The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

LOL ... I don't disagree with you. Where we disagree is the consensus that main stream media is giving us. I no longer buy into it. Blackrock and Vanguard own almost all of them as well as the labs, the pharmaceutical companies etc.  Surely you've seen the news clip of 100s of station broadcasting the exact same thing on FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS. this was done by Sinclair Media and guess what? The Vanguard Group and BlackRock Inc. are the second and third largest shareholders of Sinclair media. That is just freaking scary control of the masses or as they all said .... "This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."

https://youtu.be/ksb3KD6DfSI

Long story short is someone is credible, has zero to gain and everything to lose as they are going against the masses they most likely are legit or at least on the right path.

CF, that video shows the opposite of what you think it does.
Sinclair Media is a conservative-owned organization.  The video you cited was mandated by ownership, and the thing they are "warning about" is the [liberal] media pushing their biased narratives.  In other words, they are advocating your position.

See:
Sinclair, the pro-Trump, conservative company taking over local news, explained (https://www.vox.com/2018/4/3/17180020/sinclair-broadcast-group-conservative-trump-david-smith-local-news-tv-affiliate)
The Growth of Sinclair’s Conservative Media Empire (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/the-growth-of-sinclairs-conservative-media-empire)
Sinclair increases 'must-run' Boris Epshteyn segments (https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2017/07/10/boris-epshteyn-sinclair-broadcasting-240359')

John Oliver did a Last Week Tonight segment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc) on Sinclair, which predates the "must run" mandatory announcement you linked above.

It shows exactly what I said and I don't care what political leaning party you attach it to. Those stations are supposedly both liberal and conservative and shows just how easily it is to spin the narrative across many media outlets. If that doesn't scare you I don't know that anything would.

Hell ... we literally have a movie against sex trafficking of kids and somehow MSM thinks it's ok to attack the movie as being a danger to society ... not too mention no one would distribute it. That's as F'ed up as it gets. There is no way you can convince me that some rich and powerful people don't want it to be exposed and those same people control what you and I see.

CF, regardless of whether you think those stations are "liberal or conservative," the fact is that the conservative ownership issued a order from above that the statement you linked MUST BE recorded and broadcast verbatim.  In the specific example you gave, there is no "both sides"; it's conservatives that did it.

I don't know what QAnon movie you're referring to, but the idea that it's being suppressed by the rich and powerful is just more Q conspiracy silliness, much like everything Q has to say about the COVID vaccines.  I'm sure you could just as easily categorize some anti-vax QAnon "documentary" as "a movie against spreading diseases to our kids."

There is absolutely nothing QAnon about that movie but it's nice to know you are continuing to throw out name-calling when you have no answers. Name calling has been the progressive argument for this movie but if you've watched it I would love to know where you are drawing that line. No insinuations about movie or tv execs. The closest thing would be that they say something like rich Americans are their best customers one time in the movie ... which I thought everyone already knew.

What's the name of the movie?

I believe he's referring to a movie called Sound of Freedom.

It has had an unconventional run and there's some weird stuff going on with the way its been promoted and paid for, but it's done very well at the box office.  While not specifically a movie about Q-Anon stuff, it is about busting up child molesting rings and that's a pivotal part of a lot of conspiracies with Q-Anon and has been marketed towards that community using conspiracy tactics (not sure if it's organic or by the movie's creatives).  It's one of those faith-based films that targets church communities (and stars Jim Caveziel, who has been very outspoken for the religious right) and there's some kind of pay-it-forward thing going on where people (or maybe even donors???) are buying lots of tickets.  But there's reports of sold out showings with just a few people in the theater.  It was kind of like guerilla marketing like how The Blair Witch Project came out of nowhere.

It's done gangbusters for a movie of its budget, though, and is part of the reason why the attendance at the theater has been so good this last weekend.

Literally the first result when googling "sound of freedom qanon":

QAnon supporters are promoting 'Sound of Freedom.' Here's why (https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188405402/qanon-supporters-are-promoting-sound-of-freedom-heres-why)

Sound of Freedom, a Christian thriller about a former federal agent rescuing children from exploitation, is this summer's surprise box office hit. Made for about $15 million, it earned almost as much on its release day as the final installment of Indiana Jones and has raked in more than $85 million since opening earlier this month.

But the movie is also being criticized as a vehicle for conspiracy theories and misleading depictions of human trafficking — landing it in the middle of the country's politically polarized culture wars.

