Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

[Hiyo]

Quote

they are harmful to the collective

One could say misogynists posing as feminists are harmful to the collective.

[Blergh]

20 hours ago, Prairie Rose said:

You said it. The bullies always win. 😢💔

Sorry, but I emphatically disagree!

 OK, the loudmouths got the Aquaman folks antsy about their bottom line for no legit reason but bullies do NOT 'always win'!  The verdict concerning Miss Heard has NOT been handed down and there's no reason to throw up one's hands and be defeatist.

Yes, while I fully agree that it's outrageous that the loudmouths were catered to instead of made stew in their own, that doesn't mean that every time someone stands up for justice that they are doomed to be defeated. In fact, the fact that more and more women who've been victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and/or harassment have been telling their accounts has given strength to others to stand up for justice. So, instead of spending all one's energies focused on defeats, IMO it's better to celebrate victories and how to build upon them (as well as considering how to strategize to minimize as much as possible future defeats). 

 

[Lady Whistleup]

One thing that is puzzling is the Johnny groupies  who would apparently still do anything for him. He's uh ... no longer the matinee idol of the POTC series. He's just not attractive anymore -- bloated, strung out, he looks like all the people I see waiting by the methadone clinic near my workplace.

[Jaded]

When the people waiting to try to get into the gallery of the trial especially the ones trying to be first the following day are interviewed it makes me sad and mad. Some of them act like they are there for pure entertainment and actually think Johnny gives two shits that they are even in attendance. Most if not all don't seem to think he did anything wrong and have no issue trashing Amber as soon as the person interviewing opens the door. Those interviews also make me feel weird about watching any of it.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Jaded

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

One thing that is puzzling is the Johnny groupies  who would apparently still do anything for him. He's uh ... no longer the matinee idol of the POTC series. He's just not attractive anymore -- bloated, strung out, he looks like all the people I see waiting by the methadone clinic near my workplace.

They're deluded and really believe he would be starring in Pirates 6 if it wasn't for Amber's op-ed.  They would rather believe that than face reality.  Disney looked at the bottom line and decided the cost of doing another Pirates movie or a Disney+ series with Johnny as the lead was too great.  Disney is Disney and that op-ed was the last thing on their mind when they made that decision. Johnny did this to himself. 

[Vermicious Knid]

Members of Scott Rudin's productions released from NDAs.
 

Quote

 

THR’s April 2021 investigation presented multiple, detailed accounts from Rudin’s former assistants and employees, who leveled numerous allegations of misconduct and abuse — including having items thrown at them — while working for the producer. Following the report, Rudin stepped back from multiple projects in theater, including his role with The Broadway League, as well as stage productions like The Music Man and Moulin Rouge!...

Along with the news that members of former Rudin-produced shows will be released from their NDAs came the announcement that The Broadway League has also agreed to stop using nondisclosure language in contracts or riders outside of protecting intellectual property, financial information or in other limited, approved circumstances going forward.

That means the League’s producing members will no longer be able to use NDAs to limit what actors and stage managers — who among other things, may desire to speak out against workplace harassment, bullying or discrimination — can say, according to Equity. The union also shared that it intends to bring “similarly protective language forward in negotiations with their other bargaining partners in support of creating a new industry standard.”

 

 

[MsTree]

Why can't someone not believe Amber without being called a feminist or misogynist?? 

[Blergh]

7 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

One thing that is puzzling is the Johnny groupies  who would apparently still do anything for him. He's uh ... no longer the matinee idol of the POTC series. He's just not attractive anymore -- bloated, strung out, he looks like all the people I see waiting by the methadone clinic near my workplace.

I suppose it's possible that they believe that but, for Miss Heard having made a vague allegation not directly naming Mr. Depp as having abused her, Mr. Depp would still be fit as a fiddle, sober as a judge and in the first bloom of youth! 

[BlackberryJam]

4 hours ago, MsTree said:

Why can't someone not believe Amber without being called a feminist or misogynist?? 

