Heard stans are some of the most tone deaf people I've ever had the mispleasure of encountering.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
- Status
Heard stans are some of the most tone deaf people I've ever had the mispleasure of encountering.
So...what do you want to have a dialogue about?
I can only say: yes it sucks that right wing media ran with this the way they did.
Yes it's weird that something like this got blown up so big.
If it keeps women from coming forward, and if it makes it so abuse doesn't get prosecuted, that would also be a really bad outcome.
But talking about it like that makes it sound like you lament the fact that this was the outcome. Like Depp should have lost.
What exactly do you want us to say?
Cause a lot of things have been said. That it is tragic that right wing media have found something so popular to run with. But that doesn't mean Depp should not have gotten his say.
That it is weird that it was public, and blew up to be so big. But that doesn't mean it should not have been public, because now the world got to see Heard fpr what she is, and Depp for what he is.
That it is bad that the stigma of lying women is being perpetuated by this. But at the same time, in this case it was a woman lying.
Genuinely, I don't know what you want to talk about, without it sounding like you want any other outcome than what we had.
My wish when I said were "able" to was an allusion to the bans that went on/intense moderation that have made this thread an aberration or any progressive community online.
I wish there were less of them.
That said- your opinion was bad and should dismissed as in the four plus years I've followed this case, in any wholly left leaning community before any concern was shown (or shown at all) for the victim (Depp) or wider discussion was done on the nuances of male victims of female abusers and the different methods of coercive control/silencing, deflection was immediately done to prioritize women as the primary victims and hypothetical blowback rather than simply aligning with the correct cause/not giving ammunition to the people who would use said ambivalence/opposition against you.
If the response to the first and only widely publicized case of a male victim of a female abuser is to prioritize women and claim anyone who cares about it is disingenuous due to incomparable cases (Terry Crew's, Brendan Frasier, Adam Rapp) and post false statistics on the rate of said abuse relative to male on male abuse, then there's a problem.
And that simply isn't a myth, people can understand the idea of "false accusations" in other forms i.e reputational destruction via slut shaming or in a male abuser claiming consensual sex when levied with an accusation; but not when a woman levying false accusations is brought up.
False accusations aren't separate from abuse, they're a means of abuse.
This isn't a false accusation as in what say...Justin Bieber has suffered; this is an accusation as a means of control and coverup of IPV and to intentionally harm the victim/gain social credit.
Go read any study on male rape/abuse victims and the number one method or silencing of a man/boy is the explicit threat or acknowledgment that if they fought back or said anything the aggressor could claim victimhood.
False accusations aren't just a twitlonger meme or what was prosecuted; sometimes they're just between a few parties, sometimes they're just in a social circle/single environment/town, sometimes they reach the police or prosecution; it's not just a means of gaining money and is comorbid with many other things.
So forgive me if for once in my life as a male victim I won't allow the narrative to be entirely hijacked by people who purport to support male victims but in truth just don't want to lose their perceived gains.
Which is what I knew would happen when this case inevitably got as big as I predicted it would get.
What is the point in bringing this up?
We are all well too aware of how bad-faith-actors on the wrong side of the political spectrum are going to spin this.
Does that mean an innocent person should be made to suffer, after already having suffered, in multiple ways, for multiple years - just to avoid something [conservative BS spin] that would happen regardless of the outcome? regardless of the scenario? regardless of... anything & everything?
On the flip-side of your argument, how shitty has the entire kerfuffle been for male victims of abuse?
How much worse would it be for male victims had Depp been used as a sacrificial lamb to prevent this Conservative wet-dream narrative you speak of?
Even left-leaning media was spinning this the wrong way the entire trial, it's been an absolute nightmare for male victims of abuse.
This case touched on an issue that needed to be discussed, and needed to be brought to light.
This was the precise right time and situation to focus on male victims, and focusing on anything else would just continue the trend of silence & ignorance of male victims.
Let me ask you something.
What do you believe is the reason why you were banned twice for that?
The idea he's been known as a "scumbag" for the majority of his career is pretty much Amber Heard supporter fan-fiction and could easily he levied against Heard for the rumors and accusations and confirmed behavior from her, Depp aside.
In all the year's I've followed this case I maintained the stance I've always had on victims of abuse, which is that "perfect vicitms" don't exist (which Heard supporters seem to think they're enlightening us too) and that makes the majority of the character attacks on him total bullshit and if they were relevant would mean a whoooooleeee lot of regular folks getting support for DV should be chucked out of shelters/not getting it either because they're probably just as imperfect (and in the case of people Ik and community environments I've been in, are just as imperfect).
