My Thoughts On Johnny Depp And Amber Heard Domestic Violence Situation

[Keltest]

Again, I'm not taking any sides. I'm just saying they should remove both Johnny and Amber because they (Warner Bros.) don't want to get caught any controversy from them.

I understand that, but the act of removing Johnny has caused significant controversy. So to that end, removing Johnny doesnt achieve the stated goal.

[Peelee]

Again, I'm not taking any sides.

You are taking a side though. You believe both of them and want both of them punished. That's a taking a side (the side of "screw 'em all" is still a side).

If you didn't want to take sides, then you probably wouldn't have had any thoughts or feelings to make a thread about it to start with. For example, me: I don't care. I don't know much about it, I have no real desire to know about it, and I have no thoughts or opinions on what should or should not happen to them.

That is not how you seem to be reacting. You're invested in it to some degree, you have opinions on what should be done, you're taking a side. Now, that's not a bad thing in itself, but I find it odd that you seem to think you're not doing it.

[Bartmanhomer]

I understand that, but the act of removing Johnny has caused significant controversy. So to that end, removing Johnny doesn't achieve the stated goal.

You made a good point though.

[Xyril]

Yes. Anyway, I'm not taking any sides to see who's innocent and who's the guilty party. I say both of them are guilty and I'm being neutral in this case.

You literally say they're both guilty after claiming that you're not going to say who is guilty and who is innocent. That's contradicting yourself pretty quickly.

More generally, I would say that there are different shades of neutrality. In your case, your posts aren't really neutral by even the most expansive definition, so this is a bit of a digression. Anyway, we should all keep in mind that even "not taking sides" doesn't necessarily mean you're being neutral. As Pelee noted, you were making factual assertions about the case that could impact how other people form their own opinions. By selecting what facts to share from what sources, deciding what sources to trust, and choosing how much to share about those sources, you stop being neutral.

Your incorrect assertion that Depp was removed from Aquaman 2 probably doesn't have a huge impact on how folks see this situation, but the fact that you kept making that incorrect assertion until somewhat forcefully confronted about your sources is a good example of you acting as an advocate for a certain view of the facts--the antithesis of neutrality.

Now imagine if someone else were claiming to be neutral but doing the same thing with different, more relevant facts. If I shared every unsubstantiated rumor of every bad thing Depp was accused of doing and passed it off as reliable sources, but only begrudgingly acknowledged allegations against Heard that were found to be true in court or her own admission (i.e., stuff that even the most biased party can't get away with denying), then I would obviously be trying to promote one party's position over the other.

[Bartmanhomer]

You are taking a side though. You believe both of them and want both of them punished. That's taking aside (the side of "screw 'em all" is still aside).

If you didn't want to take sides, then you probably wouldn't have had any thoughts or feelings to make a thread about it to start with. For example, me: I don't care. I don't know much about it, I have no real desire to know about it, and I have no thoughts or opinions on what should or should not happen to them.

That is not how you seem to be reacting. You're invested in it to some degree, you have opinions on what should be done, you're taking aside. Now, that's not a bad thing in itself, but I find it odd that you seem to think you're not doing it.

You say they're both guilty after claiming that you're not going to say who is guilty and who is innocent. That's contradicting yourself pretty quickly.

More generally, I would say that there are different shades of neutrality. In your case, your posts aren't neutral by even the most expansive definition, so this is a bit of a digression. Anyway, we should all keep in mind that even "not taking sides" doesn't necessarily mean you're being neutral. As Pelee noted, you were making factual assertions about the case that could impact how other people form their own opinions. By selecting what facts to share from what sources, deciding what sources to trust, and choosing how much to share about those sources, you stop being neutral.

Your incorrect assertion that Depp was removed from Aquaman 2 probably doesn't have a huge impact on how folks see this situation, but the fact that you kept making that incorrect assertion until somewhat forcefully confronted about your sources is a good example of you acting as an advocate for a certain view of the facts--the antithesis of neutrality.

Now imagine if someone else were claiming to be neutral but doing the same thing with different, more relevant facts. If I shared every unsubstantiated rumor of every bad thing Depp was accused of doing and passed it off as reliable sources, but only begrudgingly acknowledged allegations against Heard that were found to be true in court or her admission (i.e., stuff that even the most biased party can't get away with denying), then I would be trying to promote one party's position over the other.

