[News] The Internet Was a Mistake

A thread for updates on the various ways the internet is destroying everything and the undying hellsites of social media. Let's all laugh at the abyss.

From what little I have seen from attorney/legal people on YouTube it seems like Heard is not being fully open/honest about what happened. The legal people help explain why some things happen they way they are/ the rules or offer insight into why the attorney is doing what they are doing.

Either way both people probably did bad things but that is getting drowned out by the PR firms that are sponsoring articles, the people with strong opinions on the subject, and the super fans as it had become a sport at this point.

Then you add in the hate groups and this gets to be a huge mess.

I hope something good comes out of this mess that helps abuse victims in life/court as nothing will good will come out of the internet reaction to the case.

One good thing coming out of this is that some people may start to accept that males, even those who are fantastically rich, can be abused and not feel like they can get out of the relationship.

Stealthpizza wrote:

I hope something good comes out of this mess that helps abuse victims in life/court as nothing will good will come out of the internet reaction to the case.

I know I'm a cynic, but I don't think anything good's coming out of this.

Stealthpizza wrote:

From what little I have seen from attorney/legal people on YouTube it seems like Heard is not being fully open/honest about what happened. The legal people help explain why some things happen they way they are/ the rules or offer insight into why the attorney is doing what they are doing.

The one thing that happened in this case which pierced through my veil of disinterest and ignorance was the psychologist from the Heard side who based his diagnosis on viewings of Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

"I made my diagnosis of Mr. Depp based on some of his Pirates performances" was a literal quote from a psychologist in this trial. Testimony which was, apparently, an ethics violation.

Now, maybe both parties in this case are full of crap, I don't know. But I'm confident that any side that puts that nonsense on the stand is a side that has no meaningful relationship with the truth.

I have only been tangentially following the Depp-Herd case. It is very weird the Herd hate online. It reminds me so much of Gamergate and finding out it is a Chan op wouldn’t surprise me. As for the facts themselves, nothing I have seen in this case contradicts the London case which ruled against Depp when he sued for libel there.

Herd isn’t pure as the fresh snow but most of what I have seen is excusable as part of the mechanics of domestic abuse. Attempts to mirror the abuser, fighting back at times, attempting anything. It’s all pretty consistent with someone in an abusive relationship. And a court in London has already ruled on it so I don’t really know why anyone wants to re litigate it on the same evidence other than misogyny?

Even if Depp is in the right, it would set a pretty bad precedent if he were to win. Anyone who accuses a wealthy abuser without hard physical evidence would now need to worry about being sued into oblivion.

From what I've seen of the trial though, Heard's legal team is so shockingly incompetent that I suspect Depp will indeed win.

DoveBrown wrote:

I have only been tangentially following the Depp-Herd case. It is very weird the Herd hate online. It reminds me so much of Gamergate and finding out it is a Chan op wouldn’t surprise me. As for the facts themselves, nothing I have seen in this case contradicts the London case which ruled against Depp when he sued for libel there.

Herd isn’t pure as the fresh snow but most of what I have seen is excusable as part of the mechanics of domestic abuse. Attempts to mirror the abuser, fighting back at times, attempting anything. It’s all pretty consistent with someone in an abusive relationship. And a court in London has already ruled on it so I don’t really know why anyone wants to re litigate it on the same evidence other than misogyny?

Because Depp has been in a very bad place for a very long time. There was a Rolling Stone interview with him a few years back that was majorly depressing. He's mistaken the Heard Hate for Depp Support and they've got him thinking that if he can just get a public "win" that everything will go back to normal for him.

Also I think the London case was against the news outlet not her. And if they believed the story to be true which why wouldnt they given the source is his ex wife then that suit was doomed to fail.

I am wondering where all the photos of injuries and doctor reports are. Every time I go check up all I see is here is depp drunk again or here is some small bruise like the ones I get from walking into a door.

So many pictures have come out but I have not seen even one big injury she says happened. Maybe this is her legal team f'd up or maybe they are doing the best they can with a bad case.

The lawyer I have been following said all they need is a few good injury photos and 1 injury report from any doctor and it makes everything seem more plausible.

I think his point was there is a bunch of stuff the jury may see as hard evidence like pictures but none for the legal teams big argument.

I don't think either party walks away clean from this.

At least we get to see what a really good legal team looks like in action?

I don't think I have any positives for this case as it seems to already just be ammo for whatever argument the internet was already making.

All I have to say is Jason Momoa!

Though I do gnash my teeth at all the pile on especially from streamers like Asmongold. Heard appears clearly in the wrong here, but the fervor with which every misstep is dissected is a real danger for emboldening misogyny. (like we need more of that right now...)

Prederick wrote:
IMAGE(https://melmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/0-1024x463.jpg)

"In on it"? Could have been tagged just because he was a crazy stalker dude, or for any of another dozen reasons he didn't know about. "For publicity?" Yeah, I'm sure everyone wants to have their life ruined when half the internet comes after them because of some messages they got vaguely hinting at a crime. "Narcissistic"? Didn't read that way to me. "No one in their right mind"? Awfully confident of him. Maybe he's the narcissist. His ideas are bad, his conclusions are bad, and his post is bad.

There. Consider his words mocked.

It's the "if you analyze it well" part for me. True crime brain is a plague.

Just hundreds of thousands of amateur Sherlocks are convinced they know enough about body language and human psychology that they can correctly "analyze" people based on a video of them getting off a couch or a few random texts.

Dunning-Krueger all over the place.

Just a minor heads-up if you've RT'd a recent Twitter thread by @MyCancerJourne3

There is a whoooooooooooooooooooooole lot going on there. Either this dude is a liar, grifter, and possibly genuinely mentally ill, or he's lived a life that'd make Forest Gump's look uneventful.

EDIT: Also, the sheer number of Libs doing the "Well, I guess it's not true but Abbott's so awful it seemed plausible...."

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTuFIELWYA46Yy0?format=jpg&name=large)

Michael Hobbs (formerly of the You’re Wrong About podcast) was on Cancel Me Daddy, doing a nice summary of the disinformation going on with Depp Heard case.
Link to Apple Podcasts (other flavours available)

It’s very interesting to me that there is this a campaign going on. Hobbs suggests it isn’t mostly bots but people wanting to believe. He also went through the U.K. court judgement which had 14 abuse events against Depp, where 10 were proven, 3 were “he said/she said” and 1 was thrown out. People on this thread have suggested she has a case to answer. In addition to this case, Depp has been sued multiple times for violently lashing out at production assistants and people who worked for with him while he was under the influence. Why is it so hard to believe he was violent towards his wife? Man who is violent when drunk but nice while sober is too cliché?

The fact that the UK case failed should be a huge red flag for people. The standard for libel in the U.K. is huge. It wasn’t enough for the Sun to show that they believed the source to be true (unlike US libel law, where if the press can show they made a good faith effort to substantiate the claims, even if false, they can avoid losing), they had to show it was true.

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

Not really?

I was assuming that this thread was about how the internet produces bad outcomes and millionaire celebrities using the internet for a PR blitz and to supersede court judgements fits the bill.

hbi2k wrote:

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

It's being used as a Trojan horse to push misogyny.

NathanialG wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

It's being used as a Trojan horse to push misogyny.

So if I don't give a sh*t about Heard and Depp equally, I'm good?

DoveBrown wrote:

Michael Hobbs (formerly of the You’re Wrong About podcast) was on Cancel Me Daddy, doing a nice summary of the disinformation going on with Depp Heard case.
Link to Apple Podcasts (other flavours available)

It’s very interesting to me that there is this a campaign going on. Hobbs suggests it isn’t mostly bots but people wanting to believe. He also went through the U.K. court judgement which had 14 abuse events against Depp, where 10 were proven, 3 were “he said/she said” and 1 was thrown out. People on this thread have suggested she has a case to answer. In addition to this case, Depp has been sued multiple times for violently lashing out at production assistants and people who worked for with him while he was under the influence. Why is it so hard to believe he was violent towards his wife? Man who is violent when drunk but nice while sober is too cliché?

The fact that the UK case failed should be a huge red flag for people. The standard for libel in the U.K. is huge. It wasn’t enough for the Sun to show that they believed the source to be true (unlike US libel law, where if the press can show they made a good faith effort to substantiate the claims, even if false, they can avoid losing), they had to show it was true.

Yup. There's a lot of people who don't get that no matter what it's revealed that Heard did, none of it changes the fact that Depp *was* abusive to her, so he has no case to claim he was defamed by her saying she is a survivor of abuse.

hbi2k wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

It's being used as a Trojan horse to push misogyny.

So if I don't give a sh*t about Heard and Depp equally, I'm good?

No. Because the reason orgs like the Daily Caller are buying Facebook ads to attack her is to create an environment in which it's more dangerous for victims of abuse to speak up.

The same people attacking Heard at the moment are moving to target Evan Rachel Wood for her allegations against Marilyn Manson.

It's a reaction to the #MeToo movement and is all about putting victims in their place.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

It's being used as a Trojan horse to push misogyny.

So if I don't give a sh*t about Heard and Depp equally, I'm good?

No. Because the reason orgs like the Daily Caller are buying Facebook ads to attack her is to create an environment in which it's more dangerous for victims of abuse to speak up.

The same people attacking Heard at the moment are moving to target Evan Rachel Wood for her allegations against Marilyn Manson.

It's a reaction to the #MeToo movement and is all about putting victims in their place.

I see. Is there something productive I can do about this that doesn't require me to give a sh*t about either Depp or Heard specifically? Because that's kind of going to be a sticking point for me. I can't possibly stress enough how little of a sh*t I give about sh*tty celebrities being sh*tty to each other.

hbi2k wrote:

I see. Is there something productive I can do about this that doesn't require me to give a sh*t about either Depp or Heard specifically? Because that's kind of going to be a sticking point for me. I can't possibly stress enough how little of a sh*t I give about sh*tty celebrities being sh*tty to each other.

I'm not telling you what you need to give a sh*t about.

But I think it's interesting that you're more concerned about telling us how uninterested you are about the lives of a couple of celebrities, than in the fact that right wing media and trolls are weaponising social media against victims of abuse, in support of an abuser using the legal system to silence the accusations.

I'll tell you a secret, I don't particularly give a sh*t about either of them either, but I do give a sh*t about the other victims who are seeing the people in their lives attack a victim and know that if they speak up that's the fate that awaits them.

I'm more interested in that than I am in telling everyone I'm too cool to be interested in the lives of celebrities.

Nah, I'm with hbi2k.

Life's too short, and too full of precious things I DO give a sh*t about to waste a second of thought on sh*theels. That includes Depp, Heard AND assholes on social media.

Like, I ALREADY KNOW to expect the worst from right wing media. There's no point in analyzing it any further - it's assholes all the way down.

Prederick wrote:

Just a minor heads-up if you've RT'd a recent Twitter thread by @MyCancerJourne3

There is a whoooooooooooooooooooooole lot going on there. Either this dude is a liar, grifter, and possibly genuinely mentally ill, or he's lived a life that'd make Forest Gump's look uneventful.

And we have officially moved into the "people looked into my incredibly dumb, obvious lies, and I am now sh*tting my pants and trying to hide" stage.

The thing that always gets me are the people who jump on political stories that have absolutely no substantiation and read like whole cloth fiction, but when it comes to a rumor about their favorite sports team trading a player, they're not believing anything they read without independent verification from 3 separate news outlets.

I can understand people who simply lack critical thinking entirely. I can't understand people who demonstrate that they do possess it, but sacrifice it at the altar of confirmation bias when it comes to anything actually important.

I think (emphasis on think) it's a human psychology thing? Basic tribalistic In-group/out-group stuff.

Liberals like to think they're above it, but they're just as susceptible to "I am willing to believe this farfetched story because it paints people I dislike in the worst light possible" as conservatives are.

Now, whether one group spends more time leaning into it and weaponizing that is another long debate.

hbi2k wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
hbi2k wrote:
NathanialG wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

Hey, serious question.

Is there any particular reason why anyone who doesn't know Depp or Heard personally should give a sh*t? Is there more to this than bog-standard "slowing down to gawk at a train wreck" celebrity gossip?

It's being used as a Trojan horse to push misogyny.

So if I don't give a sh*t about Heard and Depp equally, I'm good?

No. Because the reason orgs like the Daily Caller are buying Facebook ads to attack her is to create an environment in which it's more dangerous for victims of abuse to speak up.

The same people attacking Heard at the moment are moving to target Evan Rachel Wood for her allegations against Marilyn Manson.

It's a reaction to the #MeToo movement and is all about putting victims in their place.

I see. Is there something productive I can do about this that doesn't require me to give a sh*t about either Depp or Heard specifically? Because that's kind of going to be a sticking point for me. I can't possibly stress enough how little of a sh*t I give about sh*tty celebrities being sh*tty to each other.

Nothing proactive, but when someone does bring it up to you, rather than tell them how you don't care because they're sh*tty celebrities, tell them you don’t care because nothing she may have done justifies the stuff he did, and that suggesting it does is just a sneaky way to push the idea that a woman deserved to be abused.

Prederick wrote:

I think (emphasis on think) it's a human psychology thing? Basic tribalistic In-group/out-group stuff.

Liberals like to think they're above it, but they're just as susceptible to "I am willing to believe this farfetched story because it paints people I dislike in the worst light possible" as conservatives are.

Are they, though? I can only see two possibilities, based on the fact that all the mainstream batsh*t insanity is right-wing; either only right-wingers make up crazy sh*t, or right-wingers are more likely to believe crazy sh*t and spread it. The latter sounds more plausible to me; I know that there _is_ some wackadoodle left-wing stuff, but it’s not the mainstay of the mindset.

Prederick wrote:

I think (emphasis on think) it's a human psychology thing? Basic tribalistic In-group/out-group stuff.

Liberals like to think they're above it, but they're just as susceptible to "I am willing to believe this farfetched story because it paints people I dislike in the worst light possible" as conservatives are.

Now, whether one group spends more time leaning into it and weaponizing that is another long debate.

Doesn't seem like that long of a debate to me, honestly.