Your problem is that this site always has this energy towards male abusers and you can't emotionally take actually being questioned on if you're in the moral right and needing to actually defend your views.
So instead of calling people bullies just show some backbone.
I just have one question to ask you. Do you care about male victims of abuse or do you care more about optics?
I'm not about to get involved in this conversation on this website again. I'll just say real quick that I caught a ban within something like an hour of my participation in the original thread and while I did not agree with that ban I took it as a proper indication that my contributions, though they were made in good faith, were not wanted. That's fine; there are allowed to be spaces where certain views are prioritized to allow for the development of a certain discourse culture. That's arguably what this entire website is.
The other side of this particular coin is that people simply aren't going to get involved in this conversation on this website if they feel they might catch a ban for it. That doesn't just apply to "Amber people" - I would not consider myself an "Amber person" and would be very quick to correct anyone who called me that in real life - it applies to anyone whose viewpoint falls outside of the discourse prevailing on this website. Hell, I might get banned for this comment. I'm really not sure, and that's kind of the problem. I'm taking a risk to make a one-time response to a comment I believe was made in good faith (yours), though, and if that's bannable I guess there's not much I can do about that.
"I don't wanna get involved!"
*posts here anyway*
Friend, you're not fooling anyone. Especially with your post history.
As others have said, the problem is that speaking this way it sounds like JD should have either lost or kept completely quiet.
That said, this will probably make you feel sadder:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReHZuvfe1Jg
Amber, even after being caught lying and losing the case, kept the narrative that she was the face of the me too movement and all other victims will face the same "injustice".
She knows that she is going to be carried by leftist influencers and that is one of the greatest harms she is capable of causing real victims.
Btw, this was the tweet made by the real "face" of the Me Too movement about what happened in the trial.
The reason arguments, "about how bad this was for women who are victims of abuse" caught a lot of flack was because the inverse was true. People continuing to defend Heard in the face of all the evidence gave MRA and incel types a fuckload of ammo to say, "look, we told you leftists and feminists don't actually care about justice or the truth!" The people continuing to defend Heard or vilify Depp are quite literally the people who are hurting the MeToo movement in this instance and that rightfully pisses a whole lot of us off (including many of us female victims of abuse).
The circus was required to actually bring attention to the facts of the case. Almost all of this evidence has been out there for years and was thoroughly ignored by a huge percentage of the public. You're quite literally arguing that an abuse victim needed to shut up and be defamed for the greater good. That is thoroughly and completely fucked.
Having read your previous posts, I think your ban is quite understandable. Pointless sophism about what we can ascertain to be true or not based on things talked about in court, even when that court presented countless contradictions in Heard's own statements. Even admitting you are not following the court proceedings and still needing to air out cheap scepticism on what amount to the entire legal system itself.
I believe you that you are not on anyone's side, but spamming a sensitive thread with this type of nonsense is not what I would call interesting conversation.
Ignoring trolls and blatant bad faith assholes, I think the issue of why there hasn't been thriving discussion with differing opinions, is that for the most part people are talking about separate issues.
There's definitely a discussion to be had on the toxicity online, the misogyny, the harassment, etc that came up as a result of the mainstream and social medias coverage of the trial. Certainly the right-wing machine taking advantage, and many sus content creators have lured people into their poisoned content.
Though, the thing is... no one here actually thinks that any of that is a good thing. So really, we'll end up talking more about how it's the MSM and the progressive outlets dropping the ball hard giving the scumbags online free ammo for a case they were going to side against the woman regardless.
More importantly, none of that has anything to do with the material facts of the trial itself.
Hashtags, bots, op-eds, whatever... These did not change the testimonies or evidence of the two parties, and if we wanna have a discussion on the details of the case, we can't be arguing from different realities and sets of facts.
The reaction and behavior of any side online is a separate issue from whether or not the verdict was correct.
And it can't all be boiled down to "the media said and treated this like a circus == the trial itself was a circus."
It was not. Quite the opposite. If you watched it, you'd see the court ran things seriously and well, the judge was fair and gracious and tolerated no outbursts.
So that's another problem here, is that even if you're gonna discuss the case itself and aren't talking about another separate issue, there's frankly isn't a lot of wiggle room before one ends up in cuckoo land.
I think I wanna listen to people who disagree with my opinion on this case, but at the same time, I'm gonna be honest, I can't tolerate flagrant disregard for truth and common sense.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discuss this case with someone who does not believe that Heard was abusive of Depp.