The film, based on a real-life, controversial anti-trafficking activist, is being heavily promoted in conservative media. Former President Donald Trump is hosting a screening on Wednesday at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J .

A big part of its success is an appeal from its star, Jim Caviezel, who comes on screen at the end urging viewers to buy more tickets so other people can see it and help end child trafficking. It's a model distributor Angel Studios calls "pay it forward." [...]

In press appearances promoting Sound of Freedom, Caviezel continues to spout QAnon falsehoods. On a recent episode of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon's podcast, Caviezel claimed "the whole adrenochrome empire" is driving demand for trafficked children. "It's an elite drug that they've used for many years," he asserted, falsely claiming it is "10 times more potent than heroin" and "has some mystical qualities as far as making you look younger." [...]

Executives at Angel Studios, the film's distributor, have publicly rejected any association with conspiracies. So have Tim Ballard, the former federal agent Caviezel plays in the movie, and his organization, Operation Underground Railroad. (Angel Studios declined NPR's interview request. Operation Underground Railroad did not respond to NPR's questions.)

But Ballard recently told right-wing podcadster Jordan Peterson that claimed adrenochrome harvesting is real. His statements, and Caviezel's, have an impact on how Sound of Freedom is being received, said Mike Rothschild, author of The Storm Is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything.

---

Like much of the rest of conservative media, this movie is a straight up grift being pushed to empty the pockets of QAnoners (and the right more broadly).  Hey guys, you can all fight child sex trafficking by buying lots of tickets to this movie!  Buy out the whole theater to save the kids!

Talk all you want about woke social justice warriors, but you don't see Margot Robbie standing up at the end of Barbie and telling the audience to Pay It Forward and buy up showings of that movie to help lift up women.  I will never cease to be amazed by the amount of open grift on the right.  And y'all don't even get mad about it!

Now please send me $50 to help Build The Wall.

Y'all got way too much time on your hands LMFAO

It's being marketed strangely because Disney, Netflix, Amazon, and others refused to distribute it so a small Christian company with little to no money did. This isn't their normal type of distribution but they got it done. "The studio uses equity crowdfunding to finance its original productions by offering individual investors the opportunity to purchase shares in the company and its titles. Content produced by Angel Studios is distributed for free on their own streaming service.[2] Some titles are also available in other third-party streaming services as distribution deals."


And drug dealers support democrats so does that make all democrats drug dealers in your eyes? Hahahaha ... I seriously think you are punking us some times.

MSM media supported fake biasness against the film just like I said? You guys are literally defending child sex trafficking as being worthy of being defended because someone who fell for a dumb conspiracy supports the movie? There are a shit ton of disgusting actors in Hollywood.  In all honesty there is no reason in the world to defend something criticizing child sex trafficking to a normal person.  I would think we all would be against child sex trafficking but apparently not.

isn't that the plot to Jupiter Ascending ?

This is just a weird way to say this.  Movie studios want their films to do well.  But plenty of movies are made and don't get distribution rights or it takes a long time or there's bidding and stuff like that.  This movie wasn't targeted.  It just wasn't selected, just like thousands of other movies that don't get picked.

It's just more conspiracy.
There were also conspiracies about AMC turning off A/C during showings.  I personally saw the same weirdos on Facebook talking about this movie by discrediting other films and pushing the whole "they don't want you to see it" narrative.

I know a whole lot about movies.  I watch a lot and follow the industry.  It was just weird that I'd never heard of this movie and all of a sudden it's making huge money.  Good for them, though.  It's just guerilla marketing, focusing on a small, but loyal subset of moviegoers.

"Guys, this sex trafficking movie has nothing to do with the QAnon adrenochrome stuff... which, by the way, is all true and is a grave threat that we need to stop."

Perhaps the people who oppose this movie do so not because they are in favor of child sex trafficking, but instead because the person the movie was based on and the movie's lead actor are both using it to promote insane conspiracy theories about children being harvested for their hormones.

The only reason why this movie is making any money is because its insane QAnoner lead actor wisely determined that if he can activate conservative cultural grievance, y'all will flock to the theaters and buy multiple tickets to, once again, Own The Libs.   It is completely unhinged for a movie to ask its viewers to buy more tickets for other people at the conclusion; it's transparent grift.  Even you can't believe that buying more tickets to this movie somehow "saves kids from sex trafficking."

If you want to financially support a movie against sex trafficking, go buy a DVD of Taken.  At least Liam Neeson isn't out here screaming that Democrats want to kidnap your kids and steal their adrenochrome.

