Poll of the Day > This Sound of Freedom crap is hilarious.

(+) Yeah! (+)

AltOmega2 posted...

I get what you're saying but 14 years old ain't pedo either.

bruh

God the ephebophilia VS pedophilia comments are enough to make your skin crawl

Jen0125 posted...

God the ephebophilia VS pedophilia comments are enough to make your skin crawl

they're both inappropriate, gross, and involve assault and grooming. k? k

adjl posted...

But it is the same headspace

I guess my argument here is that it's not.
There's so much difference between someone less than 20 dating a 16 year old (which I would still raise an eyebrow at) and a 20 year old preying on a literal child.
It bothers me that we group these together.

AltOmega2 posted...

Oh, I think you misunderstood me.
I'm not one of those weirdos arguing that teenagers are more fertile or some bullshit.
For me it's just the semantics of grouping two sets of predators the same when one is way worse.

Appreciate the clarification. Still, I think both sets of predators (sure, I'm fine with the differentiation) are equivalently bad and it still makes me feel extremely gross to try and suggest which is worse.

MabinogiFan posted...

What did Machine Gun Kelly do?

Said a lot of gross stuff:
https://twitter.com/defnoodles/status/1388721473661988865?lang=en

I guess in this case I should differentiate between guys like MGK and D'Elia. Both are extremely gross but D'Elia has demonstrably done a lot more. I think I'll still just condemn them both as gross as fuck though.

Jen0125 posted...

God the ephebophilia VS pedophilia comments are enough to make your skin crawl

Semantics and shit, both are still illegal and involve grooming

My take on the matter is we SHOULD use the correct terminology for a given situation but make no mistake, it's all disgusting deplorable crap.

ReturnOfFa posted...

There's what I was looking for. It's not raising awareness. I've been aware of child abuse since I was a child. Aren't most folks these days? There have been other movies about child abuse, do you remember them? Everyone already knows child abuse is a massive problem.

Isn't the hypocrisy of grandstanding about this movie and then voting for folks that enshrine child marriage in law a tad hypocritical? It's almost like they...don't actually give a shit. Prove me wrong?

a lot of people are totally ignorant how about how many children go missing

The problem with this movie is they can't just let it speak for itself, they gotta do the interview circuit and say weird shit about adrenochrome, etc during it. Yes, child trafficking is awful. Pretty much anyone that's not a monster can agree on that. The problem is conservatives have convinced themselves only THEY care about it, and that democrats are all pedophiles and groomers, so it puts off anyone else when the film makers and cast go on unhinged rants about democrats.

Ive been called the F slur so many times within the last week or so since the movie came out

AltOmega2 posted...

It bothers me that we group these together.

Very telling

VampireCoyote posted...

a lot of people are totally ignorant how about how many children go missing

What is that perception based off of? Sorry if that comes off as ignorant, I'm just curious to hear you elaborate.

I feel like I grew up in a constant state of fear about child-kidnapping, and I was raised in an extremely safe town. This was enforced by my family, and most other families. The news always covered stuff regarding it as there were certain high-profile cases. Really, the sad part was the racial bias with how much attention was given to which cases.

TV and education was also very VERY stranger-danger oriented. I would never fuckin' talk to a stranger. A friend of mine had a secret code with his mother, and nobody was allowed to talk to him unless they gave him the secret code. I actually feel lucky that in grade 3, Sue Johannson came to my school - the sex educator. Right-wing people would probably say she's 'sexualizing kids' or some nonsense, because she told us a lot about sex, that's for sure. But she ALSO told us that we should NEVER let someone, stranger or otherwise, touch our genitals. She hammered it home in a good way for kids - she said that even if it were the Backstreet Boys or Spice Girls, we could do anything to stop it. Scream, kick, bite, even THROW UP on them! I'll remember that forever. Of course, going to this was optional and after school. Sadly certain parents would prefer their children remain ignorant of how sex works and how people can trick kids into abuse.

I think another sad part is that a child is obviously more at risk the more economically worse-off the family is. These days, both parents have to work - the kid is immediately more vulnerable.

VampireCoyote posted...

Ive been called the F slur so many times within the last week or so since the movie came out

Like the one I got called a lot in highschool that used to be super common and has 3 or 6 letters (depending on using the short or longer version)? That's horrible. I'm super sorry. Who the hell is doing that to you, just random people on the street? Last had someone shout that at me out of a car a couple of years ago.

There are a lot of alt right white supremacists here but also a lot of the Asian and Hispanic community is very anti lgbt

Jen0125 posted...

Very telling

you are literally one of the biggest hypocrites so stop throwing stones with your insurance job and custom pool and anti-corporatism rhetoric

potdnewb posted...

you are literally one of the biggest hypocrites so stop throwing stones with your insurance job and custom pool and anti-corporatism rhetoric

I believe youve repeatedly been asked to refrain from posting.

potdnewb posted...

you are literally one of the biggest hypocrites so stop throwing stones with your insurance job and custom pool and anti-corporatism rhetoric

Oh no I participate in a society and I can't change wah

Yeah no shit it's hypocritical but that has nothing to do with this topic lmao

AltOmega2 posted...

