The only thing that hurts MeToo, is bringing MeToo in while still defending Heard
-
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.
#JusticeForJohnnyDepp trending following Amber Heard admitting to hitting and throwing pots, pans, and vases at Depp in leaked audio [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
- Status
The only thing that hurts MeToo, is bringing MeToo in while still defending Heard
Most justice systems do this: the accused is believed to be innocent until proven guilty.
It's been said many times before, but believing women and minorities when they report abuse means (or should mean) we take their message and case very seriously, investigate their case correctly, and render justice when needed.
It should not mean turning off critical thinking skills and dogpiling instantly on the accused, simply because they were accused, unless there's overwhelming evidence or history to the contrary. An example would be police brutality vs minorities.
Case in point: Amber Heard vs Johnny Depp. Believing Ms. Heard went just fine, but critical thinking failed (as an example) because the fact that Mr. Depp had no history of spousal abuse (corroborated by his ex-spouses) whereas Ms. Heard did, was completely not taken into account.
Guys....
This is really bad ....
One of the 4 women at the top of that "meToo" organization, is Amanda de Cadenet.
Amber Heard's best friend ......
Who is also listed in Depp's lawsuit as a co-conspirator ..........
Now retweeting on her platform a slanderous article ignoring all recent facts.
You can't make this shit up.
This is really bad ....
One of the 4 women at the top of that "meToo" organization, is Amanda de Cadenet.
Amber Heard's best friend ......
Who is also listed in Depp's lawsuit as a co-conspirator ..........
Now retweeting on her platform a slanderous article ignoring all recent facts.
You can't make this shit up.
I agree but for me it is a difference to take someone serious or to believe someone. Different words have different meanings and all that.
I'm afraid I am not following your line of reasoning there, that's on me. To me, believing and taking it seriously are separate things. Let's make what I mean to say explicit, with the following thought experiment.
Imagine a woman tells me she is being/was abused. I believe what she said is truthful.
Now I have the following choices (amongst others) - do I:
A: take it seriously, which means actually expending effort in due diligence - research, follow up, wait for evidence, examine past history of parties involved, and help her out if needed and within my abilities,
B: be an asshole and ignore it,
C: Overextend and immediately go nuclear against the ones she accuses with no due diligence (research, follow up, wait for evidence, examine past history of parties involved)
In my case, believing that the woman in this case is being truthful about the abuse is a given. I also take it seriously.
For the record, this is not an actual thought experiment for me, as I have been involved in this type of situation before.
In your example I would choose A but I would not believe anybody. So I wouldn't say to anybody explicitly that I believe them (e.g. accuser or accused) but I would take it very seriously. For me believing is just believing, like religion. Nobody can say if it is true or false before you have facts.
Ah, I see what you mean, now. I'm having a disconnect, though. If you don't believe someone, why would you take it seriously? It could be a personal bias on my side. if I didn't believe you, I would choose B - that means I don't expend effort, and I certainly wouldn't take you seriously.
Last edited:
Some topics have to be taken seriously. For example, if a stranger on the streets thinks he has a heart attack, I don't need to believe him I just need to call an ambulance and help him. And even if he was joking you would first try to help until you find out that he was joking, or wouldn't you? (Let's pretend that the strange is a really good actor that can fake a heart attack)
An other example would be climate change, I don't have to believe in it I just need to look at the facts.
Sorry if this is too much offtopic.
Yeah, Twitter is slamming #metoo pretty hard. Apparently Amanda was there too when Amber shit on the bed, punched Depp, and threw his wallet and phone over the balcony lol
This is a better story than anything Heard's acted in.
Yeah, we'd definitely verge off-topic if we continue haha. Thanks for the replies, in any case! :)
Amanda De Cadenet?!!!
if you don't know who that is - imagine a British Paris Hilton socialite and TV "toff " as the UK paparazzi breathlessly called her - and she was either a naturally formed or deliberately crafted scandal wrecking ball in the early 90s and probably relied on human toilet blockage, Piers Morgan for column inches about other column inches and scandalous scandals.
As far as I know she never did much more than throw champagne in some other celebrity's face but she was in the news nonstop for no apparent reason. They called her and a couple of other rivals or cohorts, "Wild Child" which meant- "young attractive woman who went to a club "
I believe she's a legitimate photographer now.
