Sound of Freedom

[mirkwood]

We went and saw it yesterday.  Fantastic movie.  Trafficking is a real problem in the world.

 

https://www.angel.com/tickets/sound-of-freedom?gclid=Cj0KCQjw756lBhDMARIsAEI0AgmtC7G5KWtNcwE9DUABPgxAH8uisHbqxL30TOeFdoYbRQnDv4a8ML0aAjkfEALw_wcB&zip=84088&date=2023-07-07

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

I'm always glad to see awareness being raised for this issue.

You don't have to go to a foreign country to find humans being trafficked.  This is a good primer for anyone who thinks they might be able to handle the burden of knowing exactly how close this stuff is to home:

https://www.5280.com/girls-next-door/

[scottyg]

It was a hard movie to watch, but the message is very much needed. First movie I have seen in theaters in 6 years.

Also interesting to see which groups are taking shots at it, and saying it is an exaggeration of the truth...almost as if they were trying to hide something.

[Guest Godless]

19 minutes ago, scottyg said:

Also interesting to see which groups are taking shots at it, and saying it is an exaggeration of the truth...almost as if they were trying to hide something.

I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to, but I know that a lot of the controversy around it has to do with Jim Caviezel's ties to Qanon, a group notorious for spreading lies, conspiracy theories, and misinformation about human sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is a very serious issue. No one is denying that. But some people (like myself) would prefer not to support anything that might serve to legitimize Qanon rubbish.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 hours ago, Godless said:

I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to, but I know that a lot of the controversy around it has to do with Jim Caviezel's ties to Qanon, a group notorious for spreading lies, conspiracy theories, and misinformation about human sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is a very serious issue. No one is denying that. But some people (like myself) would prefer not to support anything that might serve to legitimize Qanon rubbish.

If we didn’t watch movies because we disapproved of the ideologies of some of the principal actors, directors, or producers, we’d never watch anything.

I note that a number of Harvey Weinstein films are still enjoying some degree of popularity . . .

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, Godless said:

a lot of the controversy around it has to do with Jim Caviezel's ties to Qanon

Jordan Peterson asks Tim Ballard directly to respond about this, and other criticisms of his movie.  Tim isn't what I'd call a riveting engaging interviewee, but his answers are here:

 

 

 

 

 

[mirkwood]

@Godless at least you acknowledge that child sex trafficking is a problem.  Many don't or minimize it.  Trafficking is bigger than people realize.

[Jedi_Nephite]

20 hours ago, Godless said:

I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to, but I know that a lot of the controversy around it has to do with Jim Caviezel's ties to Qanon, a group notorious for spreading lies, conspiracy theories, and misinformation about human sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is a very serious issue. No one is denying that. But some people (like myself) would prefer not to support anything that might serve to legitimize Qanon rubbish.

It’s funny how people will try to discredit someone because they believe Qanon, yet believe the conspiracies and lies spouted from the likes of CNN and MSNBC.

[Guest Godless]

2 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

yet believe the conspiracies and lies spouted from the likes of CNN and MSNBC.

I don't trust them much either, tbh. 

[Just_A_Guy]

This discussion reminds me that nine years ago, I wrote this:

[quote]Let's be blunt:  One in three Americans (not American adults, but Americans) currently has an STD.  Due to overuse of antibiotics, we're losing our ability to control/manage the symptoms of a couple of the biggies (Gonorrhea, for example).  Combine that with the fact that we have a culture--and even, arguably, a political party--that takes it for granted that people have a right to consequence-free sex.

What do you do when you want (and have been told you have a natural right to) disease-free sex, but all your prospective partners have diseases that can't be medically controlled?  Simple--you find the people who aren't having sex right now and are relatively disease-free, and try to get them onto the sexual market.  It may take a while to attain legal droit de signeur over adult abstainers/monogamists (I'm being a bit facetious here) (I think); but opening up the teenaged market can be done--is being done--with relative ease.

Few of the movers and shakers in our society will realize that that's what the end game is--and even fewer will admit it--but watch and see.  That will be the net effect of the legal, scientific, and social "advancements" over the next few decades.  You'll see it with the publication of medical studies showing that sexual intercourse by children is a part of healthy physical development.  You'll see it with a general social and legal softening of social standards regarding sexual relationships between adults and minors (have you noticed the recent prevalence of news stories involving affairs between young and improbably beautiful female teachers and sixteen- or seventeen-year-old male students?).  You'll see it with a marginalization of individuals and institutions that continue to publicly encourage abstinence.  And--yes--you'll see it with a deliberate attempt to limit or undermine conservative parents' abilities to influence their children's sexual mores. [/Quote]

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This discussion reminds me that nine years ago, I wrote this:

...

