"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[EvanG]

Isn't your dad Dutroux?

 

too far? too far?

 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

That's a good one, ''it's not pornography, officer, it's art''. Nevertheless, he showed those pictures to children, so even if it is an art book, why is an adult showing pictures of naked people to children? But I bet the diehard MJ fans find a way to rationalize that too.

I'm not aware of what pictures if any he showed to children, but I wouldn't think it wrong to allow children to see art that depicts nudity (unless it's something totally twisted and/or sexualised).

The book I had in mind used to be available on regular bookstores (perhaps still is) with positive reviews. It wasn't considered pornographic by the officials or else I assume Jackson would have been charged for possession of child pornography.

[Jw224]

2 hours ago, EvanG said:

That's a good one, ''it's not pornography, officer, it's art''. Nevertheless, he showed those pictures to children, so even if it is an art book, why is an adult showing pictures of naked people to children? But I bet the diehard MJ fans find a way to rationalize that too.

He didn't show those books to children. They were found in a room filled with boxes of books inside one of the boxes. Let's not act like he kept them at his bedside so he could show the kids lol. The authority with which people make false statements is mind numbing. 

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Jw224 said:

He didn't show those books to children. They were found in a room filled with boxes of books inside one of the boxes. Let's not act like he kept them at his bedside so he could show the kids lol. The authority with which people make false statements is mind numbing. 

 

21 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I'm not aware of what pictures if any he showed to children, but I wouldn't think it wrong to allow children to see art that depicts nudity (unless it's something totally twisted and/or sexualised).

The book I had in mind used to be available on regular bookstores (perhaps still is) with positive reviews. It wasn't considered pornographic by the officials or else I assume Jackson would have been charged for possession of child pornography.

Corey Feldman has gone on record several times defending him but also mentioned that the only inappropriate thing that happened between them was MJ showing him nude pictures when he was 13 years old. I personally wouldn't want an adult showing my 13 year old those kind of pictures.

[action]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

Isn't your dad Dutroux?

 

too far? too far?

 

yeah, and my bed-over uncle was hitler

don't tell me, they are the bad ones?

[toroymoi]

7 hours ago, downzy said:

Well said, and better said than what I just wrote.

This is my biggest issue with the cancel culture police.  Nobody is denying moments where things get taken too far with respect to social and economic punishments, but too much of the criticism of cancel culture seems to want to ignore why some people with past behavioural issues are finally facing some consequences. 

Never mind everything you just wrote about what's known about Johnny Depp.  All of his issues are now apparently tied to his ex-wife accusing him of abuse, never mind the other allegations of drug use, unprofessionalism, and assault.  

Precisely. I've definitely seen overreactions to certain things but cancellation as most people have imagined it to be does not exist, at most it's pushback and some people choosing not to support a project but the person themselves continues to work unaffected.

It's strange because I distinctly remember reading about Depp having a severe alcohol problem in the mid-00's or around there, obviously it was written about at that time as more comedic/less concerning, but looking back it was indicative of issues that surround him to this day. People act like his issues started with Amber, but he's long been a violent, alcoholic, drug-addict long before she came along.

Edited June 3, 2022 by toroymoi

[toroymoi]

6 hours ago, action said:

as plato would say, "what is your definition of cancellation"?

him being fired from the fantastic beasts, and pirates of the carribean (the latter, even though a sequel was already planned but then canceled since amber turd wrote her article in the WP), causing him millions of missed income, is certainly cancellation from my point of view

I'm not sure what your definition of cancellation is. I certainly don't agree with it.

Shockingly uninformed post filled with falsehoods here.

I'll repeat, he was dropped from Fantastic Beasts AFTER he sued The Sun for libel and LOST (a case in which the high court judge found his responsible for 12 out of 14 instances of abuse). His place in that series was solid, he lost the role because he decided to sue.

Also again, the rumours of him being dropped from POTC were swirling before the op-ed and a Disney executive testified that the op-ed was never part of the discussion. Again, his fault for being an unreliable on-set liability.

