Johnny Depp vs Amber Heard

[Suicidebydeath]

I agree that the only two people that know for sure are Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

Johnny Depp is a much bigger celebrity than Amber Heard, they're not even comparable. JD would get a halo effect based on looks, immense popularity and perceived kindness. He visits sick children in hospitals, and some people will naturally take that into account whether they should or not. Conversely, its stated that AH violated an order to give part of her settlement to charity. AH said its an ongoing payment which I find to be a plausible explanation, if somewhat sketch.

I think Johnny Depp's career was damaged the instant all of this began, it didn't matter what he did. He was dropped from Pirates of the Carribean and pressured into resigning from Warner Brother's Fantastic Beasts. Afaik AH has not been pressured to resign from Warner Brother's Aquaman sequel.

 

[Lost Magic]

Amber Heard said she got molested by Johnny Depp with a wine bottle. If that is the case, why did she stay with him after that? I honestly don't believe much of what she says. If there are truths to what she says, then they are probably wildly exaggerated. She tried to build up a rapport with the jury, with her creepy looking at them after every question thing, but they obviously saw through her BS. To me she is just a very fake, narcissistic, vindictive gold digger. The biggest mistake, Johnny, did was hook up with her in the first place. He was sucked in by her beauty like a lot of ageing Hollywood men are with much younger women. His crime was lust hahaha. At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Someone123]

perceived kindness. He visits sick children in hospitals, and some people will naturally take that into account whether they should or not

Bill Cosby appeared to be extremely kind in his role on the Cosby Show, and that didn't work out too good- he also made many large charitable donations, including $20 million to a historically black college. Jeffery Epstein had a large charitable foundation that sponsored all kinds of positive causes. The list goes on and on. Celebrities see a big value in being perceived as a nice person, plus many people have good and bad sides to them. Ted Bundy did volunteer work manning a suicide hotline during the same time he committed his crimes- he seemed like the nicest guy in the world to most of the people he knew. People have good and bad sides to them, doing some charitable work doesn't mean he didn't also have a bad side.

Conversely, its stated that AH violated an order to give part of her settlement to charity.

Amber Heard made a mistake in pledging most of her divorce settlement to charity as a p/r move- that was most of her net worth- it was way too much. She still donated over one million dollars, which is a higher percentage of her net worth than most celebrities donate. It was foolish to pledge $7 million to charity when her net worth was $9 million- I think she was banking on a lucrative future in films, but to pledge so much was a really bad decision. She had to dial it back considering the lawsuit especially.

I am pretty sure Amber Heard will not be in any more Aquaman films, from what I have heard. Some people say she lacked chemistry with the lead actor, who knows.

Amber Heard said she got molested by Johnny Depp with a wine bottle. If that is the case, why did she stay with him after that?

Women routinely stay with men who beat them nearly to death- staying together after abuse, hoping to get things back to where they used to be, is the norm in abusive situations, not the exception.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

Exactly, but it doesn't mean they were up to anything nefarious too. Charity donations come with tax relief. A suicide hotline could be a way to locate victims or get kicks. I think personal visits to hospitals is genuine, even if it can still be considered a PR move, since for rich people it's easier to donate money but time & effort is equally valuable for everyone.

It's easy to find good and bad examples. Keanu Reeves anonymously donates to charities. Mark Hamill & Robert Downey Jr also do hospital visits. Sometimes it can be just out of genuine kindness, it has to be. Regardless, people can take this into account. I didn't say that I did.

 

[Someone123]

Exactly, but it doesn't mean they were up to anything nefarious too. Charity donations come with tax relief. A suicide hotline could be a way to locate victims or get kicks. I think personal visits to hospitals is genuine, even if it can still be considered a PR move. It's easy to find good and bad examples.

Keanu Reeves anonymously donates to charities. Mark Hamill & Robert Downey Jr also do hospital visits. Sometimes it can be just out of genuine kindness, it has to be. Regardles, people can take this into account. I didn't say that I did.

A person can be genuinely kind during the day and killing someone at night. The list of serial killers who have done this is huge. The Btk killer (he named himself this- Bind, Torture, Kill) was president of his church congregation and was well known for many acts of kindness. To some people being nice to everyone at church on sunday morning and afternoon is a very rewarding experience, and then killing someone sunday night is also a rewarding experience.

