Society & Culture Things in life you just don't understand - Part 4

[HahnPremium]

US sports broadcasting is another world compared to the AFL.

Got that right. Apart from all the metrics youve mentioned, our broadcasting and commentary is embarrassingly juvenile.
No analysis. Apart from biblical stat gazing. Which in our sport, stats are already overloaded and mostly guileless in any given understanding of a game.
Boys club of ex players who lobby for spots due to past footy ability and zero ability to analyse and articulate thoughts.
I have dim mates who tend to spruik more truisms about a game in motion and what is happening. I include myself in the dim appellation.
But these clowns we have commentating are either yarning on about themselves and yesteryear or big noting themselves compared to current players.
We have the worlds worst standard in footy commentary and analysis the world over in any sport Im sure.

 

[phantom13]

Maybe Caesar can help me out here.

Johnny Depp is suing Amber Heard for defamation over her article that (without naming him) said he comitted acts of domestic violence against her.

Now in the court of public opinion (and for a whole host of reasons) he is winning the case but what I can’t understand is.

His position is that he has never struck her or comitted any act of DV against her… at no point during the 4 odd weeks that circus has been going has it ever sounded like he HASNT done that. He’s certainly made her look crazy and violent and abusive herself but in order to win his case does he not have to “prove” that he wasn’t EVER abusive?

I suspect from a PR point of view he will “win” but is he actually going to win the case?

 

[Caesar]

I don’t know anything about the Depp case, but English defamation law is notoriously strict. The onus is on Heard to prove that her allegations are true, not on Depp to refute them.

Assuming Heard can’t prove her allegations, the onus is on Depp to prove that she was malicious in publishing them. I assume that is the purpose of the character assassination.

 

[phantom13]

I don’t know anything about the Depp case, but English defamation law is notoriously strict. The onus is on Heard to prove that her allegations are true, not on Depp to refute them.

Assuming Heard can’t prove her allegations, the onus is on Depp to prove that she was malicious in publishing them. I assume that is the purpose of the character assassination.

Didn’t she alread win (or he lost) the English case? This one is in the states?

 

[Caesar]

Well that shows you how closely I’m following it

I know zero about US defamation law

 

[Gough]

It tickled me that while Barnaby Joyce was being Barnaby Joyce about Pistol and Boo they were lumping seven bells of shit out of each other in the background.

 

[phantom13]

Well that shows you how closely I’m following it

I know zero about US defamation law

Well the point remains. She won the UK case as I broadly understand it the burden of proof or whatever in the US is even lower. The general public opinion has absolutely gone against her so perhaps it’s all one big PR thing but people are saying shit like “oh he’s been vindicated” and “she’s guilty”.

I think people forget that he is suing her and his defense is he never laid a hand on her, I just can’t see how anyone thinks (from the case we’ve seen) that true.

 

[the_interloper]

Well that shows you how closely I’m following it

I know zero about US defamation law

His testimony about her having a shit on his bed was remarkably funny, that's about all I've followed on it

 

[phantom13]

His testimony about her having a shit on his bed was remarkably funny, that's about all I've followed on it

This is kind of my point.

It seems most people like Johnnys story, think he seems funny and charming and dont remember that HE is suing Amber Heard with his position being that he never laid a hand on her.

All the testimony certainly makes it seem like she was equally abusive and just a general trainwreck but that doesnt make her claims that she was abused wrong.

From what i can tell they were a completely emotionally and drug ****ed couple who were both abusive and horrible but that doesnt win him the lawsuit (i dont think).

 

[Gralin]

This is kind of my point.

It seems most people like Johnnys story, think he seems funny and charming and dont remember that HE is suing Amber Heard with his position being that he never laid a hand on her.

All the testimony certainly makes it seem like she was equally abusive and just a general trainwreck but that doesnt make her claims that she was abused wrong.

