Anyone following the Amber and Johnny trial?
 

You don’t think “Low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market” or “waste of a cum guzzler“ are misogynistic? I can’t imagine anyone genuinely believes these are not examples of misogyny.

Also he tipped his hand in that message with one phrase; “low level”. That’s ****ing Redpill/Incel rhetoric through and through. It’s basically the foundation of their thoughts about women and hierarchies of “worth”.

Redpill forums are heavily into “justice for Johnny”, of course.

Then you can’t possibly think it’s different when someone (in anger) comes out with a tirade of homophobia. That must be equally understandable, as exactly the same would apply.

Misogyny is a hatred towards women.

He has a clear hate towards Amber Heard. Singular. I read 'low level' as him referring to what she has done. It's a low thing to do.

I don't see how you can then claim he has a hatred towards women in general when he's talking about Amber. Misogyny is a hatred towards women. You can hate a person, doesn't mean you then hate all of the same sex.

Yes I can and do. Explain to me how the same would apply?

I have already said anyway that I do not think it's acceptable and it's disgusting.

Race and homophobia are things that someone can not change about themselves though. Regardless of how much help you get so I don't view it on the same light

I’m interested in what you said about thinking she might be BPD in your observations of her Thomas. I’m not sure I’d agree, but assuming it’s a possibility, surely you’re aware that women with BPD (or EUPD as it’s often diagnosed these days; Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder) are both;

1) Considered to be at increased risk of violence, sexual violence, and coercive control from partners and

2) Largely, BPD/EUPD is triggered by abuse. Not necessarily from Depp, that could be earlier in life, but also past victims of abuse are again at increased risk from abusers.

In fact a lot of the current research/literature is trying to debunk the entire EUPD diagnosis and call it what it is; trauma.

So I guess my question would be… you think she might have EUPD - the first question you have to then ask is “how did she end up with EUPD”. Because it’s not a neuropsychological disease, she didn’t spring up out of the ground with it.

Because your argument is that if it was said in anger, then they may never have thought it before, and might not even genuinely think it. It just randomly came out, they couldn’t help it.

For the rest of it I don’t really understand where you see a difference. How is making abusive comments relating to someone’s race or sexuality any different to making abusive comments relating to them being female?

They’re all equally protected traits under the equalities act, for example.

Anyone following the Amber and Johnny trial?
 

Because his insults all relate to her being female, they’re not about her character. Flappy fish market?

Low-level means “low worth” and would only ever be said by someone who views women as a commodity. There could have been plausible deniability that he meant her actions were low… but he immediately followed up with “dime a dozen”. Add to that that in Redpill rhetoric a woman’s worth is closely tied to her sexual history (see above, re: fish market, also the comment about strippers). To me he clearly means low-worth.

Also we could point out that amongst his friends is Manson, another partner-beater, and Roman Polanski… an actual rapist and paedophile who sexually assaulted a 13 year old girl… which Johnny openly defended him over in 2010. So a few “clues” about his thoughts on women.

Because a lot of the time homophobia and racism are pre-programmed thoughts. Your beliefs and how you have been brought, ignorance.

So the difference being that he found out what she had done with the restraining order and he was a absolutely outraged and hurt hence his comments.

Does that mean that he already held these thoughts about women generally? Of course not.

Racism and homophobia I feel is different based and on what I have just said.

Hi r said 'low level' and no of course it would not only be said by someone who views women as a commodity. I have called people low level or low life's in my time...it's like saying something someone has done is scummy or that they have scooped to such a level to do such a thing. You can't say that it would only be said by someone who views women as a commodity, what a leap! And actually outrageous thing to say. When he said some a dozen, sure he called her valueless. If you were accused of something you did not to do then you are likely to feel like the other person has no values.

I disagree, I think they are about her character she just happens to be female.

So is misogyny though? It’s exactly the same thing. It’s not who he said it about, it’s the words he chose to use. He could have called her the devil, called her scum, called her all sorts of names and made all sorts of comments about her character… heck I’d even accept that if he’d called her a b**** or a *******, those things are baked into culture enough that it could just be him losing his head.

“Flappy fish market” and “cum guzzler” though, then talking about her being low worth, no. He thinks those things. Those things are misogyny as clearly as using racial and homophobic slurs are racism and homophobia.

This does offer an interesting insight into the challenges of tackling misogyny though. Turns out people just don’t think it exists, even when it’s written down right there.

He didn’t say “low life”, he said “low level, dime a dozen”. Replaceable. It’s clearer if you see that whole thing, where he’s also talking about all of the “much better women” in the country he’s in at the time (I can’t remember the details).

