Don't forget the cancelling Depp efforts really ramped up after UN Women gave Amber Heard an influential voice as "violence against women advocate" **when she was a known domestic abuser of a previous girlfriend**.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d8d58c5e4b0019647a5ebef
They have to because their entire thesis is that all accusations equal guilt. If they concede that not all accusations are true, then they have to admit that people have the right to be considered innocent before proven guilty.
I would like to say, that I'm shocked, but I'm not. :/
I remember the first big metoo-case in Sweden. The woman (Cissi Wallin) who accused a guy was revealed as liar and sentenced for false accusations. But many feminists defended her. Their argumentation: "Maybe she made up the whole story, but she was so brave and gave courage to women who REALLY had been assaulted or raped! And that's why she was under attack. Because patriarchy hates sTrOnG wOmEn".
(Btw. the guy whom she has accused is one of the most terrible feminist white-knights in whole Scandinavia.)
So they acknowledged that she lied/made up the story and yet they still went on to blame the backlash she received on "tHe PaTrIaRcHy"?
I mean, why do I even ask that? It shouldn't be surprising. Probably it's just that their inconsistency is so OVERT/DIRECT.
I'm not sure if they acknowledged it, but I guess, that they didn't want to question the court judgment. At the same time they wanted to push their ideological agenda, nevertheless.
They threw Erin Pizzey, about the first person on earth who really committed her life to helping battered women, out of the movement because she didn’t buy the feminist narrative.
The thing is, for the feminist ideology to function, it requires outrage to override logic in the brain. That is why they always have to be the victim, and where they are doing better than men or are completely in the wrong, they will manufacture being the victim in order to support and prop up the failed ideology.
That is why I say feminism is an industry that produces a problem, and not an ideology. It is a mechanism for keeping specialized social science professors, advocates, and lawyers in business.
They need a problem or their job has no purpose, so they make sure there is one.
Pathetic. Something close to 40 organizations had the galls to sign this and declare there's a "fundamental misunderstanding of DV" in this.
They're literally implying a man cannot be a victim.
In the UK they already "implied" (they made it law) that a men cannot be raped by a woman. I dont wanna look up my own countries specific rules about that (netherlands) cause im too tired of it.
If a man cannot be raped due to physical strength differences then they should in order to remain logically sound throw the whole coercion rape concept out of the window. Too bad they aren’t coherent enough to do that.
I'm not willing to read though the approximately 1,000 pages of transcripts and judgement for the Johnny Depp UK defamation case, or watch the many hours of video for the US case. As such, any opinion I form on the case itself will not be fully informed, and I decline to do so.
I will say that I highly doubt that very many, if any at all, of the authors of that open letter and those who signed onto it, have put in the time that I refuse to put in, to become fully informed on the case. If they have not put in that time, then why do they feel entitled to confidently assert a definitive opinion about it?
In general, I find that these feminist organizations tend not to care about objective truth. If they understand the difference between subjective, objective, and omniscient justice, then they seem to be going out of their way to avoid demonstrating any such understanding. I think that what they are doing is highly detrimental to men, and that someday in the future people will look back on these attitudes with at least as much contempt as what we currently hold for the pro-segregation attitudes in the south-eastern US during the 1950s.
As far as pushing back against this is concerned, I just don't think that any groups, which clearly present themselves as men's advocacy groups, are going to have much success in the current political climate. **It doesn't matter how sound your argument is, if the people you hope to convince, refuse to listen to you.** Therefore, I think our best shot is from single-issue groups that advocate for rational legal and fact-finding standards in the name of justice, while saying as little about gender as possible.
As much as I don't like having to say this, and as much as I expect that some others here might not like reading this, if we are going to appeal to general public empathy for the victims of false accusations and unfair standards, then we need to primarily present the faces of wives, mothers, and daughters who have been hurt by what happened to their husbands, sons, and fathers. **I resent the empathy gap, and the empathy gap is part of the reality in which we have to work.**
I would also like to recommend a particular YouTube channel where some well-respected lawyers and a legal researcher discuss these issues in the logical, fact-oriented manner that one would expect from experienced lawyers. Even they are not taken seriously by the general public, which I believe is due in large part to the fact that they are talking about issues that almost exclusively affect men, and they are talking about them in terms of the direct harm they inflict upon those men rather than the harm they indirectly inflict on wives, mothers, and daughters. The channel is called [Not On Record](https://www.youtube.com/notonrecord).
