Johnny Depp v Amber Heard's defamation trial is underway [UPDATE: Verdict reached. Johnny Depp won.]

[aSqueakyLime]

I genuinely think there's a large group of folks who are turned off by the ... tone, of all this.

They, I think, want to discuss all this, and get to the bottom of what's going on.

But not at the price of what they perceive as decorum.

It's why they keep "bowing out" as it's the "polite" thing to do.

The consummate centrist, willing to do the work as long it's not too hard. It's why they're turned off by the "icky circus" of all this. Wading through the morass is too much to ask of them.

Same reason none will actually read the thread, or watch the trial footage.

Click to shrink...

I would like to ask these people, at the end of the day which is more important: someone being domestically abused for years, or people memeing and making a big stink about it online? If you come into the thread and your focus is squarely aimed on the latter (bonus points for openly declaring you don't care to read further into the actual evidence), then please go away and realise you aren't as forward thinking as you think you are.

 

[RpgN]

Oh, come off it. Your brother should be lucky he only got banned 2 weeks. Considering he came into a 100 page thread with a mod warning, in which multiple people have been banned for the same thing, and then left a cheap, insensitive drive-by comment anyway, I'm of the opinion that 2 weeks isn't enough. Whether he was being malicious or not is absolutely irrelevant.

Going forwards I think mods need to be even harsher on this kind of thing. People have had enough time and warning to get their shit together.

Click to shrink...

Is that a good thing though? I'm worried that the same is happening like before only the other way around. You know, like the massive bans to anyone who used to defend JD before. It seems that we're slowly doing it again.

I mean don't get me wrong, we need to ban fools. But being even harsher and quicker about it is only going to cause more resentments and have groups against each other more often. We should also not forget that, unfortunately, there will be members who are genuinely uninformed and didn't follow the trial with no bad intentions. We need to give those kind of members a chance too.

Right now it seems that this thread is moderated decently. The mods are not slow as before but they do give those members the time to make their intentions known.

 

[LossAversion]

Man, these blue checkmarks on twitter are seriously just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalaaaa" aren't they?

"I don't believe Amber because she's a woman, I believe her because I read an article on Vice and because Depp lost a court case in the UK!"

Uh huh... and have you been watching this trial and looking at all of the evidence?

"Lalalalalaaaa, I won't debate this and I've turned off replies."

Ooookaaaaay... like, is this just willful ignorance or a malicious attempt at mass gaslighting everyone that is actually watching the trial?

 

[tsmoreau]

Ooookaaaaay... like, is this just willful ignorance or a malicious attempt at mass gaslighting everyone that is actually watching the trial?

Click to shrink...

It's the former by way of the latter.

It's cognitive dissonance writ large.

You see the same on the right all the time. The left is just as human.

 

[El Bombastico]

Man, these blue checkmarks on twitter are seriously just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalaaaa" aren't they?

"I don't believe Amber because she's a woman, I believe her because I read an article on Vice and because Depp lost a court case in the UK!"

Uh huh... and have you been watching this trial and looking at all of the evidence?

"Lalalalalaaaa, I won't debate this and I've turned off replies."

Ooookaaaaay... like, is this just willful ignorance or a malicious attempt at mass gaslighting everyone that is actually watching the trial?

Click to shrink...

Between this, the war in Ukraine and the 2020 primaries, I've learned that self-described Progressives and other leftists are just as susceptible to bullheaded stances and opinions regardless of the facts as people on the right are.

 

[darz1]

Oh, come off it. Your brother should be lucky he only got banned 2 weeks. Considering he came into a 100 page thread with a mod warning, in which multiple people have been banned for the same thing, and then left a cheap, insensitive drive-by comment anyway, I'm of the opinion that 2 weeks isn't enough. Whether he was being malicious or not is absolutely irrelevant.

Going forwards I think mods need to be even harsher on this kind of thing. People have had enough time and warning to get their shit together.

Click to shrink...

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or attacking other posters, they should get banned. If someone is arguing in a thread and hasn't fully informed themselves, I don't think that warrants a ban.

But maybe the bans work and that's why Era is generally a progressive forum. Idk.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or attacking other posters, they should get banned. If someone is arguing in a thread and hasn't fully informed themselves, I don't think that warrants a ban.

But maybe the bans work and that's why Era is generally a progressive forum. Idk.

Click to shrink...

Try to imagine for a bit, after all we have known and revealed in the trial.

What would a "Heard defender" could say that is not ridiculous? What could they say to express their desire to support Heard that can be justified logically and rationally?

