close. Not remotely in the same ballpark. Not on the same f/cking planet.

That you would even insinuate as much is incredibly f/cked up, continues to show your true colors, and I legitimately hope you get banned for posting sh*t like this.

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with some of you, that you KEEP having to make these comparisons? How feeble is your position that this is all you can resort to?

Also, who's going to "associate" us with these losers besides a bunch of message board morons? Is that somehow supposed to sway people? Are you threatening us now? "Whether you like it or not…" WTF is this?

---

This is a lot of indignation from an individual who did the exact same things in this thread that you're flipping out on someone else over.

You're not very good at this.

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

TCTTS said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Some of ya'll need to pay attention to who you're "aligning yourself with." When a pedo Advocacy Group is making the same arguments you are, maybe...juuuuust maybe you've believed a lie, and should turn away from the issue alltogether.

==Former Pedophile Advocacy Group Spokesman Writes Bloomberg Hit Piece On 'Sound Of Freedom'==

The group's blog posts have mentioned "kink" and "child protection" in the same breath. Prostasia has also argued against criminalizing fantasy child pornography and in favor of keeping child sex dolls legal.

Besides his stint as communications director for Prostasia, Berlatsky has a long social media history of defending pedophiles.

"Pedophiles are essentially a stigmatized group. Certain people get designated as deviants, people hate them," Berlatsky tweeted in February, 2017, according to a screenshot.

"The issue isn't that people care about the victims. The issue is that pedophiles are loathed," Berlatsky tweeted the same day in 2017.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-pedophile-advocacy-group-spokesman-writes-bloomberg-hit-piece-on-sound-of-freedom

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

---

Literally no one here is "making the same arguments" as these pieces of sh*t. Not even close. Not remotely in the same ballpark. Not on the same f/cking planet.

That you would even insinuate as much is incredibly f/cked up, continues to show your true colors, and I legitimately hope you get banned for posting sh*t like this.

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with some of you, that you KEEP having to make these comparisons? How feeble is your position that this is all you can resort to?

Also, who's going to "associate" us with these losers besides a bunch of message board morons? Is that somehow supposed to sway people? Are you threatening us now? "Whether you like it or not…" WTF is this?

---

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Some of ya'll need to pay attention to who you're "aligning yourself with." When a pedo Advocacy Group is making the same arguments you are, maybe...juuuuust maybe you've believed a lie, and should turn away from the issue alltogether.

==Former Pedophile Advocacy Group Spokesman Writes Bloomberg Hit Piece On 'Sound Of Freedom'==

The group's blog posts have mentioned "kink" and "child protection" in the same breath. Prostasia has also argued against criminalizing fantasy child pornography and in favor of keeping child sex dolls legal.

Besides his stint as communications director for Prostasia, Berlatsky has a long social media history of defending pedophiles.

"Pedophiles are essentially a stigmatized group. Certain people get designated as deviants, people hate them," Berlatsky tweeted in February, 2017, according to a screenshot.

"The issue isn't that people care about the victims. The issue is that pedophiles are loathed," Berlatsky tweeted the same day in 2017.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-pedophile-advocacy-group-spokesman-writes-bloomberg-hit-piece-on-sound-of-freedom

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

---

Literally no one here is "making the same arguments" as these pieces of sh*t. Not even close. Not remotely in the same ballpark. Not on the same f/cking planet.

That you would even insinuate as much is incredibly f/cked up, continues to show your true colors, and I legitimately hope you get banned for posting sh*t like this.

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with some of you, that you KEEP having to make these comparisons? How feeble is your position that this is all you can resort to?

Also, who's going to "associate" us with these losers besides a bunch of message board morons? Is that somehow supposed to sway people? Are you threatening us now? "Whether you like it or not…" WTF is this?

---

This is a lot of indignation from an individual who did the exact same things in this thread that you're flipping out on someone else over.

---

It's the taste of your own medicine treatment...some people need it in low doses, to wake up & see who theyre surrounded by. I'm not rubbing it in any harder than I did (which isn't very hard at all).

It works great in basic training. When a recruit is caught bullying someone, you send in a couple hard noses to his bunk, treat him the same way, and continue to do so until they realize "oh! Damn! This is what I've been doing?" It often creates a positive change.

jeffk said:

---

I'm really interested in hearing how others here are thinking about taking action to help fight trafficking now that they've seen the film. Have you found an organization you plan on donating to or volunteering with? Earlier in the discussion, several have offered up suggestions of groups that are doing good work in this area. What's next?

---

While it has nothing to do with this movie (plans were in motion long before I ever even heard of it) and nothing to do with trafficking, my wife and I are fostering kiddos as we saw a need and felt a calling to help through our church and community.

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

TCTTS said:

---

MiniShrike said:

---

I'm certain I'll catch a perma in the morning, and I know the rules so it's justified.

But there arw lots of folks on this thread who painted with awfully broad brushes with their insults who won't, and others who were just being dicks.

