Writes Michelle Goldberg in "The Amber Heard Verdict Was a Travesty. Others Will Follow" (NYT).
The top-rated comment (by far) is from Mari (in London): "I am really starting to get sick of these partial articles, of the cherry picked facts, of the caveats and concessions for Amber’s side when presenting this trial in the media. I am a progressive, a feminist, work in human rights. I am not a conservative or a wild Johnny Depp ‘tik tok’ fan. I watched the whole trial. I was on Heard’s side, for years. But it was clear as the trial went on, that it is very likely that Heard has fabricated the allegations - something absolutely heinous to do, to destroy someone else’s life. Please Michelle, don’t be dishonest here. Everyone watching the trial could see the facts as they were presented; most people are smart enough to infer their own conclusions that Heard acted with malice."
I haven't read all the comments, but I haven't found one that isn't critical of the position Goldberg takes.
पोस्ट्स
६६ टिप्पण्या:
Just like the Charlotte Proudman op-ed piece in today's WaPo.
There are still people who believe that Justice Kavanaugh was in a rape gang in high school and Julie Swetnick and the blonde woman (Ford?) were telling the truth.
There are still people who believe Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election.
Why wouldn't people still believe in Amber Heard?
My guess is that those subset groups intersect greatly with people who still believe in astrology.
Knoll’s Law in full effect here. It’s clear to every person that watched this trial that the subsequent news reports are wrong and BS. Should make us question everything. (https://effectiviology.com/knolls-law/)
No one knows travesty like Michelle Goldberg.
Depp couldn't have destroyed the #MeToo movement as much as its supporters promoting incredible allegations. In related news, Michael Avenatti is sentenced for defrauding Stormy Daniels.
Sisterhood uber alles. But sacrifices have to be made, and Amber is this week's offering to at the alter of Isis, especially because she used to be smoking.
Don't worry, the sisterhood will be back to hating men and not taking responsibility next week, plenty of time for your next regularly scheduled program.
I watched Heard divorce deposition footage. She came across as calculating and not at all as someone deserving empathy.
The women that are supporting Amber Heard are just as big a psychopaths as her and they are just embarrassed that their tricks are seeing the light of day. It is heartening to see so many women seeing the truth of that and not falling for Amber Heard, Amanda Marcotte, Michelle Goldberg and the rest of the toxic narcissistic entitled women who who use the current culture to maliciously destroy men who make them angry
It's Michelle Goldberg - is there really any doubt she would automatically take the wrong position on this or any issue?
Pssst: hey NY Times readers, now take what you have learned from this case you followed very closely, and apply it to the rest of the output of the NY Times and Washington Post and the whole mainstream media.
Oh never mind, I am a dreamer. But I'm not the only one
Come on, Mari, facts don't matter. And you call yourself a progressive...
#MeToo #HerToo #SheProgressed exemplified my by our vice-president in chief... or whatever label is licit NOW. #MeToo failed with a boomerang effect in a parade of bigots.
"it is very likely that Heard has fabricated the allegations"
#BelieveAllWomen hardest hit.
"Heard acted with malice"
An old truth rediscovered. Women lie, and act with malice, and hurt men.
Good on some progs to face the truth. But will they now give up on their narrative? Will they question women as much as men? Will they value female agency and practice real equality? Or will they revert to the convenient falsehoods of recent years?
This is the way you destroy the #meToo movement: Convince people that you don't care if the accusations are true.
Again the obsession with group identity poltics. Its not Depp vs. Heard. Its MEN vs. WOMEN. And Heard's loss is a loss for TEAM WOMAN, all 160 million of them.
Sorry, I don't think either of these crazy actors are worth talking about in a serious way. THe trial was entertainment value, like a bad soap opera, or comedy. A harmless freak show with two Hollyweirdos. Anyone trying to blow it up to make a point about SOCIETY, is reaching.
Asking the democrat party-Soviet press to be honest... Good luck!
I think Amber was hoping for the Sussmann jury.
Destroying lives based on lies, FBI fabrications, and half-truths is what the Soviet left excel at.
"Facts" brought out and/or debunked at trial have no meaning for ideologues.
The narrative must prevail!
The sad thing about that comment is she said she watched the hole trial. Is a hole a matter vacuum? Can one palpate a hole? Maybe that's why the poor woman watched the trial... she had no one palpating her matter vacuums.
I didn't watch any of the trial, and I strongly suspect Goldberg and Filipovic didn't either.