I split this discussion off into a separate topic.

Do you have some evidence of this? 

Illicit drug dealers are generally outside the political process.  And legal drug dealers aka the Pharmaceutical PACs contribute more to republicans than democrats. 

If you want, you can go see Sound of Freedom for free.  A bunch of tickets have been paid for.   All you gotta do it go online, claim one and promise to actually use it.

After that, money will be rolled over to allow claims on video on demand.  After that, the money goes directly to the filmmaker to fund other projects, but they're being cagey about it and not reporting.  My guess is that the guy is going to become very, very, very rich off getting people in on the grift.  It's a smart scam.

More power to him.

Dave, where did you get that info from?  A coworker and I were discussing exactly how that "Pay It Forward" grift is supposed to work.  Do you go on to the filmmaker's website and buy ticket vouchers or something?

If the people who's job is to make up crazy conspiracy theories for profit want to blow their wad on a B-movie, that's fine.

I have no interest in watching it. Like ever...

It's a combination of information I got from my movie podcasts, as well as from just reading articles about it.

There is some kind of online way to sign up through Atom tickets, as I understand.

I mean, if you want to make fun of people who go see certain movies, that's fine. But by the same token, I find it hilarious and kind of sad that grown men are flocking to that Barbie movie. I don't plan on seeing either one.

So on one side you have people talking about stealing children's blood and on the other side you have grown men playing with Barbie dolls. It's turned into quite a strange world indeed.

Do... do you think grown adults who go to see a Transformers movie are "playing with Transformers"?

Don't know and don't care. Enjoy your Barbie movie LMFAO

(https://i.imgur.com/FraRZf9.jpeg)

I don't think you're getting the point of the discussion.  It's not making fun of people who would see this movie.  It's just a regular movie.  But the marketing and money making scheme around it is noteworthy.

Can i make fun of people who went to see Sharknado 2?

Sharknado 1, you can excuse, you didn't really know what you were getting into. But Sharknado 2? no excuse.

You absolutely should make fun of anyone that went to a theater because it was a TV movie.

With the recent talk about Florida's Department of Education detailing the benefits slaves received from their bondage, like learning a trade or appreciating the value of hard work, I'm wondering if their next move is to detail the "benefits" that victims of child sex trafficking receive from their subjugation.

For example, they learn valuable interpersonal social skills, which they could potentially parlay into a job as a social worker.
Or perhaps they could leverage their experience into a career in physical therapy.

I mean, as long as they don't die before they escape their captors, which would be a serious hindrance in their career prospects and would put all that valuable On The Job Training to waste.  You know, like the millions upon millions of slaves who died before slavery was abolished in this country.

I'm not sure how any of that is actually "on topic" in this thread. Seems like more pivot and spin to me. But then again, that's the way it goes in the echo chamber.

However, I would encourage you to listen to Dr. William B. Allen on the topic, he's a black Michigan State University emeritus professor. He is also an actual historian, who knows more about history than you, Kamala Harris, or the majority of the population.

The topic was, at least partially, about sex trafficking.  And I imagine that those of you who support Florida's efforts to make sure children are taught the whole story about slavery, including the valuable career skills taught to the small minority of slaves who happened to be alive when slavery was ended in this country, should be equally enthusiastic about making sure that we also teach the whole story about sexual exploitation of children, and how these children gain useful expertise that they can leverage for future employment.

I mean, it's not like this whole teach-both-sides-of-slavery exercise is just another example of conservatives taking any and all available steps to diminish black people, in a manner that they would never even consider for a group (e.g. children trafficked for sex) that they considered to be REAL victims.  That would be racist.

P.S. William B. Allen does not have a PhD in history; he has his degree in government and he is a professor of political science.  But importantly, he is black, so when Republicans need someone to explain why slaves-gained-valuable-career-skills is not transparently racist, he is the kind of person they run to.  You see, he CAN'T be advancing a racist ideology... look at his skin!

Oh well, another thread derailed and gone down the shitter. Abandon ship....

Kind of funny but predictable. When we used similar criteria judging Pride events you called us homophobes and defended the pedophiles.

Not sure what the heck that sentence even means.

We call you homophobes when you make the claim that an adult male enjoying the Barbie movie means he is a pedophile. 

He means that when conservatives say "Pride events are not suitable for children," we call them homophobes and defend the pedophiles.
There are two implications:

1) any Pride event is indistinguishable from the raunchiest Pride event with naked adults in the Castro district of San Francisco
2) gay people are pedophiles

CF, most people agree that a parade with naked adults is not suitable for children.  We do not agree, however, that this is implied by the term "Pride event."

