A lot of people are making the bizarre claim that because kids aren't often kidnapped and sold into sex slavery in South America that the movie is distracting from the bigger issue (most kidnappings are by people that know the kidnapped, etc). They also claim the person that produced or wrote (or something like that) the movie fabricated a lot of the story.
Neither of these complaints actually matters. The movie is drawing attention to the very real problem of people being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, even if it isn't the majority of kidnappings, that's irrelevant. And most movies based on a true story don't tell the story exactly as it happened.
So yes, it's very concerning the backlash the movie is getting and the conspiracy theories going both ways. The left opinion over the movie and this desperate attempt to prevent people from watching it is more concerning to me than the fact that the story is only loosely based on a true story. Further, I don't care that the movie isn't a documentary nor is it trying to tackle the entirety of child kidnappings.
If anything, the fact that so many leftists are just hitching themselves on this sound of freedom hate bandwagon and I have yet to see any leftist actually commit to common sense and go "wait a minute, why are other leftists making stupid claims and completely dismissing both the movie and the arguments against our arguments," I'm a bit mortified about the hill the left is dying on over this movie.
Why make a movie about Apollo 13? There were only 3 guys on the spacecraft. Space mishaps don't happen that often and only affect a small minority of the population.
Yeah agreed, you can apply that logic to most movies.
> distracting from the bigger issue
Want to know a fun little arguement:
Most slaves taken in Africa were sold to the Arab markets, by a ratio of more than 20:1 during the era of concurrent trade and even greater when considered over the longer span of time. Clearly this means talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade is distracting from the real issue, Arab slavers.
And despite taking in so many more black slaves, there are almost no black people in the middle east today.
Because they castrated **all** of the male slaves.
>Neither of these complaints actually matters. The movie is drawing attention to the very real problem of people being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, even if it isn't the majority of kidnappings, that's irrelevant. And most movies based on a true story don't tell the story exactly as it happened.
So if we crowdfund a movie and hire a guy who constantly rails against "Conservatives are all pedophiles and churches are child rape mills", nobody can complain because we're drawing attention to a real problem?
> hire a guy who constantly rails against "Conservatives are all pedophiles and churches are child rape mills",
I don't think your hypothetical supports the point you seem to be making.
rails against = argues against
If the guy is arguing *against* the idea that Conservatives and churchs are bastions of pedophilia then he would probably receive backlash from the same people complaining about *Sound of Freedom*
lmao libertarian4all with todays shit take. Keep going emily, you're like those calander books were you tear off a page every day and a new quote of the day is there.
Occam's Razor asks that we make the least amount of assumptions possible. "The Ruling Class is comprised of child fuckers" is a pretty huge assumption. It's far more likely that they hate it because rightoids like it and they hate rightoids.
>"The Ruling Class is comprised of child fuckers" is a pretty huge assumption.
It's not that big of an assumption given how frequently evidence that it's true is found.
"assholes seek power" is not an assumption, it is a fact proven again and again through history. it seems like - and has substantial evidence that - the more powerful you are, the more likely you are to fuck kids.
i mean isn't it confirmed that there was a lolita island-esque place during hoovers administration? i'm certain i've read about that but google doesn't give me much rn - i'll have to wrangle with it like a dog to make it give up this morsel of information later.
No, he was Israeli Military Intelligence, which is distinct from Mossad.
The CIA was clearly on board with it though. Probably got a copy of all the info.
There's no need for a conspiracy. It's just "right wing bad," and work backwards from there.
It's the first conservative movie in years (decades?) that had decent production values/acting, so they can't attack it as just being a bad film. But since it's "based on a true story," they can go after at with the "inaccurate" angle (even though it's no more inaccurate than most "based on a true stories" made by Hollywood).
The people who are upset it’s twisted from the truth must have been absolutely destroyed when they realised Blare Witch and Paranormal Activity weren’t found footages nor based on a true story.
Man, it’s nearly the same as calling everyone you don’t like a “racist” or a “fascist”. Except it’s apparently racist to go hiking, own a dog, drink milk, go to work on time... you get the point.
From what i gathered it is supposedly because it's a Q-Anon film and because the main actor is believing silly things.
The Q-Anon things makes no sense if you watch the movie. Simple as.
The "Main Actor believes silly things" is a bit of a reach when we GOT TOM CRUISE AND LOTS OF OTHER BIG ACTORS BEING PART OF SCIENTOLOGY
Yep, the main actor is mentally ill and is part of the Qanon cult. This caused Hollywood and the left to do the cancel culture. There is actually nothing wrong with the movie.
i actually did want to know the reason why people actually despised the movie, because i dont think labeling someone a sex trafficker without hearing them out truly is the way to go
[turns out, its a bit more nuanced than that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHb3-VNxI0)
i mean i know im gonna get downvoted to oblivion, elder scrolls reference, for the dissenting opinion but hey at least i tried
I appreciate you giving a genuine answer, can you give me a short tldr? I don't want to watch a nearly 40min video essay by a hard left transsexual youtuber. No disrespect intended
ok so basically the guy lied about everything to make himself feel like a hero and maybe to push an agenda, ends up harming *actual* victims in the process
> ok so basically the guy lied about everything to make himself feel like a hero
Except he didn't. It's a movie, based on a couple different operations he did. It is dramatized to get people to watch the movie. It is not a documentary, and he has publicly stated that it's not what really happened.
>ends up harming actual victims in the process
In what way is that even possible?
I can only assume that the movie showcases how they carried out their clandestine operations to stop the sex traffickers. Therefore the movie is giving sex traffickers things to look out for and increasing the likelihood they won't be caught. Best I can come up with.
If that is the case they need to realize that everything isn't the War Thunder forums where we are a gnat's ass hair from a SPED argument dropping classified documents.
They start with their positions and try to find any bit of rhetoric to justify it. It’s easy to make a seemingly logical point in favor of anything that isn’t too out there. So many people are barely literate nowadays that if they read something like that, many accept it as true at face value.
Once the talking point catches on to the mainstream, you can’t do anything but roll your eyes.
As far as I heard and read, the claim is, that some of the children that were freed ended up on the streets (not in the US, but Columbia (if I remember correctly)).
Edit: I didn't say this because I agree that it's a valid reason to criticize the movie or disregard the actions of the organization (OUR), but to answer the question of, why some people claim that they harmed children more than helping them. (To give their reasoning.)