 

[Deleted member 26591]

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or attacking other posters, they should get banned. If someone is arguing in a thread and hasn't fully informed themselves, I don't think that warrants a ban.

But maybe the bans work and that's why Era is generally a progressive forum. Idk.

Click to shrink...

The problem is there 100 pages of "getting informed" to read and s live trial they can watch. Most of these shit posters are doing neither and are just arguing hot takes from social media personalities of their choice.

And there's only so many times that can be allowed to derail

 

[MrCibb]

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or attacking other posters, they should get banned. If someone is arguing in a thread and hasn't fully informed themselves, I don't think that warrants a ban.

But maybe the bans work and that's why Era is generally a progressive forum. Idk.

Click to shrink...

We've had people come into this thread and say they're not fully informed on the topic while asking for small summaries of the day, general jist of how it's gone for different parties, etc. Those people have not been banned, it's totally fine to do that. But that's a completely different kettle of fish to people ignoring the large mod warning about the sensitives surrounding a topic about domestic abuse and simply posting unsubstantiated drive-by claims intended to rock the boat rather than drive meaningful discussion. The reason the mod note is there is because that kept happening and the thread kept getting derailed, and users who shared their stories on domestic abuse were getting angered and upset by the insensitivity. If people want to ignore the mod note then a ban is completely fair.

 

[El Bombastico]

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

If someone is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or attacking other posters, they should get banned. If someone is arguing in a thread and hasn't fully informed themselves, I don't think that warrants a ban.

But maybe the bans work and that's why Era is generally a progressive forum. Idk.

Click to shrink...

We've had assholes come in and admit they have not kept up with the case AT ALL yet still support Heard because reasons. There is no engagement in good faith with idiots like that and they know it. They're just here to start shit.

 

[Bufbaf]

While I do believe that Depp during his drunken or high phases, on some of the tapes and videos played, absolutely has overstepped boundaries and has some angry or destructive tendencies, it's really almost impossible to see how he's "just as bad" as the absolute shit show Heard's been proven to be. If this trial would be about proof of Heard being an abuser, she's had no chance, because she very clearly is, physically and psychologically. Her article has to be guilty of defamation, there's no doubt in my mind it's written purely with Depp in mind (and for recognition and eyes, of course), and she can't prove a single one of her described extensive outbursts on Depp's side. As someone else said, all that's been proven so far is that Depp is a dick to furniture, while Heard had been proven to abuse, violate and control him on multiple cases.

I honestly wonder if she herself is the reason Depp fell off of rehab, but ofc that's speculation.

 

[Tigerfish419]

The only remedy for this idiotic behaviour that I've personally witnessed is in this very thread - Actually watching the goddamn trial.

Click to shrink...

This so much, it seems these big check marked people on twitter who are talking shit haven't actually been watching the trial but just getting their info from just twitter or headlines from shitty articles with bias.. not a shock really.

It's appalling thing is you have people who are the chair of boards that are all for violence against women to the point that in any case of DV they will and always take the side of the women even though to most people it is not the case, they dismiss violence against men by women and it can seem to never happen to men and it's always men just turning back on to women as a defence, this whole thing is fucked to the point that men will never come forward EVER even less than what they do now because just look at how they would be treated.

Again this whole thing is fucked up in so many ways.

Look at these stupid headlines

I Can't Wait to Watch the Inevitable Documentary About How We All Wronged Amber Heard. Why must we torture women before giving them a redemption arc?

Click to shrink...

Why It's Time to Believe Amber Heard

Click to shrink...

Look at this stupid comment.

People would rather believe a drunken, drugged out fake pirate than a woman with documented bruises and witnesses, because they hate women period.

Click to shrink...

Johnny is belittled to a drunken, drugged out "fake" pirate so why would anyone believe him over a women pretty much... apparently if you think Johnny has been wronged you hate women, why is it even fucking down to that in the first place. Amber was drunken and drugged out just as much as him but she is an angel and that's ok because she is a women.

Like I said this entire thing is fucked up and I never had a horse in this race as I didn't follow it until the case and everything I saw with my own two eyes without any outside influence on this case was everything she and all her witnesses said was inconsistent, photo's of abuse right next to the actions that lead to those pictures were so far apart it is astounding and the fact someone could say without a doubt she was beat up like that and those pictures were proof are just crazy to me.

This entire case is being turned into something else in the media and is being turned into a Men vs Women BS just like how everything is fucking turned into a right vs left thing.