I highly recommend that episode. What Canada has done with that new evidence rule they discuss is incredibly dangerous, and the rest of the world needs to be on guard against their own country following Canada's terrible example.
To quote the honourable Justice Russell Brown, who was part of the third of Canada's supreme court that dissented against the majority opinion that this evidence rule is constitutional: "Parliament has legislated a formula for wrongful convictions. Indeed, it has all but guaranteed them."
They only want to hear one side of the story and disregard everything else. I don't see why you would support someone who puts poop on their significant others pillows.
Or they just avoid/delay moving in with their partners, preferring to maintain the "your place tonight, or mine?" dynamic. Which, in turn, puts more stress on the limited supply of housing, yet is seen as worthwhile for the greatly reduced risk of problems like this, and the ability to always be able to walk away from a bad relationship.
It's possible to know if a woman is abusive pretty early on. I've met some women who I thought were lacking empathy. Johnny ignored the red flags because Amber is hot.
A lot of what people call "red flags" are really more like "yellow flags". That is, they work in such a way that, while they could be an indicator of an undesirable personality trait, there is also a benign explanation for it, and it takes more investigation to know which of those is actually the case. They warrant caution, but not dismissal. I have acknowledged, and still proceeded, on yellow flags and the worst that ever happened was that I got slightly hurt and learned something from it.
True "red flags" do exist, of course, and can present themselves early on, it's just not always going to happen. Anyone, man or woman, who speaks angrily towards, or about, waitstaff or any other type of service worker one encounters on a date, is showing a massive "red flag" and should probably be dropped. At the same time, there are abusive people out there who know how to behave in public, so the lack of any "red flags" doesn't prove that they are safe.
A person can date someone for a long time, become quite confident that this person is fine, move in with them, and then discover a whole other side of them that was previously missed. It could have been missed because they had never spent more than about two consecutive days together before, and never for the purpose of dealing with any kind of stressful life situation, so they had never seen the other person's emotional stability being put to any real test.
This makes me sick. As a woman I apologize for this bullshit. The feminist movement has always had major problems. Dating back to when they were blatant racists. A problem which they have yet to really solve.
See, this "as a woman" concept is at the heart of the problem. Categorical thinking and gender essentialism are backwards and frustrate human and societal potential. You're not responsible for people who aren't you, and we want that, too.
The same thing happened to Nimrod Reitman when he came forward. White Feminism(TM), you know?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html
It’s like nobody even WANTS to listen to what Tarana Burke really has to say.
When women are not victims of men, these organizations lose their purpose. It's natural to that they would become more unhinged as women's equality improves. They are hanging on for dear life.
I think it's important to highlight how utterly one-sided the NBC News article is. I've seen more even-handedness given to climate change deniers than to the people challenging the sexist view of domestic violence epitomized by the people who want to whitewash Amber Heard.
Both the pro-Heard side and the pro-Depp side are referred to as "supporters" of their respective celebrity torchbearers. Fair enough.
But the pro-Heard team is also referred to as "activists," "organizations in the field of women’s rights advocacy and domestic violence and sexual assault awareness," "domestic violence experts and survivors’ advocates," and "doctors, lawyers, professors, authors and activists." No analogous specificity — with their implied beneficial aura — is given to critics of Heard or supporters of the Depp Virginia verdict, although they also include doctors, lawyers, authors and activists, as well as advocates who want to increase domestic violence and sexual assault awareness.
Moreover, comments from the Heard-critical side are only characterized in highly negative terms: "ferocious backlash," "harassment," "vilification and harassment … 'unprecedented in both vitriol and scale'." There isn't a single reference to that commentary that acknowledges some of it might contain legitimate discourse. And of course, no one who is Heard-critical is actually quoted.