Abusers continue to work in Hollywood, that is never at the root of why someone is dropped, they get dropped when it affects the bottomline. And Depp's belligerent on-set behaviour (like assaulting crew members which he's going to court for soon), mixed with him being a has-been who brought no financial or critical fanfare meant he was not wanted.

[action]

7 hours ago, toroymoi said:

Shockingly uninformed post filled with falsehoods here.

I'll repeat, he was dropped from Fantastic Beasts AFTER he sued The Sun for libel and LOST (a case in which the high court judge found his responsible for 12 out of 14 instances of abuse). His place in that series was solid, he lost the role because he decided to sue.

Also again, the rumours of him being dropped from POTC were swirling before the op-ed and a Disney executive testified that the op-ed was never part of the discussion. Again, his fault for being an unreliable on-set liability.

Abusers continue to work in Hollywood, that is never at the root of why someone is dropped, they get dropped when it affects the bottomline. And Depp's belligerent on-set behaviour (like assaulting crew members which he's going to court for soon), mixed with him being a has-been who brought no financial or critical fanfare meant he was not wanted.

yes, abusers continue to work in hollywood.

best example is amber heard, who despite lying under oath, and despite severing JD's fingertip, (among other things, like shitting in his bed), still would feature in aquaman 2 (according to her own testimony in court)

[action]

7 hours ago, toroymoi said:

Precisely. I've definitely seen overreactions to certain things but cancellation as most people have imagined it to be does not exist, at most it's pushback and some people choosing not to support a project but the person themselves continues to work unaffected.

It's strange because I distinctly remember reading about Depp having a severe alcohol problem in the mid-00's or around there, obviously it was written about at that time as more comedic/less concerning, but looking back it was indicative of issues that surround him to this day. People act like his issues started with Amber, but he's long been a violent, alcoholic, drug-addict long before she came along.

oh, I see. you do not even think cancellation exists. you do not live in reality.

we need to find another term then, to class all the other cases of artists losing their work as a result of unproven statements by so called "victims"

it is very easy to ruin someone's career, but it's very difficult to repair the damage done to your image

Edited June 4, 2022 by action

[action]

amber turd had the opportunity to bring all the evidence she had of "abuse", before a 7 head jury.

this is a woman who recorded conversations with JD, took pictures of so called bruises and even filmed JD on what she thought, was a violent episode.

All of this was brought before court, but the 7 head jury, along with the vast majority of people who followed the trial across the whole world, found that what amber turd was making up in her head, did not match what everyone else was seeing.

amber turd has serious mental issues, which have in part resulted in her falsely (and maliciously, according to the jury) accusing JD, ruining his career.

 

[EvanG]

I haven't followed this shitshow enough to form an opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They obviously had a very toxic relationship and probably both crossed the line at some point. I think the reason why some are supporting Johnny is because they grew up with him and he has this charisma that makes people drawn to him for some reason while Amber doesn't have those advantages, but it's clear he's no saint either.

[Jw224]

24 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I haven't followed this shitshow enough to form an opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They obviously had a very toxic relationship and probably both crossed the line at some point. I think the reason why some are supporting Johnny is because they grew up with him and he has this charisma that makes people drawn to him for some reason while Amber doesn't have those advantages, but it's clear he's no saint either.

Nobody has ever said Johnny was a saint. It's about whether he physically and sexually assaulted someone, not whether he's the perfect person. Everything was presented in court and the Jury did not find her at all credible due to many contradictions, inconsistencies and outright lies. 

[EvanG]

14 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

Nobody has ever said Johnny was a saint. It's about whether he physically and sexually assaulted someone, not whether he's the perfect person. Everything was presented in court and the Jury did not find her at all credible due to many contradictions, inconsistencies and outright lies. 

Yes, and you and I have no way of knowing what happened behind closed doors, yet a lot of people act like they do know because they love Johnny so much.