I said the something about 8 or 9 years ago to a liberal friend.  The verbiage I used was specifically that society is trying to "sexualize children."  I don't remember if I directly used the word "pedophilia" in that discussion, but I at least implied it.

He assured me that liberals are all about protecting children and parental rights.  It would never happen.  Neither he nor I realized that even back then, the camel's nose was already in the tent.

Now California has passed a law allowing children to get gender reassignment surgery without parental permission.  And if parents try to stop it, they will have their children given to state custody.  This is not an outlier.  This is not some small radical group.  It is the law passed by the most populous state in the nation.

I just have to wonder at what point does the camel need to get before they realize what is happening?

After all the QAnon conflation, I wonder how many of the media already know what is happening and are complicit in it.  The QAnon links are completely without merit.  I don't say it necessarily because I think QAnon is evil.  I've never really been interested in what QAnon really is - so I don't know what to think about that.

I say it because one of the fastest ways to discredit something good -- is through simple name-calling.  If for some logical reason, the shoe fits, name calling is appropriate.  But this really has no basis in fact.  And if enough liberals already think QAnon is evil (for whatever logic, evidence, or lack thereof) they will be happy to associate that with something done by a group of devoted Christians - regardless of the merits.  Associate it with QAnon and they don't need to look into the merits.  It is automatically evil.  So, we don't need to pay attention to it.

I am asking a sincere question.  Why would the media blatantly lie about this name-calling for something that may raise awareness to just how bad the problem really is?  Whether entertainment or news entertainment, it is mostly about sex nowadays.  Is it too far a stretch to say that they are simply being complicit?  Or at the very least, they are Asimov's "priests" from the Foundation?

[scottyg]

The same "reputable" media outlets that are playing this movie off as propaganda are the same media outlets who praised the film cuties.

Adoption of, and encouragement by the media, for pedophilia is right around the corner folks, and films like this are a threat to their filthy desires.

[LDSGator]

12 hours ago, Godless said:

I don't trust them much either, tbh. 

Sadly, in 2023 no one trusts the news unless it vomits out what people already believe. All of us don’t look for truth in the news, we look to confirm what we already believe. Our egos have become that fragile. 

[Carborendum]

I had heard something several days ago.  I looked it up today and verified it.  Apparently Disney had the rights to the film and shelved it.  As their window for production lapsed, Caviezel and Ballard obtained the rights and began to move on it.

Now the film is already in positive cash flow territory after the first weekend alone.  And it seems the word is spreading.   I'm wondering if Disney is kicking themselves over this.

It may be that if Disney had produced it, the film would not have been as good.  And it would have failed in the box office.  And their production budget would have been at least three times as high, not to mention their marketing and financing costs.  So, it may not have been profitable for them to make it.

[scottyg]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It may be that if Disney had produced it, the film would not have been as good.  And it would have failed in the box office.  And their production budget would have been at least three times as high, not to mention their marketing and financing costs.  So, it may not have been profitable for them to make it.

In addition, folks at disney work with many who were and are a part of this problem. I don't think for one second that it was just business executives and politicians on epstein's "list". You can bet your bottom dollar that hollywood brass and celebrities were and are a part of this disgusting practice.

I am fine being called a conspiracy theorist in this regard...I take it as a compliment nowadays, but especially in regards to this kind of thing. No stone should be left unturned when unmasking child predators, and anyone who tries to push back on protecting kids are the ones who should be investigated first.

[LDSGator]

42 minutes ago, scottyg said:

In addition, folks at disney work with many who were and are a part of this problem. I don't think for one second that it was just business executives and politicians on epstein's "list". You can bet your bottom dollar that hollywood brass and celebrities were and are a part of this disgusting practice.

I am fine being called a conspiracy theorist in this regard...I take it as a compliment nowadays, but especially in regards to this kind of thing. No stone should be left unturned when unmasking child predators, and anyone who tries to push back on protecting kids are the ones who should be investigated first.