 

[Firmus_Anguis]

I honestly think this forum is a little to heavy handed with the bans and it limits discussion. I felt the same way when the initial threads were made and Depp supporters were being banned. I felt the same when I made a sarcastic joke about Xbox in a PS thread and got a 2 week ban.

I don't think Heard supporters should be banned just because Depp supporters were banned in the past. I personally would prefer if more Heard supports were active in this thread even if I don't believe there is much evidence in favour of Heard's arguement.

Click to shrink...

Would you be making these arguments in support of other abusers?

You know that you're advocating for people who support an abuser to come in and voice that support, don't you?

She is an abuser. It's more than evident from all of her lies, her fake evidence (admitting the same damn picture twice and claiming it to be two separate photos/occasions), she's lied under oath multiple times, lied about contacting TMZ for a publicity stunt... Lied about her 'donations' in order to make herself look good.

She perjured herself!!

She tried to keep the money and blamed Johnny for rightfully suing her ass for defamation.

Why the f*ck would we give her the benefit of the doubt? This isn't even the tip of the iceberg!

I'm tired of the apologists who don't educate themselves on this issue and still feel the need to voice their ignorant opinions not based on reality!

So no, I don't want a platform for people who spread lies/misinformation. There hasn't been a single good argument from any of them in a 102 pages!

 

[Bufbaf]

Johnny is belittled to a drunken, drugged out "fake" pirate so why would anyone believe him over a women pretty much... apparently if you think Johnny has been wronged you hate women, why is it even fucking down to that in the first place. Amber was drunken and drugged out just as much as him but she is an angel and that's ok because she is a women.

Click to shrink...

She's not a pirate though.

This is important.

 

[sirap]

As a victim of abuse this whole thing is just depressing.

We get belittled by other men, women and folks who claim to be our "allies" don't believe us either.

 

[Deleted member 93841]

darz1 RpgN

As others have said, it's fine to be uninformed. Not everyone is expected to be fully up to date on every piece of news. But there's a difference between being uninformed and trying to inform yourself and coming into a thread to post unfounded rumours or whataboutism. It's not a Depp supporter vs Heard supporter problem. It's a shitposting/shit stirring problem.

I'm sure the mods wouldn't mind Heard supporters posting here if they were to actually post respectfully. But here's the thing; there's so much evidence against Heard at this point, that I don't see that it's possible to post in support of her without doing so out of ignorance or in bad faith. And neither of those are excusable at this point in time.

Let's put it another way. If someone were to go into the Ukraine thread and make a post along the lines of "I haven't been following the news, but isn't Russia in the right? Because I heard that Ukraine has a problem with Nazis." Would you also defend them and say moderation is too heavy handed? It's a similar situation in this thread. There is no excuse for these ignorant, uninformed "hot takes".

 

[Tigerfish419]

She's not a pirate though.

This is important.

Click to shrink...

She did take the donations from the childrens hospital though, maybe she wanted to be a pirate.

 

[Tigerfish419]

As a victim of abuse this whole thing is just depressing.

We get belittled by other men, women and folks who claim to be our "allies" don't believe us either.

Click to shrink...

I feel like victims of abuse should be upset about this whole thing, JD or AH being abused is being turned into a shit show and it's probably going to make victims of both genders feel shitty for all sorts of reasons and it's completely fair. I'm so sorry you have to go through this and anyone who has too, it's so fucked up.

 

[Tovarisc]

Looks like rumors / whatyouwanttocallit about Camille Vasquez and Johnny Depp having intimate relationship are gaining steam in bowels of Internet.

Why she can't just be skilled and successful lawyer with warm personality, instead of creating narrative that she is Depp's love interest basically? :|

 

[Irminsul]

Why she can't just be skilled and successful lawyer with warm personality, instead of creating narrative that she is Depp's love interest basically? :|

Click to shrink...

Even if, I don't quite understand what that would change. It's not like she's a person that was thought to be neutral but with certain undisclosed connections (*cough* UK trial *cough*). She's Depp's lawyer.

 

[Detail]

I need to keep a log of every public person pushing the Amber apology line.

https://twitter.com/brosandprose/status/1526939945067286529?t=NKHBj8kDpVsIsk_6ShrMMQ&s=19

https://twitter.com/laurenthehough/status/1526952192883707907?t=NKHBj8kDpVsIsk_6ShrMMQ&s=19

Click to shrink...