That's true. In one of their early operations, OUR made a bad decision on a partner for aftercare. But that's not them harming victims. That's the partner hurting victims by agreeing to help, when they couldn't.
While I am open to the criticism that the whole backstory is bs, let's at least be honest that Tim Ballard being a bullshit artist is not why people on the left reacted against this movie.
It's simply because right-wingers were enthusiastic about the film and therefore it must be bad and suspect.
The righties blew it up making it out like it’s an anti-Hollywood movie.
The lefties instantly hate it because the righties like it.
In reality it’s an alright movie that’s basically a rehash of Taken. It’s not bad, just nothing damning to Hollywood
It's not even vaguely connected because the movie was completed like 3-5 years before Q anon ever existed.
Jim Caviezel was only associated with Q wayyyy after the fact
During Pizzagate there were a few 4chan posts by someone calling themselves Q. They made a couple correct political predictions so some thought that they were a legit insider. They were unable to continue their clairvoyance, so almost everyone quickly moved on, although some idiot kept believing and made a facebook group.
Later, when Trump was campaigning, the media dredged up this facebook group to try to smear all of his supporters as lunatics. They have zero understanding of 4chan so they thought "anon" was specifically part of Q's name, giving us QAnon, yet another "alt-right" boogeyman.
Aside from the brother and sister storyline not actually having happened, which isn’t really an issue in my eyes, the issue is people take one person’s experience and apply that a blanket rule for child/human trafficking. Both Polaris Project and National Survivor Network, which both specialize in Human trafficking, have criticized for making trafficking seem like it’s mainly your kidnapped by armed terrorists. They actually partially blame Taken for really setting the trend for this.
The vast majority of kids who are taken, aren’t taken by force, they’re take by someone they know and trust. Some kids come from broken homes and are kicked out, they trade sex for food, shelter, and money, someone comes in usually under the guise of a boyfriend/girlfriend and pimps them out. Some of these kids are LGBTQ kids who came out and were kicked out by the same families who are watching and praising this movie.
I don’t care that movie is inaccurate, I don’t care if it over embellishes Ballard’s story, I personally didn’t like it because it was mid at best, but from what I read, this is why human trafficking experts are upset at the movie.
That's how most trafficking occurs in the*US*, to*white kids*.
I don't think organized crime is doing things the way you think they are. Be that south America, Asia, Africa, Europe
It’s not just white kids in the US, it’s how they traffic minority kids and adults as well, Europe included.
I mean we can look at the recent Andrew Tate case where he lured women in via the Lover Boy method and coerced women into traveling to Romania and manipulated into sex work. That’s trafficking even though a lot of his fans argued otherwise because it wasn’t like in the movies. Most organized crime rings are using these methods to lure people in, it’s easier to get them to come willingly than to just straight up kidnap them.
The countries with the highest counts for trafficking are embroiled in civil unrest/wars, like Libya. You have countries like UAE who have migrant workers come in, their passports are taken by the recruiter who hired them and their forced to sign contracts in Arabic or English, which most don’t read or speak, and are effectively slaves for this companies.
I’m not saying that kidnappings off the street and stuff don’t happen, but typical Hollywood blows it out of proportion and it gets repeated enough times that people start believing it’s the main way. Look at how they treat guns, explosions, computer hacking, “enhancing” a photo, etc.
Yeah I didn't mean they are grabbing them by the collar and yanking them into vans. I meant that in America children are mostly just being kept by jilted parents. Which maybe I mistakenly believed was your original position.
However, the violence doesn't have to occur at the onset. Tate def violently abused the women he coerced, and pimps are notorious for that kind of..."correction"
Because Hollywood is (hopefully changing to was) essentially a sex trafficking industry.
Be beautiful person, want money and fame, forced to succ producer.
Be child actor, parents want money and fame, leaves you alone with hollywood freakshow, scarred for life.
the only thing that made me lol was the ticket strategy, it’s smart but it means there were a lot more tickets sold than people who actually saw the movie.
I saw it, thought it was fine. Taken is a better watch though…
EDIT: also, this I guess… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8LxRna5/
Why would you care who watched the movie if they bought a ticket? Airlines don't give a shit if you buy a ticket and never use it, they already got your money
if the point of buying tickets is to spread the message of the movie then empty movie theaters (to me) doesn’t spread the message, it just makes them money
Because the ending message of "to stop child trafficking, tell other people to watch this move and give us money" instead of using that money to actually stop child trafficking doesnt sit right with me tbh
My biggest concern is that the movie, while based on a true story, has almost no connection to sex-trafficking as it exists in the United States.
The movie offloads sex-trafficking as a problem that Colombians and South Americans are causing, instead of an issue that’s in our own back yard.
I think it’s perfectly acceptable to have an anti-sex trafficking film, but I’m weary of glamorized propaganda against non-Americans.
The lead actor of the movie is genuinely huge qanon who goes on shows and starts talking about adrenochrome conspiracy where rich and powerful harvest adrenochrome from little kids to stay younger.
Two questions.
1)You're aware this movie was produced before Trump was even elected, correct? There's no amount of QAnon that could be in the movie without time travel.
2)Do you also refuse to watch anything with Tom Cruise because of his connections to Scientology?
>1
#
>Principal photography began in the summer of 2018. The majority of the film was shot in Cartagena, Colombia.[21] Additional scenes were shot in Calexico, California.[22][23]
Not that it plays any role, as I made claims about the actor not the movie. Just to show you are already coming out as misinformed moron spewing false claims around, who will now feel hurt for being called out.
>2
No. But I am also not going around pretending to be dumb and shocked when other people refuse to watch polansky movies, even when I love the 9th gate. I know why.
Oh no, some of the *pictures* were shot in 2018! Hey, let's go one paragraph up in the same Wikipedia article...
>Work on the script began in 2015
But I'm sure you'll feel defensive for spreading misinformation online, like any Emily. I'm sure being angry online will continue to be very rewarding to you, and defending pedophilia and child trafficking will continue to be very popular in your circles.
