How best to start including men who are victims of abuse by women into the public discourse (Johny Depp vs Amber Heard)

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I don't know about Admins, but Mods can't read a private message unless they're included in it by the author.

I think mods can read them if one of the people involved reports it (i.e. as a rules violation) That's the only exception, AFAIK.

[TheVat]

It seems fortunate that Depp does not, in reality, have scissors for hands.  

 

[Arete]

I think the fundamental issue is that the court case sought to examine the issue of defamation, not domestic violence/abuse. While Depp's quote clearly indicates he believes he was a victim of abuse (as does Heard), the trial itself was never intended to prove if Depp or Heard were the perpetrators/victims of abuse, but defamation. 

There is certainly an ongoing discussion about gender issues in domestic violence/abuse in the sociology literature - the gender based asymmetry of physical/psychological forms of abuse, gender bias in the likelihood of reporting abuse, etc. But the Depp/Heard case is tangential to that issue at best, simply because its focus was not abuse.

To apply a scientific analogy, if I do a Kirby Bauer disc diffusion assay on a stain of bacteria using an amoxicillin disc, it will tell me whether or not the bacteria is resistant to penicillin beta lactam antibiotics. It won't, however tell me anything about the resistance of that bacteria to carbapenem. The bacteria might or might not be resistant to carbapenem - but making an objective, evidence based determination about its carbapenem resistance would not be possible based on my test - I'd need use a carbapenem KB disc. 

[koti]

25 minutes ago, Arete said:

I think the fundamental issue is that the court case sought to examine the issue of defamation, not domestic violence/abuse. While Depp's quote clearly indicates he believes he was a victim of abuse (as does Heard), the trial itself was never intended to prove if Depp or Heard were the perpetrators/victims of abuse, but defamation. 

There is certainly an ongoing discussion about gender issues in domestic violence/abuse in the sociology literature - the gender based asymmetry of physical/psychological forms of abuse, gender bias in the likelihood of reporting abuse, etc. But the Depp/Heard case is tangential to that issue at best, simply because its focus was not abuse.

To apply a scientific analogy, if I do a Kirby Bauer disc diffusion assay on a stain of bacteria using an amoxicillin disc, it will tell me whether or not the bacteria is resistant to penicillin beta lactam antibiotics. It won't, however tell me anything about the resistance of that bacteria to carbapenem. The bacteria might or might not be resistant to carbapenem - but making an objective, evidence based determination about its carbapenem resistance would not be possible based on my test - I'd need use a carbapenem KB disc. 

Symmetry Arete. The abstract talks about gender symmetry not only gender assymetry. Your error would be meaningful but considering the context were in here and all I said about bias - its hilarious.

Edited June 6, 2022 by koti

[Peterkin]

Quote

Evidence is presented that situational couple violence dominates in general surveys, intimate terrorism and violent resistance dominate in agency samples, and this is the source of differences across studies with respect to the gender symmetry of partner violence.

I gather this means that people are generally willing to admit that they occasionally have physical fights with their partner, but fewer of these fights escalate to where a social agency is called in to intervene, whereas intimate terrorism more often does reach that point, or else the victims approach a social agency, seeking help .  And this is where the statistics come from.

The victims who seek help, their injuries can be assessed objectively by an expert, and evidence compiled against the abusers. Victims who do not seek help are never assessed. 

Of the people who report having mutual fights, it is impossible to tell how many are telling the truth, and whether all the couples are checking the same box - perhaps abusers claim that it's mutual in cases where the victims defended themselves against a domestic terrorist. And some of the persons who engage in mutual violence claim to be victimized. There is no usable evidence without witness testimony - and even that may be biased. 

1 hour ago, Arete said:

I think the fundamental issue is that the court case sought to examine the issue of defamation, not domestic violence/abuse. While Depp's quote clearly indicates he believes he was a victim of abuse (as does Heard), the trial itself was never intended to prove if

I don't know exactly what evidence was presented at this particular trial, but since the litigation was over public utterance, rather than domestic violence, I wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways. Without that, it doesn't belong here, even as an example of the purported topic, let alone the central issue.  

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know exactly what evidence was presented at this particular trial, but since the litigation was over public utterance, rather than domestic violence, I wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways.

But it was a public utterance about domestic violence. How do you determine whether or not the utterance was defamation without admitting evidence regarding whether or not Depp victimized Heard?