^^^thanks

On the topic of pride events, I've been to a couple as a volunteer with my Star Wars club.  It's always super kid-appropriate.  It's just people walking and high-fiving and hugging and being generally positive while waving around rainbow flags and stuff.  I think a lot of it here is a way for straight people (specifically family members) to show support their friends and family that might feel like they don't have it from the world sometimes.  ...at least that's the vibe that I pull in.

There's also an element of surrogate support, like "I'm a mom if you need a hug from a mom since yours won't."  ...stuff like that.

...no assless chaps.

If what you say is true then that is how it is supposed to be. That's not what people are upset about. They didn't outlaw pride events or even drag shows. They outlawed kids being in the presence when adult things are happening.

There is a married gay guy in Palm Coast who had to point this out many, many, times to people on Tik Tok who kept asking why he is staying in Florida. His answer was because the law doesn't affect him or his husband because they aren't pedophiles. Couldn't have said it better myself.  

BTW ... all chaps are assless. hahaha

A pride parade is a theme of a parade.  Like a Mardi Gras parade or Carnivale or Christmas or veterans or Halloween or anything like that.

Within the subset of a parade, there are people who are going to show their tits for beads at a Mardi Gras parade or be naked at a Carnivale event or inappropriate Halloween attire at a Halloween party.

There is no connection to it being a pride parade, is what I think we're saying.  I've seen way more tits and dicks at Moonfest for Halloween downtown or with these Santa parades where a bunch of dudes get drunk and dress like inappropriate Santa.  I've seen none of this at the pride parades here.  So, I think that the disproportionate concern about pride parades, while you don't hear anyone aghast about children maybe going to a Halloween parade -- It doesn't seem like genuine concern and is yet another way to try and connect being gay with harming children, which has always been part of the bigotry playbook.

In my area the gay pride events seem kid friendly. Irish pride events (aka St. Patrick's Day) are not children appropriate.

If a law was made targeting "the many pedophiles in the Christian community trying to groom our kids," I doubt you would so flippant about saying, "Well, only the Christians who are pedophiles have something to worry about."

In today's episode of Every Accusation Is A Confession:

'Sound of Freedom' Funder Fabian Marta Charged With Felony Child Kidnapping (https://jezebel.com/sound-of-freedom-funder-fabian-marta-charged-with-felon-1850708015)

The latest thing to make you go hmmmm involving this movie and the people who helped bring it to the public is the recent arrest of Fabian Marta, who bragged about helping fund the movie after Disney shelved it. According to the Missouri Courts website (https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=2322-CR01608&inputVO.courtId=CT22#charges), Marta was charged July 21 with child kidnapping, a felony. According to Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/sound-freedom-funder-fabian-marta-arrest-child-kidnapping-1817498), which published his mugshot, Marta was arrested on July 23. “A person commits the offense of child kidnapping if he or she is not a relative of the child within the third degree and, knowing he or she has no right to do so, removes a child under the age of fourteen without consent of the child’s parents or guardian, or confines such child for a substantial period of time without such consent,” is how Marta’s charge is defined on the Missouri Revisor of Statutes.

For weeks now, writer, podcaster, and per his Twitter name, anti-disinfo activist Jim Stewartson has been tweeting about Marta’s association with “sugar daddy/baby” parties (https://twitter.com/jimstewartson/status/1678539924990205952), as well as Marta’s Facebook claims of helping bring Sound of Freedom to the screen after “Disney attempted to bury this movie.” In a comment, Marta wrote: “I was aware of this early, the movie was filmed several years ago. As an Angel investor, I was able to be a financial partner. Early investors were credited at the end of the film.”

---

The guy whom the movie was based on, Tim Ballard, recently left the anti-trafficking company he founded (Operation Underground Railroad) after an internal investigation into claims made by his employees (https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7b3ex/tim-ballard-left-operation-underground-railroad-after-investigation-into-claims-made-by-employees).

What is there to say?  This isn't even surprising.  The moment a conservative starts screaming about some Danger To Society, any journalist worth their salt should immediately look into that person's history on that exact issue.

Because the playbook is to create solutions for things that aren't problems and then to paint with a broad brush.  This will create fear an uncertainty for those who are to put on pride parades to worry that they're going to be prosecuted.  It just harasses a community.  The cruelty is the point.