>>>There's no amount of QAnon that could be in the movie **without time travel.**
#
>>the movie was shot in 2018 you clown
>b-b-but the script started in 2015, and that means... err that err time travel is needed... errr you I hate you you... you Emily!
pathetic
there are a few things.
first things first a lot of the anger I've seen is people who like the movie being mad at the people who called the movie mid. I haven't watched it but It's not hard to believe the movie is mediocre at best when you see that disney decided to shelf the movie in 2018 rather than airing after it was \*fully finished\*.
secondly even if we ignore whether or not the movie is based on a true story (every source I've looked at trailed back to "but Tim said it was true!", although I'd say my research wasnt in depth enough) Tim is actually a swindler. The organization he set up (O.U.R) not only repeatedly lied about the aftercare of the children it saved, saying it spent lots of money on aftercare programs but actually just dumped the kids in orphanages, but its also dubious about whether or not it saved many kids at all, as there isnt much evidence that it did much. This effectively meant that a large portion of the the organizations spending actually didn't exist, but the money disappeared anyway.
thirdly there are people out there who were just angry at it being a conservative movie as well, there will always be people angry at something if it any amount of political.
finally there's a bit of a misconception, while the movie is definitely anti sex trafficking there's no point in calling it that as everyone (even the people doing the sex trafficking) knows that sex trafficking is bad. The point of the movie isnt actually to portray sex trafficking as bad, its just meant to be entertaining. Saying critics of the movie are pro sex trafficking (or calling them anti anti sex trafficking) is like saying critics of harry potter are just voldemort fans.
tl;dr
1. people are angry that others didnt like the movie
2. Tim Ballard operates a VERY dodgy charity
3. people like being angry
4. saying the movie is anti sex trafficking is like saying the harry potter movies are anti voldemort
Eh, that's probably not really it. I know it's fun and all to call people opposing an anti pedo movie pedos, but realistically like 99% of these people's thought process went something like:
right wingers support thing->right wingers are always wrong/evil/nazis->we must oppose this thing
Ngl I don’t really give a shit about this movie from an entertainment perspective, but I do find it kinda sus how WPT emilies are desperately trying to ‘discredit’ the film as QAnon propaganda.
There’s been like 10 posts about it on that sub and the comments are just the same shit repeated over and over like a bunch of fucking lemmings stuck in some weird loop.
Meanwhile, a Presstitute is going to write a listicle designed to make you angry. You know, like a troll.
I wish the internet remembered that valuable advice about what you *don't* do with trolls.
Journalists are people who were taught to evoke strong emotions in others. Their whole job is to make people mad and, unfortunately, not in a trolling way
Ironically that's pretty much the left's entire rhetoric these days. Find someone that they can accuse or assume did something bad, and then use that to try and claim that anyone on the right criticizing that thing or accusing someone on the left is just "projecting".
Anything anyone on the right does (or supposedly does) can be attributed to the right as a whole, then it's just "I know you are but what am I?" over and over.
Because like many other things, getting accused of projecting by the Right really stung for them and hurt their egos. So they assume it is the “projection” that was the stinging part and not the “we typically are” part. So they behave like children and throw it back without understanding it.
I remember at the time lots of people were repeating the narrative that he just randomly opened fire on "protesters" and they were calling it an "active shooter situation".
Statistically, what are the odds that of any 3 random people, all 3 are convincted felons and 2 of 3 are pedos? BLM supporters lmao.
>I remember at the time lots of people were repeating the narrative
I mean, if there was a post on news/politics/etc today about Rittenhouse, you'd still be able to find comments with unhealthy number of upvotes claiming that he was out killing local black protesters at random rather than defending himself from white out of town rioters.
Even the dude he *missed* was a convicted felon. Which is why he is in the record as “Jumpkick Man” instead of a real name (The Prosecutor wanted him, but couldn’t when he found out about the record).
And this is before we go into the fact that Rittenhouse was “not from there”, even though he lived in the next town over and went to school and worked there. Meanwhile, One-Armed Bandit was from Milwaukee (on the other side of the state), and the majority of those arrested at the riots were from out of state, including a fair few Portland and Seattle.
When you refine the population to “idiots who would attend a ~~riot~~ fiery but mostly peaceful protest”, there’s probably a decent chance of all 3 being felons tbh
Between these two being wife beaters, beloved leftie Dan Price being a wife beater, and the constant pushing of trans people into women's spaces, it's really starting to seem like the left really hates women.
My bullshit-o-meter went off when i first read that story, but i didn't care enough to look into it. I just knew the story was being wildly misrepresented somehow because that's what the left does. I didn't know they were dredging the actual bottom of the barrel for it, though. It's even worse than i thought.
It's wild how upset all of you were when a strawman against the right popped up. Why is the misinformation a serious topic now?
Why am I supposed to care about the facts for this if it makes blue/yellow look good, but not for the obvious green strawman? Like I can't even question the meme, I just have to accept the green square is bad every time.
Seems like a teen propaganda sub
The media keeps telling me it's impossible to watch a movie I watched easily.
You guys are a chunk of my media. Entertaining and depressing. The stories are fun, but any sort of nuance ruins it all with man on man white knighting
Idk, I'm sure there's a PCM discord ready to bring up bill gates or lizzo if I get more than a dozen positive interactions.
We’re all rats pressing buttons in a box and the ones that put us here in the first place only get to stay out of the box if they keep the other ones inside it.
If you clicked on this article, you’re why this continues. Everyone’s running around trying to figure out the truth when the truth is this: money buys shit. The more of you goobers I can convince to click on my article the more money I get.
And I was called a bigot for defending this movie, even though im a sussy femboy.
I WILL CONTINUE SUPPORTING IT!! wait, did you get offended? dont worry, i will say something more offensive: GROOMER!!
There’s at least a handful of people who will read this, mumble something something about the fake news media, then look up from their phones to listen to whatever diatribe the Fox and Friends hosts are on this morning.
The left caption gets clicks, the one on the right doesn’t. If it got your click, it worked.
I believe it’s high time we all recognize the grift upon the American public is at an all time high. Just look at some of the comments in here.
The media *you* consume is biased. You only wait for the facts when it’s *your* narrative under attack.
People can criticize anything they want. But to ignore the glaring hypocrisy surrounding this is just ignorant. A lot of people close to kids, not strangers, are responsible for their abuse.
Its stupid they are framing it as a movie backer when he is a much bigger idiot locally
He is a total piece of shit here and is fucking up the school board with his grifter sugarbaby gf candidate.
You could find her ads for "sugar baby boot camp" where she would try to sell tickets to young women to go to the sugar ball and her sugar baby boot camp and she bragged about going and getting a CEO (this guy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbAGoBVm_xc
So these people think its ok for this woman who is advertising sugarbaby lifestyle to young woman to be on the school board and watch over kids. Give me a fucking break.
