|
It’s turning into politics and a lot of the people who are running those channels are the same kinds of people who look up to Ben Shapiro and his MANLET DESTROYS BLUE HAIRED SJW WITH LOGIC videos. I will say, however, I think the slow burn trash fire nature of it has really pulled in a lot of people who don’t care about the idpol and are watching in the same way I remember OJ as a kid. I’m off for a while and I’ve had it on in the background after my mother was talking to me about it and I’m surprised how much of the case that’s being presented in the trial itself (not tainted by libertarian YT law commentary or CourtTV spin) is far different than anything I had read leading up to this.
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Also the open admission to hitting him and saying “who would believe you, a man” on tape. They are both toxic assholes who ruined each other’s lives and careers but stuff like that is why you’re going to bring out the MRA types on the YT. Much like Rittenhouse it’s the perfect case for the worst people
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
I’m not litigating anything here I’m explaining why this case is running up the score on YouTube
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I really hate every time I see one of those “Ricky gervais DESTROYS Hollywood elites at the golden globes” clips. He got invited back. FIVE TIMES
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:Right, but defamation needs to be false, so how are both "He abused me" and "She's lying" defamatory? Dumb jury Because she was caught openly and brazenly lying multiple times during her cross examinations. Whether the abuse was true or not that is the goal of the lawyer to make her credibility go out the window, and she looked ridiculously unbelievable up there lying about edited photos
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
I think assumptions like that shows just how deeply culture war has permeated everything. Republicans don’t care about Amber Heard they care that me too “lost” or whatever the gently caress goes on in their dumb minds. Do you really think Republicans care about an actor who moved to France and has never had a nice thing to say about their party? Or are they just bad faith actors latching on to anything to score points? They’re a spiteful bunch of gremlins.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
Metis of the Hallways posted:“I spoke up against sexual violence—and faced our culture’s wrath.” She specified a time frame following a high profile divorce. The jury seemed to think it was pretty obvious who she was referring to. Probably didn’t help she outright says during her cross examination “that’s why I wrote it about him.”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 02:14
|
|
|
It was terrible the moment people started posting about it when they never watched it. Just like any Cined thread.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
Glad we agree
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
No one with any sense is celebrating the fact that Amber Heard did damage to women who have been victims of abuse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:Who did the damage? Depp brought the lawsuit to court. After he lost in the UK, he brought it to America. What was she supposed to do? Not lie on the stand  Also he didn't lose to Amber Heard in the UK he lost to The Sun over their ability to publish accusations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:Where did she lie? I can find lots of parts where Depp and his witnesses' lies were disproven by their own text messages. You asked me about Heard so maybe stop the whataboutism. Depp is not a good person either. They held up two pictures of her alleged abuse that were identical save for alterations in saturation and she insisted they were different. She said she had nothing to do with leaking information to TMZ when there is deposition video of her letting that slip and a former worker for TMZ showing up to say "yeah that's literally the only way we could have got that video or information about where she'd be to photograph her." This is going to have impact on a jury who isn't extremely online Pac-Maning up every tweet and piece of information about the case. Also, to acknowledge other posts, get out of my face with the idea that not believing Amber Heard means that you love abusers and think all women are liars. I can support believing women and not believe Amber Heard after seeing evidence and interpreting it for myself. I also think it's gross that so many people who are supposedly vehement supporters of victims can't or refuse to imagine a world where a woman could have committed abuse on a man. weekly font fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jun 2, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:How is it whataboutism when the two people are inextricably linked through the case? That's like saying it's whataboutism to compare two candidates for office lmao. If they're both lying, Depp's lies are way more damning. On the stand, he said that he never laid a hand on anyone in his life, but that's disproven by audio clips of him admitting to hitting Heard. His sister said she had no knowledge of his drug problems, which are disproven by texts from her like "My brother has a problem and he needs help." Yeah I also saw the evidence, thanks. I'll say it again: Depp is an rear end in a top hat and was very likely part of a toxic, mutually abusive relationship. You asked me to point to where Heard was lying. I did. That, after coming out and stating I AM A REPRESENTATIVE FOR ABUSED WOMEN, makes her a bad representative for women who have actually been abused. emo-ignorance posted:If they're both lying, Depp's lies are way more damning. On the stand, he said that he never laid a hand on anyone in his life, but that's disproven by audio clips of him admitting to hitting Heard. I'd be interested in hearing this cause I don't recall it in the trial
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 17:57
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:“Never did I, myself, reach the point of striking Ms Heard in any way, nor have I ever struck any woman in my life,” Depp said. lol yes this was what I meant and not the smoking gun audio clips you're referencing
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
pentyne posted:el oh loving el You're a disgusting person. Congrats on turning something that matters into team sports
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
emo-ignorance posted:Whoops, sorry. Here's reference to the audio clip: Ah, thanks. I only remembered this in the context of him defending it as an accident which really isn't explicit in the audio. I know the jury had full audio from which only portions were played during the trial. I'd be curious to know if they listened further. Also, since you asked about stuff that I think hurt AH's credibility (and you seem to actually be interested in another perspective and not a bad faith shitlord) one of the things I forgot that I think turned her heel in the eyes of the jury was when it came out she had 18 months between the settlement and new lawsuit and didn't donate much money to the charities she "pledged" to and then argued the meaning between pledge and donate. Again, I don't think this says anything about who beat who, I just think it showed some dissonance between the public persona she has tried to create for herself and reality. The fact that this very unique case between millionaires that is actually about nationally published op-eds has became any kind of parallel for your "standard" abuse cases sucks because it's so weird and one of a kind. weekly font fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jun 2, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:The National Domestic Violence Hotline says mutual abuse does not exist. Abuse is about power imbalances and rarely do those imbalances change back and forth. Both/all partners can engage in unhealthy behaviors but the term "mutual abuse" is not considered an accurate way to describe it. Fine, I'll just openly say I think JD was the victim since apparently it's all or nothing. Does that make it better or does that get me a probe?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:No? Things that will also cause conflict is OP lumping me in with twitter MRAs for using a phrase that seemed logical and concise as oppose to the much longer, "A toxic relationship wherein one person was lashing out in retaliation after years of physical, emotional and mental abuse." Sorry I didn't know it wasn't APA approved, I'll avoid it from here on out. weekly font fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 2, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Because you don't get to chase people out of threads because they disagree with you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I thought they were being asked if it was slander/libel which is quite obviously should not have been. Were they being asked for something else? Amber Heard's defense team did not focus arguments on the idea that it was a matter of first amendment and free speech. This was probably a winning track, arguing that Amber felt victimized and that was the reasoning behind the op-ed. Instead they argued that everything even loosely mentioned in it was true, opening the door for a lot more to be brought in under discovery. Putting yourself on defense and needing to explain a lot of the more "sensational" aspects of the relationship, clearly, did not play with the jury. This is not commentary on who was an abuser, just a point on why so much about abuse was brought into the defamation case and why it became a referendum on that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2022 19:59
|
|