A funder for 'Sound of Freedom,' a QAnon-adjacent film about child sex trafficking, has been charged with accessory to child kidnapping
A funder for 'Sound of Freedom,' a QAnon-adjacent film about child sex trafficking, has been charged with accessory to child kidnapping
Every right wing accusation is a confession
Once again, the call comes from inside the house.
I haven't seen the film or heard much about it, only seen a preview before gaurdians but
How is this film QAnon-adjacent?
(and how is it that anti-pedophilia is now only a right wing thing when the church has been fucking children for decades? dont let em have it....)
This whole anti pedophilia thing coming from the right is just projection. They assume everyone else is one because they are.
A lot of the cast and crew and people who endorsed the movie are very into the whole Qanon thing, including Tim Ballard, the real guy the movie is about. The movie itself doesn't actually promote any of that, though, (or at least, not that I could tell) and a good chunk is based on a real sting operation. There's a lot of fiction, as is the case with most 'based on a true story' movies, though. And I haven't checked, but I'm kind of suspicious of the charity they encourage you to donate to during the credits.
It's not. The media keeps wanting to make it so. There's nothing Qanon about it. Jim Caviezel is a proponent of Qanon conspiracies, and that's its only connection.
I know she can be "controversial" here, but Shoe0nHead did a video on it.
Well you see, its not. The left just wants it to be, so they say that it is anyways. Its called lying.
No way!
Way!!!
According to the article, his lawyer states he was just essentially the landlord where a custodial dispute happened. So it sounds like something adjacent to the crime, such as lying to one of the parents about having seen the kid or something. Honestly, my parents got in custodial disputes, and I've even had one myself - I was so distraught over it that my emotions almost landed me in a similar situation. Luckily everything resolved itself (my wife thought I was having an affair due to her "friend" trying to convince her of such), but custodial disputes are not anywhere near 'child sex trafficking' levels of evil here...
It's also not surprising at all that none of the comments thus far have shown any level of critical thought about the article either...
You really stretched that one line into an entire hypothetical defense for a guy, while there's literally zero evidence of any of that presented in the article.
Bad troll.
Did you miss this line?
"Mr. Marta had nothing to do with custodial kidnapping," Scott Rosenblum told the outlet. "He was essentially a landlord."
With only that to go on...there's some level of guessing at what that even means. You can only try and figure it out on hypothetical application.
These places are DYING to put the words "Qanon", "sex trafficking", "sound of freedom" into an article for SEO purposes. You should start being critical of your sources rather than just taking things for face value.
It makes me sad yo see this down voted with so little actual engagement with the content. Come on, Lemmy, you're better than that!
I've learned that they really aren't. I have seen this everywhere all week. All of the extremists of reddit seem to be the ones who hopped over, and they're just as bad as qtards. Everyone is a troll, everyone is a bad faith actor to them, etc. Pretty much decided at this point that it's just not worth attempting to engage with people online at all any more.
Well we are on the internet you know?
This! Read the article, guys! I hate QAnon as much as the rest but this guy was a “essentially a landlord” in a custody battle and, unless new facts come to light, it appears his part isn’t nearly as heinous as this clickbait title wants you to believe!
Sir, I am from reddit - It's bold of you to assume i read the article
I wasn't gonna read the article either tbh; but I embarrassed myself by spouting untrue information based off of the title of an article and being corrected publicly a few months ago so I'm trying to be better about making sure the information I "know" is correct.
Q-anon adjacent film
lol
Where's the word count for how many times Qanon is mentioned in this conspiracy theory laced film?
Probably more to do with this guy being a QAnon nut.
Q-anon adjacent film
adjacent
Since I'm not on the jury, I'm not obligated to follow this idea
So I take it you don't think OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and her boyfriend.
This comment should not be down voted. Even if you or I disagree with the person's politics. This should be the default in any court. I didn't read the article at first either just the comments. When I did read it, it seems very much click bait. They buried the lawyer's quote way down in the middle of the article and only one line. No follow up on the actual situation and harped some more on Qanon. I personally despise people who continue Qanon conspiracies, but the rest of us have to be better.
Anyone surprised?
While the title of the story is interesting, this tidbit was buried further down:
That’s how a ton of politicians “NYT best sellers” books are done. They’ll use campaign funds to buy up a ton of books and then give them out for free at rallies and shit.
They're also asking people who do see it to "donate" an extra ticket's worth of money to them to supposedly allow someone else to see it. The grift never ends.
Surprised that only one of them has been rooted out so far. The whole movement is projection and deflection. There's a serious problem of child abuse in right wing culture that they're not willing to taking about.
They had a pay it forward program to buy others tickets so that they could see it to spread the message. It's a great marketing strategy for the studio to have an inflated sense of how important the movie is.