Quote:It's being killed (to an extent) because the media and activists were doing the wrong type of activism, by demanding people "believe women" or "believe all women" rather than just taking accusations much more seriously, which is what it should have been about from the start. Not POS people like Oprah standing on the Oscars stage acting like she's a hero for speaking out while she literally got and fed victims to Weinstein.

This shows you have no understanding of what that term meant ....

Quote:And the main stream media is still in Amber's court. There are compilations I could provide, after the verdict came out, of woman after woman saying that Amber had all the evidence and the verdict just proves that America hates women. 

Lol no ....

Quote:These women talking heads going on corporate media shows are STILL pushing the believe all women line, after the l**s we heard from Amber on the stand (If you're listening AWTY, I was just kidding. My post up until this point has been all satire. Amber Heard is completely telling the truth and I respect her truth and I believe her. Pretty please don't ban me because I would never question a real victim like Amber, unless I was doing satire).

Again nope 

So we know not to engage with IA on Metoo because he has no fucking clue what it's about 

Quote:Well, they say this new policy will result in less injuries to police and suspects. I have no problem accepting that, because less interaction is obviously going to lead to less injuries for both parties. Makes complete sense and I don't even need to look at any studies to see that. The job of the police is to protect the citizenry at large though, and their well-being, and I'm not sure this new policy does that by letting thousands of criminals speed walk away. I'll look more into their studies when I get a chance, and I'll plead ignorance here to an extent, but on the face of it, this policy doesn't make sense to me. If the only goal is to prevent injuries to officers and suspects? Sure. Telling people in advance that they can get away with any number of crimes scott free if they just speed walk away? Could embolden some people to go commit those crimes. Why not commit crime if there is no consequence for it?

Holy hell this is embarrassing... 

Biden is giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Gabby Giffords, Simone Biles, Steve Jobs, John McCain, Megan Rapinoe, Alan Simpson, Richard Trumka and Denzel Washington. Among others.

(July 1, 2022 at 1:21 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:It's being killed (to an extent) because the media and activists were doing the wrong type of activism, by demanding people "believe women" or "believe all women" rather than just taking accusations much more seriously, which is what it should have been about from the start. Not POS people like Oprah standing on the Oscars stage acting like she's a hero for speaking out while she literally got and fed victims to Weinstein.

This shows you have no understanding of what that term meant ....

Quote:And the main stream media is still in Amber's court. There are compilations I could provide, after the verdict came out, of woman after woman saying that Amber had all the evidence and the verdict just proves that America hates women. 

Lol no ....

Quote:These women talking heads going on corporate media shows are STILL pushing the believe all women line, after the l**s we heard from Amber on the stand (If you're listening AWTY, I was just kidding. My post up until this point has been all satire. Amber Heard is completely telling the truth and I respect her truth and I believe her. Pretty please don't ban me because I would never question a real victim like Amber, unless I was doing satire).

Again nope 

I provided a video of a bunch of mainstream media outlets saying the jury got the verdict wrong. I can understand if you don't have the time to watch it since it's long, but you should be neutral/agnostic on this question if you have not watched the video I provided. It shows CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and the BBC all supporting Amber, after the verdict. The mainstream media still supports Amber Heard, and you deny this without first looking at the evidence.

Police Are Harassing Mom Who Pulled Kids From Uvalde School Shooting, Lawyer Says

The Uvalde mother was pulled over for a traffic stop and falsely accused of having undocumented immigrants in her car. And then a police car sat outside her home for 45 minutes and flashed its lights at her and her mother as they went for a walk.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/angeli-ro...94c1e7c72a

No one cares IA .....

(July 1, 2022 at 6:32 pm)Helios Wrote: No one cares IA .....

You cared enough to respond, getting a little dopamine hit for your oh so clever two word response of "lol no", which by the way, is not an argument, even though you constantly use it in place on any real argument. We are well aware that you do not care to look into evidence and facts, and you just need to come up with some snarky two word spam response to amuse yourself because I've debunked you and you have nothing of substance to write. You have fun with that.

Honestly, what I want to know is are Amber’s defenders enough of a majority to constitute a consensus in the mainstream media? I do remember that during the trial, there were quite a few defenders with quite a few dubious arguments and they were mainstream enough that Firefox’ little startup menu with news stories recommended an article from the Cut asking “Why Do So Many People Think Amber Heard is lying?” I went down a rabbit hole of anti-Depp editorials with some dubious claims, things like Jezebel denying that reciprocal abuse is a thing; Vox talking about the misinformation campaign led by the Daily Wire to spread false Anti-Heard content, leading people on Twitter treating the whole movement as just another right-wing disinformation campaign (because it’s totally Benny-Boy’s fault Amber Heard got repeatedly caught in lies); at least one article that denied the validity of Heard’s diagnosis of Histrionic Persoanlity Disorder and went as far as drawing a fake etymological relationship between that and medical term with known misogynistic history hysteria (the origin of “histrionic” lies in the Latin word ‘histrio’ meaning “actor”, not the Greek ‘husterikós’ which means “suffering in the womb”); and several articles that basically amounted to tone policing, which is fair enough given how ghoulish the Pro-Depp faction online could get in turning an understandable backlash against Heard into full-on misogyny, but a bit less so when it talked about how people disbelieving Amber Heard could make women feel less safe about talking about their abuse.

Frankly, what I think is happening is less the mainstream media pushing a narrative and more some feminists pushing a narrative, it’s worth noting that things slowed down quite a bit a few days after the verdict, and the talk about the trial had shifted to being very pro-Depp, with some exceptions. I think that those exceptions were more motivated by what I’d call The Noble Lie. In this case, that women don’t lie about this sort of thing or if they do, it’s at an astronomically small rate. Most women don’t lie about it, for sure, but some do. But to them, acknowledging the small percentage that actually do could put the larger movement in jeopardy. I don’t think it should, of course. Even if the rate of false accusers is as high as 10% (I haven’t found stats about rates of false Domestic Abuse accusations, but if they’re like the stats for sexual assault, it’s probably closer to 5%, and as a certain boy genius once said, 95% is still an A), that still means they’re far more likely to be telling the truth than not), but evidently, an all or nothing approach is common enough that some people still ran defense for Amber Heard even after her story kept falling apart. I agree with the majority of feminist thought I read, but supporting the Noble Lie, even when the woman in question’s story is falling apart, is a line I refuse to cross. Why? Because being accused of something heinous when the evidence suggests you didn’t do it really fucking sucks. It sucks if you’re being accused of falsely accusing a man of heinous shit when you’re not, and it sucks if you’re on the other side of the equation and the evidence suggests you’re innocent.



“No one’s interested in something you didn’t do.”

Quote:You cared enough to respond, getting a little dopamine hit for your oh so clever two word response of "lol no", which by the way, is not an argument, even though you constantly use it in place on any real argument. We are well aware that you do not care to look into evidence and facts, and you just need to come up with some snarky two word spam response to amuse yourself because I've debunked you and you have nothing of substance to write. You have fun with that.

IA you have never debunked me in your life IA. You are a delusional idiot who spews vapid word walls thinking you are intelligent or the facts are on your side when they are not, And "lol no " is more of an argument than your bullshit deserves. You have no facts or evidence and you are a laughingstock on this forum. So spare me your pathetic posturing loser ..... 

PS I responded only to laugh at your goofy ass. Now run along little man.....