"Not believing Amber" also requires someone not to believe the mountain of evidence, including witnesses, texts, videos, photographs, etc. that back up her story. I have yet to see an "I don't believe Amber, but I'm not a misogynist" take that addresses any of that. So when people see misogyny, they tend to call it out.

[ouinason]

I think there might be plenty of people who don't believe Amber's testimony who haven't actually seen any other evidence in the case BUT the testimonies, and they are entitled to that.  Its the people who are dismissing corroborating evidence and acting like she personally faked all of it that I think might be either willfully blind to the realities of the situation, or just fans who think Johnny couldn't possibly do something like that.  I'm not personally going to name call, because it changes and helps nothing.

 

Still think they are both guilty, still think that this suit is dumb and she should win the actual suit.  Not gonna speculate on if the counter suit is valid since I don't actually know anything about it.

[possibilities]

I honestly don't know why this relationship has captured the attention of so many people. It clearly has, but neither of the parties, nor their story, seem that special to me. 

That said, the degree to which people will, quite often (and I'm not even specifically referencing this case), attach their focus to celebrities, is nothing new. 

It's always a bit weird. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, possibilities said:

 

I honestly don't know why this relationship has captured the attention of so many people. It clearly has, but neither of the parties, nor their story, seem that special to me. 

 

Considering this relationship involves an allegation that someone literally shit the bed it doesn’t surprise me it has captured a lot of attention. 

[MsTree]

16 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

"Not believing Amber" also requires someone not to believe the mountain of evidence, including witnesses, texts, videos, photographs, etc. that back up her story. I have yet to see an "I don't believe Amber, but I'm not a misogynist" take that addresses any of that. So when people see misogyny, they tend to call it out.

Well, there are also witnesses, stories, etc. to the contrary. No one is saying Johnny is perfect. All we're saying is that Amber has a tendency to exaggerate and over embellish her account of the events. In the same way that a disgruntled ex can call CPS to exaggerate (or lie) about alleged child abuse, so too can any woman do the same regarding DV abuse.

[Hiyo]

Quote

so too can any woman do the same regarding DV abuse.

What is the percentage of women who do that?

[SparedTurkey]

I wonder if the reason that the trial has lost the original focus and turned into this ridiculous circus - original being Depp's civil suit re: defamation - with Heard's counter suit for damages and whether the counter suit was a tactical mistake. I would like to hear from any Yankee lawyers about this.

I'm a lawyer in Australia and we just had an actor (not on Depp's stage but still) pull a defamation proceeding because it wasn't going his way (legally and in the media, where reps were being massively damaged) and this was after he was aquitted of sexual offences against the same actress (the defamation claim involved journos too of course but was able his sexually inappropriate behaviour - and yes he claimed a #metoo witchhunt but that is done). Most legal practitioners I have spoken to expected a withdrawal of that claim because of the difficulty in defamation cases - but I accept Australia is more in line with England when it comes to defamation and perhaps we are very different than America?

Was it a tactical mistake from Heard's lawyer to countersue for damages which has had the unintended perhaps consequences of making her look like a "liar" where her team wasn't necessarily ready for that and where Depp's lawyers & publicist were more....savvy in making it seem like if Amber "lied" about the abuse then she by default is guilty of the defamation where there is no actual evidence that the op-ed lead to the consequences Depp alleged? It seems almost like Heard's lawyers didn't prep enough for this circus that has erupted in the Court and the media from all this.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, SparedTurkey said:

I wonder if the reason that the trial has lost the original focus and turned into this ridiculous circus - original being Depp's civil suit re: defamation - with Heard's counter suit for damages and whether the counter suit was a tactical mistake. I would like to hear from any Yankee lawyers about this.

I'm a lawyer in Australia and we just had an actor (not on Depp's stage but still) pull a defamation proceeding because it wasn't going his way (legally and in the media, where reps were being massively damaged) and this was after he was aquitted of sexual offences against the same actress (the defamation claim involved journos too of course but was able his sexually inappropriate behaviour - and yes he claimed a #metoo witchhunt but that is done). Most legal practitioners I have spoken to expected a withdrawal of that claim because of the difficulty in defamation cases - but I accept Australia is more in line with England when it comes to defamation and perhaps we are very different than America?

Was it a tactical mistake from Heard's lawyer to countersue for damages which has had the unintended perhaps consequences of making her look like a "liar" where her team wasn't necessarily ready for that and where Depp's lawyers & publicist were more....savvy in making it seem like if Amber "lied" about the abuse then she by default is guilty of the defamation where there is no actual evidence that the op-ed lead to the consequences Depp alleged? It seems almost like Heard's lawyers didn't prep enough for this circus that has erupted in the Court and the media from all this.

I am not a lawyer, but the whole circus that has erupted over this case has more to do with the judge than Amber's counter suit.  The judge has allowed multiple cameras into the courtroom.  I don't know how that decision came about.  I wasn’t paying any attention before the trial to catch if Amber's lawyers filed a motion to keep cameras out if the courtroom and the judge dismissed it. Her lawyers should have done this.  

Of course, none of us know how the case is really going for the jury.  Depp may be winning in the Court of public opinion,  but that may not translate to the jury.  If the same rules apply to juries in a civil trial as in a criminal trial, mainly avoiding information about the trial that comes from any source other than the courtroom,  then the jurors may turn on Depp.  They will want to blame someone for them not being able to use any form of social media for weeks now.  

[merylinkid]

Couple of things regarding the suit if you cut through all the BS and sideshows:

1.   Jonny has to prove that the OpEd cost him work.   

           This might be hard to do do because he was already having issues BEFORE the OpEd came out.   He also had no experts testify that but for this OpEd, he would have been in POTC 6.   He had experts of what he WOULD have earned if he had been in it, but no experts connecting the dots.   On the other hand, there was testimony that the lawyers and others went over the draft of the OpEd to make sure it all references to Jonny were removed.   Which means Amber INTENDED for it to be about Johnny, not just DV victims in general.   

2.   HOWEVER, TRUTH is an absolute defense to Defamation.   You can't defame someone if you say something that is true.   That's why its turned into the sideshow.   Jonny has to show the DV allegations are untrue.   Here's where lawyers like to use tricky words like "shifting the burden of proof."   While Johnny has to prove that Amber's OpEd was the cause of his harm, AMBER has the burden to prove her affirmative defense.   Namely the DV allegations are true.  

I haven't read the papers.   Did she countersue, or did she assert an affirmative defense?   If it is asserting an affirmative defense, she HAD to do that.    And you can ask for fees because you are basically saying "you knew it was the truth and you sued anyway."   If it is a countersuit, I am not sure what it is on, so I cannot speak to whether it was a good idea or not.

I stand by my statement that this was a toxic relationship where they were both abusive to each other.   There is too much testimony from BOTH sides about what each did to the other.   This case is further proof of the toxicity.   Neither can just let the other one go.   Amber didn't HAVE to write that OpEd.   Jonny didn't have to sue her about it (hello Streisand effect).   But they HAVE to keep poking each other.   Both of them need to get help to break this cycle.

[SusanM]

7 hours ago, MsTree said:

Well, there are also witnesses, stories, etc. to the contrary. No one is saying Johnny is perfect. All we're saying is that Amber has a tendency to exaggerate and over embellish her account of the events. In the same way that a disgruntled ex can call CPS to exaggerate (or lie) about alleged child abuse, so too can any woman do the same regarding DV abuse.

The lawsuit isn't about whether Heard is a paragon of virtue,  Depp has to prove that an Op Ed she wrote materially affected his career.  I don't think he's managed to actually do that so far.  All he's really demonstrated to the world is that both of them are pretty crappy people.

[BlackberryJam]

7 hours ago, MsTree said:

Well, there are also witnesses, stories, etc. to the contrary. No one is saying Johnny is perfect. All we're saying is that Amber has a tendency to exaggerate and over embellish her account of the events. In the same way that a disgruntled ex can call CPS to exaggerate (or lie) about alleged child abuse, so too can any woman do the same regarding DV abuse.