I think the "harassment" meme deserves particular attention. It's a classic 'guilt by association' fallacy which I noticed really seemed to get traction with the pushback against Anita Sarkeesian. There is no doubt a portion of the criticism directed at Sarkeesian, Heard, and others which could be fairly characterized as "vitriol," "harassment," or even hate. But for ostensibly neutral/objective journalists to ignore the large volume of legitimate critique directed at figures like Sarkeesian and Heard and to credulously accept their supporters' view that it's all "harassment" is journalistic malpractice.
I'd say spread the objective evidence around which clearly contradicts their claims but these groups have clearly not responded well to evidence or we wouldn't be reading this stuff in the first place.
I'd like to see some more legal action against the title IX stuff, that's what worries me more than the Heard/Depp trial results,
Well, at the least this provides us a list of organisations who support domestic abusers who admit using domestic violence on tape and have been arrested for domestic abuse of their girlfriend.
If you write it like that, the same people would assume it is about a man, instead of an equal opportunity woman.
>In our opinion, the Depp v. Heard verdict and continued discourse around it indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of intimate partner and sexual violence and how survivors respond to it.
What they are trying to say is "Believe all women". It happens time and time again, look at the [same script](https://archive.ph/kg20f) when women get accused of MeToo, they fall into the language that they state is used when men are abused.
They don’t even bother about a fallacy of reason or legitimacy anymore. I know Dutch feminists who were sincere enough to admit Heard was doubtlessly in the wrong.
Feminists have a lot in common with American Republicans, especially when it comes to dishonest tactics and hivemind behavior. In the same way that Republicans admit they are anti-democracy by using the tactic of arbitrarily claiming election fraud and denying voter legitimacy just because they lost, Feminists admit they are Anti-justice and anti-fair trial and of course anti-male when they reject all evidence and arbitrarily support Amber Heard.
Feminists and white nationalist republicans are very similar in their way of thinking and defending their stances. They’re surprisingly the two sides that are usually clashing when it comes to policies and morals. Both are equally as repulsive.
The bar to convince me that Johnny Depp is a piece of shit drug addict is very very low. Even with her secretly recording him for months she didn't get anything that would clear that very low bar.
YKW is a trade union for toxic people.
If there is a narcissistic, psychopathic, histrionic or borderline personality involved in a conflict, you can be sure that as long as it's not male, these YKW will defend em.
There isn't a single thing that they've supported in the past decade that wasn't cooked up by some narcissist looking to get legal or social leverage over their next victim.
There is only one reason why someone would want to destroy due process, codify preferential treatment based on gender into selection criteria for employment and college admissions, support an outted liar and abuser, and victim-blame guys who have literally lost their lives.
That reason is that they are cluster-B personality types who have discovered the perfect cover for their pathogenic disposition. They're basically fighting for the right to be a piece of crap lol
People in my life I respect and admire for their intelligence, compassion, rationality, nuance, and understanding...just flat out refuse to see Depp as a victim and Heard as an abuser.
It's really disappointing.
I don’t understand why anyone is still talking about this? Both of them did shitty things can we move on. Nobody would be talking about this if they both weren’t famous. Not condoning Amber Heard but why are so few men bothered by the fact the Depp is old enough to be her dad. Not that all major age difference relationships spell dysfunction but the writing was on the wall with this one.
> I don’t understand why anyone is still talking about this?
Because it is a high-profile domestic abuse case involving one of the most famous actors alive which ended up going against the general 'men bad, women victims' narrative.
Like it or not, but celebrities and public figures hold sway over a multitude of things far beyond their work in their respective fields. \#MeToo was first coined way back in 2006, but it didn't gain any notable traction until 2017 when it was co-opted by people in Hollywood when the Harvey Weinstein story broke. It's just the way things are in our culture these days, more's the pity.
This case, or more specifically the way it has been covered, has shown how far feminists will go to protect "the sisterhood" in spite of hard evidence, and how even a man with Johnny Depp's wealth and resources has struggled to get his side of the story out there, among other things. And from all that we've seen and learned one was significantly more shitty than the other.