[TheVat]

Good question. Lack of sufficient evidence is the legal criterion maybe.  I don't think disproof is required.  (I didn't follow this case, but that is what I recall of other libel cases)

Odd, though, that the evidence was sufficient in the UK for Depp to lose his libel case there.  I didn't think evidence rules were that different over there.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

But it was a public utterance about domestic violence. How do you determine whether or not the utterance was defamation without admitting evidence regarding whether or not Depp victimized Heard?

I don't know. Did they determine that there was no violence, or that the statements she published were not sufficiently proven? Neither proves, or even suggests that he was a victim of abuse. She also won a defamation suit, for less money - I guess because her career is less lucrative.  In any case, as a poster boy for all the men suffering abuse at the hands of their wives, he falls considerably short on all counts. 

 

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Odd, though, that the evidence was sufficient in the UK for Depp to lose his libel case there.  I didn't think evidence rules were that different over there.

No; the jury pools are.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Or, OR, you started out misrepresenting the case as about abuse instead of defamation, and instead of switching to those points while continuing to explain your position, you started lashing out about pre-established views. I tried to tell you that you had several good points to make, but you were attacking those you thought were arguing against you, when they really seemed to want clarification and support.

I'm fairly convinced that Depp was a victim of physical and mental abuse by Heard, but I'm also a big fan of his, and not at all hers. Long before all this tabloid crap, I'd made up my mind about her supposed talent as an actress, so I felt like I had a heavy bias against her when the case came out. I know how I FEEL about her as a person, but that's based on her acting, and I know that's wrong. I didn't follow the case super closely, and I wanted actual evidence to support the way I feel about her. You seemed to feel the same way about Depp as I do, so for my part I was hoping you would bring something more concrete about Depp being victimized. I've been waiving my hands about this just fine on my own, so I'm sorry if I was trying to hold you to higher standards than I set for myself.

I personally separate the private shenannigans from the artist and their works. Quite a few people whose work I like turned out eventually to be arseholes in real life. If one didn't, probably most would be 'cancelled' and unemployable. In the final analysis history doesn't care, their work will still be viewed and analyzed on its own merits. The effect of their domestic actions are purely transient and will have no effect on their artistic standing, given enough time.

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't know.

Then why wouldn't you expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Then why wouldn't you expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways? It doesn't seem to make any sense.

It would depend on the limitations of the case as presented; I assumed it was limited to the specific utterance in that specific op-ed piece, which would put it in a very small frame. The reason I don't know what evidence was presented is that I wasn't interested enough in the trial to listen to it. If you are, and you do, and you find out I was wrong, I will readily admit that I spoke from ignorance, jumped to a conclusion, or whatever seems appropriate. 

As things stand atm, it seems they've said some harsh things about one another in public, and that suggests a rather poor relationship. However, I see no legal proof that the man was ever the victim of abuse, and no way in which he exemplifies men who are abused by women.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Peterkin

[Phi for All]

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I personally separate the private shenannigans from the artist and their works. Quite a few people whose work I like turned out eventually to be arseholes in real life. If one didn't, probably most would be 'cancelled' and unemployable. In the final analysis history doesn't care, their work will still be viewed and analyzed on its own merits. The effect of their domestic actions are purely transient and will have no effect on their artistic standing, given enough time.

I thought I was doing that by ignoring fan information and personal lives and stories that might or might not be crafted and spun. But I can't separate the artist from their art the way I thought. It makes a difference if the guy I used to find witty and entertaining is a blistering racist in real life, actor or not. There are actors out there who are really good people as well, and I can support them, still be entertained, and feel like I've made a better choice.

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But I can't separate the artist from their art the way I thought. It makes a difference if the guy I used to find witty and entertaining is a blistering racist in real life, actor or not.

See also: Bill Cosby

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I thought I was doing that by ignoring fan information and personal lives and stories that might or might not be crafted and spun. But I can't separate the artist from their art the way I thought. It makes a difference if the guy I used to find witty and entertaining is a blistering racist in real life, actor or not. There are actors out there who are really good people as well, and I can support them, still be entertained, and feel like I've made a better choice.

