r/DeppDelusion

For me it's between:

> That [UK] trial was all about whether the accusations were believable or not, it was never about if it was true.

and

> The UK trial did not say he was proven in 12/14 of the cases cases, just that it was free speech on 12 of the 14 because there wasn't more proof of it being false than it being true.

OK so I wasn’t sure whether to flair this post as Discussion or Blake vs Baldoni so please reassign if wrong but my god I’ve been reading up on the Blake Lively vs Baldoni case and I am APPALLED at the number of people who believe that she made a pass at him, got rejected, then decided to cover for herself and/or take vengeance by levying false accusations of sexual harassment against him.

It’s absolutely bonkers that these are the same people who claim that a person is innocent until proven guilty, yet turn around and accuse Blake of infidelity with zero proof whatsoever and don’t see the hypocrisy in that. Worse are these “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” comments always being the most upvoted but you know what Reddit is a male dominated space so maybe there is a bias there

Regardless I’ve always found the misogyny of this adage especially infuriating and kind of want to rant about it considering the fact that historically and presently it’s always been MEN not women who in greater numbers or at least comparatively respond to emotional injury with punitiveness or vindictiveness.

Like what about model Marla Hanson, whose landlord hired two guys to slash her face after she’d refused his advances?

What about a woman in New Jersey whose partner paid two people to disfigure her face with acid after she’d broken things off with him?

What about the student whose med school residency was terminated after her spurned organic chemistry professor fabricated her exam results, reported her for “cheating,” then had her expelled even when other students complained about his inappropriateness?

What about Jerry Ramrattan, the POS who framed his ex girlfriend Seemona Sumasar for armed robbery for which she spent 7 months in jail until his plot was unearthed?

Misogynists love acting as though women have a monopoly on a certain brand of wickedness - namely any behavior marked by deception, vengefulness, or malice. Women are scheming puppeteers behind a curtain and men are simple, goofy and well meaning characters whose only real fault is being too horny.

It’s a subtle but prevailing stereotype that not only perpetuates the myth that the differences between women and men are inherent rather than socially or culturally mediated but that a man’s evil doing is shaped by the values unwittingly imposed upon him, while a woman’s is embedded in her nature.

Misogyny want us to believe that not only are men “superior” physically and intellectually but morally as well because it benefits them for us to internalize this narrative about ourselves - it is PRECISELY because misogyny has convinced women that hell has no fury like ours when we’ve been scorned that there is more credibility in the idea that a woman would falsely accuse a man of a crime than there is in the idea that a man would rape or beat a woman.

It does not matter that only 1-5% of all sexual assault allegations are false.

It does not matter that most sexual predators will never spend a day behind bars.

It does not matter if Gisele Pelicot’s husband orchestrated a plan over several years to drug his wife with the hopes that she would get HIV from one of the many handpicked HIV positive rapists he recruited to rape her for his own twisted vengeance. It does not matter that this same man accompanied her to doctor visits, comforted her, and cried bitterly when she asked him if he was drugging her, asking how she could accuse him of such a thing.

Because then it’s “most men aren't like that,” but when an equally deplorable woman accuses an innocent man of SA then suddenly the sentiment becomes, “how like a woman to do that” while being completely unaware that in perhaps one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in recent history 4 queer women in San Antonio Texas were falsely accused of child sexual abuse by a man who had them imprisoned for almost 15 years before all 4 women were finally exonerated in 2016. But yeah men NEVER do that, right? It’s not as if the patriarchy itself enables these loopholes for psychopathic individuals to exploit, harming both women AND men in the process.

Aside from the obvious knowledge that men rape and murder at disproportionally higher rates than women, there’s definitely no shortage of cases where men have resorted to shadier tactics to channel their rage and indignation.

Misogynists will blame “misandry” for why women receive more lenient sentences for crimes men commit, in total ignorance of the fact that women not men are more likely to mete out the same punishment regardless of the perpetrator’s sex.