As a shorter more succinct question; can you explain how “flappy fish market” is about her character and not specifically misogynistic?

Also would calling a gay person a “nasty little ********t” be not-homophobia because it’s a comment on his character (nasty) and “he just happens to be gay”?

But you programme yourself after the those thoughts..he programmed himself to type those thoughts out in a txt, whereas most normal level headed people who dont require anger management therapy would have kept those thoughts inside.

It's not s neuropsychological disease? Where did you get that from?

There's no single cause for it but environmental and genetic factors seem to play a role.

Lack of serotonin, issues with brain development, brain chemicals, past trauma.

So saying she didn't just spring out of the ground with it is incorrect in my opinion. She might have been born with it through genetic factors and/or brain development or she may have developed it in life through trauma.

My family member who had it wasn't abused, but has it along with a severe learning disability

I don't know how she ended up with it, that's if she didn't already have it.

Are you aware that malingering and manipulation play a part?

I do think misogyny exists, a big one being in a lot of religions where women are viewed as less or culturally, for example, Italians it's all about the men and women are often viewed as sex objects.

Cum guzzler I do not view as a word that means you have a hatred towards women. It means just that a cum guzzler.

Flappy Fisk market is derogatory, but I don't think by saying that you have a hatred towards women. It's disrespectful towards women I don't think it's misogyny and he hates all women or views them less, just towards Amber.

We're not going to agree and we're going around on circles on this matter so I'll leave it there on this one, respectfully

I really don't think he was thinking to be honest, probably drunk and high on drugs, very angry.

Yep, that's why when I brought this topic up with Thomas I commented on how I thought the understanding of Depp losing his head and coming out with the words that he did was interesting. And also the reason why I compared it to racism and homophobia. It is quite fascinating that someone could read that paragraph of insults all very specifically attacking her womanhood and claim that it was not misogynistic and that it was different because you can't change your race or being gay that you're just born that way but apparently women aren't born women and instead choose to be? ummm?

They do say the truth comes out when drunk.

Misogyny though is a hatred towards women. Plural.

My point being that his comments when angry were directed towards her because of what she has done.

To then say that he has a hatred towards women, again plural because that's what misogyny is, I think is incorrect in my opinion.

To attack someone based on their sexuality or colour of their skin would indeed be homophobic or racist though.

Johnny depps comments were deragatory towards women but I do not feel that he has an innate hatred towards women (again plural).

I think that’s fair enough, agree it’s run it’s course.

Of course again (as with most of this trial, something aim struggling to get my head around) is that it’s not actually relevant to the trial because it’s not a trial about who did what to whom/who was manipulative or who said what, or content of texts… it’s just about whether or not he hit her.

Like if he really was an angel throughout most of the relationship and she had shocking EUPD and was controlling, manipulative and cruel to him over the course of years… and hit him… and cut off his finger… … and after being pushed too far he sometimes hit her… then he loses the libel case. Because it’s not a criminal trial trying to mitigate his actions, he isn’t on trial defending himself, I think a lot of people think that’s what the trial is when it isn’t. It also isn’t to balance out what she has or hasn’t specifically lied about. The only question is was it libellous for her to say she experienced domestic abuse - Whether that be only on the receiving end or mutual. The reasons don’t matter, who started it or who is worse… I’m really baffled by the number of things that have come out during the trial that just have no relevance to the question being asked.

In fact… the more they paint him as a man tormented and pushed to the edge, the MORE sure I am that he probably hit her.

So if he had an argument with a co worker and it got nasty, the argument was nothing to do with the fact that his co worker was black but when he's ranting about the co worker he calls him a black ****, that wouldn't be racist because the argument wasn't about him being black and also he gets on with most other black people?

I think it is relevant to the trial because it paints the picture needed as to whether he was a 'wife beater ' and consequently whether the article was correct or not.

You need substance to determine that and hence how on depth they have gotten with the trial.

I can't say whether he hit or abused her, but so much evidence, imo, along with expert opinion paints Amber as someone who was really histrionic, manipulative and a malingerer. I'm finding it hard of evidence towards the contrary apart from texts I have seen from Johnny which are disgusting, two of which he says he did not send.

Dr Gilbert floundering.

That would be racist.

You've just ignored everything else I wrote though about the definition of misogyny though.

Can you provide evidence of where Johnny Depp has shown other hatred towards women?

If I can see a reoccurring theme where he has then I may change my opinion that he is not misogynistic towards women

There's another court case been happening while everyone's been distracted with this showbiz one.

Hillary Clinton isn't coming out of it too well. That's why you're watching this one.

I had so much planned to do today and Im getting so distracted on here and this court case. Ughhhh