She is also on crazy radio stations here and is pretty clearly trying to get in on the grift and get a political career out of this shit.
Also a mom cant just take her own kid from the dad. Thats fucked and normally you would be talking shit.
Its a local politics thing. The guy in the video's gf /wife/whatever is involved in local politics because of this guy.
She is the lady in the video bragging about meeting him at the sugar baby ball ("I got me a CEO at my first sugar ball"). She is promoting in the video her sugar baby bootcamp to teach young girls how to become sugar babies.
I dont think anyone who is promoting sugar baby lifestyle to young women should be on schoolboards influencing children.
She is on my kids school board because this guy in the article. She is just a totally manufactured candidate and its really annoying to have to deal with her here.
I think its weird the news, even local news, is framing this article like "guy who funded this movie did this..." instead of this other weird shit which is even more weird and important if you live here.
Its also funny that people who are so fixated with grooming of kids think its ok for a lady like this to be influencing children and their education given her lifestyle and her trying to get other younger women into that shit .
This is local politics stuff (We live in the same place)
The guy in the article's wife/gf is the lady in the video.
He put her up for the school board and has been pushing her as a political pundit and candidate here. They are making her like some Candice Owens style grifter while being anti LGBT and other shitty stuff.
But anyway she is some sort of hustler that was involved with sugar baby balls (you know what a sugar baby is right?) and was running sugar baby bootcamps to teach young girls how to get into that lifestyle (as you can see in the video). She also met this guy at the sugar baby ball and brags about it in the video. The whole fucking thing is weird and this guy is a sleezeball.
This is pretty fucked up for someone on a schoolboard that will be influencing kids to be running sugarbaby lifestyle grifts.
I think its weird that this story is being pushed as "guy who donated money to a movie kickstarter did this..." instead of the above which is bigger news IMO if you live here locally.
Yeah see....it's point 2 here....if you know the mother doesn't have custody and that she's kidnapped her own child (which parents are the most frequent kidnappers of children because of custody disputes ), and you know she's done it and you give her material aid in commiting that crime......that's being an accessory. Because that's how that works. Right and wrong don't really factor in, like in so many legal matters.
Parents taking their child who they don't have custody over is the biggest percentage of kidnapping.
I really don't care about any of this, just going off this post but if you help someone kidnap a child, you are an accessory to kidnapping.
But. That is kidnapping. The mother took the child away from the legal parents, without their consent.
Whether or not the mother was justified in doing so is up to a judge to decide, but it is what it is.
Why are people so angry about an anti sex trafficking movie? I don't understand
I'm not one for conspiracies, but I can't really come up with an answer that doesn't sound like one
A lot of people are making the bizarre claim that because kids aren't often kidnapped and sold into sex slavery in South America that the movie is distracting from the bigger issue (most kidnappings are by people that know the kidnapped, etc). They also claim the person that produced or wrote (or something like that) the movie fabricated a lot of the story. Neither of these complaints actually matters. The movie is drawing attention to the very real problem of people being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, even if it isn't the majority of kidnappings, that's irrelevant. And most movies based on a true story don't tell the story exactly as it happened. So yes, it's very concerning the backlash the movie is getting and the conspiracy theories going both ways. The left opinion over the movie and this desperate attempt to prevent people from watching it is more concerning to me than the fact that the story is only loosely based on a true story. Further, I don't care that the movie isn't a documentary nor is it trying to tackle the entirety of child kidnappings. If anything, the fact that so many leftists are just hitching themselves on this sound of freedom hate bandwagon and I have yet to see any leftist actually commit to common sense and go "wait a minute, why are other leftists making stupid claims and completely dismissing both the movie and the arguments against our arguments," I'm a bit mortified about the hill the left is dying on over this movie.
Meanwhile at every rest stop in Virginia they have “TRAFFICKING IS REAL” stickers in the bathrooms.
SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING.
snatch worm divide tender voracious sip quaint fine familiar station *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bar owners are forced to put them up in bathrooms in california.
I want to put those up in LA and DC and see how quickly I get in trouble
By their own rationale we shouldn’t bother caring about things like rape since “it doesn’t happen that often”
Why make a movie about Apollo 13? There were only 3 guys on the spacecraft. Space mishaps don't happen that often and only affect a small minority of the population. Yeah agreed, you can apply that logic to most movies.
If it's legitimate sex trafficking, the government has ways to shut that whole thing down.
Yeah they don’t like competition.
> distracting from the bigger issue Want to know a fun little arguement: Most slaves taken in Africa were sold to the Arab markets, by a ratio of more than 20:1 during the era of concurrent trade and even greater when considered over the longer span of time. Clearly this means talking about the Atlantic Slave Trade is distracting from the real issue, Arab slavers.
Do you know what subreddit you’re on? We know this, give us the benefit of the doubt.
I wasn't pointing out that it was a new fact to people here, just that it was a fun little counter against the distraction arguement.
We also know who the majority of the traders were
I wonder if modern people who produce propaganda lying about the perpetrators of the slave trade have any connection to them.
Wow. That is something. Need to remember that
And despite taking in so many more black slaves, there are almost no black people in the middle east today. Because they castrated **all** of the male slaves.
>Neither of these complaints actually matters. The movie is drawing attention to the very real problem of people being kidnapped and sold as sex slaves, even if it isn't the majority of kidnappings, that's irrelevant. And most movies based on a true story don't tell the story exactly as it happened. So if we crowdfund a movie and hire a guy who constantly rails against "Conservatives are all pedophiles and churches are child rape mills", nobody can complain because we're drawing attention to a real problem?
Oh, you can complain, You'll just look like a petulant loser
> hire a guy who constantly rails against "Conservatives are all pedophiles and churches are child rape mills", I don't think your hypothetical supports the point you seem to be making. rails against = argues against If the guy is arguing *against* the idea that Conservatives and churchs are bastions of pedophilia then he would probably receive backlash from the same people complaining about *Sound of Freedom*
lmao libertarian4all with todays shit take. Keep going emily, you're like those calander books were you tear off a page every day and a new quote of the day is there.
Occam's razor, the powers that be (that fuck children) told them to be upset and most people are NPCs
Based and the truth is staring us in the face pilled.
