Yeah, every accusation is an admission with these people.
“These people” sounds a little bias eh? I’m so confused at the smear campaign for a movie that vilifies child trafficking.
It villifies nothing. It’s statistics are factually incorrect, it sends the wrong message about how child trafficking actually occurs, actively promotes Qanon conspiracy theories like adrenochrome (which have zero factual basis) and the guy staring in it is a Qanon loon.
“from the movie’s opening montage, which shows surveillance footage of children being snatched by strangers off the streets, Sound of Freedom offers a “false perception” of how the majority of child trafficking actually takes place, according to Albright.”
Almost every time, kids know their traffickers. This movie does nothing but massively discredit actual trafficking efforts.
It’s a fear mongering attempt to push a “satanic panic” about random child kidnappings, while shielding the real human traffickers and serial child molesters.
To be fair, though nutbag Caviezel talks about adrenochrome, the film omits that. I listened to two different podcasts review it (one of which is QAnon Anonymous, and anti-conspiracy show). But everything else you said is correct.
Good link. I hadn’t seen that article. Skimmed it and got a better sense of what real anti-trafficking folks think of it.
"Nevertheless, even Caviezel, who has spoken several times to QAnon audiences, endorses the idea that adrenochrome is a driving force behind the demand for children. In an interview with Bannon, he said, “The whole adrenochrome empire. This is a big deal.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/07/21/sound-of-freedom-qanon-trump-child-sex-trade/
Still harmful though. An obvious grift of a movie meant to give legitimacy to Qanon and adrenochrome conspiracy theories.
I mean, adrenochrome is a real thing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdrenochromeBeyond that, the “youthisizing” is horseshit.
Oh wow look at that, using rollingstone as a source and running with blinders on. Hey look at how many people liked your comment, you must be right.
Yeah! Fuck big media, you can’t trust them. The guy you’re replying to needs to do his own research and stop listening to the propaganda trying to discredit a totally legitimate and honest movement meant to expose the non-Trump rich people as corrupt child abusers.
I hope that’s obvious enough that adding “/s” is unnecessary.
I literally listened to this part of a conversation in early 2021:
A: I try to tell my brother, but he doesn’t listen. He said he just got home from a funeral for a friend who died from COVID and didn’t want to talk about it. I told him, your friend died with COVID, not from COVID.
It soured my mood so much that I couldn’t enjoy the fun thing I was on my way to.
deleted by creator
Getting cranky and lashing out doesn’t convince anyone that you’re correct.
You want people to be nonbiased when it comes to child traffickers? This film does not vilify child trafficking, it’s an attempt to deflect attention from real child traffickers
I don’t understand how it’s deflecting attention. Can you explain it?
They try to yell about other people child trafficking loud enough that no one notices them doing it
What’s your opinion on the woman king?
Never heard of it
deleted by creator
Picture this. A building is on fire. Standing outside of it is a person yelling loudly “I didn’t start this fire!”. Nobody is asking him if he started the fire. But he just keeps standing there, yelling at nobody in particular. He doesn’t seek cover or anything. He just tells any person he sees that the fire isn’t his fault.
And you don’t believe this is odd behavior?
Thats a complete failure to interpret or mischaracterization of my entire point about the smear campaign against the movie. In your fire analogy a better characterization would be:
A building is on fire. Standing outside of it is a person yelling loudly “This building is on fire!”. Nobody is asking him what started the fire or why he is worried about the fire since buildings catch on fire multiple times a year. But he just keeps standing there yelling at anyone that will listen. Then he is approached by members of the crowd that has gathered who all berate him for being so loud and abnoxious and explain to him that house fires happen all the time and to let the authorities handle it, that it’s not really an issue to be concerned with. Then another member of the crowd says, “Hey! I know someone that donated to this building fund when it was being built, and he was accessory to arson! So shut up about this building being on fire, it was only built by people that approve of arson!”
You don’t believe this is odd behavior?
I get you, it’s just that the guy who is yelling about the fire was also the guy in front of the pizza joint last week yelling about lizard people. And the week before that he was in front of the library rambling about JFK and the CIA.
Listen no one wants the building to be on fire. Let’s start a bucket brigade, join the volunteer fire fighters. I just am weary of being associated with this crazy dude.
Fair enough, not all (or even most) conspiracies are true but we shouldn’t immediately disregard them because they are labeled so. But as long as we both agree the building shouldn’t remain on fire and that we can’t leave it up to solely the authorities who have a history of letting the building burn to ashes before showing up with the water, you are perfectly fine in my eyes. We all don’t have to agree on every topic as long as when there is a fire we all grab a bucket.
Is it still bias against ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorists if they keep reinforcing it themselves? I mean at some point it becomes just their external image they’re self-perpetuating.
Because the people who made it are literal child traffickers. Should we not be “a little bias” against them?
Enlighten me, which person “made” the film that is a “litteral child trafficker”? If you are talking about the person listed in this gobbledygook title, go look into the case a little further before knee-jerk reacting and looking foolish like these other goobers.
