Started By
Message

re: Trying to stop child trafficking is now "Qanon-adjacent" and "paranoid"

Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:38 pm to
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
151403 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:38 pm to
I wonder if NurseCovidKaren will copy off his paper like in the movie board.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
435758 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:38 pm to
I specifically responded to one post to correct it.

The biggest problem with discussing this issue is how words are used, b/c they're often used dishonestly (and then a doubling down of shame-based responses to try to stop people from weeding out the truth).

That's why I responded specifically to that link, b/c it while the report is talking about giving minor's the legal authority to consent to sex, it's never stated that this was for partners of the age of majority and, further, it's heavily implied this is about minor:minor sex.

But, since it says those words, dishonest actors run with a narrative that fits in with a worldview and voila.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
151403 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:41 pm to
You should get a job with Snopes or FactCheckDotOrg. Maybe even join the old #AttackWatch?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
435758 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:41 pm to
quote:

Why not just say yes this is going on, everybody knows it is, and we've got to stop it.

Because dishonest arguments are used to inflate the impact of this activity, especially domestically. To tie it into the OP, is anyone disputing that the Q stuff did not rely heavily on allegations of powerful people trafficking minors for sex?

quote:

Why dismiss it as Q-Anon paranoia

Why did Q-Anon paranoia dishonestly amplify this issue and lie about it? That goes both ways.

Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
435758 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

You should get a job with Snopes or FactCheckDotOrg. Maybe even join the old #AttackWatch?

Why? I'm more of an independent, grassroots kind of guy.

For example, would you feel stupid parroting an argument that was a compete lie? I mean after the fact, when your ignorance was shown to you?
This post was edited on 7/7/23 at 1:43 pm
Posted by Corso
Atlanta
Member since Feb 2020
11520 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 6:38 pm to
quote:

Why did Q-Anon paranoia dishonestly amplify this issue and lie about it? That goes both ways.



Was Q-Anon mentioned in the movie? If it wasn't then it's irrelevant and this author is just slapping labels on it like the media always does
Posted by jimmy the leg
Member since Aug 2007
37226 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 6:51 pm to
Is Charles Bramesco pedo adjacent?
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
72895 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:09 pm to
quote:

5400 pages of rambling fiction from Bama posters....damn I miss the Q thread


This is why you are groomers.

Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
66437 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:11 pm to
quote:

Trying to stop child trafficking is now "Qanon-adjacent" and "paranoid"


The people who think this are the same ones wanting kids to be indoctrinated in cross-dressing homosexual fetishism.
Posted by dgnx6
Member since Feb 2006
72895 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:13 pm to
quote:

Because dishonest arguments are used to inflate the impact of this activity, especially domestically. To tie it into the OP, is anyone disputing that the Q stuff did not rely heavily on allegations of powerful people trafficking minors for sex?


Because a rich dude died in prison having been arrested for sex trafficking and now his confidant is in jail.

And the entire anti trump crowd uses Epstein's ties to Trump as Tump bad.

So… it’s not just a Q thing.
Posted by MrFreakinMiyagi
Reseda
Member since Feb 2007
19094 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:14 pm to
It would be nice if movie reviews would focus on telling us if a movie is good or not

But the “Q was right! We’re so smart!” / “Hollywood deep state pedos gonna kill Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel cuz of this movie!” threads around here kinda frick up the whole “why are they going there?” argument

Looks to me like a Zero Dark 30 type flick, but centered around a mission to save a sex trafficked kid. The retards here made me think it was just another 3000 Mules-type bullshite propaganda movie



Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
171257 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:21 pm to
quote:

But the “Q was right! We’re so smart!” / “Hollywood deep state pedos gonna kill Mel Gibson and Jim Caviezel cuz of this movie!” threads around here kinda frick up the whole “why are they going there?” argument



This isn't the Movie/TV board, guy.
Posted by MrFreakinMiyagi
Reseda
Member since Feb 2007
19094 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:25 pm to
quote:

This isn't the Movie/TV board, guy.

Those threads weren’t on the MTV board, buddy
Posted by stout
Porte du Lafitte
Member since Sep 2006
171257 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:26 pm to
quote:

Those threads weren’t on the MTV board, buddy



I guess I am missing your point. Apologies
This post was edited on 7/7/23 at 7:28 pm
Posted by Bourre
Da Parish
Member since Nov 2012
20902 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:32 pm to
So you’re here to play hall monitor and deflect for pedophiles? Can’t say that I’m surprised, all of you groomers are the same
Posted by SouthEasternKaiju
SouthEast... you figure it out
Member since Aug 2021
29651 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:36 pm to
MAPS belong on a wall. Preferably nailed & hung up high.
This post was edited on 7/7/23 at 7:37 pm
Posted by USMCguy121
Northshore
Member since Aug 2021
6332 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:37 pm to
Paranoid huh

its so paranoid they reported in it 5 years ago




What changed besides pedo in chief?

This post was edited on 7/7/23 at 7:39 pm
Posted by ItNeverRains
Offugeaux
Member since Oct 2007
27528 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:37 pm to
The media is the enemy
Posted by Toomer Deplorable
Team Bitter Clinger
Member since May 2020
19297 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:37 pm to
quote:


That's why I responded specifically to that link, b/c it while the report is talking about giving minor's the legal authority to consent to sex, it's never stated that this was for partners of the age of majority and, further, it's heavily implied this is about minor:minor sex. [

But, since it says those words, dishonest actors run with a narrative that fits in with a worldview and voila.




It is not “dishonest” to note that the ICJ report also made no distinction between prepubescent children and sexually mature teenagers. An 18 year old “seducing” a 10 year old is a predatory sex act. Yet as usual, you are once again exhibiting the very behavior you criticize in others.
This post was edited on 7/7/23 at 7:39 pm
Posted by narddogg81
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
20553 posts
Posted on 7/7/23 at 7:38 pm to
That author definitely is a pedophile
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 49
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 49Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram