The Disturbing trial of Johnny Depp - Cancel Culture - Propaganda

do you believe her or him?

 

Its not the point.. or anywhere close to it. The idea that we necessarily believe one over the other is the point .. throw out guilty until proven innocent.. Equal Justice .. rule of law .. to name a couple of massive violations of Judicial Integrity.

This is whack-eee-doodle .. this case being a prime example .. Nutjob progressive ideology strikes again .. at the foundation of our nation.

I watched a fair bit of the testimony .. some of which is detailed on the OP .. your question answered there.

 

Actually, its Depp himself who is talking about the cancel culture getting out of hand because he was asked to step down from his movie role as a result of the case. But we are ignoring that the judge threw out Depp's libel suit.

He said: “I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard.”
https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...ture-as-he-accepts-lifetime-achievement-award

So, it is he said/she said, and the judge ruled in her favor in this case.

 

I agree, but is not canceling her the same thing is my point, you have not taken a neutral view either

you said : "Amber Heard is a Sociopath.. violent - uber controlling - massive psychological abuse .. The girl when you see coming .. Run."

Trump suing Stormy was just as ridiculous, it's what the rich do

 

Didn't say Amber was cancelled .. my opinion of Amber is irrelevant to cancel culture . as is Trump.

 

Are you seriously going to have an argument about an argument?
First you can stop taking snippets of my posts complete out of the context
of the discussion and making it the talking point of a series of posts all of which have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.
"The woman must be believed" was a satirical opinionated comment meant to point out some perceived inequality in a judgement.
The statement itself and the satire that prompted it are OPINIONS about that male author's view/opinion that women are always given the benefit of the doubt.
Cancel culture is the act of not allowing someone who holds an opinion, usually one which is currently unpopular, from expressing it.
Now how in gpds name is the opinion that women must be believed, indicative of not allowing both males and females to speak?
Since freedom to do so is enshrined in law applicable to both men and women, I see no legal possibility of cancel culture.
What is see is a snide opinionated and unprovable expression by a near misogynistic male who resents women's successes in legal (and possibly other) contests.
So no. Women do not always have to be believed. It is not a fact and has nothing to do with cancel culture because it is not true that men are not allowed a voice...and in fact the comment to which I objected did not say men were not given a voice or allowed to present a case. That would have to happen if the perceived situation were true. He merely sarcastically said women must be believed...his opinion. Not fact. He did not say men never get a chance to put forward their case.
If you have any further questions, PM me. I doubt if anyone else is fascinated by your attempt at a semantics argument.
sigh.

 

The entire situation has nothing to do with cancel culture since no one has been cancelled.
Everyone gets to have a say.
Frankly I am astonished that either of them remember anything through all those drugs and alcohol they ingested.
I also wonder if they both want a settlement because neither of them will be hired again. Depp has already had some cancellations and is fighting for his reputation. Or in other words, his bank account.

 

'

Once again.. Define "Cancel Culture" .. you don't seem to have any idea what it means which results in your comments being nonsensical.

 

I just did!!
Can you read?
I just defined it above as not allowing someone to speak if their views are not currently popular.

Posted 28 minutes ago in my long reply to you.
You cant have your argument if you can't read.

It would be nice and earn you a brownie point if you actually discussed my"nonsensical" views. I doubt now you even understand them.

 

Must have missed it responding to many.. so OK "Not allowing someone to speak if their views are not currently popular" and big kudo's for giving a definition !! .. my bad for missing it .... as be saying that to many .. and you the first to not ignore the question

Not a bad try at all - a good example of one aspect of cancel culture .. if not the main one . canceling the views of others. .. lets reword / add a bit though .. make it more expansive .. to include suppression of, and ignoring views that conflict with the political bandwagon ..almost the same as what you said .. just a titch more expansive.

but whether we go with your version ..or my revised version - how does "The woman must be believed" - not fit ? as the side of the story from the man - is being canceled.. an attempt to cancel out the validity of an entire gender is this mantra.

