Dialectical materialism or, if you prefer, yin-yang: each thing contains the seed of its own negation.

Me Too Movement before Amber Heard :up:

Me Too Movement after Amber Heard :down:

I'm expecting some backlash over this. :snicker:

I didn't watch or read this intercontinental sue-age and assume in ignorance that it is all about money and celebrity. No one in my circle can remotely afford such legal measures, so it is by definition a travesty of justice whatever the outcome - a Show-business-trial.

But if one were to consider a serious related situation of an accusation of criminal domestic abuse or rape, then it is more or less inevitable that the case turns on believing one or other testimony, such that "Darvo" is the only possible defence. This means that real victims are re-abused by the process of justice, but since there are fake victims, there seems to be no way round it. The law is just a bit crap at dealing with intimate relations, and people are even more crap. What do you want to do?

....

Politically correct identity politics is polarising and dangerous. — karl stone

As I said, I mean as I relayed, to you, each thing contains the seed of its own negation (yin-yang or dialectical materialism).

The problem, to my reckoning, is that people want to be (seen as) good and they'll do anything for that! That's bad!, but for some unfathomable reason, this simple fact seems to have slipped under our radar!

....

How can you ever get an accurate judgement in a he said/she said when they are both actors? Does the best actor win?

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely Players;
They have their (they're) exits (a**holes) and their entrances (c*nts), And one man in his time plays many parts,[...] — Jaques (As you like it)

....

@karl stone

It's complicated!

Have you heard of the ouroboros? There are two things that we don't understand very well - the smallest (simplest) and the largest (complexest). Take a gander at Martin Reese' book Just Six Numbers (there's a diagram that illustrates the problem).

The BBC article is written for people just like you; who didn't watch the trial, and are willing to make blanket assumptions. — karl stone

Cool, I'll make sure and not read that too, to get a really well rounded myopia.

The British court found that Heard had 'proved' over a dozen cases of abuse by Depp. The American court 'proved' that Heard had lied about at least some of the abuse. Both were civil trials held to a lower standard of proof than criminal trials and they gave somewhat contradictory results. Pretending you know what happened when you're a Depp fan who made up his mind before the trial began isn't credible. None of us really knows what happened and the law can't make up its mind either. The fact that the BBC is going to bat for Heard and the anti-PC crowd for Depp is predictable and irrelevant. The trials resolved nothing of importance. And everything you said about BBC bias can be directed at you. You dismiss the findings of the UK case, just as you would have dismissed the findings of the US case if it hadn't gone your way and now you laughably scold others for not respecting the court that just happened to find in your favor. As if you care about justice, being exclusively interested in your anti-PC crusade and using a convenient public event to bang your drum. If I'm wrong, tell me how you would have changed your mind and believed Amber if the U.S. court had ruled against Depp.

....

I don't know what you wish for me to infer from the UK case; that a newspaper got away with printing rumours that were widely believed to be true? I don't find that particularly surprising. Metoo requires that we #believallwomen - and Amber Heard was repeating those allegations in her role of metoo's champion of domestic violence. The Sun didn't libel Depp - Heard libelled Depp, and the Sun reported it. It doesn't mean the rumours are true; just that the Sun had adequate reason to believe they were. — karl stone

Such ignorance of something you pretend to be interested in.

"The judge, Mr Justice Nicol, said the Sun had proved its article to be “substantially true” and found that 12 of 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence against Heard had occurred.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/02/johnny-depp-amber-heard-libel-outcomes-differ-us-uk

. But if I thought Depp was beating Heard I'd say so. If that's what the evidence suggested, that would have been my conclusion - and my sympathies would be with her. — karl stone

That Depp was beating Heard was found to be proven in the UK case. Glad your sympathies are now with Heard and you've given up this anti-PC crusade.

See also: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/

"The British judge ultimately ruled that the allegations against Depp were “substantially true,” writing in a 2020 ruling that “the great majority of alleged assaults … have been proved to the civil standard.”

And: https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-verdict-judgm-idUSKBN27I143

Just to emphasize that, very specifically, the assaults were proven in court.

It's odd that I know more about this than you without being glued to the screen 24/7. Maybe because I don't have a political agenda masquerading as a quest for truth?

Unlike juries, Judges must generally explain the bases for their decisions on trials to the court. Thus, there isn't the need to guess what the decision-maker was thinking. If anyone's interested in actually reading the decision issued by the Judge in the UK, you can find it on the Web, here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2020/2911.html

....

I am increasingly out of touch with pop culture, and I know nothing about Heard or Depp. I did read about the verdict. A plague on both their houses.