How am I not being neutral in this case? So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well. How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions and more importantly how is that even fair anyway?

[Peelee]

How am I not being neutral in this case? So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well. How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions and more importantly how is that even fair anyway?

We both just told you how, though IMO Xyril did it better. I can try to do it in more detail, if you want. You said:

I'm not taking any sides to see who's innocent and who's the guilty party.

Then you said:

I say both of them are guilty

Do you see the disconnect here? You said one thing, then immediately said the opposite. "I'm not going to say who is guilty. I think they are guilty." You said you don't want to pass judgement, and then you immediately pass judgement.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. But you're acting like you don't have an opinion while at the same time very clearly voicing your opinion. It's jarring.

[Bartmanhomer]

We both just told you how, though IMO Xyril did it better. I can try to do it in more detail if you want. You said:

Then you said:

Do you see the disconnect here? You said one thing, then immediately said the opposite. "I'm not going to say who is guilty. I think they are guilty." You said you don't want to pass judgment, and then you immediately pass judgment.

Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion. But you're acting like you don't have an opinion while at the same time very clearly voicing your opinion. It's jarring.

That's because there's no innocent and guilty party in this case. There's both guilty for their actions of attacking each other. But let say if there's a guilty party for Johnny is attacking Amber and she's the innocent victim or vice-versa. Then I will choose a side for the innocent victim.

[Liquor Box]

Neutral means not supporting either side in a conflict over the other.

Bartman is neutral as to the degree of fault between Depp and Heard - he is not taking sides between the two of them. But he is not neutral as to the question of whether there is any fault at all - he thinks there is.

It does seem to me that it was clear what Bartman meant when he referred to being neutral - he meant he was not siding with one over the other.

[Fyraltari]

How am I not being neutral in this case?

Because being neutral in this case would be throwing one's hands up in the air saying "I don't know/care."

So you mean to tell me that only Johnny should be punished but not Amber as well.

No. Xiril was presenting an hypothetical to make his point clearer.

How's is that taking sides even if I believe that both parties should be punished for their actions

"I believe Heard is the guilty party and should be punished", "I believed Depp is the guilty party and should be punished", "I believe Heard is the guilty party but should not be punished", "I believed Depp is the guilty party but should not be punished", "I believe both are innocents of any wrongdoings and should not be punished", "I believe both are guilty but none should be punished" "I believe both are guilty but only Heard/Depp should be punished" and "I believe both are guilty and both should be punished" are some of the sides one can take on this issue. None of them are neutral, you took the last one. The neutral take would be "I don't have a take on this issue".

and more importantly how is that even fair anyway?

Err, that's a question you should answer, since that's the position you are arguing for.

[Bartmanhomer]

Neutral means not supporting either side in a conflict over the other.

Bartman is neutral as to the degree of fault between Depp and Heard - he is not taking sides between the two of them. But he is not neutral as to the question of whether there is any fault at all - he thinks there is.

It does seem to me that it was clear what Bartman meant when he referred to being neutral - he meant he was not siding with one over the other.

That's exactly what I was saying.

[137beth]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking it aside.

EDIT: Keltest, Pelee, Cyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking it aside.

I know what you're doing. You're making a joke. After re-reading everyone's thoughts of me taking aside, I've to the conclusion that maybe I am taking a side and maybe not I'm not as neutral that I thought I'll be in this case.

[Peelee]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

You'll never take me alive, copper!

[dancrilis]

There's both guilty for their actions of attacking each other.

It is possible that they are both innocent of attacking each other and both are merely very confused.

[Bartmanhomer]

It is possible that they are both innocent of attacking each other and both are merely very confused.

Could you please clarify more clearly please? I want to hear your logic behind it.

[dancrilis]

Could you please clarify more clearly please? I want to hear your logic behind it.

Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they don't remember things clearly, sometimes they mix up events (particularly if not fully in their right minds), sometimes they have delusional episodes, etc.

Unless you can rule all that (and more) out absolutely then it is conceivably possible that both parties are innocent of what they are being accused of and also possible that they are innocent of making delibrately false claims.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes they don't remember things clearly, sometimes they mix up events (particularly if not fully in their right minds), sometimes they have delusional episodes, etc.