If it turns into a widespread conspiracy,  you are aware that if/when it turns into mob justice/ a witch hunt you could be next right?   It’s a generic “you” of course but for many of us, the old saying that the one screaming the loudest has the most to hide comes to mind. 

 

It could happen to anyone. All someone needs to do is Nifong you and now we’ll have thousands of vigilantes who want to play Punisher and will go after you. Even if you are innocent. This is chilling. Call it my Mockingbird sense of justice but my spidey sense is tingling here. 

Edited July 10, 2023 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

46 minutes ago, scottyg said:

In addition, folks at disney work with many who were and are a part of this problem. I don't think for one second that it was just business executives and politicians on epstein's "list". You can bet your bottom dollar that hollywood brass and celebrities were and are a part of this disgusting practice.

Sounds like:

 

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

If it turns into a widespread conspiracy

 

If what turns into a "widespread conspiracy?"

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Apparently Disney had the rights to the film and shelved it.  As their window for production lapsed, Caviezel and Ballard obtained the rights and began to move on it.

Yep.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#Distribution

Quote

The film was completed in 2018 and a distribution deal was made with 20th Century Fox. However, that studio was purchased by the Walt Disney Company, which shelved the film. The filmmakers reportedly spent years trying to get the distribution rights back from Disney and take it to theaters.

Verástegui approached Angel Studios with the release rights. Angel presented the film to an online group of 100,000 investors in its past projects called the Angel Guild, which gave it a "yes" vote within days. In March 30, 2023, Variety reported that Angel Studios had acquired the worldwide distribution rights, with a planned release during the second half of 2023. On May 12, it received a release date of July 4, 2023.

 

As for Disney, 

lol.

 

 

Also:  https://babylonbee.com/news/after-losing-to-mormons-at-angelstudios-disney-announces-indiana-jones--the-plates-of-nephi

Quote

BURBANK, CA — After losing the box office battle to AngelStudios, Disney has announced a new movie project: Indiana Jones and the Plates of Nephi.

"Indiana Jones is about to go full Mormon," said Disney CEO Bob Iger. "If you can't beat them, join them."

At publishing time, NBC News had already written forty-seven articles declaring the project a clear sign that QAnon had taken over Disney.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[LDSGator]

49 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

If what turns into a "widespread conspiracy?"

If we look back at this like we look back on the Satanic Panic scare of the 80’s. 

[Guest Godless]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yep.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_of_Freedom_(film)#Distribution

 

As for Disney, 

lol.

 

 

Also:  https://babylonbee.com/news/after-losing-to-mormons-at-angelstudios-disney-announces-indiana-jones--the-plates-of-nephi

 

Both movies released just in time for a holiday weekend that typically isn't big for the box office in general. In this case, however, SoF had a following that was willing to spend part of their holiday in a movie theater. Indy did not. The post-holiday numbers tell a different story, FWIW.

 

 

[mirkwood]

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

If we look back at this like we look back on the Satanic Panic scare of the 80’s. 

 

What part do you think we are going to look back at and compare to the Satanic Panic?

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Both movies released just in time for a holiday weekend that typically isn't big for the box office in general. In this case, however, SoF had a following that was willing to spend part of their holiday in a movie theater. Indy did not. The post-holiday numbers tell a different story, FWIW.

Are you seriously making an excuse for IJ-DoD poor performance?  Dude.  It's just a movie.  You don't need to defend it.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

 

What part do you think we are going to look back at and compare to the Satanic Panic?

He clearly read the Rolling Stone article on it.

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

He clearly read the Rolling Stone article on it.

This article cinched it.   I'm taking my whole family to see it tomorrow.   Can't wait to turn my back on all the visible suffering all around me in America (the poor and unhoused, the people brutalized or killed by police, victims of mass shootings, lack of healthcare, and climate disasters) in order to turn my far-right self to this sordid fantasy about godless monsters hurting children. Imma be the latest iteration of the the 1980s Satanic panic phenomenon, where I won’t even face the fact that most kids who suffer sexual abuse are harmed not by a shadowy cabal of strangers, but at the hands of a family member!   Imma be one of the thousands of adults who will absorb the vigilante fever dream that is Sound of Freedom, and I'll come away thinking myself better informed on a hidden civilizational crisis!  And better still, I’ll want to spread the word!

(Actual picture of me, taken tomorrow, after watching the show):