The assumption that women lie about domestic violence is misogynistic. So back to your original statement about why people call Johnny's supporters misogynists...there's the answer.

And exaggerating and embellishing? Sure. Johnny has repeatedly contradicted his prior sworn testimony. So he's lied under oath. 

9 minutes ago, SusanM said:

The lawsuit isn't about whether Heard is a paragon of virtue,  Depp has to prove that an Op Ed she wrote materially affected his career.  I don't think he's managed to actually do that so far.  All he's really demonstrated to the world is that both of them are pretty crappy people.

Exactly. Amber hasn't poked him for 4 years, while he's filed repeated lawsuits. She's attempted to move on, but he can't let go. Amber certainly isn't the "ideal victim." She has her own set of mental health issues. She doesn't behave like a sweet angel. It's not easy to have sympathy for her.

Legally, I think this case should never have been brought. I would have advised him not to file. I don't think the facts or the law are on his side. All that being said, juries are unpredictable. 

 

[JustHereForFood]

11 hours ago, MsTree said:

No one is saying Johnny is perfect. 

I don't know about that. It seems to me that while people who are more on her side almost always admit that they were both horrible, people on his side tend to say that she is the only abuser and he is just a victim.

[Cinnabon]

16 hours ago, Hiyo said:

What is the percentage of women who do that?

A very low percentage.

14 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I am not a lawyer, but the whole circus that has erupted over this case has more to do with the judge than Amber's counter suit.  The judge has allowed multiple cameras into the courtroom.  I don't know how that decision came about.  I wasn’t paying any attention before the trial to catch if Amber's lawyers filed a motion to keep cameras out if the courtroom and the judge dismissed it. Her lawyers should have done this.  

Of course, none of us know how the case is really going for the jury.  Depp may be winning in the Court of public opinion,  but that may not translate to the jury.  If the same rules apply to juries in a civil trial as in a criminal trial, mainly avoiding information about the trial that comes from any source other than the courtroom,  then the jurors may turn on Depp.  They will want to blame someone for them not being able to use any form of social media for weeks now.  

I don’t think most people get too upset if they don’t use social media for a few weeks, lol.

[Cinnabon]

12 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

The assumption that women lie about domestic violence is misogynistic. So back to your original statement about why people call Johnny's supporters misogynists...there's the answer.

Exactly.

[ouinason]

28 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

A very low percentage.

I don’t think most people get too upset if they don’t use social media for a few weeks, lol.

I disagree strongly, I know many people who can't go a single day without Facebook or some other social media.  I don't, but many people rely on socials for just about everything.

[Cinnabon]

2 minutes ago, ouinason said:

I disagree strongly, I know many people who can't go a single day without Facebook or some other social media.  I don't, but many people rely on socials for just about everything.

I’m guessing they’re mostly young people? I think it would be a relief to many. 

[ouinason]

my mother in law, who is in her late 60's and my aunt who is the same age are just a couple.  most of my family members are unhappy with me for not having a facebook as it means I miss out on all of the family news and such unless my mom specifically calls to tell me about it.  

Young people are another thing entirely.

[Lady Whistleup]

There are simply too many receipts for Johnny being abusive that go beyond Ambers accusations. There’s the text chains, the testimony from exes, the witnesses. 
 

[GaT]

2 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

There are simply too many receipts for Johnny being abusive that go beyond Ambers accusations. There’s the text chains, the testimony from exes, the witnesses. 
 

And jurors are still people with opinions. No matter how much they say they'll be impartial, if they don't like Amber, or really like Johnny, that will affect their decision. 

[MsTree]

17 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

The assumption that women lie about domestic violence is misogynistic. So back to your original statement about why people call Johnny's supporters misogynists...there's the answer.

And exaggerating and embellishing? Sure. Johnny has repeatedly contradicted his prior sworn testimony. So he's lied under oath. 

Sorry, but I know someone who lied and/or embellished the facts of DV. For instance, when a bloody nose turns into a broken nose. Not saying abuse didn't happened. I'm skeptical about the DEGREE of said abuse. Not that ANY abuse is condoned, so please don't misunderstand. Just trying to explain what I mean by overly dramatizing or embellishing. Questioning all the facts doesn't make me misogynistic.