They actually think the historical systemic dehumanization and subjugation of women is comparable to some “misandrist” ranting about men online. They actually think women always stick up for each other and gang up on men with no regard for how the flames of witch hunts are fanned by the rhetoric that a woman’s personal history of victimization is invalidated by the likelihood that women like Blake Lively or Amber Heard are filthy, reprehensible liars.

And it seemingly does not matter that Johnny Depp is a proven liar who falsely accused Amber Heard of cutting off his finger, giving him a black eye, or shitting on the bed. Because then he was only trying to defend himself from her “false” accusations of abuse for which ONLY he wanted to go public about so she could have her “global humiliation.”

Crazy how it’s never mental gymnastics when it’s a man you’re defending because so many people have these warped beliefs about women that make it so easy to overestimate just how many villainous women there are among us while men are simple and accidental in their harmfulness, and the ones who inflict abuse are one in a million.

Found this interesting CourtListener filing in Taft v. Barresi:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69156385/122/3/christina-taft-v-paul-barresi/#note-editor

It’s a proposed order concerning Adam Waldman’s dismissal as a defendant and his status as a witness... It mentions Depp, the Viper Room, alleged recordings/exploitation, and several people from both the Depp and Heard circles as potential witnesses

Worth reading the filing itself... curious wha others make of it, particularly the references to Depp and the Viper Room

Important to mention rhis is a proposed order, so I’m not presenting the allegations in it as established facts but it'd be cool to discuss it with other people and see what you think

I may be missing some context, but the references to Waldman, Depp, Barresi and people from both sides of the Depp/Heard dispute caught my attention

Now don’t get me wrong, I am well aware of the manosphere and propaganda, but I wanted to bring up something I have slowly noticed. With the whole moral panic with incels and radicalization, I have always been skeptical with it, and have felt that it feels like misogyny, but reworked to hide behind liberal terminology. Take into consideration:

- How people describe and talk about it feels very melodramatic and performative, rather than an actual serious discussion.
- Pretending that misogyny and violence against women never happened until recently, that the past was this progressive utopia.
- The infantilization of young men and boys, freeing them of any accountability or responsibility.
- Speaking of which, it feels like a repeat of “men can’t control themselves”, but this time they’re not (directly) blaming women and/or more marginalized groups.
- Framing the entire thing as a black-and-white morality tale, and any “nuance” is just used to elevate men over women. That an apparently innocent good boy “suddenly turned” into a violent monster.
- The overall “men’s rights” and “nobody listens to male victims” vibes, where it’s less about actually helping struggling men and more about repressing the struggles of women.

And also with the obsession with “boys need positive male role models now more than ever!”. Don’t get me wrong, positive male role models and influences are important, but with how people talk about it, it feels like they’re trying to find a way to make men matter more than women, while still sounding feminist. And also a lot of these self-proclaimed “role models” feel like exploitative grifters, especially when you consider how Justin Baldoni managed to hide his darker side.

With all of this, I noticed with how a lot of liberals and “progressive” people went over with the trial (and even still now) trying to defend Johnny Depp and villainize Amber Heard. Now while this may seem unrelated, I feel that a lot of the rhetoric and logic from above can help show some insight on why they defend Depp, aside from stuff like nostalgia. In her video on Johnny Depp and the image he built around himself, YouTuber Little Shop of Ali describes this phenomenon where when a man isn’t conventionally masculine, people automatically assume he cannot really be misogynistic and/or abusive, and that Depp for years has weaponized that appeal. Now take a look at the common narrative of the incel moral panic: The “poor boy” is usually an outcast (but typically not part of a marginalized demographic), and with the incel aspects they aren’t usually conventionally masculine and struggle to get with girls. With the whole framing of this “poor sad victim”, I notice with that logic being applied, as to how people act “shocked” they would partake in misogynistic activity and/or become an abuser. And with the morality tale aspect that dumbs down the problem, not taking into consideration other circumstances, I notice similarities as to why people who claim to be progressive would jump on the pro-Depp bandwagon and act like he’s a little child and not a powerful abusive older man. And with the “nobody wanted to help this boy” logic that indirectly blames women in the end, it feels like with villainizing Amber Heard for not tolerating Depp’s BS and abuse, aside from the rewriting that she’s the abuser. When I say indirectly blame women, they don’t outright say it’s their fault (they want to still look progressive), but a lot of their ideas of a “root cause” tends to imply it’s when women/girls don’t want to blindly obey a man, and other types of patriarchal ideas.