[action]

what is fascinating to me is, when it comes to things like corona, people demand "proof", "sources", and "peer reviewed" scientific articles and data for the right to even begin discussing the subject

but when it comes to a woman accusing a man, opinions are formed, the man is fired, way before even the first piece of evidence is shown. When it is then objected, that there is no proof, then the woke crowd (the same crowd who demands scientific evidence when it comes to corona) will ridicule that away, claiming there is no proof needed, because "obviously, women are the weaker side".

you would almost think, a fair bit of hypocrisy is at display

[toroymoi]

4 hours ago, action said:

yes, abusers continue to work in hollywood.

best example is amber heard, who despite lying under oath, and despite severing JD's fingertip, (among other things, like shitting in his bed), still would feature in aquaman 2 (according to her own testimony in court)

The fingertip that on at least 2 occasions and to separate people (including her), he said he did to himself. I don't think the normal action of a person when someone else has severed their finger is to write bloodied messages on the wall with said finger, and even dip it in paint too but alas.

Also the faeces in the bed is most likely from their incontinent dog who even shat all over Johnny once, due to the lack of control over its bowels (or even Johnny, because based on messages he sent to a friend, he had a pre-occupation with faeces and was expressing to a friend that he wanted someone to shit on their floor as a 'prank' towards her). Oddly enough, his security guard (so a witness on his payroll) claimed that Amber admitted to doing it as a 'prank'.

4 hours ago, action said:

oh, I see. you do not even think cancellation exists. you do not live in reality.

we need to find another term then, to class all the other cases of artists losing their work as a result of unproven statements by so called "victims"

it is very easy to ruin someone's career, but it's very difficult to repair the damage done to your image

Please give me a list of people who have lost all this work based on nothing, or who have suffered based on nothing, and I mean people who haven't just decided themselves to stay out of the spotlight.

[Jw224]

There's audio of Amber apologising at the scene for hurting Johnny's finger and saying she didn't mean to do it, so I don't know why we're still trying to act like she didn't

I find it interesting that every single person that supported Johnny and gave testimony is now being written off because they were employed by him or had a relationship with him, very convenient way of getting rid of lots of testimony against Amber huh.

Amber literally only had her friends support her (who have been shown to have lied and presented many inconsistencies as well) so I guess we'll have to write off everything they have said also. 

Amber's thing during the trial was pretty much "everyone is lying or is wrong, and I am perfect" when confronted with the many inconsistencies and outright lies, and that rhetoric seems to have spread to her supporters now also.

[Scream of the Butterfly]

1 hour ago, action said:

what is fascinating to me is, when it comes to things like corona, people demand "proof", "sources", and "peer reviewed" scientific articles and data for the right to even begin discussing the subject

but when it comes to a woman accusing a man, opinions are formed, the man is fired, way before even the first piece of evidence is shown. When it is then objected, that there is no proof, then the woke crowd (the same crowd who demands scientific evidence when it comes to corona) will ridicule that away, claiming there is no proof needed, because "obviously, women are the weaker side".

you would almost think, a fair bit of hypocrisy is at display

Some people are quick to believe women without asking for proof, but then others are equally quick to accuse women of lying without any proof and despite the fact that she was there, you weren't.

You could play it safe and sit on the fence at all times to avoid being wrong, but then you are denying your support from people who have been abused as well as from people who have been falsely accused, so it's not the perfect approach either.

Personally, if somebody tells me they have been abused, I don't feel right about demanding for proof that understandably is often impossible to come up with even if the person is not lying. I would have to at least cautiously believe the person unless I get a proper reason not to.

[toroymoi]

2 hours ago, Jw224 said:

There's audio of Amber apologising at the scene for hurting Johnny's finger and saying she didn't mean to do it, so I don't know why we're still trying to act like she didn't

I find it interesting that every single person that supported Johnny and gave testimony is now being written off because they were employed by him or had a relationship with him, very convenient way of getting rid of lots of testimony against Amber huh.

Amber literally only had her friends support her (who have been shown to have lied and presented many inconsistencies as well) so I guess we'll have to write off everything they have said also. 