Do you mean the movie that’s founder was just caught kidnapping a child? Is that the movie you’re concerned about people smearing?
Yeah 'he was a FoUNdeR" lol do a little research the guy donated $501 to get his name in the credits along with nearly 7000 other people and he’s not convicted of child trafficking he’s convicted of accessory to child kidnapping which if you care to read the details about the case is such a non issue when compared to child trafficking. He broke the law, lock him up let him serve his time, the fact that anyone is using some fucking nobody that donated $500 and calling him a founder to discredit the real issue of child trafficking is astonishing and disgusting.
Think about what the “journalist/reporter” went through to obtain this information, they cross checked legal cases with all nearly 7k donation of $500 and up (so they could run the headline that he/she was a founder of the movie) and found a case with child kidnapping and ran with it and you bozos are eating it up. How about team red or team blue we fucking agree child trafficking is bad and that we should castrate and kill the people trafficking them and the pedophiles buying them?
The issue isn’t with political partisanship. I think both sides all agree child trafficking is abhorrent, and you’d be hard pressed to find anybody on either side claiming otherwise.
The problem is QAnon believers reject evidence that doesn’t support their world view and are politically biased. They aren’t making an educational public awareness movie, they’re making propaganda based on misinformed beliefs.
I’m not really concerned with Qanon tbh and I’ve not kept up with their craziness for some time, I guess that’s what confuses me about the sensationalist title calling this a Qanon adjacent film, just screams smear campaign. What’s your thoughts on California failing to pass SB-14?
I have a simpler theory. He got arrested and journalists checked his socials when trying to write a story. He talked about this very subject online. Hey, look! No sinister motives needed1
Your version has journalists cross checking a list, trying their very best to discredit people involved in exposing the truth. That’s a sign that you’re not coming at this with clear thinking.
You are right, mainstream media definitely isn’t stretching the title and article my mistake they are completely unbiased and there is no issue with child trafficking.
Child trafficking happens predominantly via someone the child already knows (family or family-adjacent). It’s very rarely in the form that this film projects with random people snatching children off the street. The film depicts an almost fictional version of the issue. This is regardless of whatever good intent the backers may have had. But you have revealed yourself to be deeply enmeshed in your perception of the issue and I’m replying to point this out to others rather than to you.
Go ahead and look up some statistics rather than personal bias, the movie is (loosely) based on a true story and sadly child trafficking does happen in the form being shown in the movie, now you can cover your eyes and ears and pretend like there is no evil in the world but sadly remaining ignorant of the devil will only hurt you in the end. You have revealed yourself to be young in age and mind, so I’m replying to point this out to others. There is a supreme evil in the world, and all our days are numbered, we are all quickly approaching our deaths and what we do on the planet matters and has consequences.
You seem to really care about this movie
deleted by creator
It’s always the ones you most suspect.
Flawless logic
And definitely not meant as a joke. This is definitely literal.
That would be called “confirmation bias”. Don’t actively fall into that trap.
This is all I meant
Weird joke
deleted by creator
I know it’s annoying when everyone gets a joke you don’t get.
If you’re wanting to feel a part of the jokes people tell, I would recommend books.
Or just, you know, tell funnier jokes. But you can pawn the blame onto me if it makes you feel better I’m cool with it.
I mean it’s pretty clear a lot more people enjoyed it than did not. Sorry your sense of humor is bad. I understand you’re cool with it and that you’ll probably still use the downvote button because you just crave that cognitive dissonance.
I just think it’s toxic for most people to actively accept confirmation bias, it’s bad enough that they’re baked in. Just trying to play devils advocate that’s all
More info:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fact-check-sound-freedom-funder-231700739.html
Finding one person out of 6,600 investors is a pretty weenie link for a movie about sex trafficking children. Still kinda funny tho
One person SO FAR
Time for an educational link: https://www.whoismakingnews.com/#welcome
Aw, jee shucks. It’s not who they told me it would be! /s
Oh weird, I would have never guessed that the person who goes around yelling about how he isn’t a pedophile turned out to actually be a pedophile.
It’s a good thing these people are stupid.
Some of those who burn crosses… are the ones who touch toddlers.
Republicans are all criminals waiting to be charged.
I swear, I paid those tolls!
They just wanna save the children…for themselves.
allegations that Marta removed an individual under the age of 14, who was not a family member, without obtaining parental consent and subsequently confined them.
The most information I’ve found so far, gonna see later whats public record. But regardless, kidnapped a child by no parent consent and confined them. https://www.fresherslive.com/latest/articles/fabian-marta-arrested-why-was-fabian-marta-arrested-what-did-fabian-marta-do-1555158282
Quelle fucking surprise!
Never misses
You don’t say? No one saw this as projection and saw this coming did they? Lmaoooo
The “q Anon adjacent” label is, for all intents and purposes, misinformation.
Otherwise, this guy can rot.
He rents abuilding to someone involved in a custody case Very misleading
Something something Pizzagate?
Ok?