 

[Kestrel]

Amber Heard said she got molested by Johnny Depp with a wine bottle. If that is the case, why did she stay with him after that? I honestly don't believe much of what she says. If there are truths to what she says, then they are probably wildly exaggerated. She tried to build up a rapport with the jury, with her creepy looking at them after every question thing, but they obviously saw through her BS. To me she is just a very fake, narcissistic, vindictive gold digger. The biggest mistake, Johnny, did was hook up with her in the first place. He was sucked in by her beauty like a lot of ageing Hollywood men are with much younger women. His crime was lust hahaha. At least, that's how I see it.

I'm not here to agree or disagree with Amber Heard's statements, but just as a general comment - many victims of SA within relationships often stay because victim psychology is very different to how an outsider percieves it. As a survival tactic, the victim may dissociate during the events and/or downplay what happened, leading them to only realise the gravity of it once they are in a safe situation to proccess it (something I have experienced, it is crazy what the brain does to protect us). Abusers also use 'lovebombing' techniques where after they have done something awful to you such as SA, they show the victim extreme amounts of affection which your shattered self esteem relies upon, hence victims stay and are dragged through cycles. There may also be practical issues of emotional blackmail, regular blackmail, financial ties, social and career implications.

Again, not saying this to defend Heard, just a general comment that 'but why did they stay?' isn't really evidence in and of ifself regarding DV cases, despite it seeming reasonable on the surface. Helena Kennedy QC speaks a bit about it in her book 'Eve Was Framed' if you ever get a chance to read it.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

"A person can be genuinely kind during the day and killing someone at night. The list of serial killers who have done this is huge. The Btk killer (he named himself this- Bind, Torture, Kill) was president of his church congregation and was well known for many acts of kindness. To some people being nice to everyone at church on sunday morning and afternoon is a very rewarding experience, and then killing someone sunday night is also a rewarding experience."

I did not say they could not and agreed all of that happens. By being argumentative when I agreed, that's pushing onto me the view that people that do kind things in public are all serial killers which I don't think is the view intended... otherwise you are arguing with yourself since I agreed with you, which makes no sense.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - going with purely argumentative since its a common behaviour when people disagree online and not really improbable at all.

You are definitely misunderstanding something, or you did not read the part where I agreed with you, again I think because of being argumentative, which is wanting to disagree for the sake of disagreeing because I didn't share your viewpoint earlier. I think we're done here since I do not bother to get drawn into pointless arguments online.

"Again, not saying this to defend Heard, just a general comment that 'but why did they stay?' isn't really evidence in and of ifself regarding DV cases, despite it seeming reasonable on the surface. Helena Kennedy QC speaks a bit about it in her book 'Eve Was Framed' if you ever get a chance to read it."

Agreed, it can be taken either way. It's well documented that people can stay with abusers long past the point that outsiders find reasonable and can be applied either way e.g. why did JD stay with AH?

 

[Lost Magic]

I'm not here to agree or disagree with Amber Heard's statements, but just as a general comment - many victims of SA within relationships often stay because victim psychology is very different to how an outsider percieves it. As a survival tactic, the victim may dissociate during the events and/or downplay what happened, leading them to only realise the gravity of it once they are in a safe situation to proccess it (something I have experienced, it is crazy what the brain does to protect us). Abusers also use 'lovebombing' techniques where after they have done something awful to you such as SA, they show the victim extreme amounts of affection which your shattered self esteem relies upon, hence victims stay and are dragged through cycles. There may also be practical issues of emotional blackmail, regular blackmail, financial ties, social and career implications.

Again, not saying this to defend Heard, just a general comment that 'but why did they stay?' isn't really evidence in and of ifself regarding DV cases, despite it seeming reasonable on the surface. Helena Kennedy QC speaks a bit about it in her book 'Eve Was Framed' if you ever get a chance to read it.

I appreciate your insightfulness on the matter, I will look more into it. And In all fairness, none of us will ever really know what went on behind the scenes, but I do think the evidence that was provided in court was enough for the jury to make fairly reasonable decisions. I gather we can all agree that they were a bad fit for each other. Saying that, not many people are compatible these days.