Amber's thing during the trial was pretty much "everyone is lying or is wrong, and I am perfect" when confronted with the many inconsistencies and outright lies, and that rhetoric seems to have spread to her supporters now also.

So one decontextualised audio clip vs at least two instances where he admits to doing it himself - btw the context being that emotional manipulation can mean a victim is made to feel responsible for causing their abuser to harm themselves (this is furthered by the existence of another audio clip in which Depp threatens to cut himself whilst Amber is heard begging him not to).

It's not convenient, it's logical. If you're paying someone there's a lot of incentive there for them to lie for you, to defend you so the gravy train doesn't stop running.

Amber's 'friends' are, as far as I'm aware, not even her friends anymore and so have no incentive to go to bat for her. Also, people keep saying this but can you provide evidence of where they've lied or been inconsistent in a way that isn't explainable?

You say that about Amber, but from what I witnessed she was very willing to admit her own faults and didn't try to present herself as perfect.

[Jw224]

56 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

And regarding Michael Jackson, let's suspend disbelief and for arguments sake assume he really was innocent; then it's a crying shame he - and his fans - make him seem guilty. It's not healthy or normal to be so fervantly sycophantic. Dude was a businessman in his fifties putting on a fucking Peter Pan voice and surgically altered his face to look like his sister and did things like have sleepovers with strangers kids. Wake up lol at least enough to not have a cunty chip on your shoulders when everyday people assume the obvious.

Nah, it's just asking people to have at least basic knowledge of what is true or isn't true about a subject before acting like you know what you're talking about. The fact you've just regurgitated tabloid crap in your post says it all really. 

People post a load of crap, then when told it's not true they expect us to go and do their research and explain stuff for them lol. If you're so interested then look into it yourself, otherwise don't expect to post crap and not be told it isn't true lol. 

Anyway, I'm gonna stop responding to posts like this now as it's just circular talk. 

Edited June 4, 2022 by Jw224

[action]

MJ is dead for more than 10 years, so it strikes me as a bit puzzling why it's so important if he's a nonce or not

what do people hope to achieve, investigating his guilt?

don't point to the splinter on one's eye, before taking care of the log in your own eyes

suppose the outcome is, that indeed all the facts prove that he's guilty. then what? do the keyboard knights then expect me to burn my beloved MJ catalogue, which I cherish since I was a kid? Which was basically, my first experience with pop music? 

Not a chance in hell, lovely people. 

there is no MJ anymore. there is no pedo to be seen. Only thing left of him is his entropic energy, and the musical compositions of his, which are completely devoid of moral objections. the music was always there, only thing an artist does, is discover it

[Dazey]

4 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Amber Heard is clearly a psycho bitch. It's kind of obvious lol.

Problem with this whole case is that people had made their minds up before it even got into the court room. The side that saw him as the powerful abuser trying to silence the innocent victim have become ever more entrenched in their view and likewise the other side for whom he can do no wrong and think she's nothing more than a lying skank out to ruin a good man. None of the evidence of the last six weeks seems to have changed either viewpoint one iota.

[RussTCB]

7 hours ago, Jw224 said:

Nah, it's just asking people to have at least basic knowledge of what is true or isn't true about a subject before acting like you know what you're talking about. The fact you've just regurgitated tabloid crap in your post says it all really. 

People post a load of crap, then when told it's not true they expect us to go and do their research and explain stuff for them lol. If you're so interested then look into it yourself, otherwise don't expect to post crap and not be told it isn't true lol. 

Anyway, I'm gonna stop responding to posts like this now as it's just circular talk. 

This is what it boils down to for me. 

[SoulMonster]

17 hours ago, Jw224 said:

Nah, it's just asking people to have at least basic knowledge of what is true or isn't true about a subject before acting like you know what you're talking about.