From what i can tell they were a completely emotionally and drug f’ed couple who were both abusive and horrible but that doesnt win him the lawsuit (i dont think).

no coincidence that he's best mates with Manson either and this is a real worry, defamation cases are being used to silence victims of abuse all over the place now, we've seen politicians in Australia do this, we're seeing Depp and now Manson do this

Marilyn Manson files defamation suit against sexual abuse accuser Evan Rachel Wood

Complaint filed in Los Angeles accuses Wood and partner Illma Gore of ‘malicious falsehood’ that has derailed Manson’s career

www.theguardian.com

Depp has a history of violence and alcohol and drug abuse, he's said some really shit stuff over the years as well but apparently he's squeaky clean in this.....

yeah I think not

Like it's possible for Heard to also be terrible but Depp is no saint

 

[phantom13]

no coincidence that he's best mates with Manson either and this is a real worry, defamation cases are being used to silence victims of abuse all over the place now, we've seen politicians in Australia do this, we're seeing Depp and now Manson do this

Marilyn Manson files defamation suit against sexual abuse accuser Evan Rachel Wood

Complaint filed in Los Angeles accuses Wood and partner Illma Gore of ‘malicious falsehood’ that has derailed Manson’s career

www.theguardian.com

Depp has a history of violence and alcohol and drug abuse, he's said some really shit stuff over the years as well but apparently he's squeaky clean in this.....

yeah I think not

Like it's possible for Heard to also be terrible but Depp is no saint

Well this is all absolutely true and the silencing of victims through private litigation is ****ed but also a convo for another thread...

On the merits of this case i just cant understand how on earth based on what weve heard that Johnny Depp wins when his argument is he never laid on a hand on her... If his position was "we both got physical" or "I only ever hit her in defense or retaliation" i probably still wouldnt buy it but id say hes at least making some sense but hes adamant hes never touched her... It just seems insane people believe that.

 

[Forward Press]

The internet echo chambers have a big hard-on for Johnny Depp and love stories where women are the abusers - because the reality is that the vast majority of abuse and domestic violence is perpetrated by men. It's their way of sticking it to the 'man-bashing' narrative and would probably also give a lot of joy to the 'incels' (not saying all of the Depp supporters are incels, by the way).

As it stands, only one of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp have been found guilty in a court of law, and it's not what the internet would have you believe.

 

[JackOutback]

While Amber Heard hasn't come out of the early weeks looking great, I don't see how anyone can get on board with Johnny Depp either. He sounds like a lunatic too and the fact a UK court allowed the claim 'wife beater' to pass because of a truth defence says a lot. There's no winners here, not that the internet would have you believe that.

And that's if we strip out all context, like the power imbalance between a 50-something superstar and 20-something model in the first place.

 

[the_interloper]

While Amber Heard hasn't come out of the early weeks looking great, I don't see how anyone can get on board with Johnny Depp either. He sounds like a lunatic too and the fact a UK court allowed the claim 'wife beater' to pass because of a truth defence says a lot. There's no winners here, not that the internet would have you believe that.

And that's if we strip out all context, like the power imbalance between a 50-something superstar and 20-something model in the first place.

Honestly I struggle with this part of it. I mean she was an adult and if there's no hint of coercion I don't see what's wrong with it. Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there. I think generally they seem like a toxic couple and that's about it.

 

[peternorth]

Honestly I struggle with this part of it. I mean she was an adult and if there's no hint of coercion I don't see what's wrong with it. Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there. I think generally they seem like a toxic couple and that's about it.

wait if adam was a boy and considered old then?

 

[Gralin]

Honestly I struggle with this part of it. I mean she was an adult and if there's no hint of coercion I don't see what's wrong with it. Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there. I think generally they seem like a toxic couple and that's about it.

It's been happening that way for a long time isn't a good reason for something to continue.

Older guys marrying girls in the 12-16 range happened for a long time, I know it still does but its not considered acceptable behavior now.

If you don't think power dymanics matter and that age isn't part of power dynamics you should probably do some reading on the issues

 

[phantom13]

Honestly I struggle with this part of it. I mean she was an adult and if there's no hint of coercion I don't see what's wrong with it. Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there. I think generally they seem like a toxic couple and that's about it.

"weve always exploited young men and women so its fine".

Nah mate, that aint it.

 

[the_interloper]

wait if adam was a boy and considered old then?