If the film or art work speaks to me, anything else is irrelevant. Those you speak of are likely in living memory, what about those who are long since gone, and whose personal llife history has vanished? They could have been the most deplorable people imaginable. Is Mr Feynmann to be banished from the history books and annals of science:

Quote

By anyone’s definition, Richard Feynman was a highly intelligent man. Among his many accomplishments, he contributed to several key conceptual breakthroughs in quantum physics, and his role in developing the field of quantum electrodynamics led to a Nobel Prize in 1965, which he shared with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga. What’s more, in striking contrast to the stereotype of the distant and ultra-serious, all-work-and-no-play scientist, Feynman offered an alluring image of scientific inquiry in his popular physics books for non-scientist readers and humor-laden autobiographies. He came off as a fun, likeable guy who just liked to do math, play pranks, and bang on the bongos.

These things are true. But it’s also true that throughout his career, Feynman reveled in blatant misogyny and sexism. In “Surely You’re Joking”, Feynman details how he adopted the mindset of a pick-up artist (an outlook he also claims to have eventually abandoned) by treating women as if they were worthless and cruelly lashing out at them when they rejected his advances. He worked and held meetings in strip clubs, and while a professor at Cal Tech, he drew naked portraits of his female students. Even worse, perhaps, he pretended to be an undergraduate student to deceive younger women into sleeping with him. His second wife accused him of abuse, citing multiple occasions when he’d fly into a blind rage if she interrupted him while he was working or playing his bongos.

https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill

 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

See also: Bill Cosby

In the current time, yes, he's persona non grata, but in a generation or two he'll probably be seen as we saw him before his behaviour became public... if his work is of a historically durable  nature, say, like Charlie Chaplin's is.

Edited June 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[Peterkin]

The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interr'ed with their bones....

...unless preserved on celluloid, in marble or oil paint or big beautiful buildings... 

I try not to know anything about the actors in film I like - not even their names if it's avoidable: it's the character in the film I admire, not the person behind the makeup.* That gets easier with time: the younger they are the more their faces look the same, and I can't remember the name of someone I was introduced to five minutes ago.

*does not apply to silly pirate movies, where I have no use for either

Edited June 6, 2022 by Peterkin

[zapatos]

57 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It would depend on the limitations of the case as presented; I assumed it was limited to the specific utterance in that specific op-ed piece, which would put it in a very small frame.

It was not limited to the "specific utterance". It was limited to the truth of the specific utterance. It is not illegal to make a claim that is true. What is the jury supposed to do? GUESS whether or not the utterance was true without hearing any testimony about the specific allegations made? I didn't follow the trial either but with my very limited knowledge of the law it seems obvious that there would be allowed testimony to enable the jury to make a determination as to the veracity of the claim.

Quote

While on the stand, Heard alleged Depp hit and abused her many times, her testimony often turning graphic. 

A photo of a bruise on Heard's arm was shown in court and she explained the incident that allegedly caused it, 

Heard said she picked up a vase and threw it in Depp's direction. "And I actually managed to get away before he got me. He grabbed me by the arm and he kind of held me on the floor screaming at me. I don't remember how many times he hit me in the face, but I remember being on the floor of my apartment and I'm just -- I remember thinking how could this happen to me again?" she said. 

Heard said there was an altercation during a family vacation on a yacht, where Depp thought she told his kids that he was "a drunk" – and it led to a physical altercation, and Depp saying he could "f***ing kill" her.

and he slams me up against the side wall of the bedroom...slams me up by my neck and holds me there for a second and tells me that he could f***ing kill me,"

Depp allegedly ripped off her clothes and conducted a "cavity search" of her body.

Heard described several instances where she alleged Depp physically abused her – some of her testimony turning extremely graphic. In one instance, she alleged he punched the back of her head over and over, screaming "I f***ing hate you" over and over again.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amber-heard-johnny-depp-lawsuit-shocking-moments-testimony/

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If the film or art work speaks to me, anything else is irrelevant.

I feel this is the way it should be with any artform, that it's all about the feelings that are invoked by the work. But then I find out that the performer enjoys things I find abhorrent or inhuman, and that also invokes feelings about their work. 

35 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Those you speak of are likely in living memory, what about those who are long since gone, and whose personal llife history has vanished?

When I was a teenager, I loved doing impressions of the actors of the day. I was a Western fan as well, so I would listen to Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Walter Brennan, and Henry Fonda. Wayne was an admitted white supremacist, Jimmy Stewart openly disliked blacks and Asians, and Walter Brennan practically threw a party when Martin Luther King was killed. Fonda though apparently saw a lynching when he was 12, and it left an impression on him. He was one of the few in Hollywood at that time who was actively anti-racist.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

It was limited to the truth of the specific utterance.