Predictable Goldberg. Bad men. Bad Trump. Bad Republicans. Bad conservatives. And finally, evidently, bad jury.
Nothing can be analyzed without the taint of politics. Never mind that the majority of the #MeToo targets were men of the left, to Michelle mistreatment of women is all about men of the right.
The media, including the Times, spends months aggrandizing a seamy clash between two jerks and Goldberg extrapolates it into a definitive political conflict between a #MeToo heroine and a deplorable. We're supposed to take this drivel seriously?
Predictable Goldberg. Bad men. Bad Trump. Bad Republicans. Bad conservatives. And finally, evidently, bad jury.
Nothing can be analyzed without the taint of politics. Never mind that the majority of the #MeToo targets were men of the left, to Michelle mistreatment of women is all about men of the right.
The media, including the Times, spends months aggrandizing a seamy clash between two jerks and Goldberg extrapolates it into a definitive political conflict between a #MeToo heroine and a deplorable. We're supposed to take this drivel seriously?
Maybe the trial, which I didn't watch, will raise the issue of false allegations. They are legion. Brian Banks who could have had a great football career, could not be reached for comment.
A disproportionate number of these false complaints are against black men. Especially black college men.
BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!!
unless they're cra cra crazy!
unless they accuse a democrat
unless they cloud the conversation
but other than them!! BELIEVE ALL WOMEN!!
I hope that 'Mari' starts to wonder how the NYTs may be wrong in other ways.
Decades ago, as the self-anointed gadfly in a SJW group, I used to say, "I got an extremely modest grade-point at Enormous State University, then I was a grunt and now I peddle insurance. If I know better than this [SJW assertion of the week) how about all the smart people, with is practically everybody?"
Somebody ought to ask Goldberg the same question.
Decades ago, as the self-anointed gadfly in a SJW group, I used to say, "I got an extremely modest grade-point at Enormous State University, then I was a grunt and now I peddle insurance. If I know better than this [SJW assertion of the week) how about all the smart people, with is practically everybody?"
Somebody ought to ask Goldberg the same question.
Women must be believed, in all cases, even when clearly lying.
Ms. Goldberg merely sets out the end goal, to the consternation of those feminists who thought it was about rights and shit.
If we have reached to point that people on both sides can acknowledge the truth, even if it works against 'their' team, then perhaps things aren't too far gone.
Or Heard was so obviously a loon, that nearly every is 'B---- be crazy!'
I mean, maybe both are the case.
"I am really starting to get sick of these partial articles, of the cherry picked facts, of the caveats and concessions for ____ when presenting this [] in the media."
I'm with you, Mari. Or maybe you're with me. I've been saying this for 30 years.
I guess #yesallwomen expired the minute we heard about Tara Reade.
It's as if a large subset of men decided that Harvey Weinstien's trial stood for the universal plight of manhood, or something.
Wierd.
The problem with Goldberg's position is that it's a malicious position. Women must win accusations in order to protect women. That's her position. That's a terrible position to try to defend; what's worse is that she presents it as if it's a de facto obvious position.
Does this guy work for "Ron DeSantis for President 2024"? Cause he's sure making it easy for him.
"Please Michelle, don’t be dishonest here."
The commenter over there will see the dishonesty in the New York Times in this specific instance because she personally witnessed the trial; and yet turn the page and believe the next thing the New York Times writes, blissfully unaware that almost everything in the New York Times is equally faked and false.
Virtually everything Michelle Goldberg writes is written in this way - half truths. The commenter over there just sees it in this instance because she herself watched the trial and watched Amber Heard construct obvious lies (badly acted ones, to boot). Most won't realize Goldberg's dishonesty because they work for a living and cannot sit around watching 6-week trials start to finish. They trust the NY Times. That's the key. You trusted them.
Turn the page to the next New York Times columnist, and there will be another column full of lies and half-truths in the service of Democrat Party narratives. But somehow, these readers just cannot imagine a sick newspaper that operates this way.
Just like Goldberg can't imagine a sick person like Amber Heard making up lies to advance her narrative.
This case is pretty much the best argument for televising trials that I've ever seen.
I was somewhat against televising trials, as a general rule. But the fact that they really do provide a widely used bypass for the press's dishonesty means I was wrong, and televising them is a good thing.
With both the Rittenhouse case and this one, the press were reduced to saying "who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"
And the overwhelming response in both cases has been "we don't believe you"
Sisterhood uber alles. But sacrifices have to be made
They did the same thing to Tara Reade: "Sorry, dear, but we have to get President Worsethanhitler out of office, and we can't do that without burying you. Them's the breaks!"