What's messed-up in my opinion is that when we go see Barbie, or Oppenheimer( both of which I will see this weekend), the precedent has been set that this producer or that actor has views that offend some people. And so we start again.

Is that where we want this to go?

---

For me, it comes down to being consistent in one's beliefs/complaints. I've accepted the fact that there is a small but loud contingent on this board who feels the need to view every last thing in their lives through a political lens, especially the entertainment they consume, and then complain about it endlessly. But if they don't want to watch something because of the political views of someone involved, or the corporation making it, that's completely fine. More power to them, no one's forcing them to watch, etc.

What gets to me is that, when the tables are turned, those very same people come completely unhinged. They suddenly become the most offended people ever, literally labeling those who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking as being pro-child-trafficking, of being evil, of derailing threads, etc. When these EXACT people have derailed countless threads doing the exact same thing here, for years and years. Except those of us who don't fall exactly in line with their way of thinking aren't even griping about the movie itself, and most of us aren't saying we're not going to see it. Which makes the opposing side all the more hypocritical.

As for my personal convictions, I'd say it's case by case. I can't stand what Tom Cruise believes, but his movies are so entertaining, and he cares so damn much about entertaining me, that I can check his beliefs at the door. But would I ever pay money to see, for instance, a Dinesh D'Souza movie? Hell no. And I don't care if others feel the same way about someone they don't like. It's just when the shoe's on the other foot, at least be consistent, and have the wherewithal to not absolutely rail against the person so many here have been in the past.

---

I agree that everyone gets to make up their mind about what they want to consume, I have noted that @ few times on this thread.

This isn't people choosing to not watch the movie. This isn't individuals not watching a movie because they disagree with something. This is industry and industry insiders actively campaigning against a movie.

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Pluralizes Everythings said:

---

Some of ya'll need to pay attention to who you're "aligning yourself with." When a pedo Advocacy Group is making the same arguments you are, maybe...juuuuust maybe you've believed a lie, and should turn away from the issue alltogether.

==Former Pedophile Advocacy Group Spokesman Writes Bloomberg Hit Piece On 'Sound Of Freedom'==

The group's blog posts have mentioned "kink" and "child protection" in the same breath. Prostasia has also argued against criminalizing fantasy child pornography and in favor of keeping child sex dolls legal.

Besides his stint as communications director for Prostasia, Berlatsky has a long social media history of defending pedophiles.

"Pedophiles are essentially a stigmatized group. Certain people get designated as deviants, people hate them," Berlatsky tweeted in February, 2017, according to a screenshot.

"The issue isn't that people care about the victims. The issue is that pedophiles are loathed," Berlatsky tweeted the same day in 2017.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-pedophile-advocacy-group-spokesman-writes-bloomberg-hit-piece-on-sound-of-freedom

Whether you like it or not, you'll be associated with them, just like you associated the goofy Qanon crowd with anything you didn't like.

---

Literally no one here is "making the same arguments" as these pieces of sh*t. Not even close. Not remotely in the same ballpark. Not on the same f/cking planet.

That you would even insinuate as much is incredibly f/cked up, continues to show your true colors, and I legitimately hope you get banned for posting sh*t like this.

Seriously, what on earth is wrong with some of you, that you KEEP having to make these comparisons? How feeble is your position that this is all you can resort to?

Also, who's going to "associate" us with these losers besides a bunch of message board morons? Is that somehow supposed to sway people? Are you threatening us now? "Whether you like it or not…" WTF is this?

---

This is a lot of indignation from an individual who did the exact same things in this thread that you're flipping out on someone else over.

---

the same sh**

every single time

Hey man, I'm all good with opposing viewpoints. Totally get it. Oh you disagree with me? You're a lunatic and worship Q

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

I don't care about people refusing to see movies because of their politics.

But when people claim they aren't avoiding a movie because of politics, but they actually are, then they deserve to be called hypocritical liars.


However, what made this thread particularly egregious is that, due to mere political disagreement, they were bashing an organization who FIGHT CHILD TRAFFICKING and making ridiculous claims that raids of pedo rings does more damage than good. While, I might add, they themselves sit on their ass in front of a computer in their mom's basement.

Such propaganda BS harms the fight against child trafficking and by nature helps child traffickers.

And all of that, just because the actor/organization is too conservative for your taste.

Disgusting.

---

So you're saying the movie and Ballard are beyond examination and reproach because they're starting a conversation?

---

No, I'm saying don't make up BS claims to bash somebody because you don' like their politics. Like claim that raiding and rescuing these kids does more damage than otherwise. As if they would be better off continuing to be pimped out.

That's a start.


In short, simply stop being you.

---

I linked to concerns made by people who work directly in anti-trafficking organizations. And they have serious concerns about the raids. You're upset with tone. You haven't actually addressed the criticisms, you've just asserted you're right because… reasons. Like always. So you just want to start a conversation and get credit for it, because trafficking is bad, so you've decided, sans any evidence, that absolutely anything done that claims to address trafficking must be good if it seems to you like it's good.

---

You keep bringing this up. Over and over again.