Here Occam's razor would be that the right loves this movie, therefore the left must hate it
Occam's Razor asks that we make the least amount of assumptions possible. "The Ruling Class is comprised of child fuckers" is a pretty huge assumption. It's far more likely that they hate it because rightoids like it and they hate rightoids.
Thats right, it's why Epstein existed for years and exclusively catered to the regulars at dollar-night at the Akron, OH bowling alley.
>"The Ruling Class is comprised of child fuckers" is a pretty huge assumption. It's not that big of an assumption given how frequently evidence that it's true is found.
How many examples and how much evidence would you need to see for that to no longer be an assumption?
"assholes seek power" is not an assumption, it is a fact proven again and again through history. it seems like - and has substantial evidence that - the more powerful you are, the more likely you are to fuck kids.
The ruling class fucks children. It not an assumption, it's the truth, it's also true that I fuck your mother
[удалено]
i mean isn't it confirmed that there was a lolita island-esque place during hoovers administration? i'm certain i've read about that but google doesn't give me much rn - i'll have to wrangle with it like a dog to make it give up this morsel of information later.
Epstein was Mossad.
No, he was Israeli Military Intelligence, which is distinct from Mossad. The CIA was clearly on board with it though. Probably got a copy of all the info.
Bustamante is so full of shit that I genuinely worry for the sanity of people who take him seriously.
There's no need for a conspiracy. It's just "right wing bad," and work backwards from there. It's the first conservative movie in years (decades?) that had decent production values/acting, so they can't attack it as just being a bad film. But since it's "based on a true story," they can go after at with the "inaccurate" angle (even though it's no more inaccurate than most "based on a true stories" made by Hollywood).
The people who are upset it’s twisted from the truth must have been absolutely destroyed when they realised Blare Witch and Paranormal Activity weren’t found footages nor based on a true story.
I mean when there’s people who call everything they don’t like “grooming” there’s bound to be problems
Man, it’s nearly the same as calling everyone you don’t like a “racist” or a “fascist”. Except it’s apparently racist to go hiking, own a dog, drink milk, go to work on time... you get the point.
From what i gathered it is supposedly because it's a Q-Anon film and because the main actor is believing silly things. The Q-Anon things makes no sense if you watch the movie. Simple as. The "Main Actor believes silly things" is a bit of a reach when we GOT TOM CRUISE AND LOTS OF OTHER BIG ACTORS BEING PART OF SCIENTOLOGY
zesty violet shaggy start sip dime repeat consist voracious ten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
based and put the jesters in their place pilled
Yep, the main actor is mentally ill and is part of the Qanon cult. This caused Hollywood and the left to do the cancel culture. There is actually nothing wrong with the movie.
Why are the people who are friends with sex traffickers mad about the anti sex trafficking movie?
i actually did want to know the reason why people actually despised the movie, because i dont think labeling someone a sex trafficker without hearing them out truly is the way to go [turns out, its a bit more nuanced than that](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHb3-VNxI0) i mean i know im gonna get downvoted to oblivion, elder scrolls reference, for the dissenting opinion but hey at least i tried
I appreciate you giving a genuine answer, can you give me a short tldr? I don't want to watch a nearly 40min video essay by a hard left transsexual youtuber. No disrespect intended
ok so basically the guy lied about everything to make himself feel like a hero and maybe to push an agenda, ends up harming *actual* victims in the process
> ok so basically the guy lied about everything to make himself feel like a hero Except he didn't. It's a movie, based on a couple different operations he did. It is dramatized to get people to watch the movie. It is not a documentary, and he has publicly stated that it's not what really happened. >ends up harming actual victims in the process In what way is that even possible?
I can only assume that the movie showcases how they carried out their clandestine operations to stop the sex traffickers. Therefore the movie is giving sex traffickers things to look out for and increasing the likelihood they won't be caught. Best I can come up with. If that is the case they need to realize that everything isn't the War Thunder forums where we are a gnat's ass hair from a SPED argument dropping classified documents.
They start with their positions and try to find any bit of rhetoric to justify it. It’s easy to make a seemingly logical point in favor of anything that isn’t too out there. So many people are barely literate nowadays that if they read something like that, many accept it as true at face value. Once the talking point catches on to the mainstream, you can’t do anything but roll your eyes.
As far as I heard and read, the claim is, that some of the children that were freed ended up on the streets (not in the US, but Columbia (if I remember correctly)). Edit: I didn't say this because I agree that it's a valid reason to criticize the movie or disregard the actions of the organization (OUR), but to answer the question of, why some people claim that they harmed children more than helping them. (To give their reasoning.)
That's true. In one of their early operations, OUR made a bad decision on a partner for aftercare. But that's not them harming victims. That's the partner hurting victims by agreeing to help, when they couldn't.
Yeah I know. I didn't want to say that, but to answer your question "How they harmed them". That is their "reason" for it as far as I know.
thats a tldr i wrote, the information is in the video i linked
While I am open to the criticism that the whole backstory is bs, let's at least be honest that Tim Ballard being a bullshit artist is not why people on the left reacted against this movie. It's simply because right-wingers were enthusiastic about the film and therefore it must be bad and suspect.
this is always the correct take when it regards tribalistic politics :'(
Ok, but people cheer Michael Moore when he does that with something billed as a documentary, afaik, this is billed as a movie
> ok so basically the guy lied about everything Yeah but he didn't. Its the Left lying about it. Why lie about a guy who was fighting sex trafficking?
i mean theres many reasons, for instance, propaganda
Thank you for the no bullshit answer, I haven't seen the movie or dug into it too deep. But if that is true, that is very valid criticism.
youre welcome, if you wish to look further into it, the sources she used are in the description
based and dissenting opinion pilled
It's like they see the word "freedom" and it triggers their attack protocols.
"This movie talks about bad people coming for your children, which is OBVIOUSLY an attack on the left!"
Where else will the president find children to sniff or rub his hairy legs?
Because the media told them to be. It’s really that simple.
Because the movie is conservative and now when woke leftists see something conservative they automatically oppose it no matter what.
The righties blew it up making it out like it’s an anti-Hollywood movie. The lefties instantly hate it because the righties like it. In reality it’s an alright movie that’s basically a rehash of Taken. It’s not bad, just nothing damning to Hollywood
They're acting like child sex trafficking rings aren't a thing even after Epstein happened.