 

[Tigerfish419]

Looks like rumors / whatyouwanttocallit about Camille Vasquez and Johnny Depp having intimate relationship are gaining steam in bowels of Internet.

Why she can't just be skilled and successful lawyer with warm personality, instead of creating narrative that she is Depp's love interest basically? :|

Click to shrink...

It's most likely AH PR machine.

 

[Deleted member 5745]

Drunk and probably shouldn't be posting (but then again, drunk is the only way I can seem to handle this thread), but

Anyone coming in here and "both sidesing" this are full of fucking shit.

I dunno if it's some super-extreme form of feminism or just a refusal to accept reality. But take the time to educate yourself. You literally have no excuse not to when the trial is so goddamn public.

 

[Thorn]

Click to shrink...

I now have a headache.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Click to shrink...

Just what? Why is it so hard to just look up the evidence that the trial has presented? Making such an equivalent will hurt everyone... god damn.

 

[Mik2121]

So… I generally don't care about this stuff at all and I'm a bit confused here. I only checked this because it seems to be everywhere and so I decided to do the most basic of research.

From what I could gather, unless nobody can trust anything from the court (in which case the whole situation is even more dire), as of yet, the plaintiff has demonstrated they are telling the truth much more so than what the defendant has been able to. So just based off actual information, the plaintiff right now is the more trustworthy party. That, I get.
I also get that both have done terrible things, but the defendant is many many steps beyond what the plaintiff has done so comparing them is insulting to other DV victims (both men and women).

Now with that acknowledged, and seeing how this is very much a "if you actually do research" issue, what side of people are the ones saying the defendant is very obviously the victim?? It feels like a thing republicans in the US would say (stating stuff without actually doing research), but they'd never defend women. But more progressive people who are interested in (understandably) defending women are usually also pro-logic and doing research, which very obviously isn't happening (and I mean as it is right now. Most people don't know who the actual abuser is 100%, they can just make informed cases).
So yeah… what the heck is going on? I gained interested in this based on this topic, rather than the actual issue between two famous people I don't know and will never meet.

 

[Deleted member 26591]

I dunno if it's some super-extreme form of feminism

Click to shrink...

TBH, and I think it's been mentioned before, but some of the public statements from left-ists and other "social" personalities have a bit of a stink of TERF-dom about them.

 

[Detail]

Just what? Why is it so hard to just look up the evidence that the trial has presented? Making such an equivalent will hurt everyone... god damn.

Click to shrink...

Honestly, they are entrenched at this point. Is it really that difficult to look at the evidence of the case and admit that you were wrong and that a man can be abused? And has been abused?

Drawing comparisons to gamergate seems tactical to try and somehow discredit the evidence against Heard and make it seem like JD is this MRA/right winger type which couldn't be further from the truth.

Or is their position now that men cannot be abused and if they admit that they can be then metoo doesn't mean anything?

Because that would be a stupid position to take also.

It's to the benefit of metoo to admit they were wrong and platform JD as an abuse victim because it makes the movement more inclusive to abuse survivors, doubling down does the opposite.

Blaming bots, gamergate and the algorithm for videos being pushed out is ridiculous, the reason these videos exist and are gaining traction is because people are

A) watching the case, looking at the evidence and wanting justice for an abuse victim and...

B) Because they make a lot of money doing it as it's an incredibly popular case.

These bad takes just keep making me slap my head in disbelief.

 

[Bengraven]

I gotta be honest. While I'm not trying to "pick a side": As a middle aged someone who wears ear buds and closes his eyes while working due to being unable to cope with stress and anxiety, middle aged Depp and his coloring book hits me on a personal level.

 

[Games]

Just what? Why is it so hard to just look up the evidence that the trial has presented? Making such an equivalent will hurt everyone... god damn.

Click to shrink...

If you look up the court case right now, it's literally just people saying they've been told (yes, told - didn't witness anything themselves) Johnny Depp attacked Amber Heard, because these are her witnesses. Sure, their stories don't line up with the pictures and video shown, nor the audio heard, nor what Johnny Depp's witnesses said, nor the nurses, nor the doctors, nor the various other third parties, nor Depp's story, and not even Amber Heard's own story, but if you did plug in right now it looks incredibly bad for Depp because it's just a list of people accusing him. I think finding a succinct summary of events that isn't easily dismissed as biased is very difficult. Not only that, it's easy to pull these quotes and make headlines out of them. The potential victim of abuse is a man, so it looks considerably less bad for various publications to walk back. I'd expect this to go on for a few more days. Once Depp is back in the stand, expect more silence.

