Noteworthy News

[Irreligious Atheist]

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.”

CNNs top legal expert calling Heard a truth teller is a little more of an issue than 'rogue faux feminist gets invited on air and makes a fool of themselves by defending an abuser who disfigured her victim'. CNN is backing up this narrative simply by having someone like Tubin be their supposed top legal expert. It was the host of an MSNBC show that said Depp couldn't have been abused because he had a bodyguard. You can't pawn off the blame for this on rogue feminists. MSNBC endorses these views by paying this person millions of dollars to host a show. Is MSNBC going to replace this show host because they've embarrassed the network? Of course not. They've given this type of content the rubber stamp.

I'm just glad I haven't been banned yet for questioning Amber Heards' story. I was sure AWTY would jump at the chance, but it looks like the forum is heading somewhat in the right direction, maybe, where we can have more open discussions rather than worrying about making everything a safe space.

[arewethereyet]

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.”

CNNs top legal expert calling Heard a truth teller is a little more of an issue than 'rogue faux feminist gets invited on air and makes a fool of themselves by defending an abuser who disfigured her victim'. CNN is backing up this narrative simply by having someone like Tubin be their supposed top legal expert. It was the host of an MSNBC show that said Depp couldn't have been abused because he had a bodyguard. You can't pawn off the blame for this on rogue feminists. MSNBC endorses these views by paying this person millions of dollars to host a show. Is MSNBC going to replace this show host because they've embarrassed the network? Of course not. They've given this type of content the rubber stamp.

I'm just glad I haven't been banned yet for questioning Amber Heards' story. I was sure AWTY would jump at the chance, but it looks like the forum is heading somewhat in the right direction, maybe, where we can have more open discussions rather than worrying about making everything a safe space.

Keep my name out of your mouth.

[Fake Messiah]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

I find it even more fascinating that, after almost two years as a member and more than 1100 posts, IA still can’t seem to grasp that we don’t ban people for expressing contrary opinions.

Boru

[Fireball]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

I find it even more fascinating that, after almost two years as a member and more than 1100 posts, IA still can’t seem to grasp that we don’t ban people for expressing contrary opinions.

Boru

I wonder if he's ever looked at your sig line?

[Irreligious Atheist]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

I love how you just ignore my arguments and focus on that. If an MSNBC host said Johnny Depp could not have been abused because he had a bodyguard, people here don't want to put that on MSNBC and would rather just blame it on faux feminists, but when Tucker Carlson is spewing his garbage, absolutely no one, and for good reason, would give Fox News a pass for it. Lets get some consistency here.

And AWTY is my personal rape accuser. She is the only person, ever in my life, to accuse me of rape, so forgive me for wondering what she might do with her moderator powers. I realize the forum had to pick some women to be moderators and that it couldn't just be all men, but come on now... Affirmative action. Just my opinion though, so take it with a grain of salt.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

I love how you just ignore my arguments and focus on that. If an MSNBC host said Johnny Depp could not have been abused because he had a bodyguard, people here don't want to put that on MSNBC and would rather just blame it on faux feminists, but when Tucker Carlson is spewing his garbage, absolutely no one, and for good reason, would give Fox News a pass for it. Lets get some consistency here.

And AWTY is my personal rape accuser. She is the only person, ever in my life, to accuse me of rape, so forgive me for wondering what she might do with her moderator powers. I realize the forum had to pick some women to be moderators and that it couldn't just be all men, but come on now... Affirmative action. Just my opinion though, so take it with a grain of salt.

I’ll take your opinion with a metric fuck ton of salt. 60% of the active administrators (we don’t have any actual moderators at all) on this forum are women.

If there’s any ‘affirmative action’ happening here, it’s going the other way - Jackalope and I are the token males.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

IA desperately spewing crap for the alternate reality in his head and thinks any of his dranged blather is an argument  

[The Architect Of Fate]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

Yup the eternal victim 

[The Architect Of Fate]

But don't you find it fascinating that no matter what the subject is (trans, vaccines, Jan 6, UFOs, race) IA somehow finds a way to explain to us that he and "people like him" are being persecuted?

I find it even more fascinating that, after almost two years as a member and more than 1100 posts, IA still can’t seem to grasp that we don’t ban people for expressing contrary opinions.

Boru

Because he lives inside his own head and tunes out anything that doesn't his own deranged narrative

I get we keep him around solely  for the humor though