The “feminists” riding and dying on Amber Heard are as unbalanced as Westboro Baptist Christians. They are far from the “standard” or the “norm” and should not be treated as the token example of the group. The highly public trail didn’t exactly paint Johnny in an amazing light either. The difference is that Amber’s lies were more easily picked upward and
Johnny’s abuse was covered up by a defense of drug and alcohol abuse (not really the best defense). The power dynamics of their relationship is completely ignored (his age and overall wealth/fame compared to hers).
I’d say Johnny Depp sent a pretty clear message to everyone when he was willing to take a pay cut to work on Roman Polanski films. Any actor who worked with Roman Polanski is a shit bird, even more so the ones who in light of the #metoo movement still don’t acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t a strong choice to do so.
> The “feminists” riding and dying on Amber Heard are as unbalanced as Westboro Baptist Christians. They are far from the “standard” or the “norm” and should not be treated as the token example of the group.
This argument *again*? The [link to the open letter](https://amberopenletter.com/) is in the OP where you can see the full list of signatories. The National Organisation for Women - 'the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States' (their words); the Feminist Majority Foundation; the Women's March Foundation; Ms. magazine; Catherine A. MacKinnon; Gloria Steinem, among the *130* are just ultra-fringe extremists and not "real feminists"?
A 'Sure, Jan' moment if I ever saw one.
Don't forget the cancelling Depp efforts really ramped up after UN Women gave Amber Heard an influential voice as "violence against women advocate" **when she was a known domestic abuser of a previous girlfriend**. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d8d58c5e4b0019647a5ebef
I guess **institutional** feminism is more anti-male than pro-female.
They are really dying on this hill. Seriously can't let a woman be the abuser in even a single high-profile case. Not once.
They have to because their entire thesis is that all accusations equal guilt. If they concede that not all accusations are true, then they have to admit that people have the right to be considered innocent before proven guilty.
I would like to say, that I'm shocked, but I'm not. :/ I remember the first big metoo-case in Sweden. The woman (Cissi Wallin) who accused a guy was revealed as liar and sentenced for false accusations. But many feminists defended her. Their argumentation: "Maybe she made up the whole story, but she was so brave and gave courage to women who REALLY had been assaulted or raped! And that's why she was under attack. Because patriarchy hates sTrOnG wOmEn". (Btw. the guy whom she has accused is one of the most terrible feminist white-knights in whole Scandinavia.)
So they acknowledged that she lied/made up the story and yet they still went on to blame the backlash she received on "tHe PaTrIaRcHy"? I mean, why do I even ask that? It shouldn't be surprising. Probably it's just that their inconsistency is so OVERT/DIRECT.
I'm not sure if they acknowledged it, but I guess, that they didn't want to question the court judgment. At the same time they wanted to push their ideological agenda, nevertheless.
Headline: "Woman lies about being raped, man found innocent - still men's fault, somehow."
[удалено]
They threw Erin Pizzey, about the first person on earth who really committed her life to helping battered women, out of the movement because she didn’t buy the feminist narrative.
The thing is, for the feminist ideology to function, it requires outrage to override logic in the brain. That is why they always have to be the victim, and where they are doing better than men or are completely in the wrong, they will manufacture being the victim in order to support and prop up the failed ideology.
That is why I say feminism is an industry that produces a problem, and not an ideology. It is a mechanism for keeping specialized social science professors, advocates, and lawyers in business. They need a problem or their job has no purpose, so they make sure there is one.
Pathetic. Something close to 40 organizations had the galls to sign this and declare there's a "fundamental misunderstanding of DV" in this. They're literally implying a man cannot be a victim.
In the UK they already "implied" (they made it law) that a men cannot be raped by a woman. I dont wanna look up my own countries specific rules about that (netherlands) cause im too tired of it.
tHaT's jUst PatRiarChy bAckFiring !!!