As I've said before, maybe Amber Heard will pull out a witness who makes sense of this jigsaw, this is a court case and both sides deserve to have their stories heard, but right now that isn't happening. To believe Amber Heard at this moment, everything - including Amber Heard's own testimony - has to be ignored, or at the very least manipulated quite drastically to make sense.

 

[BreakAtmo]

So… I generally don't care about this stuff at all and I'm a bit confused here. I only checked this because it seems to be everywhere and so I decided to do the most basic of research.

From what I could gather, unless nobody can trust anything from the court (in which case the whole situation is even more dire), as of yet, the plaintiff has demonstrated they are telling the truth much more so than what the defendant has been able to. So just based off actual information, the plaintiff right now is the more trustworthy party. That, I get.
I also get that both have done terrible things, but the defendant is many many steps beyond what the plaintiff has done so comparing them is insulting to other DV victims (both men and women).

Now with that acknowledged, and seeing how this is very much a "if you actually do research" issue, what side of people are the ones saying the defendant is very obviously the victim?? It feels like a thing republicans in the US would say (stating stuff without actually doing research), but they'd never defend women. But more progressive people who are interested in (understandably) defending women are usually also pro-logic and doing research, which very obviously isn't happening (and I mean as it is right now. Most people don't know who the actual abuser is 100%, they can just make informed cases).
So yeah… what the heck is going on? I gained interested in this based on this topic, rather than the actual issue between two famous people I don't know and will never meet.

Click to shrink...

This is honestly the thing that gets me about the case. Those progressive voices who as you say are all about logic and doing good research, who advocate for equality, victims and kindness, who celebrate diversity and publically attack TERFs, MAGA shitstains, etc... are just completely all-in on Team Amber. The logic posed is "Johnny was older, richer, more famous and a man, therefore the nature of power dynamics makes Heard abusing him completely ludicrous."

I don't really know how it can be fixed, since if someone isn't willing to discuss things neutrally then anything anyone says can be dismissed, mostly because it all looks similar on the surface to what a lot of shitty people say. "You need to inform yourself directly instead of getting everything from news articles and progressive news sources" is basically exactly what anti-vaxxers say. "Just watch all this trial footage" has the stink of a Jordan Peterson fanboy demanding that you watch a whole day's worth of his seminars before you have an opinion on him. And "I know I sound just life done really awful people, but the difference is, I'm right" has never been convincing. I wouldn't know where to begin with someone who has come to see Amber as not just a victim but representative of victims at large.

 

[idonteven]

newspaper here in my country saying that camille vasquez needs to calm down and that she got away with a lot of stuff because she is pretty

I CANT ANYMORE

 

[Ryu]

Era is surely Gamer Gate now too. Telling someone to actually watch the trial and make your opinion rather than reading or watching media about it is the bad stuff now. Didn't we all know better?

 

[Necromanti]

Here's the thing. Being--or claiming to be--progressive doesn't mean being more receptive to evidence-based critical thinking. It doesn't mean you can't be biased, dishonest, or maliciously ignorant. It's just that the evidence usually tended to align with their narrative, rather than the other way around. (If you have a bag of marbles where 90 are blue and 10 are red, guessing blue every time means you'll be right most of the time.) That's why we have right-wing commentators who might be more "correct" in the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but are completely wrong in the reasoning and narrative used that would lead to said conclusion. People are bad at critical thinking in general, and being right by way of coincidence (regardless of who it is) doesn't change that.

No sense to hold people on the left to a (significantly) higher standard given they're subject to the same societal messages and prejudices, even if it's (significantly) more frustrating when coming from that side. And that's being charitable given I don't really know the ins and outs of the beliefs of random people on Twitter who might be otherwise dedicated to something reasonable. People are also highly tribalistic in genera, which is a whole other can of worms. (Where it's more important to be "right" than to be correct and honest.)

Anyway, it's obviously ridiculous to claim that believing the evidence (that might contradict Heard's claims) is somehow an indictment of #MeToo, of feminism as a whole, or many of the other assertions being made. Things being true as a general trend doesn't change the reality of this one case. Feminism also means women--like what should be done for all people--being held accountable for and judged by their actions as a person, not diminishing their agency or culpability based solely on their gender. Men being automatically seen as instigators, as being immune to abuse or sexual violence, as being poorer caretakers, etc. is just the other side of the same shitty, misogynistic coin. The uncritical "believe all women" being trotted out in response to this case, and how the case is being interpreted and reported on, is more damaging than Heard herself.