There is no room for compromise here. Stopping the abuse by any means is ALWAYS STEP ONE. It does not matter whether it is child abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking, sex slavery, pedos, or whatever cruel or depraved actions or even inactions are present.

I have read some of the criticisms and I find them petty. Basically, my methods are better than yours.

The fact that you are so invested in tearing down a man, and the actor that played him, over petty differences is the problem and so completely off putting.

Quote:

---

This isn't people choosing to not watch the movie. This isn't individuals not watching a movie because they disagree with something. This is industry and industry insiders actively campaigning against a movie.

---

Was it though? Because from everything I can tell Ballard and Caviezel were actively politicizing the film and attempting to drum up controversy well before any of the articles critical of them (and the movie itself) came out. If one were cynical they might even suspect this was done on purpose to drive up interest in the movie among their conservative target market. Framing it as "The movie liberals don't want you to see!" has clearly been a successful move here.

And what actually has been done to suppress this movie? A couple of articles? A few segments on CNN? That's a pretty weak effort, assuming that was their intent in the first place.

Edit: Compare the treatment this movie received to what was said and written about "The Flash" before it came out. That movie has a much stronger claim that it was being suppressed.

Quote:

---

Was it though? Because from everything I can tell Ballard and Caviezel were actively politicizing the film and attempting to drum up controversy

---

This is SOP in Hollywood. This is the norm. So what's the problem when the other side does it?

A certain poster keeps whining that "the shoes on the other foot" and you can't handle it.

The shoe being on the left foot is the norm.

This is the epitome of Cognitize Dissonance, projection, a lack of self awareness, and any form of outward thinking.

LMAO.

Thanks. Glad we're in agreement that this is a fake controversy.

Let me preface, I have seen videos claiming A/C is out and other things that I consider conspiratorial. SOF is in 3,200 theaters and shown 12,000 times a day, odds are things will happen a few times everyday.

Yesterday, in Friendswood at Star Cinema Grill (Seats sold/seats offered):

Elemental - 3 showings 112/145 seats sold = 77% (it was 31% full day before, probably a summer camp)
Insidious - 5 showings 125/335 = 37%
Indiana Jones - 4 Showings 101/232 = 44%
Joy Ride - 2 Showings 28/130 = 22%
Ruby Gilman - 1 Showing 5/161 = 3%
Spiderman - 3 Showings 83/183 = 45%
Transformers - 4 Showings 83/184 = 45%

Mission Impossible - 11 Showings 336/1,434 = 23%
Sound of Freedom - 5 Showings 287/297 = 97%

Two showings added at 10:30AM yesterday when the original 3 shows were fully booked 3 days prior). This theater had shown this movie for 14 days straight, approximately 75 showings, and everyone of them had been sold out. On Saturday 7/15, they showed it 7 times, all sold out. On Sunday 7/16 the dropped it to 3 showings per day. On Thursday 7/20 it will drop to 2 showings per day.

There are 2 reasons this theater would be limiting the supply of showings.
1. They are completely incompetent, as they have all the information that every time the show the movie it is sold out. Again, this is a restaurant style theater that makes far more revenue on the back end versus ticket sales.
2. They don't want it seen.

I am inclined to attribute someone's actions to ignorance versus malice, as that is how I try to live my life (well, they didn't know better, let's educate them). But I can promise you they have been informed, multiple times that their community would support more showings of this movie.

This movie is crossing $100M today. Everyday I hear claims of individuals and groups being "marginalized". Here is an actual example with concrete evidence. This is what marginalization actually looks like. A small budget film is relegated to the back corner theater while having incredible demand.

I understand that my community is probably supporting this stronger than most. Why doesn't the entertainment provider for this community understand that? The numbers are right there in their face every day. 287 seats sold out of 297 seats offered, and 2 of the showings were added last minute.

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

This isn't people choosing to not watch the movie. This isn't individuals not watching a movie because they disagree with something. This is industry and industry insiders actively campaigning against a movie.

---

Was it though? Because from everything I can tell Ballard and Caviezel were actively politicizing the film and attempting to drum up controversy well before any of the articles critical of them (and the movie itself) came out. If one were cynical they might even suspect this was done on purpose to drive up interest in the movie among their conservative target market. Framing it as "The movie liberals don't want you to see!" has clearly been a successful move here.

And what actually has been done to suppress this movie? A couple of articles? A few segments on CNN? That's a pretty weak effort, assuming that was their intent in the first place.

Edit: Compare the treatment this movie received to what was said and written about "The Flash" before it came out. That movie has a much stronger claim that it was being suppressed.

---

Yes, a few articles from the only places half of the country gets their news from is pretty significant. Tell me one liberal on TexAgs who has actually seen the film?

Conflate the movie to Donald Trump/Q Anon and make sure that 50% of America has a negative connotation attached to that movie and will never see it

edit: grammar matters

boy09 said:

---

A movie theater adding showings is you evidence that the movie is being suppressed?

---

You might want to read it closer