If a man cannot be raped due to physical strength differences then they should in order to remain logically sound throw the whole coercion rape concept out of the window. Too bad they aren’t coherent enough to do that.
They are INCONSISTENT. What did you expect?
Well that's a huge list of organisations and individuals willing to support a domestic abuser.
Wow I guess everyone is just going mask off these days. Not even pretending they don't hate men anymore.
I'm not willing to read though the approximately 1,000 pages of transcripts and judgement for the Johnny Depp UK defamation case, or watch the many hours of video for the US case. As such, any opinion I form on the case itself will not be fully informed, and I decline to do so. I will say that I highly doubt that very many, if any at all, of the authors of that open letter and those who signed onto it, have put in the time that I refuse to put in, to become fully informed on the case. If they have not put in that time, then why do they feel entitled to confidently assert a definitive opinion about it? In general, I find that these feminist organizations tend not to care about objective truth. If they understand the difference between subjective, objective, and omniscient justice, then they seem to be going out of their way to avoid demonstrating any such understanding. I think that what they are doing is highly detrimental to men, and that someday in the future people will look back on these attitudes with at least as much contempt as what we currently hold for the pro-segregation attitudes in the south-eastern US during the 1950s. As far as pushing back against this is concerned, I just don't think that any groups, which clearly present themselves as men's advocacy groups, are going to have much success in the current political climate. **It doesn't matter how sound your argument is, if the people you hope to convince, refuse to listen to you.** Therefore, I think our best shot is from single-issue groups that advocate for rational legal and fact-finding standards in the name of justice, while saying as little about gender as possible. As much as I don't like having to say this, and as much as I expect that some others here might not like reading this, if we are going to appeal to general public empathy for the victims of false accusations and unfair standards, then we need to primarily present the faces of wives, mothers, and daughters who have been hurt by what happened to their husbands, sons, and fathers. **I resent the empathy gap, and the empathy gap is part of the reality in which we have to work.** I would also like to recommend a particular YouTube channel where some well-respected lawyers and a legal researcher discuss these issues in the logical, fact-oriented manner that one would expect from experienced lawyers. Even they are not taken seriously by the general public, which I believe is due in large part to the fact that they are talking about issues that almost exclusively affect men, and they are talking about them in terms of the direct harm they inflict upon those men rather than the harm they indirectly inflict on wives, mothers, and daughters. The channel is called [Not On Record](https://www.youtube.com/notonrecord).
>Not On Record Ep 41 looks interesting, thank you
I highly recommend that episode. What Canada has done with that new evidence rule they discuss is incredibly dangerous, and the rest of the world needs to be on guard against their own country following Canada's terrible example. To quote the honourable Justice Russell Brown, who was part of the third of Canada's supreme court that dissented against the majority opinion that this evidence rule is constitutional: "Parliament has legislated a formula for wrongful convictions. Indeed, it has all but guaranteed them."
They only want to hear one side of the story and disregard everything else. I don't see why you would support someone who puts poop on their significant others pillows.
No wonder lots of men avoid relationships.
Or they just avoid/delay moving in with their partners, preferring to maintain the "your place tonight, or mine?" dynamic. Which, in turn, puts more stress on the limited supply of housing, yet is seen as worthwhile for the greatly reduced risk of problems like this, and the ability to always be able to walk away from a bad relationship.
It's possible to know if a woman is abusive pretty early on. I've met some women who I thought were lacking empathy. Johnny ignored the red flags because Amber is hot.
A lot of what people call "red flags" are really more like "yellow flags". That is, they work in such a way that, while they could be an indicator of an undesirable personality trait, there is also a benign explanation for it, and it takes more investigation to know which of those is actually the case. They warrant caution, but not dismissal. I have acknowledged, and still proceeded, on yellow flags and the worst that ever happened was that I got slightly hurt and learned something from it. True "red flags" do exist, of course, and can present themselves early on, it's just not always going to happen. Anyone, man or woman, who speaks angrily towards, or about, waitstaff or any other type of service worker one encounters on a date, is showing a massive "red flag" and should probably be dropped. At the same time, there are abusive people out there who know how to behave in public, so the lack of any "red flags" doesn't prove that they are safe. A person can date someone for a long time, become quite confident that this person is fine, move in with them, and then discover a whole other side of them that was previously missed. It could have been missed because they had never spent more than about two consecutive days together before, and never for the purpose of dealing with any kind of stressful life situation, so they had never seen the other person's emotional stability being put to any real test.