 

[Stuart444]

Just saw this in response to one of the other tweets on previous pages here.

This is just to show that even with literal audio evidence, there is still denial of reality going on.

 

[Tigerfish419]

This is honestly the thing that gets me about the case. Those progressive voices who as you say are all about logic and doing good research, who advocate for equality, victims and kindness, who celebrate diversity and publically attack TERFs, MAGA shitstains, etc... are just completely all-in on Team Amber. The logic posed is "Johnny was older, richer, more famous and a man, therefore the nature of power dynamics makes Heard abusing him completely ludicrous."

Click to shrink...

This is also what I find extremely confusing too. I am one of those people who think you should be logical, do research, want diversity, against maga crap but I'm on "team" JD and I haven't even watched any of the pirates movies or think anything of him and I haven't watched movies with AH to be negative or positive to her so I am netural going into the case, I also haven't paid attention to the UK case at all.

With all that said and pretty much have only been watching Emily B livestreams of the court case, everything to me so far screams AH is being dramatic or even faking the violence,.

1. she doesn't seem sincere and her emotions for certain things seem strange to me
2. her friends seem to be just backing her up because she needs them, I even feel like maybe there's even blackmail going on
3. the stories have holes in them
4. the pictures don't show the injuries of said attacks
5. she is on audio belittling JD the whole go on johnny tell the world you're a victim and see what the judge thinks is so daming to me
6. there is not a single instance of a single person witnessing JD hit AH at all and everyone had keys to the penthouses it seems
7. she is trying to fight on if she donated money or not after using the donation as a case she isn't a gold digger then proceeds to sort of confirm she could be
8. everyone is on drugs and beer it seems but ONLY JD is the crazy and violent one
9. it feels like most of AH statements are trust me and my friends but don't trust JD witnesses because they are paid by him so of course they will lie for him
10. The "trashed" penthouse pictures are hilarious because it's just a wine bottle on the floor, a broken plate, picture frames put on a bed, glass on the stairs.
11. why would you gift your abuser a huge knife with til' death after the shit you went through
12. why would you gift your husband a huge knife if you knew he was harming himself
13. why are there ZERO medical reports
14. How is it she has had like 10 broken noses with zero pictures proving it
15. why the hell did she just take 2 pictures of mirrors during the australia incident and none of the injuries she sustained
16. why did her sister not break them up knowing if she was being abused, she actually tried to keep them together
17. why are all these AH friends no longer friends with her
18. why did AH approach these friends just before they were about to be questioned to rekindle their relationship

So many questions.


One thing can be said without a doubt is, this relationship seems VERY toxic and should have ended sooner.

 

[MrCibb]

Just saw this in response to one of the other tweets on previous pages here.

This is just to show that even with literal audio evidence, there is still denial of reality going on.

Click to shrink...

What an idiot. That's just new heights of ignorance. It's impossible to argue with someone like that too.

 

[Stuart444]

Oh and I just noticed this tweet also in response (I was just flabberghasted by the previous one that I didn't even see this tweet)

So essentially, a judgement must be made for it (evidence) all to be 'proven'

 

[Saikyo]

I can verify as I'm his brother.

Click to shrink...

 

[Isilia]

People inside my home can easily see Amber being a villain.

People afraid of having an opinion on it almost always default to "Both side are abusers!" Those same people probably just have been fed links by friends obscuring most of the info shown in this trial. Or they are just ignoring it, really.

Then there are the people who just cannot comprehend how a woman can be an abuser. I saw a few of these on some social media sites I use. I'm not even going to bother engaging because of many examples already posted in this topic. They've made up their mind.

I just wish, in this case or others, would just spend time looking up the information themselves rather than just watching a YouTube pundit their cousin shared with them. Clearly, those are where the real facts are found.

 

[Marossi]

I'm just fucking sad by the amount of people I had respect for just completely dismiss abuse of male victims when I have suffered so much in the past. Feels like I don't exist. Watching the trial resonates so much with me, AH actions and behaviour is almost 101 of an abuser, and yet here I am trying to convince people that I used to think as allies that I exist, that people like JD exists.

Just tired and feeling hollow.