Now if you wanna argue mutual abuse, personally I'm willing to listen, though I understand many here have very good reason to take that to be offensively dismissive of the lived experiences of many victims of abuse.
I also don't care if someone wants to go on and on about how Depp is not nice or whatever. Though it's not really relevant, whether someone is an angel or a piece of shit has nothing to do with being abused.
I just cannot, CANNOT, take any argument seriously that proposes that Heard never abused Depp (despite the evidence) or that her allegation of abuse are completely true.
Again, I'd read someone's argument, using the evidence we have, that argues Depp was abusive towards Heard, no problem...
But I do warn you, you'd have to contend with the response that such an argument must explain why Heard's testimony and her evidence do not match at all.
Because, and I'm sure people are rolling their eyes by how many times I wrote this, her evidence DOES NOT MATCH HER TESTIMONY. There's no way anyone, on any team, seriously believes those pictures of her face she showed match the description of violent attacks she testified to.
So out of the gate, such an argument has to explain why she's lying in that testimony, otherwise, what's the point? You might as well tell me the earth is flat.
Sorry for rambling, I do think the forum as a whole would do well with fewer pile ons, though I also can't really blame someone who's triggered by all this and needs to vent.
There's definitely a discussion to be had on the toxicity online, the misogyny, the harassment, etc that came up as a result of the mainstream and social medias coverage of the trial. Certainly the right-wing machine taking advantage, and many sus content creators have lured people into their poisoned content.
Though, the thing is... no one here actually thinks that any of that is a good thing. So really, we'll end up talking more about how it's the MSM and the progressive outlets dropping the ball hard giving the scumbags online free ammo for a case they were going to side against the woman regardless.
More importantly, none of that has anything to do with the material facts of the trial itself.
Hashtags, bots, op-eds, whatever... These did not change the testimonies or evidence of the two parties, and if we wanna have a discussion on the details of the case, we can't be arguing from different realities and sets of facts.
The reaction and behavior of any side online is a separate issue from whether or not the verdict was correct.
And it can't all be boiled down to "the media said and treated this like a circus == the trial itself was a circus."
It was not. Quite the opposite. If you watched it, you'd see the court ran things seriously and well, the judge was fair and gracious and tolerated no outbursts.
So that's another problem here, is that even if you're gonna discuss the case itself and aren't talking about another separate issue, there's frankly isn't a lot of wiggle room before one ends up in cuckoo land.
I think I wanna listen to people who disagree with my opinion on this case, but at the same time, I'm gonna be honest, I can't tolerate flagrant disregard for truth and common sense.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discuss this case with someone who does not believe that Heard was abusive of Depp.
Now if you wanna argue mutual abuse, personally I'm willing to listen, though I understand many here have very good reason to take that to be offensively dismissive of the lived experiences of many victims of abuse.
I also don't care if someone wants to go on and on about how Depp is not nice or whatever. Though it's not really relevant, whether someone is an angel or a piece of shit has nothing to do with being abused.
I just cannot, CANNOT, take any argument seriously that proposes that Heard never abused Depp (despite the evidence) or that her allegation of abuse are completely true.
Again, I'd read someone's argument, using the evidence we have, that argues Depp was abusive towards Heard, no problem...
But I do warn you, you'd have to contend with the response that such an argument must explain why Heard's testimony and her evidence do not match at all.
Because, and I'm sure people are rolling their eyes by how many times I wrote this, her evidence DOES NOT MATCH HER TESTIMONY. There's no way anyone, on any team, seriously believes those pictures of her face she showed match the description of violent attacks she testified to.
So out of the gate, such an argument has to explain why she's lying in that testimony, otherwise, what's the point? You might as well tell me the earth is flat.
Sorry for rambling, I do think the forum as a whole would do well with fewer pile ons, though I also can't really blame someone who's triggered by all this and needs to vent.
I'd rather not hear uninformed garbage being spewed.
Anyone who says JD abused her or that she was telling the truth during the trial can honestly f*ck off.
It's not needed. It doesn't contribute to anything productive. Proudly proclaiming you 'haven't watched the trial' isn't the badge of honor they think it is.
It's nothing less than disgusting. It's shameful, because they're proudly flaunting their ignorance. I haven't talked to a single Amber Heard supporter who didn't match this description - It's become a goddman stereotype.
Discussing the misogyny and how media's insistence on muddying the waters with BS talking points misinforms people who didn't follow any of this and in turn has lead to people following right-wing garbage... I'd rather discuss that.