I guess my argument here is that it's not.
There's so much difference between someone less than 20 dating a 16 year old (which I would still raise an eyebrow at) and a 20 year old preying on a literal child.
It bothers me that we group these together.

Most age of consent laws do include close-in-age exemptions for exactly that reason. Even if one partner is younger, if the age difference isn't that significant, you're less likely to have enough of a maturity difference to create a power imbalance.

Regardless, though, the problem (and therefore the mentality of those who pursue such relationships in spite of that problem) is still the same regardless of how young the victim is. A 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with a 30-year-old any more than a 5-year-old can. The exact nuances of why they can't consent may vary, but the fact that they can't consent does not. As such, making a distinction is largely unnecessary, and lumping any adult who says "the ideal age for my wife would be 16" in with any adult who says "the ideal age for my wife would be 10" as being a creepy pedo turdmuffin is perfectly reasonable.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Said a lot of gross stuff:
https://twitter.com/defnoodles/status/1388721473661988865?lang=en

Eh, I feel like 19 is young enough where talk like that can be forgiven. You're barely out of high school at that age. Still a gross thing to say though.

potdnewb posted...

you are literally one of the biggest hypocrites so stop throwing stones with your insurance job and custom pool and anti-corporatism rhetoric

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/5/AAcI8BAADzQh.jpg

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/5/AAcI8BAADzQh.jpg

this is jen and the well is her pool

DeathMagnetic80 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/5/AAcI8BAADzQh.jpg

Right? Like if we have capitalism I at least need to do what I need to do to be comfortable? I vote as far left as I can and donate to progressive candidates, causes and local community causes. What else personally can I do?

MabinogiFan posted...

Eh, I feel like 19 is young enough where talk like that can be forgiven. You're barely out of high school at that age. Still a gross thing to say though.

I do not fucking understand this kind of forgiveness. Even if you're still saying it's gross. I remember being 19. I literally fucking didn't need to hear anything disgusting like that when I was 19.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I do not fucking understand this kind of forgiveness. Even if you're still saying it's gross. I remember being 19. I literally fucking didn't need to hear anything disgusting like that when I was 19.

I'm just not really a fan of people digging up tweets from 10+ years ago from someone who's most likely changed. If they had said that stuff recently, then I would understand the outrage.

I will say that I do think it's important to draw a line between being attracted to minors and actually doing things with minors (much like there's a line between being attracted to an adult and actually doing things with an adult). Even in MGK's case, while yes, it's gross to talk about 13-15-year-olds like that and there's zero reason to actually voice those opinions (especially the notion of anyone being "allowed to be hot," since that's just straight-up victim blaming), he is at least explicitly acknowledging that he's not interested in actually doing anything about it. It's creepy, and as such should be kept to himself, but it's harmless so long as he doesn't actually try to pick up minors or otherwise let the attraction affect his behaviour. "I want to do this, but I recognize that it's wrong and therefore won't do it" is not a bad thing to think.

I agree. Attraction means nothing if you don't act on it.

See also: Talking about how attractive an adult woman who just walked by is is creepy (especially if she can hear it), but finding her attractive and politely keeping it to yourself is perfectly fine. The only difference there is that if you want to act on it by (politely) asking her out, she's able to consent to such a relationship and it's therefore fair game (and it's not fair game if, however it plays out, you don't get consent before doing anything).

MabinogiFan posted...

I'm just not really a fan of people digging up tweets from 10+ years ago from someone who's most likely changed. If they had said that stuff recently, then I would understand the outrage.

I don't trust people that said stuff like that at all, regardless of it being 10 years. He's also done some bizarre stuff within his relationship with Megan Fox like threatening to kill himself. I think he's a pretty awful person. I only know a couple of people that said stuff like he's said, and they were always scummy awful people.

Here's a conspiracy nut sharing about The Sound of Freedom:

https://youtu.be/FRDLF7MKJyY?t=819

Sounds like a large portion of the ticket sales have been due to a company buying up tickets to give them away for free. It's so weird. Like, 5 million free tickets? Wtf? What if they don't get scooped??

ReturnOfFa posted...

Sounds like a large portion of the ticket sales have been due to a company buying up tickets to give them away for free. It's so weird. Like, 5 million free tickets? Wtf? What if they don't get scooped??

It wouldn't surprise me if they're in cahoots with the studio and "bought" them for free to artificially inflate demand.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I don't trust people that said stuff like that at all, regardless of it being 10 years. He's also done some bizarre stuff within his relationship with Megan Fox like threatening to kill himself. I think he's a pretty awful person. I only know a couple of people that said stuff like he's said, and they were always scummy awful people.

My usual metric for responding to something like that is how they respond when the previous statements are brought up. If they sincerely acknowledge that they were wrong, why they were wrong, and their broader patterns of behaviour suggest that they've moved past saying such things, I'm inclined to forgive them. If they try to downplay them, end the conversation at "it was a long time ago," or get defensive about how you're trying to "police their speech," those are responses that suggest that they aren't upset at their past self for being a bad person, they're upset at you for catching them, and that doesn't exactly suggest repentance.

adjl posted...