 

 

[MsTree]

Just wondering about an incident where she claims Depp broke a bottle and used it to penetrate her vagina. A broken bottle can do a LOT of damage to the delicate lining of a vagina. Did she go to a hospital? What about shards of glass? Did she report this to the police? He had to leave the domicile at some time.

[MissAlmond]

More details on Frank Langella's The Fall of the House of Usher on set behavior emerge after the actor defies firing. 

https://deadline.com/2022/05/frank-langella-fired-the-fall-of-the-house-of-usher-netflix-series-details-1235029281/

Edited May 21, 2022 by MissAlmond

[BlackberryJam]

5 hours ago, MsTree said:

Sorry, but I know someone who lied and/or embellished the facts of DV. For instance, when a bloody nose turns into a broken nose. Not saying abuse didn't happened. I'm skeptical about the DEGREE of said abuse. Not that ANY abuse is condoned, so please don't misunderstand. Just trying to explain what I mean by overly dramatizing or embellishing. Questioning all the facts doesn't make me misogynistic.

 

 

 If an IP bloodied someone's nose, that's domestic violence.  A small crack in the cartilage of the nose is also a "broken nose", that can heal itself within a few days.

A broken nose isn't an exaggeration at times, it's simply a matter of degree of injury.

5 hours ago, MsTree said:

Just wondering about an incident where she claims Depp broke a bottle and used it to penetrate her vagina. A broken bottle can do a LOT of damage to the delicate lining of a vagina. Did she go to a hospital? What about shards of glass? Did she report this to the police? He had to leave the domicile at some time.

This is not true. Amber did not say that he penetrated her with a broken bottle. She said he penetrated her with a bottle and she remember thinking that she hoped it wasn't the broken one. 

Investigating the facts is laudable. However you have to actually investigate the testimony given, not the exaggerations of the testimony spread over social media.

Edited May 21, 2022 by BlackberryJam

[peachmangosteen]

Quote

More details on Frank Langella's The Fall of the House of Usher on set behavior emerge after the actor defies firing. 

https://deadline.com/2022/05/frank-langella-fired-the-fall-of-the-house-of-usher-netflix-series-details-1235029281/

Yikes.

[Lady Whistleup]

6 hours ago, MsTree said:

Sorry, but I know someone who lied and/or embellished the facts of DV. For instance, when a bloody nose turns into a broken nose. Not saying abuse didn't happened. I'm skeptical about the DEGREE of said abuse. Not that ANY abuse is condoned, so please don't misunderstand. Just trying to explain what I mean by overly dramatizing or embellishing. Questioning all the facts doesn't make me misogynistic.

 

 

A bloody nose is DV. Even punching someone's face without a bloody nose is DV. And to diminish that experience by saying that she "lied" about DV IS condoning abuse.

[Cinnabon]

The facts about false accusations.

Almost No One Is Falsely Accused of Rape

https://www.thecut.com/article/false-rape-accusations.html

How common are false allegations of rape or sexual assault?

One commonly cited figure holds that 5 percent of rape allegations are found to be false, but that figure paints a very incomplete picture, says Belknap. Typically, this figure comes from studies done on college students, an estimated 95 percent of whom do not report their assaults to police. Overall, an estimated 8 to 10 percent of women are thought to report their rapes to the police, which means that — at the very highest — we can infer that 90 percent of rapes go unreported, says Belknap. Obviously, only those rapes that are reported in the first place can be considered falsely reported, so that 5 percent figure only applies to 10 percent (at most) of rapes that occur. This puts the actual false allegation figure closer to 0.5 percent.

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by Cinnabon

[Mabinogia]

5 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

More details on Frank Langella's The Fall of the House of Usher on set behavior emerge after the actor defies firing. 

https://deadline.com/2022/05/frank-langella-fired-the-fall-of-the-house-of-usher-netflix-series-details-1235029281/

It must be quite the culture shock for these "dirty old men" who got away with such terrible behaviour for years to now have to control themselves. Oh boo hoo! If one person had complained, okay, maybe it was a misunderstanding or a bad pairing of a crass jerk and someone sensitive, but it sounds like most of the cast and crew felt uncomfortable around him and that is unacceptable.