And for a final end, I wanted to bring up a show that does tackle men’s mental health and such, but in a way that differs from a lot of stuff like Adolescence and the current moral panic: Neon Genesis Evangelion. I know the show has a lot of problematic aspects, but I find interesting with how despite his whole tragic background and such, Shinji is still made to hold accountability for his actions, and with self-improvement he can’t just hide behind it, and also showing us that he’s not the center of the universe and many other people have their own needs and struggles. And compare that to a lot of media and discussion: They coddle men/boys, make them think they’re the center of the universe, constantly enable their shitty behavior, and ESPECIALLY only jump in when misogynistic behavior and violence is involved. Because at the end of the day, their real goal is to just reinforce patriarchy.

Who sides with a violent abuser during a trial about domestic violence for clout? Still haven’t purchased anything from then since I saw that.

Are there any other companies that responded in a similar way?

For those unaware of what happened:

During the Depp v. Heard defamation trial (April–May 2022), Amber Heard’s attorney Elaine Bredehoft held up a makeup palette during opening statements, claiming Heard carried it “for the entire relationship” with Depp and used it to cover bruises. Beauty enthusiasts identified the product as Milani’s Conceal & Perfect All In One Correcting Kit.

Milani then posted a TikTok that many read as siding with Depp: the brand pointed out the product wasn’t in circulation during Heard and Depp’s relationship (2012–2016), captioning the video “You asked us… let the record show that our Correcting Kit launched in 2017!” set to a meme audio clip. The video racked up over 5.5 million views.

​

While I know that there's a lot of hints and implications that Ryder and Depp had a terrible relationship (besides the age gap and when they romanced), this had been something I had questioned about, after seeing a clip of the 1992 Dracula adaptation, and seeing Ryder onscreen.

For context: Back during the making of The Godfather 3, Coppola had originally wanted Winona Ryder to play the role of Michael's daughter. However, according to the production story, she had became sick before shooting, and ended up being replaced by Sophia Coppola, giving us the infamous portrayal of Mary Corleone (at least she managed to be successful as a film director, but this isn't what the post is about). However, it may be understandable with someone taking a break from their work, but what I noticed in the story was that it was Johnny Depp, her current boyfriend, who had made the call that she won't take the job. While it might not seem like much at first, with what we (mostly) now know more about him, and with Winona Ryder hinting at his abusive tendencies, it had me suspicious for a bit. And with also with how, like with Amber Heard, he doesn't like it when a partner is more successful/talented than him, and it made me question. I mean think about it:

• This was a film by Francis Ford Coppola
• The film was an installment to one of the most famous film sagas, so it wasn't just a mere for-hire job or weird experimental film by late-stage Coppola. Even if the final film didn't turn out that good, beforehand it still brings up attention and news.

And when you consider with Depp's career at the time, still rising up, imagine the amount of jealousy he would have if his much younger girlfriend suddenly went had a huge elevation in her career, especially for a job that could really help show her acting skills. Now, compare that to with her starring in Edward Scissorhands:

• It's within a domain that Depp could control her
• Had Depp's inner circle present (like Tim Burton, possibly an enabler as well)
• Role-wise, it was something that she couldn't overshadow him: He played the lead role, and she was the love interest on the side

And while I know that she did eventually play a role in Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), remember that it didn't have that weight from the Godfather films, and the fact that nobody really knew if this one would hit big or suffer the same fate as a lot of flopped Coppola projects. Overall, this may just feel like some random time, but in retrospect, it has made me a bit suspicious, and seeing potential early red flags.