Which this particular jury didn't believe. OK. So, how does that prove that she abused him?

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which this particular jury didn't believe. OK. So, how does that prove that she abused him?

You seem to be having issues following our conversation. Either that or you abhor having to acknowledge that you are not an expert on every topic under the sun and someone may have a valid counterpoint.

You stated:

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

... since the litigation was over public utterance, rather than domestic violence, I wouldn't expect a judge to admit any evidence regarding who victimized whom and in what ways.

To which I responded:

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

But it was a public utterance about domestic violence. How do you determine whether or not the utterance was defamation without admitting evidence regarding whether or not Depp victimized Heard?

Ever since then you've been tap dancing around my queries, setting smoke screens, tossing red herrings about, and generally obfuscating.

Once again you dropped a big pile of poop on the ground and I was naive enough to step in it, assuming you would discuss in good faith. My fault, again, for failing to recognize the real Peterkin behind the curtain.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

If the film or art work speaks to me, anything else is irrelevant. Those you speak of are likely in living memory, what about those who are long since gone, and whose personal llife history has vanished? They could have been the most deplorable people imaginable. Is Mr Feynmann to be banished from the history books and annals of science:

From your link:

"Even worse, perhaps, he pretended to be an undergraduate student to deceive younger women into sleeping with him."

These obviously weren't his students (so no conflict of interest I would expect) . He was 27 (he said he looked younger IIRC from SYJ, and often told the truth in a smartass way...no doubt expecting to be disbelieved) when the war ended and there were many undergraduates that age after coming back from the war.

Not exemplary behaviour, but if that is the "worst perhaps"...probably not the worst example of misogyny...certainly not "I think I'll vote for him for POTUS level"

[Arete]

6 hours ago, koti said:

Symmetry Arete. The abstract talks about gender symmetry not only gender assymetry. Your error would be meaningful but considering the context were in here and all I said about bias - its hilarious.

I mean, the introduction of this, and several other papers discusses the hypothesis that women are more likely to suffer physical forms of spousal abuse, and men are more likely to suffer psychological forms of spousal abuse, and investigates one part of that hypothesis of the asymmetry in the type of abuse likely to be suffered by men and women. While it is well established that women are more likely than men to be the victims of physical violence, this paper discusses the fact that the research is biased towards investigation of physical violence toward women, and that both psychological abuse and spousal abuses of males are understudied, before presenting a dataset showing men and women are equally likely to report psychological spousal abuse.  

But I guess that kind of nuance wouldn't fit the narrative you're trying to paint. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

More on topic. Haven't paid attention other than hearing the score was 15-2 or something...but I think best to include anyone subject to abuse in the public discourse is to respect known facts as they emerge, and stay open minded otherwise...even if you want to pick sides.

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ever since then you've been tap dancing around my queries, setting smoke screens, tossing red herrings about, and generally obfuscating.

Obfuscating what? I said I didn't listen to the transcript. I read that the case was about an article she wrote in which she accused him of abuse. He sues for defamation. I assumed that would mean that the trial would be limited to the content of the article, rather than including all of the interactions during their marriage.  The verdict is a result of what one jury believed to be true or proven after hearing testimony. You quoted her testimony about being abused by him, which apparently was rejected by the jury. So presumably there was not sufficient evidence to convince this jury that he abused her. There was nothing there to prove that she abused him.

As to your queries, I thought they were regarding the court case which I freely admitted not knowing in detail. I assumed that it would not have delved into all aspects of the couple's troubled relationship, or established who victimized whom in what ways.  I still don't know the details and I still admit that. I have no idea what else you want.  I'm certainly not cleaning your shoes. 

[koti]

4 hours ago, Arete said:

…But I guess that kind of nuance wouldn't fit the narrative you're trying to paint. 

It’s a good thing that you ackowledge the nuance of Johny Depp getting his life back in the narrative youre trying to paint.

[Arete]

9 hours ago, koti said:

It’s a good thing that you ackowledge the nuance of Johny Depp getting his life back in the narrative youre trying to paint.

You got me.

In the context that approximately 54,500 people were murdered by their intimate partners in 2020, I don't think the financial losses Johnny Depp suffered because of the mean things his ex wife said about him to the Washington Post are terribly important, nor do I really care what Amber Heard said to the Washington Post in the first place.