Unless you can rule all that (and more) out absolutely then it is conceivable possible that both parties are innocent of what they are being accused of and also possible that they are innocent of making deliberately false claims.

Yes, that's very understandable and makes perfect sense. That I can understand that logic.

[Lemmy]

It's disgustting that JD's career is basically finished, while AH gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist, considering there's strong evidence, including recordings of her own voice, that not only she falsely accused JD, but also she was indeed the perpetrator of physical abuse.

It seems like the whole relationship was rather toxic, but AH is by far a much more horrible person, IMHO.

[Fyraltari]

I'm not going to take a side as to who is guilty and who is innocent: I think both Fyraltari and Bartmanhomer are guilty. I'm not going to take a side as to what they are guilty of, but they are guilty of something. But I'm not taking a side.

EDIT: Keltest, Peleee, Xyril, and Liquor Box are also guilty, but I'm not taking a side.

And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling posters!

[Liquor Box]

It's disgustting that JD's career is basically finished, while AH gets away with little more than a slap on the wrist, considering there's strong evidence, including recordings of her own voice, that not only she falsely accused JD, but also she was indeed the perpetrator of physical abuse.

It seems like the whole relationship was rather toxic, but AH is by far a much more horrible person, IMHO.

To be fair, a competent court found that Depp was abusive on the balance of probabilities. No such finding has been made against Heard. The court finding that caused Depp to be fired came about because he chose to sue a magazine that suggested he was a wife beater. If Heard chose to challenge a media outlet, she might find herself in the same boat.

[Lemmy]

To be fair, a competent court found that Depp was abusive on the balance of probabilities. No such finding has been made against Heard. The court finding that caused Depp to be fired came about because he chose to sue a magazine that suggested he was a wife beater. If Heard chose to challenge a media outlet, she might find herself in the same boat.

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

[Dragonus45]

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

Pretty much yea, the only way Amber could be more clearly guilty is she started beating him up in a public park or something. Wait, no, people would probably start wondering what he did to make her so mad though. I feel sorry for Depp, seeing that gaslighting and abuse he received getting reflected back at him so strongly by the system.

[InvisibleBison]

It's disappointing that the "balance of probability" was little more than "he's a man, she's a woman, therefore, he's the guilty one".

There's literally audio recordings of Amber Heard saying she can't promise she won't get physical again.
And JD losing that case against that magazine was a shame.

But such is the world we live in...

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

[Peelee]

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

To add on to that, from what very little I have seen from my IRL friends posting stuff about it, the court case was over potential libel, not factual truth.

[Keltest]

To add on to that, from what very little I have seen from my IRL friends posting stuff about it, the court case was over potential libel, not factual truth.

Werent there multiple court cases? One about the actual facts of the case, and one between Depp and some tabloid or something that was badmouthing him?

[Peelee]

Werent there multiple court cases? One about the actual facts of the case, and one between Depp and some tabloid or something that was badmouthing him?

No clue. I assume there was at least one case against a tabloid, which was the libel case,assuming the headlines I saw were accurate.

[Lemmy]

Knowing nothing more of this situation than what I've read in this thread: Are you saying that because she has been abusing him, he cannot also have been abusing her? Because I don't think that's correct.

Possible? Yes. But doesn't seem to have been the case this time. There's even a recording of AH saying something like "You're a white man, no one will believe you!".

She was right.

[The Glyphstone]

Are your sources better than memes and Facebook posts on that, at least?


I don't have a huge investment in this myself - I loathed the Fantastic Beasts movies for non-Depp reasons, and never saw Aquaman. I will, however, confess to being skeptical that this will 'end his career' somehow; other celebrities/actors have recovered from far worse allegations, and the lifespan of public attention for celebrity drama is notoriously fickle. A 2-3 year gap in his resume, maybe.

[Peelee]

Are your sources better than memes and Facebook posts on that, at least?

AP and Guardian, IIRC. Shared by a memified Facebook, of course - I'm not a barbarian, after all.

[The Glyphstone]

AP and Guardian, IIRC. Shared by a memified Facebook, of course - I'm not a barbarian, after all.

Sorry, my quote-fu is terrible. I meant the audio recordings of Heard confessing/bragging/admitting to her actions, which I'd think would be pretty explosive pieces of evidence for a civil suit.