It is really about time filmmaking realized that a film set is actually a work environment (not a frat party) and that no one should feel unsafe around their co-workers. That people asked for intimacy coaches to be around even in non-intimate scene's is very telling of how inappropriate he was being. That he was asked to stop, and said he would, but didn't stop, shows that he's just an asshole. Even if you don't agree, why wouldn't you want to make your co-workers more comfortable? It's not like they are asking him to do something that would hurt him, just stop being a pervert around your co-workers. It's not hard. 

 

[Wiendish Fitch]

7 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

It must be quite the culture shock for these "dirty old men" who got away with such terrible behaviour for years to now have to control themselves. Oh boo hoo! If one person had complained, okay, maybe it was a misunderstanding or a bad pairing of a crass jerk and someone sensitive, but it sounds like most of the cast and crew felt uncomfortable around him and that is unacceptable.

It is really about time filmmaking realized that a film set is actually a work environment (not a frat party) and that no one should feel unsafe around their co-workers. That people asked for intimacy coaches to be around even in non-intimate scene's is very telling of how inappropriate he was being. That he was asked to stop, and said he would, but didn't stop, shows that he's just an asshole. Even if you don't agree, why wouldn't you want to make your co-workers more comfortable? It's not like they are asking him to do something that would hurt him, just stop being a pervert around your co-workers. It's not hard. 

 

Frank Langella is an absolute creep, and I'm glad others are finally realizing it. And his bitching about "cancel culture" cracked me up. Dude, in order to be "canceled" you have to be somewhat relevant, and no one under the age of 40 even knows who the fuck you are (and even that's being generous).

[Mabinogia]

4 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Dude, in order to be "canceled" you have to be somewhat relevant, and no one under the age of 40 even knows who the fuck you are (and even that's being generous).

Good point. I'm 50 and I barely know who he is. I think he was some version of Dracula in some version of the movie in maybe the 70s-80s? 

I really hate the use of the word cancelled in the context of "cancel culture". Not the idea that these people who are using their power to harm others should face punishment but the actual use of the word cancel. IDK why but it just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe it's because it makes it feel like something trendy. like it's now "cool" to cancel someone. 

I am glad that people like him are finally being held accountable for their actions. No one should have to feel uncomfortable or threatened at work. But being fired for misconduct is not being cancelled. That word is getting thrown around far too often now. 

[Hiyo]

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

[Blergh]

FWIW, Mr. Langella meanly dissed the  legendary Rita Hayworth  and, despite the revelations of her having suffered from Alzheimer's for the latter part of her life including during the making of her final film he costarred in, has never apologized for it.  OTOH he was the companion of Whoopi Goldberg for five years! IMO, not someone who has had the world's best tastes! 

[Jaded]

44 minutes ago, Hiyo said:

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

[MissAlmond]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That people asked for intimacy coaches to be around even in non-intimate scene's is very telling of how inappropriate he was being.

There’s also this:

Quote

When Langella was fired, “there was a profound relief bordering on jubilation among cast and crew,” a source from the show said.

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by MissAlmond

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

It does provide a nice shorthand, I guess, in that it joins "politically correct" and "social justice warrior" as terms that if said with a sneer instantly reveal the speaker as someone on whom I need not waste any time listening to the rest of their statement.

[Wiendish Fitch]

3 hours ago, Blergh said:

FWIW, Mr. Langella meanly dissed the  legendary Rita Hayworth  and, despite the revelations of her having suffered from Alzheimer's for the latter part of her life including during the making of her final film he costarred in, has never apologized for it.  OTOH he was the companion of Whoopi Goldberg for five years! IMO, not someone who has had the world's best tastes! 

You have to be an utterly shitty human being to not only mock someone with Alzheimer's, but to blithely chalk it up to "being young".