I will say that I do think it's important to draw a line between being attracted to minors and actually doing things with minors (much like there's a line between being attracted to an adult and actually doing things with an adult). Even in MGK's case, while yes, it's gross to talk about 13-15-year-olds like that and there's zero reason to actually voice those opinions (especially the notion of anyone being "allowed to be hot," since that's just straight-up victim blaming), he is at least explicitly acknowledging that he's not interested in actually doing anything about it. It's creepy, and as such should be kept to himself, but it's harmless so long as he doesn't actually try to pick up minors or otherwise let the attraction affect his behaviour. "I want to do this, but I recognize that it's wrong and therefore won't do it" is not a bad thing to think.

I would not say it is harmless to verbally sexualize minors. I also believe having the throught process "I want to do this, but I recognize that it's wrong and therefore won't do it" also demands self-examination. If you 'want to do' a horrible thing like this, please go seek help instead of blabbering about it with either your bros or even worse, on camera for some goddawful interview/podcast.

adjl posted...

My usual metric for responding to something like that is how they respond when the previous statements are brought up. If they sincerely acknowledge that they were wrong, why they were wrong, and their broader patterns of behaviour suggest that they've moved past saying such things, I'm inclined to forgive them. If they try to downplay them, end the conversation at "it was a long time ago," or get defensive about how you're trying to "police their speech," those are responses that suggest that they aren't upset at their past self for being a bad person, they're upset at you for catching them, and that doesn't exactly suggest repentance.

I think that's well-enough put.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I would not say it is harmless to verbally sexualize minors. I also believe having the throught process "I want to do this, but I recognize that it's wrong and therefore won't do it" also demands self-examination. If you 'want to do' a horrible thing like this, please go seek help instead of blabbering about it with either your bros or even worse, on camera for some goddawful interview/podcast.

Yeah, that's true. Thinking that it's appropriate to verbalize it in casual conversation or on a public forum does suggest that you aren't necessarily appreciating just how wrong it is or how uncomfortable the mere mention of it can make many people. Recognizing that it's wrong and that you therefore won't do it is a good first step, but it's far from being sufficient enough on its own to mitigate the potential harm and avoid making the people around you feel uncomfortable.

adjl posted...

See also: Talking about how attractive an adult woman who just walked by is is creepy (especially if she can hear it), but finding her attractive and politely keeping it to yourself is perfectly fine. The only difference there is that if you want to act on it by (politely) asking her out, she's able to consent to such a relationship and it's therefore fair game (and it's not fair game if, however it plays out, you don't get consent before doing anything).

Wat.

It lets conservatives say "wow, I guess you SUPPORT child trafficking!" to people who don't want to see this shitty movie. Of course, without actually doing anything to adress sex trafficking themselves, like calling out Andrew Tate, or wanting to stop Russia(who are LITERALLY trafficking Ukrainian children to Russia).

Also apparently the film is at the same both being sabotaged, but is also a success? Make up our minds.

huh...

apparently the movie is just a mid drama and has zero Qanon content... ... I feel ripped off, the media lied!!

Lokarin posted...

huh...

apparently the movie is just a mid drama and has zero Qanon content... ... I feel ripped off, the media lied!!

Ah damn, I guess I didn't make that clear, lol. That's why I said in the initial post to enjoy a movie for what it's worth. It really isn't that political of a movie in its content (unless you read into it a bit), that's especially why it seems like such a big virtue signal when they claim it's so important.

It doesn't help that its star is a huge QAnon supporter and is trying to tie to the move into it, when the movie doesn't even acknowledge it.

the guy who funded this movie just got arrested on child kidnapping charges

https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1687199702180319237

they'll just "it's a qanon setup"

Somebody told me somebody involved in making the movie was just arrested for child trafficking.

Edit: Should have read the previous page in this thread lol

I went to see Oppenheimer the other day, and I asked some friends if they wanted to go, one said no, but I should see Sound of Freedom, and she told me I need to buy my tickets online, the theaters don't want to show this movie so they won't sell you a ticket. If they don't want to show it to me, why is it when I step inside the theater it's right there on the marquee? :P

You don't understand! Somebody online said that she had to buy her tickets online instead of in-person, so that means it must be true!

Didn't this movie initially make headlines for ticket sales for on its 4th of July release? After learning more, tickets can be bought for strangers to see the movie, but seats can remain empty.

Even the movie's popularity is a lie.

Between the efforts to artificially drum up its apparent popularity and a major backer being charged with kidnapping, I can't help but feel like this was either an effort to make people less suspicious of him, or he knew this arrest was coming and his lawyer advised him to do something like this to combat child trafficking so he can present a narrative of being a "changed man" in court.

adjl posted...

You don't understand! Somebody online said that she had to buy her tickets online instead of in-person, so that means it must be true!

So you can buy tickets despite it not being shown anywhere... what a way to pump the numbers!

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'd think the "readers added context" section pretty much covers it, no?

LELuMADuRUSTLED posted...

I'd think the "readers added context" section pretty much covers it, no?

I think its funny that the right wingers take the 'added context' as an insult but everyone else appreciates the added context