That'd be more productive, since it's still an ongoing problem... I still shake my head at the 'journalist' who wrote an entire article on Momoa's testimony (which was fake/never happened).
I at least know which people never to take seriously ever again or do double takes on.
There's some weird stuff like cutting the transcript of Depp's testimony describing an incident of abuse he was subjected to and attributing it to Heard... But for the most part it's people who don't understand what pretrial motions are using stuff to confirm or deny whatever they want.
It gets really weird when they don't stop to consider why a lot of the things they talk about didn't make it to trial.
I don't know that there really are that many "Amber people" here or why you believe there are, for the most part it was people who said there could have been abuse on both sides and they were both bad, or believed Amber did some bad things but only after being the victim of abuse, with maybe a smattering of people that truly believed everything Johnny said was a lie and everything Amber said was the truth. This forum has been overwhelmingly in support of Depp since the trial began, I just don't think there are a lot of "Amber people" here and if there are, even if they posted stuff they'd be asked to substantiate their claims which they probably would not be prepared to do.
I see, thanks ! So yeah it's the same than before, some people are twisting everything they can just so they can say that they were right
User Banned (1 week): thread derail, off-site drama
No I've been a big Depp supporter for years; I'm just showing more of what I see as the grossest backlash to Depp's victory since the trial ended.
The CUNY acted cowardly.
Edit: especially as she shares threads from misinformation spreaders/bullies like @cocainecross that have been elevated as experts
The amount of professionals endorsing this shit is staggering
I see. I'm very out of the loop here and decided to peek when I saw the thread getting bumped more and more and people were saying "Twitter Evidence"
just block it. you're not going to stop that wave, so the best thing to do is not ride it.
like someone else said, this, along with acting is Amber Heard's new job. Trying to clear her 'good' name away from all the stuff that's come out.
the supporters won't stop. the idea of 'miscarriage of justice' has become a useful default, regardless of actual circumstance and who is involved, if you lose, the court is always suspect. No matter who you are. Even if you end up saying the internet somehow influenced the court. If you can offer up some kind of narrative of big poweful elite actor Depp, like he's some lord of industry or a billionaire or politician and is anything but a successful entertainer, then he's manipulated the million of people on the internet into some massive anti-Amber Heard movement, which poisoned the jury, and made any kind of justice impossible. it's an easily swallowed narrative that hits all the right points that will let you confirm any cynicism on how the world hates women.
But in order to do that, you have to drag the internet, the right wing commentators, the MANosphere and all the online misogynists and their poop graphics, the concern trollers, the legit professional woman haters, and all of the confused on-lookers who never wanted to be involved anyway into the giant sandbox just to say "Look at this humongous mess and see what it is doing to the trial", which was nothing. It did nothing to the trial, it did everything to the way the people around watching and not watching the trial were forced to interact with the trashy mess floating around it. People weren't allowed to deal with this normally, because it was deliberately mucked up from the outside.
People were saying it was the only way to be informed. The only way to watch was to get dirty and join the twitter threads and watch the feeds with the chatrooms full of screaming E-bros, which wasn't true. It felt like a way to tarnish people who actually did watch parts of the trial, who all apparently "didn't have lives", and "didn't mind supporting conservative scum content creators online". You must be a certain type of person already if you're a Depp supporter who took time out of their busy lives, to worship some mega-rich celeb who didn't care about you.
like there were all sorts of similar takes, but the inverse never applied to Amber, it was always standing up for women, standing up for justice, fighting for the underdog. defending the defenseless against the powerful male elite, etc. Like Depp is a rich guy, but no one would be dying to prevent him from going to jail, no one is going to delete evidence or perjure themselves to protect him and he's not going to willfully jump over any laws. If they're implying hiring PR firms to play social media influence games makes him elite, well Amber Heard has been openly doing it, and blatantly. She's just as elite as him. That's their accusation of how the trial was warped, it's like 'accuse the opposition of your own tactics'.
get off the crazy train, let them ride to where ever it leads, but do yourself a favor and don't follow them.
Last edited:
I don't believe it's Twitter drama to comment on the actual happenings relating to the case just because it's tied to twitter.
It's significant what the backlash from faculty and others was able to push the University into doing at the expense of the lawyer who represented Depp/at the the expense of the verdict being seen as justice/valid.
Twitter just happens to be where the media figures/academics/DV advocates and others misrepresenting this case who have actual influence are located.
OP
OP
Given that the trial is over and that this thread seems to now exist for people to troll, counter-troll, and complain about random Twitter users, we're locking the thread. Please refrain from making a new thread that exists only to engage in the same behavior.
- Status