 

[Someone123]

By being argumentative when I agreed

I was not trying to be argumentative, I was just trying to dig further into the details, I'm glad that we were able to find some common ground. You did say "I think personal visits to hospitals is genuine" and so I followed up on this by trying to make the point that even if the hospital visit is genuine that doesn't mean that he wouldn't do something like domestic violence- it's easy for a person to do both good and bad things.

 

[Chinaski]

@Symbiote
Could you explain why you are hearting this comment? Plenty of misogynists on this site, but the standards are higher for mods and admins.

Do you understand the discrimination theory, power dynamics, why reverse sexism does not exist? Do you know anything about gender based violence and how it plays out in a patriarchal society?

Quoting this just to prevent it being lost in the discussion but will also add that if mods are going to say "we take misogyny very seriously, please report it" it's probably best that they don't present their own partial views on the issue so readily, as @Symbiote has done by heart-reacting this fucking god awful post.

 

[Nolan96]

@Symbiote
Could you explain why you are hearting this comment? Plenty of misogynists on this site, but the standards are higher for mods and admins.

Do you understand the discrimination theory, power dynamics, why reverse sexism does not exist? Do you know anything about gender based violence and how it plays out in a patriarchal society?

My post was not misogynistic. If you think it was, you're probably a misandrist.
Absolutely nobody owes you an explanation. You're acting obscenely entitled.

 

[YourNeighbor]

No one was "guilty" because this was not a criminal trial.

Anyone here who posted an opinion on this case watch the entire trial, or is everyone just speaking out their ass?

 

[Symbiote]

My own views on subjects does not affect the way I mod on this forum. If you think it affects my judgement on here, then you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Chinaski]

My post was not misogynistic.

It was tho

My own views on subjects does not affect the way I mod on this forum. If you think it affects my judgement on here, then you are sorely mistaken.

Beyond ridiculous.

 

[Oblivion Access]

My own views on subjects does not affect the way I mod on this forum. If you think it affects my judgement on here, then you are sorely mistaken.

Being unaware of or denying your bias affecting how you choose to exercise power (however meagre) doesn't mean your bias doesn't affect how you choose to exercise power. Nobody is entirely bias free, to claim otherwise is dishonest or ignorant.

 

[Chinaski]

Being unaware of or denying your bias affecting how you choose to exercise power (however meagre) doesn't mean your bias doesn't affect how you choose to exercise power. Nobody is entirely bias free, to claim otherwise is dishonest or ignorant.

I think it goes deeper than this, in that frankly if a mod is going to exhibit support for such a viewpoint in such an enthusiastic way and then respond to the concerns raised around it with yet another unfunny meme any discussion around bias is moot, people will see this and recognise what the moderation here stands for and represents and simply will not engage, nor will they report offensive output in good faith. The dipshits have got their playground.

 

[Kestrel]

My post was not misogynistic. If you think it was, you're probably a misandrist.
Absolutely nobody owes you an explanation. You're acting obscenely entitled.

It is misogynistic (and wildly ignorant) to deny that women are the ones impacted most by sexism, and instead proclaim that men are the main victims. You haven't provided any evidence to substanstiate your claims, but the fact you think 'having a vagina' is an advantage in this world reveals how you truely view women.

Need I remind you that Roe V Wade is in jeopardy? The overwhelmingly female statistics regarding sexual violence, harrasment, abuse and stalking? Or even just the everyday sexism that comes part in parcel with being a women?

And that's just the West. If you would like we can also talk about child brides, human trafficking, FGM, honour killings...all of which primarily target women, and are 'justified' by patriarchal systems.

Calling someone a misandrist because they take issue with your ignorant claims and the fact you have made misogynistic statements is just childish. You're upset that a women disagrees with you. Instead of engaging in an actual discussion, you revert to name calling to shut her up. I think that has a name when men do that to women, I think it begins with S....

 

[Symbiote]

I'm not here to debate or get drawn into one. Agree to disagree, shall we?

 

[Nolan96]

It is misogynistic (and wildly ignorant) to deny that women are the ones impacted most by sexism, and instead proclaim that men are the main victims. You haven't provided any evidence to substanstiate your claims, but the fact you think 'having a vagina' is an advantage in this world reveals how you truely view women.