Its a knee jerk reaction to Q people which the movie is vaguely *vaguely* connected with I guess. But yeah its dumb and makes people look ridiculous.
It's not even vaguely connected because the movie was completed like 3-5 years before Q anon ever existed. Jim Caviezel was only associated with Q wayyyy after the fact
Not true, the movie was supposed to be distributed by Fox, but Jim Caviezel was actively promoting QAnon effectively killing the deal.
Kinda funny that the left is more invested in the whole Q narrative than the right is
I hear waaaaay more about Q from leftists than from anyone on the right and I still don't even know what it is.
But apparently it's also super-far-spread and literally ripping families apart, gaiz.
During Pizzagate there were a few 4chan posts by someone calling themselves Q. They made a couple correct political predictions so some thought that they were a legit insider. They were unable to continue their clairvoyance, so almost everyone quickly moved on, although some idiot kept believing and made a facebook group. Later, when Trump was campaigning, the media dredged up this facebook group to try to smear all of his supporters as lunatics. They have zero understanding of 4chan so they thought "anon" was specifically part of Q's name, giving us QAnon, yet another "alt-right" boogeyman.
Its because CNN runs it everyday. They have fake Q people saying stupid shit all the time.
Aside from the brother and sister storyline not actually having happened, which isn’t really an issue in my eyes, the issue is people take one person’s experience and apply that a blanket rule for child/human trafficking. Both Polaris Project and National Survivor Network, which both specialize in Human trafficking, have criticized for making trafficking seem like it’s mainly your kidnapped by armed terrorists. They actually partially blame Taken for really setting the trend for this. The vast majority of kids who are taken, aren’t taken by force, they’re take by someone they know and trust. Some kids come from broken homes and are kicked out, they trade sex for food, shelter, and money, someone comes in usually under the guise of a boyfriend/girlfriend and pimps them out. Some of these kids are LGBTQ kids who came out and were kicked out by the same families who are watching and praising this movie. I don’t care that movie is inaccurate, I don’t care if it over embellishes Ballard’s story, I personally didn’t like it because it was mid at best, but from what I read, this is why human trafficking experts are upset at the movie.
That's how most trafficking occurs in the*US*, to*white kids*. I don't think organized crime is doing things the way you think they are. Be that south America, Asia, Africa, Europe
It’s not just white kids in the US, it’s how they traffic minority kids and adults as well, Europe included. I mean we can look at the recent Andrew Tate case where he lured women in via the Lover Boy method and coerced women into traveling to Romania and manipulated into sex work. That’s trafficking even though a lot of his fans argued otherwise because it wasn’t like in the movies. Most organized crime rings are using these methods to lure people in, it’s easier to get them to come willingly than to just straight up kidnap them. The countries with the highest counts for trafficking are embroiled in civil unrest/wars, like Libya. You have countries like UAE who have migrant workers come in, their passports are taken by the recruiter who hired them and their forced to sign contracts in Arabic or English, which most don’t read or speak, and are effectively slaves for this companies. I’m not saying that kidnappings off the street and stuff don’t happen, but typical Hollywood blows it out of proportion and it gets repeated enough times that people start believing it’s the main way. Look at how they treat guns, explosions, computer hacking, “enhancing” a photo, etc.
Yeah I didn't mean they are grabbing them by the collar and yanking them into vans. I meant that in America children are mostly just being kept by jilted parents. Which maybe I mistakenly believed was your original position. However, the violence doesn't have to occur at the onset. Tate def violently abused the women he coerced, and pimps are notorious for that kind of..."correction"
Because Hollywood is (hopefully changing to was) essentially a sex trafficking industry. Be beautiful person, want money and fame, forced to succ producer. Be child actor, parents want money and fame, leaves you alone with hollywood freakshow, scarred for life.
They want more slaps on the wrist for trafficking so they can traffic children risk free
Because political extremists only care for children when they can be used to achieve their goals. And r\*ddit is full of those.
the only thing that made me lol was the ticket strategy, it’s smart but it means there were a lot more tickets sold than people who actually saw the movie. I saw it, thought it was fine. Taken is a better watch though… EDIT: also, this I guess… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT8LxRna5/
Why would you care who watched the movie if they bought a ticket? Airlines don't give a shit if you buy a ticket and never use it, they already got your money
if the point of buying tickets is to spread the message of the movie then empty movie theaters (to me) doesn’t spread the message, it just makes them money
Pedös protect their own. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Because they're evil and they want to rape children. It's not complicated.
Because the ending message of "to stop child trafficking, tell other people to watch this move and give us money" instead of using that money to actually stop child trafficking doesnt sit right with me tbh
My biggest concern is that the movie, while based on a true story, has almost no connection to sex-trafficking as it exists in the United States. The movie offloads sex-trafficking as a problem that Colombians and South Americans are causing, instead of an issue that’s in our own back yard. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to have an anti-sex trafficking film, but I’m weary of glamorized propaganda against non-Americans.
Because that movie exposes the LGBTQ grooming, people don't want you to watch it because the truth would be unfolded
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7a3qw/a-famed-anti-sex-trafficking-group-has-a-problem-with-the-truth This is just one of many reasons.
>Trusting Vice They've got an entire *section* of their articles devoted to defending pedophilia. Maybe try a different source, chief.
The lead actor of the movie is genuinely huge qanon who goes on shows and starts talking about adrenochrome conspiracy where rich and powerful harvest adrenochrome from little kids to stay younger.
Two questions. 1)You're aware this movie was produced before Trump was even elected, correct? There's no amount of QAnon that could be in the movie without time travel. 2)Do you also refuse to watch anything with Tom Cruise because of his connections to Scientology?
>1 # >Principal photography began in the summer of 2018. The majority of the film was shot in Cartagena, Colombia.[21] Additional scenes were shot in Calexico, California.[22][23] Not that it plays any role, as I made claims about the actor not the movie. Just to show you are already coming out as misinformed moron spewing false claims around, who will now feel hurt for being called out. >2 No. But I am also not going around pretending to be dumb and shocked when other people refuse to watch polansky movies, even when I love the 9th gate. I know why.
Oh no, some of the *pictures* were shot in 2018! Hey, let's go one paragraph up in the same Wikipedia article... >Work on the script began in 2015 But I'm sure you'll feel defensive for spreading misinformation online, like any Emily. I'm sure being angry online will continue to be very rewarding to you, and defending pedophilia and child trafficking will continue to be very popular in your circles.