Last edited:
Based on witness statements, yeah. His housekeeper said she found it on his side, and Heard said it was a practical joke. Property manager was called up and also gave a statement about it. Heard changed the story later to blame her teacup yorkie.
She like seriously just shit on his side of the bed? Wtf is wrong with her?
She was mad that he was late to the 30th b-day party he set up for her and her friends.
So yeah basically she's fucking nuts
Telling people to watch Bird of Prey and also defending Amber Heard? I guess the author of that article is a fan of violent women in both fiction AND reality.
I don't know what you're attempting here, but I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Just got to change the sheets (get rid of her) and the bed will be as good as new.
Jesus, this is fucked up. Some people really hate to be wrong, I guess. There's just no defending Heard here, no justification to be found. And Cadenet is damaging her reputation as well as the Me Too movement with this shit. The strong majority of women aren't defending Heard, so hopefully there will be some pushback on Cadenet...it's gross that she's among the top of the organization. The other three at the top should speak up, if they haven't already.
Europe and Asia have already shifted ships.
Heard was trashed in France's biggest talk show last week.
It's not exactly breaking news because America dictates the news cycle as far as entertainment is concerned, but it's been reported on and proper conclusions have been drawn, even if it was brief.
I think in the USA they're waiting to see how Depp's lawsuit against the Sun goes next month. If he loses they'll spin it as "see we told you he was lying !!" as if defamation mattered more than him being free of any legal burden in this story, while she tried to have criminal charges against him and a lawsuit for domestic violence and both were dropped, and she can never refile it.
I think Depp can win against the Sun.
Against Heard it might be tricky.
She worded her Op-Ed very carefully.
I quote :
"I became a public a figure representing domestic violence" which is true because her media friends did make her this figure, regardless of what she really was.
" I have witnessed how the system defends men accused of being abusers" which is true because Depp was indeed accused of being an abuser... which doesn't mean he actually was an abuser.
etc.. It's full of stuff like this that are "not exactly lies". So who knows how the defamation suit will go against her. I think what she stated before the divorce is off limit because of their initial settlement.
Sometimes you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
She is not CEO, for the clarification.
Just one of the top people.
This "meToo" account had sent this to Dr Blasey Ford, you can see her name at the bottom.
I think the important thing to understand with this recent development is that you can remove the trash from MeToo and the movement can continue on as intended doing good. It's more than just a CEO
.BUT it does explain the lack of coverage here. I'm sure she has some sort of influence.
.BUT it does explain the lack of coverage here. I'm sure she has some sort of influence.
I always found it super greedy how they made a business out of MeToo =) . They have sponsors etc...
MeToo is a general movement that doesn't belong to anyone. In other countries there are equivalency of that movement, owned by nobody.
The point is getting people to care and support victims (of any gender). And also this specific american branch associates itself with other entities that only specify they are helping "women victim of abuse", I find the distinction kind of gross, considering several male artists had came out at the time to share their story.
They're certainly hiding her on the staff page if so, if you're referring to the account that tweeted in response to the one article. I see her name there on the open letter to Dr. Ford but I don't understand what her role in this organization actually is, or at least they're not forthcoming about it.
It's all about money and funding.
And since they included her in the public letter, it seems clear.
Regardless she is friends with all those people and implicated in the lawsuit directly so, yeah.
That tweet about how "survival looks different for everyone" could be equally applied to Depp as it is being applied to Heard, but they just blatantly refuse to do that. None of the evidence suggests a pattern of abuse from Depp. All of it suggests a pattern of abuse from Heard. Hm, wonder which one of them might have lashed out in survival mode under those circumstances? It's transparent.
Also MeToo is about all victims. Male victims have been there from the very beginning. Don't we remember Anthony Rapp? But suddenly, if there is a female perpetrator...crickets.
Also MeToo is about all victims. Male victims have been there from the very beginning. Don't we remember Anthony Rapp? But suddenly, if there is a female perpetrator...crickets.
Holy shit, I feel so bad for Johnny. There's just too much to digest here... Amber is an abuser, there's no doubt about it.
Anyone defending her at this point, has completely misunderstood the purpose of movements like MeToo.