Need I remind you that Roe V Wade is in jeopardy? The overwhelmingly female statistics regarding sexual violence, harrasment, abuse and stalking? Or even just the everyday sexism that comes part in parcel with being a women?

And that's just the West. If you would like we can also talk about child brides, human trafficking, FGM, honour killings...all of which primarily target women, and are 'justified' by patriarchal systems.

Calling someone a misandrist because they take issue with your ignorant claims and the fact you have made misogynistic statements is just childish. You're upset that a women disagrees with you. Instead of engaging in an actual discussion, you revert to name calling to shut her up. I think that has a name when men do that to women, I think it begins with S....

And I could lecture you about how men are disproportionately likely to die of disease, war, or suicide (!), to face homelessness, how the education system is failing them, how the media shames men while glorifying narcissistic traits in female celebrities, how male abuse survivors (including Depp) aren't taken seriously, the list goes on and on.

Now leave me alone misandrist.

 

[Kestrel]

And I could lecture you about how men are disproportionately likely to die of disease, war, or suicide (!), to face homelessness, how the education system is failing them, how the media shames men while glorifying narcissistic traits in female celebrities, how male abuse survivors (including Depp) aren't taken seriously, the list goes on and on.

Now leave me alone misandrist.

Is the answer to those issues* claiming that women have it easier? Do women directly cause any of those issues?

No they don't - you're strawmanning. It isn't sexism, it's what a society yet to be rid of its patriarchal values creates. And that is in itself a feminist concern.

The issue isn't that I disagree with you that men face certain issue typically more so than women. The issue is that I see most of those problems as being a product of patriarchy, which treats and expects men to be disposable and emotionless beings. That's exactly what creates cycles of toxic masculinity, which are self destructive to men and lethal to women. Why don't we talk about what happens to women in pillaged nations during war-time, or how most dometic homicide victims are women (71%) killed by men (96%) [source - Women's Aid UK]? I wouldn't want to make it into a 'who has it worse' game but rather try to show how patriarchy is a system where no one wins, bar those at the very top. To try and claim because certain issues impact men more, that must mean 'sexism' is over (or reserved only for men) is a very short sighted way of looking at things.

'If you say men are suffering (which we are) and then take that suffering, weaponize it, and turn it into a bludgeon to attack women with, you don't give two shits about men. You're after power, plain and simple.' - Mark Greene

*just putting a disclaimer that I don't see the media platforming narcassistic traits in women any more of an issue than them doing it for men. Quite telling you think it is.

 

[Insomniac]

the whole trial was triggering.

as someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent, seing people downplay the trauma of enduring an alcoholic addict was deeply triggering. People have no idea how it feels to live with an addict. No idea. This is one of the most emotionally traumatising experience ever.

I also feel like Amber denied the fact that she did physically abuse Johnny much more than he abused her. I know that she abused him physically because this is what addicts bring out of you. Even if you're not a violent person in the first place, it's easy to end up using physical abuse as an outlet to cope with the emotional trauma. People who act like emotional trauma is less important than physical trauma are disgusting. Truly horrifyingly disgusting. Just 2-3 days ego, emotional trauma got me to stab myself in the leg and I can't walk rn.

In the end, Depp reminds me of my dad and Amber reminds me of my mom. I hate them equally.

 

[whatevs]

If sexism exists in our society these days, it's 99% against men, especially the past few years. Amber Heard, as a vindictive violent abuser who for years got away with claiming to herself be the victim simply because she has a vagina, is the most transparent example of this. That's why people are so invested in this. It's finally a tiny bit of recognition that, yes, women too are imperfect beings and no, men are not always the evil ones who cause all the world's problems.

Nolan, it's impossible that sexism is 99% for ANY sex. These type of hyperboles undermine any other argument. If 99% of sexism was against men we probably would be part of a lower caste that could only do manual labor and impregnate women when commanded to, or something like that, lol.

I get what you're saying though, that sexism against men is more common than assumed from the sociocultural establishment, and crucially that it is a type of sexism that is rarely challenged or seen as immoral but either overlooked or perceived as humorous.