 

[Detail]

Here's the thing. Being--or claiming to be--progressive doesn't mean being more receptive to evidence-based critical thinking. It doesn't mean you can't be biased, dishonest, or maliciously ignorant. It's just that the evidence usually tended to align with their narrative, rather than the other way around. (If you have a bag of marbles where 90 are blue and 10 are red, guessing blue every time means you'll be right most of the time.) That's why we have right-wing commentators who might be more "correct" in the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but are completely wrong in the reasoning and narrative used that would lead to said conclusion. People are bad at critical thinking in general, and being right by way of coincidence (regardless of who it is) doesn't change that.

No sense to hold people on the left to a (significantly) higher standard given they're subject to the same societal messages and prejudices, even if it's (significantly) more frustrating when coming from that side. And that's being charitable given I don't really know the ins and outs of the beliefs of random people on Twitter who might be otherwise dedicated to something reasonable. People are also highly tribalistic in genera, which is a whole other can of worms. (Where it's more important to be "right" than to be correct and honest.)

Anyway, it's obviously ridiculous to claim that believing the evidence (that might contradict Heard's claims) is somehow an indictment of #MeToo, of feminism as a whole, or many of the other assertions being made. Things being true as a general trend doesn't change the reality of this one case. Feminism also means women--like what should be done for all people--being held accountable for and judged by their actions as a person, not diminishing their agency or culpability based solely on their gender. Men being automatically seen as instigators, as being immune to abuse or sexual violence, as being poorer caretakers, etc. is just the other side of the same shitty, misogynistic coin. The uncritical "believe all women" being trotted out in response to this case, and how the case is being interpreted and reported on, is more damaging than Heard herself.

Click to shrink...

God this is such a good post, especially the bolded.

As someone who has always been progressive my entire life I have seen many ignorant people even in my own social circles, you're right in saying that many people are just generally bad at critical thinking.

Also, many people have fragile egos, we are living in an epidemic of fragile egos right now and I think the cause is social media, hence why nobody ever wants to be "wrong" it just becomes a game of picking a side and sticking to it, no matter what, or who, it hurts in the process.

 

[War95]

Here's the thing. Being--or claiming to be--progressive doesn't mean being more receptive to evidence-based critical thinking. It doesn't mean you can't be biased, dishonest, or maliciously ignorant. It's just that the evidence usually tended to align with their narrative, rather than the other way around. (If you have a bag of marbles where 90 are blue and 10 are red, guessing blue every time means you'll be right most of the time.) That's why we have right-wing commentators who might be more "correct" in the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but are completely wrong in the reasoning and narrative used that would lead to said conclusion. People are bad at critical thinking in general, and being right by way of coincidence (regardless of who it is) doesn't change that.

No sense to hold people on the left to a (significantly) higher standard given they're subject to the same societal messages and prejudices, even if it's (significantly) more frustrating when coming from that side. And that's being charitable given I don't really know the ins and outs of the beliefs of random people on Twitter who might be otherwise dedicated to something reasonable. People are also highly tribalistic in genera, which is a whole other can of worms. (Where it's more important to be "right" than to be correct and honest.)

Anyway, it's obviously ridiculous to claim that believing the evidence (that might contradict Heard's claims) is somehow an indictment of #MeToo, of feminism as a whole, or many of the other assertions being made. Things being true as a general trend doesn't change the reality of this one case. Feminism also means women--like what should be done for all people--being held accountable for and judged by their actions as a person, not diminishing their agency or culpability based solely on their gender. Men being automatically seen as instigators, as being immune to abuse or sexual violence, as being poorer caretakers, etc. is just the other side of the same shitty, misogynistic coin. The uncritical "believe all women" being trotted out in response to this case, and how the case is being interpreted and reported on, is more damaging than Heard herself.

Click to shrink...

Well said

 

[Indy in the Fridge]

Here's the thing. Being--or claiming to be--progressive doesn't mean being more receptive to evidence-based critical thinking. It doesn't mean you can't be biased, dishonest, or maliciously ignorant. It's just that the evidence usually tended to align with their narrative, rather than the other way around. (If you have a bag of marbles where 90 are blue and 10 are red, guessing blue every time means you'll be right most of the time.) That's why we have right-wing commentators who might be more "correct" in the conclusions drawn from the evidence, but are completely wrong in the reasoning and narrative used that would lead to said conclusion. People are bad at critical thinking in general, and being right by way of coincidence (regardless of who it is) doesn't change that.

No sense to hold people on the left to a (significantly) higher standard given they're subject to the same societal messages and prejudices, even if it's (significantly) more frustrating when coming from that side. And that's being charitable given I don't really know the ins and outs of the beliefs of random people on Twitter who might be otherwise dedicated to something reasonable. People are also highly tribalistic in genera, which is a whole other can of worms. (Where it's more important to be "right" than to be correct and honest.)