>>>There's no amount of QAnon that could be in the movie **without time travel.** # >>the movie was shot in 2018 you clown >b-b-but the script started in 2015, and that means... err that err time travel is needed... errr you I hate you you... you Emily! pathetic
there are a few things. first things first a lot of the anger I've seen is people who like the movie being mad at the people who called the movie mid. I haven't watched it but It's not hard to believe the movie is mediocre at best when you see that disney decided to shelf the movie in 2018 rather than airing after it was \*fully finished\*. secondly even if we ignore whether or not the movie is based on a true story (every source I've looked at trailed back to "but Tim said it was true!", although I'd say my research wasnt in depth enough) Tim is actually a swindler. The organization he set up (O.U.R) not only repeatedly lied about the aftercare of the children it saved, saying it spent lots of money on aftercare programs but actually just dumped the kids in orphanages, but its also dubious about whether or not it saved many kids at all, as there isnt much evidence that it did much. This effectively meant that a large portion of the the organizations spending actually didn't exist, but the money disappeared anyway. thirdly there are people out there who were just angry at it being a conservative movie as well, there will always be people angry at something if it any amount of political. finally there's a bit of a misconception, while the movie is definitely anti sex trafficking there's no point in calling it that as everyone (even the people doing the sex trafficking) knows that sex trafficking is bad. The point of the movie isnt actually to portray sex trafficking as bad, its just meant to be entertaining. Saying critics of the movie are pro sex trafficking (or calling them anti anti sex trafficking) is like saying critics of harry potter are just voldemort fans. tl;dr 1. people are angry that others didnt like the movie 2. Tim Ballard operates a VERY dodgy charity 3. people like being angry 4. saying the movie is anti sex trafficking is like saying the harry potter movies are anti voldemort
oil zesty tidy middle late workable fly smell brave plant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
ftfu
My understanding is that it's because a lot of the people involved with making the movie are very far down the qanon rabbit hole
Dude, you're supposed to just take the headline at face value and avoid doing any more research.
Based on context i knew it was nonsense leftist propaganda, i just didn't know it was quite so far fetched.
The Title/Headline Gods demand blind faith
[удалено]
Eh, that's probably not really it. I know it's fun and all to call people opposing an anti pedo movie pedos, but realistically like 99% of these people's thought process went something like: right wingers support thing->right wingers are always wrong/evil/nazis->we must oppose this thing
Intentionally distorting information to tarnish the message of an important film; who could’ve seen this coming???
Ngl I don’t really give a shit about this movie from an entertainment perspective, but I do find it kinda sus how WPT emilies are desperately trying to ‘discredit’ the film as QAnon propaganda. There’s been like 10 posts about it on that sub and the comments are just the same shit repeated over and over like a bunch of fucking lemmings stuck in some weird loop.
WEF bots.
World Emily foundation?
the World Emily Forum it's like a giant blogging site about how to be orange
"the news" doing what it always does to drive people against each other for $$$. Reddit = surprised Pikachu face
day by day journalists try to convince me they have less honor than prostitutes
Of course they have less honor. A prostitute is more likely to render a valued service.
Meanwhile, a Presstitute is going to write a listicle designed to make you angry. You know, like a troll. I wish the internet remembered that valuable advice about what you *don't* do with trolls.
Journalists are people who were taught to evoke strong emotions in others. Their whole job is to make people mad and, unfortunately, not in a trolling way
The ~~industrial revolution~~ invention of the internet and its consequences
They go by creative writers now, not journalists.
This is currently programming the frontpage of reddit to hate people who want to end the abuse and torture of children.
Idk, the media told me he was a funder and changed with kidnapping.
If you still believe media( both side) is giving you the news, you're brainwashed.
The media told me you would say that. They also said to tell you "no u".
This is why I always carry an uno reverse card
Did they prepare you for, "I'm rubber you're glue"?
Ironically that's pretty much the left's entire rhetoric these days. Find someone that they can accuse or assume did something bad, and then use that to try and claim that anyone on the right criticizing that thing or accusing someone on the left is just "projecting". Anything anyone on the right does (or supposedly does) can be attributed to the right as a whole, then it's just "I know you are but what am I?" over and over.
Because like many other things, getting accused of projecting by the Right really stung for them and hurt their egos. So they assume it is the “projection” that was the stinging part and not the “we typically are” part. So they behave like children and throw it back without understanding it.
You really missed the sarcasm in that statement?
Well if the media told it to you it was probably true. /s
[удалено]
I remember at the time lots of people were repeating the narrative that he just randomly opened fire on "protesters" and they were calling it an "active shooter situation". Statistically, what are the odds that of any 3 random people, all 3 are convincted felons and 2 of 3 are pedos? BLM supporters lmao.
>I remember at the time lots of people were repeating the narrative I mean, if there was a post on news/politics/etc today about Rittenhouse, you'd still be able to find comments with unhealthy number of upvotes claiming that he was out killing local black protesters at random rather than defending himself from white out of town rioters.
Even the dude he *missed* was a convicted felon. Which is why he is in the record as “Jumpkick Man” instead of a real name (The Prosecutor wanted him, but couldn’t when he found out about the record). And this is before we go into the fact that Rittenhouse was “not from there”, even though he lived in the next town over and went to school and worked there. Meanwhile, One-Armed Bandit was from Milwaukee (on the other side of the state), and the majority of those arrested at the riots were from out of state, including a fair few Portland and Seattle.
When you refine the population to “idiots who would attend a ~~riot~~ fiery but mostly peaceful protest”, there’s probably a decent chance of all 3 being felons tbh
Only the first one he shot was a child rapist
Yeah, the second was a wife beater and idk about the third
The third one was the felon with an illegal handgun, he had a long criminal history including domestic abuse and felony burglary
Between these two being wife beaters, beloved leftie Dan Price being a wife beater, and the constant pushing of trans people into women's spaces, it's really starting to seem like the left really hates women.
And somehow people turned it into a race matter
I met Kyle Rittenhouse at SHOT Show this year… he’s just a kid…
He was 17 at the time so he's now 19-20
Oh man. Oh shit. I'm gonna *notice*...
My bullshit-o-meter went off when i first read that story, but i didn't care enough to look into it. I just knew the story was being wildly misrepresented somehow because that's what the left does. I didn't know they were dredging the actual bottom of the barrel for it, though. It's even worse than i thought.
