Amber Heard. The hate she received during the trial Heard vs Depp was highly disproportionate. Usually, when someone is -really or allegedly- cancelled, many people lose their shit, but strangely, when she was cancelled for real, not so much people complained, while Depp was unfairly victimized. She was clearly a scapegoat for misogynistic low instincts.
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)
Moving to: m/AskMbin!
178 readers
1 users here now
### We are moving! **Join us in our new journey as we take a new direction towards the future for this community at mbin, find our new community here and read this post to know more about why we are moving. Thank you and we hope to see you there!**
founded 1 year ago
I have to agree. I do think they were both in the wrong and were toxic for each other. However, the amount and severity of the hate Amber received is astonishing to me.
The internet portrayed her as the devil while making Johnny appear as the most innocent victim ever. I'm not going to lie, I was 100% on Johnny's side at first, until I realised no one bothered to share Amber's testimony. And when I looked more into it, I figured she was a victim as well.
Again, I don't think she's innocent but she definitely didn't deserve to be treated so harshly and Depp shouldn't have been praised so much
Past partners confirmed Amber was prone to violent outbursts. She had an affair with Elon Musk of all people who then paid for her terrible attorneys.
Never forget that she shat in Depp’s bed - she’s unhinged. You can’t come back from that.
Right and that's why I said she's not innocent and is in the wrong as well. Does that excuse Depp's abusive behavior?
Regardless of the merits of their respective cases she was very much a victim of a poor choice of legal representation. The contrast in the degree of preparedness and competency between their legal team couldn't have been clearer. The future careers of way more than Amber and Jonny were determined during that trial.
While growing up in Mexico, turn-of-the-20th-century president Porfirio Diaz was always described as a villain who abused his position to cling to power for around three decades, leading to the Mexican Revolution and old man Diaz living the rest of his life in exile in France.
But now it seems that legacy has been reevaluated as much more nuanced and complex than that, with Diaz as more of a benevolent dictator with weaknesses and blind spots, who pushed his country to modernize and enter the Industrial Era, a likely reason why Mexico - flaws and all - didn't fall too far behind during the 20th century, did not become a pseudo-colonial/corporate territory like so much of Central and Southern America and the Caribbean.
This is a way more serious answer than I was expecting. Most of my knowledge on the Porfiriato comes from the Revolutions podcast, and it does seem that it was better than either what was before or after (for a generation at least). if you have to have an autocrat, hope that they're a modernist like Dias or Stolypin.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but many politicians. I think a large fraction are genuinely trying their best to make a difference (according to their values) and get constantly hit from all sides with any flaws/mistakes being amplified beyond reason.
There are also ones who should be locked up. But in general, this is a job I’d never want to have or put up with.
There's also the thing of picking your battles. There are changes one can and cannot make depending on the hostility of the political environment and if fickle potential voters have your back - which they have proven too often that they don't. There is also often sabotage in the delicate process of trying to pass and enact anything, sometimes all that is needed is one or two assholes from your own party to bring the whole house of cards down.
In an ideal world, they could try again, but for that we need educated and consistent voters to support them, and instead they get tarred with the label bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe by the oh-so-pure crowd - "if I don't get everything in the first try I don't wanna try at all... not even one fucking day a year".
Meanwhile, the assholes on the other side send death threats to you and your colleagues. Their propaganda machine portraying you as a 'Murica-hatin' less-than-human caricature.
I cannot imagine trying to navigate this as a career.
Agree, the job is pretty merciless. People hate you whatever you do and even the most unsignificant of your mistake is used against you. If you became politician by idealism, you discover rapidly that persons involved makes you actually powerless: rival politicians, highly influencial ploutocrats, the supreme court (or equivalent), etc.
I have this impression with the US president. Despite the prestige of his position, he is actually highly powerless: most of the domains are in the hands of state governors, and if the supreme court, the senate and the house are not in his camp, he can barely do anything. It can be hard if you are really willing to apply what you promised but not being able to do so.
Gordon Ramsey. Of course it's played up extra for the US market, but even still, pay attention to who he yells at, it's always people who are too dense to see what he's trying to tell them or chefs with huge egos that aren't deserved. He's much more nice towards amateurs and kids in his shows that feature those type of people instead of restaurant owners and pro chefs. Masterchef for example, he goes easier on the contestants in the beginning as they're all amateur/home chefs, but his standards go up as the season progresses.
There is a lot of love and hate for him. No middle ground on him.
Isn't the whole angry chef thing a big act for the cameras?
Yeah it's definitely played up/edited to be worse but still if you pay attention to who he's yelling at, he only gets mad at people who deserve it... the people who just refuse to listen to his advice or get defensive and lie instead of just owning up to their mistakes or shortcomings or just simply stopped caring. For people who want to change or want to learn to be better, Gordon Ramsey is extremely supportive. There's an episode of Hotel Hell where there was a kid with so much aspiration and love for food that Gordon Ramsey offers to pay to put him through culinary school
Here's an oldy. J. Bruce Ismay.
J. Bruce Ismay was chairman of the White Star Line and passenger aboard the Titanic on the night it sank. He's been given a lot of shit throughout history for cheaping out on safety features of the ship, such as not carrying enough lifeboats, using cheap parts and manufacturing that contributed to the sinking, and insisting the ship move at full speed through ice fields to break records. He also took a seat on a lifeboat, saving himself at the cost of another passenger.
Except it's all bullshit.
Titanic did not cheap out on parts. It was a top of the line ship with industry leading safety features. There is no evidence that Ismay was pushing the ship to break any records. It wasn't even a ship built for speed, focusing more on oppulance and luxury. While Titanic didn't have enough lifeboats, it did carry more than it was legally required to. It wouldn't have mattered anyway, as they didn't have enough time to launch the lifeboats they had. And Ismay didn't "steal" a lifeboat spot. Most early lifeboats were being launched way below capacity, as people didn't want to get on them (believing that the ship wouldn't sink, or wouldn't sink before a rescue ship would arrive to save them). Ismay took a lifeboat seat because one was available. He didn't steal it. The only thing Ismay really did wrong is not die that night as the public felt he ought to have.