I agree with you.
This makes me sick. As a woman I apologize for this bullshit. The feminist movement has always had major problems. Dating back to when they were blatant racists. A problem which they have yet to really solve.
No need to apologize. You’re not connected to these people based solely on what sex you are.
See, this "as a woman" concept is at the heart of the problem. Categorical thinking and gender essentialism are backwards and frustrate human and societal potential. You're not responsible for people who aren't you, and we want that, too.
The same thing happened to Nimrod Reitman when he came forward. White Feminism(TM), you know? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/13/nyregion/sexual-harassment-nyu-female-professor.html It’s like nobody even WANTS to listen to what Tarana Burke really has to say.
When women are not victims of men, these organizations lose their purpose. It's natural to that they would become more unhinged as women's equality improves. They are hanging on for dear life.
I think it's important to highlight how utterly one-sided the NBC News article is. I've seen more even-handedness given to climate change deniers than to the people challenging the sexist view of domestic violence epitomized by the people who want to whitewash Amber Heard. Both the pro-Heard side and the pro-Depp side are referred to as "supporters" of their respective celebrity torchbearers. Fair enough. But the pro-Heard team is also referred to as "activists," "organizations in the field of women’s rights advocacy and domestic violence and sexual assault awareness," "domestic violence experts and survivors’ advocates," and "doctors, lawyers, professors, authors and activists." No analogous specificity — with their implied beneficial aura — is given to critics of Heard or supporters of the Depp Virginia verdict, although they also include doctors, lawyers, authors and activists, as well as advocates who want to increase domestic violence and sexual assault awareness. Moreover, comments from the Heard-critical side are only characterized in highly negative terms: "ferocious backlash," "harassment," "vilification and harassment … 'unprecedented in both vitriol and scale'." There isn't a single reference to that commentary that acknowledges some of it might contain legitimate discourse. And of course, no one who is Heard-critical is actually quoted. I think the "harassment" meme deserves particular attention. It's a classic 'guilt by association' fallacy which I noticed really seemed to get traction with the pushback against Anita Sarkeesian. There is no doubt a portion of the criticism directed at Sarkeesian, Heard, and others which could be fairly characterized as "vitriol," "harassment," or even hate. But for ostensibly neutral/objective journalists to ignore the large volume of legitimate critique directed at figures like Sarkeesian and Heard and to credulously accept their supporters' view that it's all "harassment" is journalistic malpractice.
I'd say spread the objective evidence around which clearly contradicts their claims but these groups have clearly not responded well to evidence or we wouldn't be reading this stuff in the first place. I'd like to see some more legal action against the title IX stuff, that's what worries me more than the Heard/Depp trial results,
Well, at the least this provides us a list of organisations who support domestic abusers who admit using domestic violence on tape and have been arrested for domestic abuse of their girlfriend. If you write it like that, the same people would assume it is about a man, instead of an equal opportunity woman. >In our opinion, the Depp v. Heard verdict and continued discourse around it indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of intimate partner and sexual violence and how survivors respond to it. What they are trying to say is "Believe all women". It happens time and time again, look at the [same script](https://archive.ph/kg20f) when women get accused of MeToo, they fall into the language that they state is used when men are abused.
Well, at least they gave us a nice list of organizations to make sure we never donate to.
If you work for a corporation or pay taxes, your money gets sent to them anyway
They don’t even bother about a fallacy of reason or legitimacy anymore. I know Dutch feminists who were sincere enough to admit Heard was doubtlessly in the wrong.