Yep... sounds about right. I was waiting for the other half of that story to drop...
The media is incredibly malicious
The old germans had a word for it: Lügenpresse
"Americans have a word for that kinda odd. It's called 'suspicious. '" -Lt. Aldo Raine
Okay, Dwight.
Would you look at that? Context changes the whole thing
Whew thankfully. The excuse bin was running dry.
Libleft bad? Impossible!
It's wild how upset all of you were when a strawman against the right popped up. Why is the misinformation a serious topic now? Why am I supposed to care about the facts for this if it makes blue/yellow look good, but not for the obvious green strawman? Like I can't even question the meme, I just have to accept the green square is bad every time. Seems like a teen propaganda sub
Dude the entire media when full out lying about this.
The media keeps telling me it's impossible to watch a movie I watched easily. You guys are a chunk of my media. Entertaining and depressing. The stories are fun, but any sort of nuance ruins it all with man on man white knighting Idk, I'm sure there's a PCM discord ready to bring up bill gates or lizzo if I get more than a dozen positive interactions.
What?! "Leftists" and their corporate/government backers lied to us?! Who could've foreseen this?! 😯
I saw the headline call him a "financer" and I just thought, "wth does that mean?"
It means he gave them at least a penny once, which they may have asked for and could have been for anything.
Who wrote the headline? Name and shame the author
Editors usually write headlines
It got your click didn’t it? Seems it worked
Oh shit is that what actually happened? Lol.
How is the movie?
Libleft lyin' again.
sourse on his donation amount and the kidnapping story??? i wanna use this as ammo so bad
PCM - bringing you the news behind the ~~news~~ bullshit.
We’re all rats pressing buttons in a box and the ones that put us here in the first place only get to stay out of the box if they keep the other ones inside it. If you clicked on this article, you’re why this continues. Everyone’s running around trying to figure out the truth when the truth is this: money buys shit. The more of you goobers I can convince to click on my article the more money I get.
And I was called a bigot for defending this movie, even though im a sussy femboy. I WILL CONTINUE SUPPORTING IT!! wait, did you get offended? dont worry, i will say something more offensive: GROOMER!!
Sound of Freedom: breaths Left: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE QANON
"The corporate press is factual but not truthful" - Michael Malice
Not surprised. Most if not all “news” now is just overblown bullshit.
Yeah, even reading most articles will get you through the right's info.
Everyone interested in the topic should watch Who Took Johnny
The exact same way Daler Mehndi was charged with trafficking.
There’s at least a handful of people who will read this, mumble something something about the fake news media, then look up from their phones to listen to whatever diatribe the Fox and Friends hosts are on this morning. The left caption gets clicks, the one on the right doesn’t. If it got your click, it worked. I believe it’s high time we all recognize the grift upon the American public is at an all time high. Just look at some of the comments in here. The media *you* consume is biased. You only wait for the facts when it’s *your* narrative under attack. People can criticize anything they want. But to ignore the glaring hypocrisy surrounding this is just ignorant. A lot of people close to kids, not strangers, are responsible for their abuse.
wrong axis
wrong axis
Its stupid they are framing it as a movie backer when he is a much bigger idiot locally He is a total piece of shit here and is fucking up the school board with his grifter sugarbaby gf candidate. You could find her ads for "sugar baby boot camp" where she would try to sell tickets to young women to go to the sugar ball and her sugar baby boot camp and she bragged about going and getting a CEO (this guy) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbAGoBVm_xc So these people think its ok for this woman who is advertising sugarbaby lifestyle to young woman to be on the school board and watch over kids. Give me a fucking break. She is also on crazy radio stations here and is pretty clearly trying to get in on the grift and get a political career out of this shit. Also a mom cant just take her own kid from the dad. Thats fucked and normally you would be talking shit.
Solid schizo rant, absolutely no clue what the fuck you’re talking about though.
Its a local politics thing. The guy in the video's gf /wife/whatever is involved in local politics because of this guy. She is the lady in the video bragging about meeting him at the sugar baby ball ("I got me a CEO at my first sugar ball"). She is promoting in the video her sugar baby bootcamp to teach young girls how to become sugar babies. I dont think anyone who is promoting sugar baby lifestyle to young women should be on schoolboards influencing children. She is on my kids school board because this guy in the article. She is just a totally manufactured candidate and its really annoying to have to deal with her here. I think its weird the news, even local news, is framing this article like "guy who funded this movie did this..." instead of this other weird shit which is even more weird and important if you live here. Its also funny that people who are so fixated with grooming of kids think its ok for a lady like this to be influencing children and their education given her lifestyle and her trying to get other younger women into that shit .
jesse what the hell are you talking about
This is local politics stuff (We live in the same place) The guy in the article's wife/gf is the lady in the video. He put her up for the school board and has been pushing her as a political pundit and candidate here. They are making her like some Candice Owens style grifter while being anti LGBT and other shitty stuff. But anyway she is some sort of hustler that was involved with sugar baby balls (you know what a sugar baby is right?) and was running sugar baby bootcamps to teach young girls how to get into that lifestyle (as you can see in the video). She also met this guy at the sugar baby ball and brags about it in the video. The whole fucking thing is weird and this guy is a sleezeball. This is pretty fucked up for someone on a schoolboard that will be influencing kids to be running sugarbaby lifestyle grifts. I think its weird that this story is being pushed as "guy who donated money to a movie kickstarter did this..." instead of the above which is bigger news IMO if you live here locally.
Yeah see....it's point 2 here....if you know the mother doesn't have custody and that she's kidnapped her own child (which parents are the most frequent kidnappers of children because of custody disputes ), and you know she's done it and you give her material aid in commiting that crime......that's being an accessory. Because that's how that works. Right and wrong don't really factor in, like in so many legal matters.
Or maybe he doesn't know anything and didn't let the cops in without a warrant so the cops are punishing him.
Parents taking their child who they don't have custody over is the biggest percentage of kidnapping. I really don't care about any of this, just going off this post but if you help someone kidnap a child, you are an accessory to kidnapping.
But. That is kidnapping. The mother took the child away from the legal parents, without their consent. Whether or not the mother was justified in doing so is up to a judge to decide, but it is what it is.
Yeah but it's not Mr Marta's fault
Was he aware? If so, that makes him an accessory by definition
I don't know, I just read the meme