I suspect that a substantial portion of the celebrity 'abuse' cases (or cases involving very well known people, even if they aren't celebrities per se) are bogus. That is, no actual harm occurred, but some action can later be presented as abuse to a credulous movement (#metoo).

Being a woman is not sufficient reason to extend automatic belief.

....

We might blame the internet, social media, on-line advertising, cable television channels, and so on for some of what you see going on, How so?

The social turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s was covered by the mainstream press and 3 television networks (in the US). The number of local or national observers, interpreters, and commenters was quite small. At the time, the 5:30 pm CBS News with Walter Cronkite (in the US) announced 'reality'. Outside of narrow official channels, there was direct experience. One could go to San Francisco and try out the Summer of Love, or one could demonstrate against the War in Vietnam. There were very small alternative publications which distributed endorsements of far-out lifestyles and politics.

Gay liberation started in the 1960s and gradually developed in large cities. There was no national coordination, no how-to manuals. People traveled, picked up ideas, and brought them back home. This is largely the way the world had worked for a long time.

Once the Internet, personal computers, distribution networks, good browsers, search engines, etc. were in place -- let's say around 2005, advertising money -- the lifeblood of the press and networks -- began to migrate to online venues. As it did so, the capacity of "old mainstream media" to continue as before began to be hobbled.

Social media platforms (on computers and smart phones) gave new voices to anyone with a cause or an opinion. Observation, interpretation, and commentary became increasingly decentralized, fragmented, and de-professionalized. All sorts of political opinion, from the thoughtful margins to the outright crackpot, had a chance to speak to the public.

Media isn't the only factor, but it certainly plays a role in politically correct identity politics.

While we can't put the genie of ubiquitous access back in the bottle, we can take stock of how it has shaped / and warped current politics.

The bad news: This trial and others of its ilk are going to complicate romance/relationships/marriages.

The good news: This trial and others of its ilk are going to complicate romance/relationships/marriages.

Both men and women are going to have to be on guard against toxic relationships; that translates into healthier, more wholesome couples and children, if any, will reap the greatest rewards in my humble opinion. It's a blessing in disguise; although Depp and Heard are casualties of this social phenomenon, their social deaths will not be in vain!

....

That is, no actual harm occurred, but some action can later be presented as abuse to a credulous movement (#metoo).

Being a woman is not sufficient reason to extend automatic belief. — Bitter Crank

Except that in this case it was proven in court that Depp assaulted Heard. Of course, political parasites like @karl stone will continue worshipping Depp and villifying Heard because for some reason the idea that women should be more open about sexual and physical abuse is too PC and threatening for them. Pretty disgusting. Also, pretty disgusting that Heard assaulted Depp too. The balance of evidence strongly suggests it was a mutually abusive relationship. Making either party out to be the exclusive victim here is wrong. Using this mutual celebrity self-destruction to smear innocent victims of abuse who dare to come forward under the banner of #metoo is doubly wrong.

Karl Stone has zero credibility left anyhow as he didn't even know Depp was found by the UK judge to have assaulted Heard. And that fact destroys his positioning. Or worse, he did know and lied in pursuit of his agenda. So, he's either woefully ignorant or a liar. And anyone who gives him oxygen for, what now given the facts is starting to smell like a misogynistic charade, is being foolish.

...

Also, moved this polemic against a news article to the lounge. 'Political philosophy' it is not.

Edit: Moved to 'Politics and current affairs' instead.

this article that just flatly refuses to accept the verdict. — karl stone

"The judge... found that 12 of 14 alleged incidents of domestic violence against Heard had occurred. — Baden

So, you accept the verdict? Or are you just going to flatly reject it in which case the criticisms you applied to the BBC apply to you and your OP implodes. Until you address that, you're going nowhere.

...

then move my work to some darkened corner — karl stone

Your OP is most definitely not 'Political Philosophy', but I've moved it from the lounge to the politics and current affairs category, so it's not in some darkened corner now.

I hadn't followed any of it until the US verdict came down. Then I became interested in how this will impact justice in the future for both women who've been accused and men who have been wrongly accused.

I don't believe Depp was proven to have assaulted Heard. I think the UK judge just found her more credible than the American jury did.

A criminal trial would be required to say one way or another.

I hadn't followed any of the Depp/Heard trials until the US verdict came down. Then I became interested in how this will impact justice in the future for both women who've been assaulted and men who have been wrongly accused.

I don't believe Depp was proven to have assaulted Heard. I think the UK judge just found her more credible than the American jury did.

A criminal trial would be required to say one way or another.

Depp is a proven abuser — Baden

And he's a proven not abuser. Why put more stock in one inconsistent verdict over the other?