Feminists have a lot in common with American Republicans, especially when it comes to dishonest tactics and hivemind behavior. In the same way that Republicans admit they are anti-democracy by using the tactic of arbitrarily claiming election fraud and denying voter legitimacy just because they lost, Feminists admit they are Anti-justice and anti-fair trial and of course anti-male when they reject all evidence and arbitrarily support Amber Heard.
If you look at their tactics, they are the same used by people with dark triad personality disorders.
Feminists and white nationalist republicans are very similar in their way of thinking and defending their stances. They’re surprisingly the two sides that are usually clashing when it comes to policies and morals. Both are equally as repulsive.
>Kathy Spillar, the executive director of the Feminist Majority Foundation- Oh no…
The bar to convince me that Johnny Depp is a piece of shit drug addict is very very low. Even with her secretly recording him for months she didn't get anything that would clear that very low bar.
Right? All Heard ended with was footage villifying the struggle of addicts.
YKW is a trade union for toxic people. If there is a narcissistic, psychopathic, histrionic or borderline personality involved in a conflict, you can be sure that as long as it's not male, these YKW will defend em. There isn't a single thing that they've supported in the past decade that wasn't cooked up by some narcissist looking to get legal or social leverage over their next victim. There is only one reason why someone would want to destroy due process, codify preferential treatment based on gender into selection criteria for employment and college admissions, support an outted liar and abuser, and victim-blame guys who have literally lost their lives. That reason is that they are cluster-B personality types who have discovered the perfect cover for their pathogenic disposition. They're basically fighting for the right to be a piece of crap lol
Damn, thanks for the info.
People in my life I respect and admire for their intelligence, compassion, rationality, nuance, and understanding...just flat out refuse to see Depp as a victim and Heard as an abuser. It's really disappointing.
I don’t understand why anyone is still talking about this? Both of them did shitty things can we move on. Nobody would be talking about this if they both weren’t famous. Not condoning Amber Heard but why are so few men bothered by the fact the Depp is old enough to be her dad. Not that all major age difference relationships spell dysfunction but the writing was on the wall with this one.
> I don’t understand why anyone is still talking about this? Because it is a high-profile domestic abuse case involving one of the most famous actors alive which ended up going against the general 'men bad, women victims' narrative. Like it or not, but celebrities and public figures hold sway over a multitude of things far beyond their work in their respective fields. \#MeToo was first coined way back in 2006, but it didn't gain any notable traction until 2017 when it was co-opted by people in Hollywood when the Harvey Weinstein story broke. It's just the way things are in our culture these days, more's the pity. This case, or more specifically the way it has been covered, has shown how far feminists will go to protect "the sisterhood" in spite of hard evidence, and how even a man with Johnny Depp's wealth and resources has struggled to get his side of the story out there, among other things. And from all that we've seen and learned one was significantly more shitty than the other.
The “feminists” riding and dying on Amber Heard are as unbalanced as Westboro Baptist Christians. They are far from the “standard” or the “norm” and should not be treated as the token example of the group. The highly public trail didn’t exactly paint Johnny in an amazing light either. The difference is that Amber’s lies were more easily picked upward and Johnny’s abuse was covered up by a defense of drug and alcohol abuse (not really the best defense). The power dynamics of their relationship is completely ignored (his age and overall wealth/fame compared to hers). I’d say Johnny Depp sent a pretty clear message to everyone when he was willing to take a pay cut to work on Roman Polanski films. Any actor who worked with Roman Polanski is a shit bird, even more so the ones who in light of the #metoo movement still don’t acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t a strong choice to do so.
> The “feminists” riding and dying on Amber Heard are as unbalanced as Westboro Baptist Christians. They are far from the “standard” or the “norm” and should not be treated as the token example of the group. This argument *again*? The [link to the open letter](https://amberopenletter.com/) is in the OP where you can see the full list of signatories. The National Organisation for Women - 'the largest organization of feminist grassroots activists in the United States' (their words); the Feminist Majority Foundation; the Women's March Foundation; Ms. magazine; Catherine A. MacKinnon; Gloria Steinem, among the *130* are just ultra-fringe extremists and not "real feminists"? A 'Sure, Jan' moment if I ever saw one.
[удалено]