Anyway, it's obviously ridiculous to claim that believing the evidence (that might contradict Heard's claims) is somehow an indictment of #MeToo, of feminism as a whole, or many of the other assertions being made. Things being true as a general trend doesn't change the reality of this one case. Feminism also means women--like what should be done for all people--being held accountable for and judged by their actions as a person, not diminishing their agency or culpability based solely on their gender. Men being automatically seen as instigators, as being immune to abuse or sexual violence, as being poorer caretakers, etc. is just the other side of the same shitty, misogynistic coin. The uncritical "believe all women" being trotted out in response to this case, and how the case is being interpreted and reported on, is more damaging than Heard herself.

Click to shrink...

This deserves a threadmark. It encapsulates things perfectly. Excellent post.

 

[ChrisJSY]

People afraid of having an opinion on it almost always default to "Both side are abusers!" Those same people probably just have been fed links by friends obscuring most of the info shown in this trial. Or they are just ignoring it, really.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, having been in an abusive relationship, the way I acted as a coping or defensive mechanism; out of context, might look like abuse itself.
But it wasn't. Just because I shout back, or slam doors, or throw stuff (not at someone) doesn't mean I'm an aggressive person, that's not stuff I do when I'm in a healthy relationship, or at all. I had nowhere to go and no way out for a long time.

Said person also planned to make a lot of stuff up, using friends to lie for them etc to get me in to trouble, stupidly they did this all over texts.
The kind of stuff that if I had no proof they lied, would've ruined my life.

People who both sides this shit have no idea at all what it's really like and what level you yourself go to, to cope or defend yourself.

 

[Kinthey]

Looks like rumors / whatyouwanttocallit about Camille Vasquez and Johnny Depp having intimate relationship are gaining steam in bowels of Internet.

Why she can't just be skilled and successful lawyer with warm personality, instead of creating narrative that she is Depp's love interest basically? :|

Click to shrink...

I think that comes from some people just thinking of this trial too much as their own personal soap opera. I mean they're basically just shipping characters here.

 

[Shemhazai]

Just read this tweet as part of one of the chains linked on this page and it's literally given me a panic attack. Like, a proper physiological response. The fact that a partner could start a fight with me and there are people who are supposed to be the good guys who would tell me that they're assaulting me because I'm the abusive one? What the ever living fuck.

Now with that acknowledged, and seeing how this is very much a "if you actually do research" issue, what side of people are the ones saying the defendant is very obviously the victim?? It feels like a thing republicans in the US would say (stating stuff without actually doing research), but they'd never defend women. But more progressive people who are interested in (understandably) defending women are usually also pro-logic and doing research, which very obviously isn't happening (and I mean as it is right now. Most people don't know who the actual abuser is 100%, they can just make informed cases).
So yeah… what the heck is going on? I gained interested in this based on this topic, rather than the actual issue between two famous people I don't know and will never meet.

Click to shrink...

This was your mistake. A large portion of progressives are just as lazy with logic and research as conservatives, it's just that most of the time reality has a progressive bias so they're used to being right. The few times when reality doesn't align with progressive beliefs it becomes real obvious real fast just how little many self-proclaimed progressives actually care about educating themselves.

 

[entrydenied]

Oh...this is her Charisma build?

I think she needs a refund of them skill points...

Click to shrink...

Occasionally she respecs and goes for an Endurance/Vitality built.

 

[PhoenixAKG]

Click to shrink...

Really not the case here as other people can verify this is true.

 

[Dis]

Oh and I just noticed this tweet also in response (I was just flabberghasted by the previous one that I didn't even see this tweet)

So essentially, a judgement must be made for it (evidence) all to be 'proven'

Click to shrink...

I'm just catching up, but seriously why are people so fucking stupid? I'm so tired of having to constantly point out on era already that no, the UK court didn't prove or rule that Depp was an abuser. I can't even imagine trying to explain it to the masses on twitter who are too fucking stupid to understand that they didn't.

This whole fucking trial has been an ordeal from the get go, people who should know better are acting like children who can't accept that they were wrong before and move forward now the truth is coming to light. Then idiots are paroting these people online as if their word is gospel despite plenty admitting they aren't even watching the trial.

I'm honestly surprised how many people who I figured were OK people before this trial are now instantly on my "fuck that person" list, some of which are seemingly respected individuals by era at large for their work in other aspects.