Depp suffered considerable harm . via media who are part of and propheting this culture. You ever been falsely accused of something ? .. if so .. didn't like it very much .. did you ..

 

Believe ALL men. How about that?? Sound ok?

 

I never made that claim Giftedone in this thread. I made the claim this is a rehash of the 2016 divorce between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. And that is all. See my original post in this thread in which you replied to.

 

ah, so a woman suing her man is not comparable to Trump suing his fling

is it not canceling her by labeling her guilty?

 

OH .. ok .. my bad.. too many conversations ..

 

The funniest thing about this is starts the crazy at 4, 'cause all women are at least a 4 on the crazy scale!

 

This makes no sense .. none what so ever. The subjece under discussion is "women must be believed" .. not someone suing someone.

Who is labeling her guilty .. and for what ? and of course if the courts did such a thing .. labeled anyone guilty prior to due process -man or woman .. would be a violation of the Rule of Law.. Why would it be any different depending on the gender of the person ? and what have you accomplished other that bolstering my position .. that you now may have figured out by mistake.

 

Yeah that Depp is a crazy SOB. Did you hear about the fight that he beat the hell outta her and when she left the house to escape him, he took a big fat steaming on her side of the bed?

Oh, that was Amber, my bad.

She's on tape admitting to hitting him. She's batshit crazy. I hope she gets what she deserves. The $7 million she got in the divorce she was supposed to give to charity....oh yeah...that never happened either. That bitch is lower than whale dung.

 

you said she was guilty, are you saying she must not be believed, I think each needs to be based on a case by case bases and in some cases we will never know the truth

Trump's wife said he raped her, is it true?

both should be believed until the facts show otherwise, but many times we will never know the truth

 

This has nothing to do with what my personal opinion is .. followed by Trump nonsense that has nothing to do this.

One can't believe both - unless one is a idiot - violates the rules of logic and rational thought .. and where did you get idea I said she must not be believed ?

You are all over the map .. except - where you are supposed to be. "The woman must be believed" is the position of the progressive left. Not my position .. not some made up position.. not your position .. and not Trump.

The best for last -- you did manage to blurt out "case by case basis" .. Yes .. why not follow established judicial procedure and the rule of law .. which as you will notice .. is violated by "The woman must be believed"

 

you put your opinion in the ops post though

you said "In a Nutshell -- Amber Heard is a Sociopath.. violent - uber controlling - massive psychological abuse .. The girl when you see coming .. Run."

but the point is, you base your opinion on the evidence as you see it, everyone does that

legally though, both have to be believed until one or both are proved to be lying\telling the truth

 

Yes .. that is my opinion .. but you are conflating my opinion with "the woman must be believed" - which has nothing to do with my opinion. Comment on my opinion separately if you wish .. but don't conflate the two .. completely separate issues.

What I think of Amber -- based on the evidence - after hearing both sides .. has nothing to do with some cancel culture moron claiming "The woman must be believed"

You then .. in both previous posts .. go on to support my position .. stating "Both sides should be heard" YES .. correct .. which is what cancel cuture wants to negate .. making a pronouncement of guilty .. before hearing anything other than some woman's claim of sexual abuse - which is an abomination to the principles of Justice .. and the rule of law .. a perversion of logic and reason.

Capisce ?

Now since you seem concerned about my opinon of poor Amber -- did you hear any of the testimony .. see any of the evidence ?

 

then you should not of put your "opinion" about her in the opening post.... as that is what I am referring too

I agree with the rest of what you said, I have taken that side on many discussions here

both were brought up in the opening post, I addressed both

 

why not .. can you not handle two thoughts at the same time .. regardless .. good that we made it to the same page... these progressive zealots going way to far ... and its hurting people..

My opinion about Amber is relevant in that it shows a very good example of why "Women should not be believed" .. sight unseen.

 

I am handling it fine, you're the one that seems to have an issue with it, not understanding how I can agree with some of what you say, but have differing opinion on others

 

Or the bit that says if incredibly hot and not crazy, that's trans.