I don't know if it's been posted here, but it seems like Johnny also submitted 87 surveillance videos, against Amber.
I truly hope he recovers from this. As for Amber, the truth coming out will do enough damage. I don't believe we'll be seeing her in Aquaman 2 (and if she's in it, I won't be seeing it).
Anyone defending her at this point, has completely misunderstood the purpose of movements like MeToo.
I don't know if it's been posted here, but it seems like Johnny also submitted 87 surveillance videos, against Amber.
I truly hope he recovers from this. As for Amber, the truth coming out will do enough damage. I don't believe we'll be seeing her in Aquaman 2 (and if she's in it, I won't be seeing it).
Last edited:
clearly, the videos are doctored.
/s
but there will be at least one Twitter user who will say Johnny Depp paid someone to doctor the videos.
Here is the channel of a therapist who specializes in narcissistic abuse and how to live through it.
She did a great job so far.
Worse than that.
If he loses defamation on a technicality, this is all her stans and friends will need. Once again not caring about facts but what they can sell to the medias.
For instance, proving she beat him doesn't mean he didn't beat her etc...
Her demurrer is going to be the biggest bullshit and with the political climate I wouldn't be surprised if a judge doesn't feel like condemning her.
I hope not obviously.
But I understand why Depp's team is leaking these things. It's a failsafe in case they lose because otherwise they would have buried themselves.
She did a great job so far.
Worse than that.
If he loses defamation on a technicality, this is all her stans and friends will need. Once again not caring about facts but what they can sell to the medias.
For instance, proving she beat him doesn't mean he didn't beat her etc...
Her demurrer is going to be the biggest bullshit and with the political climate I wouldn't be surprised if a judge doesn't feel like condemning her.
I hope not obviously.
But I understand why Depp's team is leaking these things. It's a failsafe in case they lose because otherwise they would have buried themselves.
Last edited:
Are you gaslighting?
I don't see the point in wrapping up Bird's of Prey with the metoo leadership self own.
Huh? No, I was talking about the author of that article the metoo account was replying to who has "watch birds of prey" in her twitter handle.
It was a silly quip, let's not derail the thread.
Thanks for linking that video, watching it now.
edit: finished it, it's a really good analysis and shows how manipulative Heard is in her behavior.
Last edited:
Just for the record, there are "moral" or generally socially acceptable "psychopaths" too (the population being people with very dimnished emotional [esp. fear, guilt, shame] and empathy capabilities but generally other cognitive functions being intact and some emotions such as anger or interest might be their main ones). It depends on how they were raised to think and what kind of ethical logic they decide to use. They can be pro-social, just kinda lacking in emotional capability. Which is why ASPD doesn't always seem to accurately describe those types of people and why I don't use that term as much.
And yes, Asperger may be a nazi or whatever, but I'm not finding autism-level1 or however you would describe "relatively high functioning person with autism, often with fluent language skills" quite as useful yet. Yes it would be nice if all conditions or disorders were named after better people, but it is what it is.
Sorry for bumping this with a late reply, but guys, I'm still gonna probably use the terms "psychopath" (and sometimes psycho) and "aspergers" until such a point I no longer find it useful lol. :P
Probably not around you guys though! Since you either don't understand the context of its use or find it distasteful regardless. I will try to be polite.
As for the new developments with more influential meetoo movement people.. yeesh.
All of it just reminds me more and more of what some of my male friends have gone through or are currently going through. Even down to the frivolous or abusive demands of them to undergo psychological evaluations, that they hand in all their private journals/creative writing for analysis of violent tendencies or whatever. At that point you fear having any voice at all, even your own private thoughts, as you're afraid somehow they can be construed as evidence that you were the evil or abusive one.
I think Heard is beyond just classic narcissism. She has a lot more orchestration and malignancy to her than reactive lashing out due to ego injury. Worse, she has a lot of useful idiots or flying monkeys defending her.
Damaging to the MeToo movement, she should get out of it, her involvement and bad faith in this shit show now creates a precedent that people can use to discredit women.
So the MeToo mothmevemnt is being brought down by the blind frinedship/complicity in making Herd a victim? you cannot make this shit up! all those genuine people of the movemet potetiall thrown under the bus for what?
Christ this shit is utterly depressing
Christ this shit is utterly depressing
- Status