The "last movie I saw" thread

[Northwestcoug]

Counterpoint: OUR barely addresses the problem of child trafficking by rescuing children and releasing them into an environment where they're likely to be preyed upon again. And at worst they may even be creating demand.

Anti-trafficking work is not a punch-pow battle between good and evil. It means finding kids who are being trafficked and getting them into comprehensive aftercare. It means actively creating a world where fewer and fewer kids are trafficked—the consistent labor of prevention. It’s passing safe harbor, affirmative defense, and vacatur laws, designed to provide safe transitions for victims or help them avoid the criminal justice system. Anti-trafficking work is providing support for gay and trans kids kicked out of their homes and therefore exposed to heightened risk of being trafficked. It’s pushing for racial justice. It’s writing and voting for policies that provide a safety net and economic certainty.

Anti-trafficking work, the kind that really works, doesn’t have an immediate satisfaction. It’s slow and steady. There are no starring turns.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/05/sex-trafficking-raid-operation-underground-railroad.html

[Jeff Lebowski]

I also disagree with the notion that we shouldn't attempt to tackle the problem of sex trafficking.

I am really curious who is promoting this notion. Who exactly are you disagreeing with?

[Donuthole]

I believe Shaka is referring to what I said re sex-trafficking, i.e. to the extent the problem exists, it is unsolvable. I believe that to be true. I'm not pro sex trafficking, of course. We should (and do) have laws against it, and we should vigorously prosecute those who violate those laws. But I stand by my position that the problem, to the extent it exists, is unsolvable, much like drugs. To the extent there is a market for illicit drugs, people will find a way to get illicit drugs. To the extent there is a market for underage sex, people will find a way to get that. We are not going to stamp it out completely. My problem with Ballard/OUR is that they want us to believe that sex trafficking is as pervasive as drugs. It is not. It is not something that exists on a wide scale basis in the US. That it exists at all is horrific. But it doesn't exist in the US on any scale that merits more than the attention of normal law enforcement.

Ballard is a grifter because he promulgates lies about the pervasiveness of the issue, then uses the fear created by those lies to line his pockets. Whether they expressly state it or not, Ballard/OUR also lean into the idea that there is some secret underground cabal amongst Hollywood/DC elites that hundreds if not thousands of people know about and they allow it to exist to facilitate the sex trafficking industry. This is stupid QAnonsense.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well said, DH.

By the way, we are about 2 hrs into Avatar - The Way of Water and I wan't to scratch my eyes out. If you thought the first plot was absurd, you won't believe this one. I am biting my tongue because my son wants to finish it (the ocean shots are mesmerizing), but what a dud.

[Northwestcoug]

Well said, DH.

By the way, we are about 2 hrs into Avatar - The Way of Water and I wan't to scratch my eyes out. If you thought the first plot was absurd, you won't believe this one. I am biting my tongue because my son wants to finish it (the ocean shots are mesmerizing), but what a dud.

Yeah, this was beautiful in the theater. But an absolutely pointless movie which ran at least an hour too long.

[Shaka]

I believe Shaka is referring to what I said re sex-trafficking, i.e. to the extent the problem exists, it is unsolvable. I believe that to be true. I'm not pro sex trafficking, of course.

I don't think you are. I've actually appreciated your posts on it.

[Bo Diddley]

Well said, DH.

By the way, we are about 2 hrs into Avatar - The Way of Water and I wan't to scratch my eyes out. If you thought the first plot was absurd, you won't believe this one. I am biting my tongue because my son wants to finish it (the ocean shots are mesmerizing), but what a dud.

I saw the first Avatar a couple years back. What a dud. If the second one is any worse, I'll never watch it.

[Northwestcoug]

Tom Cruise is a great actor. And he never seems to age.

There is a difference between an actor with weird beliefs and a movie based on a story and organization that are questionable. YMMV.

Apropos of this. Scientology is every bit as whack as Qanon. But the only reason we know Cruise believes in the crazy is because of leaked videos. Caviezel, on the other hand, freely gives it out for the asking:

Embedded Tweet

Props to not backing down on what you believe I guess.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Apropos of this. Scientology is every bit as whack as Qanon. But the only reason we know Cruise believes in the crazy is because of leaked videos. Caviezel, on the other hand, freely gives it out for the asking:

Props to not backing down on what you believe I guess.

Holy cow. He is bonkers.

[Northwestcoug]

Wow I picked the wrong crazy Caviezel tweet to post. Here he is doing his level best to destroy any good will for his movie:

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

I also disagree with the notion that we shouldn't attempt to tackle the problem of sex trafficking.

I think the only disagreement here is whether Ballard actually does anything at all related to 'tackling sex trafficking.' A lot of government agencies and resources are dedicated to stemming this kind of especially egregious crime, and while none of them hold fund raisers that tug at your heart strings, they surprisingly do their work without publishing every arrest, conviction, operation, etc. By the way, the majority of sex trafficking happens to women in relationships with their traffickers- some even married. Dramatizing crimes against children like this is a big red flag.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well said, DH.

By the way, we are about 2 hrs into Avatar - The Way of Water and I wan't to scratch my eyes out. If you thought the first plot was absurd, you won't believe this one. I am biting my tongue because my son wants to finish it (the ocean shots are mesmerizing), but what a dud.

OK, now that I have finished it, I can say that the last 1 hr is way better than the first 2 hrs.

[Shaka]

I think the only disagreement here is whether Ballard actually does anything at all related to 'tackling sex trafficking.' A lot of government agencies and resources are dedicated to stemming this kind of especially egregious crime, and while none of them hold fund raisers that tug at your heart strings, they surprisingly do their work without publishing every arrest, conviction, operation, etc. By the way, the majority of sex trafficking happens to women in relationships with their traffickers- some even married. Dramatizing crimes against children like this is a big red flag.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but if the first half of that movie is true then Ballard has actually been instrumental in freeing dozens of children. That of course was before he started OUR.

I don't have a problem with the fundraisers or the emotional appeals for money. Most charities do that to a degree. Sally Struthers was the master of it.

[falafel]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing but if the first half of that movie is true then Ballard has actually been instrumental in freeing dozens of children. That of course was before he started OUR.

I don't have a problem with the fundraisers or the emotional appeals for money. Most charities do that to a degree. Sally Struthers was the master of it.

I imagine there is some point at which you would begin to have a problem with fundraising, depending on how much of the money is going to the actual cause and how much is just going to the fundraiser. Is there a line for you? I don't know what mine is, but I'm guessing that (hypothetically) most people would disapprove of an organization that raised millions by crusading against child-sex trafficking but only spent 10% of the funds on that actual goal vs. 90% going to the leadership.

[Shaka]

I imagine there is some point at which you would begin to have a problem with fundraising, depending on how much of the money is going to the actual cause and how much is just going to the fundraiser. Is there a line for you? I don't know what mine is, but I'm guessing that (hypothetically) most people would disapprove of an organization that raised millions by crusading against child-sex trafficking but only spent 10% of the funds on that actual goal vs. 90% going to the leadership.

There is a line. However, that's different than cheesy appeals for money. I have no idea how much OUR spends on admin/payroll vs actually taking down human traffickers. I haven't given them money in years so I guess it's something I should find out.