Yeah I didn’t think of that, you’re playing 4D chess Pete

 

[the_interloper]

"weve always exploited young men and women so its fine".

Nah mate, that aint it.

Clearly not what I said of course but ok

 

[Cuzz09]

wait if adam was a boy and considered old then?

Adam dated foetus'

On SM-G925I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[phantom13]

Clearly not what I said of course but ok

It actually is pretty ****ing close to what you said. You said

"Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there"

Thats your DIRECT quote.

Which is akin to " its always happened so im not sure why its a problem now"... should we critique some other things in history that were okay once but arent anymore?

Its a ridiculous analogy (and gets real Scomo) but how would you feel if your 18 year old daughter was dating a bloke your age? Now how about if he was her boss or a senior manager at the company she was working at? What about her former teacher or sports coach?

I like you mate but this is a shit take.

 

[the_interloper]

It actually is pretty ******* close to what you said. You said

"Let's be honest, old guys with status have been hooking up with young things since Adam was a boy, not sure what the issue is there"

Thats your DIRECT quote.

Which is akin to " its always happened so im not sure why its a problem now"... should we critique some other things in history that were okay once but arent anymore?

Its a ridiculous analogy (and gets real Scomo) but how would you feel if your 18 year old daughter was dating a bloke your age? Now how about if he was her boss or a senior manager at the company she was working at? What about her former teacher or sports coach?

I like you mate but this is a shit take.

Maybe I worded that a bit clumsily fair enough. I guess what I mean is that as long as there is no coercion Amber Heard should be allowed to hook up with Depp if she pleases right? Let’s be honest 99% of the worlds female population probably would.

The hypothetical you mention, well again as long as they are not coerced into anything surely women have autonomy as to who they date right?

 

[phantom13]

Maybe I worded that a bit clumsily fair enough. I guess what I mean is that as long as there is no coercion Amber Heard should be allowed to hook up with Depp if she pleases right? Let’s be honest 99% of the worlds female population probably would.

The hypothetical you mention, well again as long as they are not coerced into anything surely women have autonomy as to who they date right?

No one is saying shes not allowed to but it has its issues.

Amber Heard was 22 when she met Depp with a handful of pretty average IMDB credits to her name. Is it that much of a stretch for her to think that rejecting Johnnys advances (which if youve read anything about were pretty predatory) might hurt her career?

You talk about coercion as if its as simple as "**** me or ill ruin your career" and it just isnt.

Amber was young, emotionally vulnerable and professionally naive, suggesting Johnny (and other men) might have taken advantage of that isnt an outrageous statement.

I think your description of wording it clumsily is well short of what you did. Feel free to try and re word it but youre still defending old powerful men (and women) preying on young vulnerable people and its gross.

To be really clear this is different to the point i was making about the court case which is more about the facts of that case not in anyway fitting Jonnys defense of never having hit her.

 

[phantom13]

Also reckon youre way off with 99% of the female population and Depp. Maybe in his heyday but drugs and time havent been kind to him and his reputation now is absolutely shot to pieces.

 

[the_interloper]

No one is saying shes not allowed to but it has its issues.

Amber Heard was 22 when she met Depp with a handful of pretty average IMDB credits to her name. Is it that much of a stretch for her to think that rejecting Johnnys advances (which if youve read anything about were pretty predatory) might hurt her career?

You talk about coercion as if its as simple as "fu** me or ill ruin your career" and it just isnt.

Amber was young, emotionally vulnerable and professionally naive, suggesting Johnny (and other men) might have taken advantage of that isnt an outrageous statement.

I think your description of wording it clumsily is well short of what you did. Feel free to try and re word it but youre still defending old powerful men (and women) preying on young vulnerable people and its gross.

To be really clear this is different to the point i was making about the court case which is more about the facts of that case not in anyway fitting Jonnys defense of never having hit her.

I’m actually defending the right for two adults to hook up if they are of age and there is no coercion, that’s pretty much it.

And honestly I have no idea if it would have affected her career or not had she knocked the Deppster back. I feel like he’d probably have had some other options though. Plus he’s only an actor not a Harvey Weinstein type powerful figure to my knowledge.