Dude, you were in your fucking 30s, you were absolutely old enough to know better! 

Well, no matter. In spite of her tragic life, Rita Hayworth is a bona fide legend who will be remembered long, long, long after Frank Langella is inevitably forgotten. 

 

 

[Prairie Rose]

8 hours ago, Hiyo said:

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

Same thing for people misusing the term "groomer". I and many others really have been groomed, and the blatant misuse of the word really makes me angry.

[Bastet]

That Twitter thread contains a good overview:

Quote

In summary, this incident is *extremely* well-documented and the counter-evidence is weak. It’s a far cry from the “he said she said” version of this case most (normal, low-information) Americans have been presented with.

This isn’t the only incident with supporting evidence. The UK case comprises 14 allegations of alleged abuse. One was thrown out on a technicality. Of the remaining 13, only 3 were Depp’s word against Heard’s.

Every other incident is backed up by witnesses, photos, texts, diary entries or other contemporaneous documentation. Heard’s narrative aligns with all the evidence: A guy with a history of misogyny, jealousy and violent outbursts brought that pattern into his marriage.

Depp’s account, on the other hand, is essentially a conspiracy theory: Heard spent years fabricating texts, photos and diary entries so she could file for divorce, sign an NDA and write a vague half-sentence about him in the Post a year later.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Bastet

[Wiendish Fitch]

22 minutes ago, possibilities said:

RE Langellla: The dude was fired. FIRED. From a job. It happens all the time when people break workplace rules. Suddenly it's being treated like a shock by those who are used to not having any rules to follow. Him or his allies calling it "being cancelled" instead of "being fired" is an attempt to distract from the fact that he got fired, like so many people before him, because shockingly he was held accountable for his behavior.

True story: Millions of years ago when I worked at a major grocery store, a teenaged co-worker of mine was fired. Why was he fired? Because he would punch in, but not start working right away. He'd just sit around for a few minutes before starting. The manager who fired him said he was "stealing company time". 

Was this right or fair? Who gives a shit? Managers and higher-ups reserve the right to fire your ass. If a teenager can be fired because he didn't begin working the millisecond he punched in, I think a man on the wrong side of 80 can be fired for gross and inappropriate work behavior. 

In Langella's case, it's not "cancellation", it's fucking KARMA.

[WritinMan]

16 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

More details on Frank Langella's The Fall of the House of Usher on set behavior emerge after the actor defies firing. 

https://deadline.com/2022/05/frank-langella-fired-the-fall-of-the-house-of-usher-netflix-series-details-1235029281/

Good lord.

And the creepy old fuck award goes to....

[MsTree]

16 hours ago, Lady Whistleup said:

A bloody nose is DV. Even punching someone's face without a bloody nose is DV. And to diminish that experience by saying that she "lied" about DV IS condoning abuse.

Didn't say a bloody nose is okay. Just saying that she embellished the degree at which some abuse occurred...as some never really happened. The lying part was to expedite a restraining order. She felt if she made it sound worse than what it was and compound it by saying it was more than what it was, her case would move along faster, and his punishment would be more severe. 

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, MsTree said:

Didn't say a bloody nose is okay. Just saying that she embellished the degree at which some abuse occurred...as some never really happened.

Is it really an embellishment of the abuse that occurred? It would be an exaggeration of the injury but not the abuse. A punch in the nose is the exact same abuse if it breaks a bone or not. It’s very unlikely that the difference between tissue damage and a broken bone had anything to do with a deliberate intention by the abuser to hurt her less. What abuse didn’t happen in this scenario? 

[MsTree]

13 minutes ago, Dani said:

What abuse didn’t happen in this scenario? 

Anal rape. Two different subjects, I know. But it just showed me how far some bitterness can go in order seek revenge. I mean, let's face it...Amber & Johnny hate one another. And I'll go out on a limb saying that they're equal offenders. However, when one person feels they've been abused more than the other, they feel it's their responsibility to prove it, as well as their point. Whether it's witnesses, pictures, or simply exaggerating different scenarios...they feel justified in doing so.