But isn't it true that Michael Jackson invited children to sleep in his bed? That Michael Jackson lavished gifts on these kids? That Michael Jackson had porn magazine with fingerprints from at least one of the little boys? And that many of these kids later accused Michael Jackson from having molested him while a few of the personnel at Neverland would state that the witnessed Michael Jackson molesting these kids? These are facts. What other facts is there that somehow makes Michael Jackson not appear as a kiddie fiddler? What facts am I overlooking that somehow negates what I just wrote? What facts exist to somehow make these not be HUGE red flags? Of course you can argue that Michael Jackson was just a developmentally stunted manchild who preferred the company of boys of his own maturity and that all that happened was innocent play between similarly mature people and that all the accusers are just out for monetary gain or fame. Sure. But that's an interpretation of the facts. Another interpretation is that Michael Jackson was a pedophile who molested kids. I am definitely leaning towards the latter although the US judicial statement was never able to sufficiently prove his guilt. What other facts are there that I should be aware of?

[action]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

But isn't it true that Michael Jackson invited children to sleep in his bed? That Michael Jackson lavished gifts on these kids? That Michael Jackson had porn magazine with fingerprints from at least one of the little boys? And that many of these kids later accused Michael Jackson from having molested him while a few of the personnel at Neverland would state that the witnessed Michael Jackson molesting these kids? These are facts. What other facts is there that somehow makes Michael Jackson not appear as a kiddie fiddler? What facts am I overlooking that somehow negates what I just wrote? What facts exist to somehow make these not be HUGE red flags? Of course you can argue that Michael Jackson was just a developmentally stunted manchild who preferred the company of boys of his own maturity and that all that happened was innocent play between similarly mature people and that all the accusers are just out for monetary gain or fame. Sure. But that's an interpretation of the facts. Another interpretation is that Michael Jackson was a pedophile who molested kids. I am definitely leaning towards the latter although the US judicial statement was never able to sufficiently prove his guilt. What other facts are there that I should be aware of?

 

these are facts too, mr scientist:

- MJ was never found guilty in any trial

- the prosecution had a second chance to accuse MJ, they had all the opportunity in the world to gather evidence. They had a search warrant for his house, and they thoroughly searched every nack and cranny for evidence. All of the "evidence" was shown to a jury, in a criminal trial, with a detailed and thorough debate about everything that was found. The outcome? The evidence was found inconclusive.

- if in all of his house, conclusive evidence wasn't found, then were is it?

- MJ donated millions and millions to child charities

- he was a regular visitor of child hospitals, giving hope and support to all children in need and in pain

- he coloured the lives of millions, and millions of kids with his music

- hundreds and hundreds of kids had a very good time at his ranch, and speak very fondly of their time there. 

[toroymoi]

21 hours ago, Dazey said:

Problem with this whole case is that people had made their minds up before it even got into the court room.

There's honestly so many problems with this trial; the fact that it was allowed to be televised is problem #1 imo - this is what ensured the trial would become a spectacle, clips taken out of context and twisted to suit narratives, soundbites became the aim of one lawyer in particular, and being treated like a reality show (straight out of Black Mirror).

In relation to that point, I would say problem #2 is the jury not being sequestered. Although a jury typically wouldn't be for a trial like this, I think considering the profile of the case combined with the televised aspect (and subsequent social media frenzy, that's been assessed as partially fuelled by bot or bot-like activity), that it would've been the responsible thing. A juror said that his wife texted him calling Amber a "psycho" when he told her he may be on this case, and he went home to that same wife every day after court; same as the others jurors going home and have full access to family and friends, as well as the mass social media hate brigade filled with misinformation.

That of course brings us to the bleakest thing at all; the response to this by basically everyone. As I said, it was treated like a reality show with people taking sides, and I was so grossed out seeing "Johnny Depp being savage in court" compilations and things like that, as if it was some lighthearted entertainment. I saw people mocking Amber's detailing of assault, both sexual and physical, and regardless of whether or not people believe those retellings... the details were still that of assault, and will negatively affect victims who have been through similar, seeing details that match their own experience mocked.

Regardless of where people stand regarding the case itself, everyone should be disturbed by the energy and atmosphere surrounding this case. People were gleeful in their mocking and their attacks, it was vicious and it's something I've not seen before with anyone else accused of wrongdoing.