Michelle Goldberg seems to be operating under the assumption that, no matter how crazy, unbelievable and obviously untrue a story is, if a woman is telling it, it must be true.
Are women Human Beings? Are they not capable of deceit, just like men are capable of deceit? Has feminism, of Michelle Goldberg's strain, led us full-circle? Her implication is that women don't have free-will and therefore should not have political rights.
JK Rowling will use Amber "Bed Pooper" Heard's downfall to welcome sane women to the TERF side.
Believe all "women" or believe all nutcases?
Avenatti is a poster boy for false allegations.
“Women must be believed, in all cases, even when clearly lying.”
So, the obvious way for a guy to be believed in these matters is to come out as a trans woman. As a trans Lesbian, she would have more victim points that the cis woman claiming sexual assault, etc.
Ann, care to address the error that Goldberg's piece and many other accounts make -- conflating malice's common meaning of ill-will with the legal standard of "knowledge of falsity?"
"I am a progressive, a feminist, work in human rights."
That is, I'm a knee-jerk Commie, fairly unattractive and unwilling to do much about it, and I've never worked a day in my life.
Don't worry. It will be the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, as she turns the page, and believes everything the NYT tells her again.
She would have her article better received if she could have woven in Trump. Surprised that got past the editors.
Sometimes a libel suit is just a libel suit. Mr. Depp was just supposed to take it?
And to think people are foolish enough to believe the Pravda on the Hudson.
“Enormous State University” lol
Ms. Goldberg’s variant of feminism denies women agency, because she can’t accept the downside risk of agency.
So maybe it is only about power.
Couldn't they both lose??
Couldn't they both lose??
Blogger Jefferson's Revenge said...
"There are still people who believe Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 election"
Yeah like those dam republicans who controlled the Senate Panel that issued a 1000 page report coming to that conclusion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/senate-intelligence-russian-interference-report.html
furious_a said...So maybe it is only about power
Not maybe--defoinetly
Mutaman: "Yeah like those dam republicans who controlled the Senate Panel that issued a 1000 page report coming to that conclusion."
Such pathetic lies.
That accusation was part of an appendix that only democraticals added without any republican concurrence.
BlueAnon morons like Mutaman and his/her/xer's democratical groomer allies will forever continue to craft a make believe world where their 6 years of collusion hoax lies can be "true".
“Michelle Goldberg seems to be operating under the assumption that, no matter how crazy, unbelievable and obviously untrue a story is, if a woman is telling it, it must be true.”
“Are women Human Beings? Are they not capable of deceit, just like men are capable of deceit? Has feminism, of Michelle Goldberg's strain, led us full-circle? Her implication is that women don't have free-will and therefore should not have political rights.”
Of course women lie. They very likely lie more than men, to compensate for their inferior strength. They also lie more credibly than men do. Remember Junior High? Much of the drama there was the early teen girls practicing their lying. My partner tells stories about her daughter during that time. She (the daughter) would tell one friend one thing, and another just the opposite. All afternoon on the phone. They apparently disconnected her phone more than once over this. While the early teen girls are practicing lying to each other at that age, what are the boys doing? When we were growing up, it was mostly outdoor activities. Now? Probably more video games. But competing with others, mostly boys, while their female counterparts are competing at telling lies.
As adults, the thing that women probably lie most about is sex, and esp about sexual encounters that they would prefer you not to know about. My partner, growing up in Las Vegas had plenty of chances to go up to the rooms of famous or powerfully men. Names of a number of them would still be recognized here. She never did, but knew plenty of friends who did. If a guy wanted to meet her professionally, it was never in his room, or at his house, but in a public place. That’s why Me Too is a fraud - not a one of the women claiming sexual assault went up to the guy’s room, to his house, or to his office, with the door closed, without knowing what he had in mind. It was a quid pro quo, that they entered into willingly.
There are only really two types of women who would actually try to defend Me Too: those who are lying through their teeth about women lying, and those too ugly ever to have been put in the position. The women I have tended to be with over the last half century, to the last one, prefer the company of men, because they are more honest.
And, yes, maybe I overreact here. I was accused of sexual harassment by two women several decades ago. One was a secretary who spent her days engaging male attorneys in conversation, in order to skip out on her secretarial work - which had to be picked up by the other secretaries. Knowing this, and taking care of my own Secretary, I refused to make eye contact with this woman. So, she made a claim of sexual harassment against me. Apparently women know when guys are looking at their chests - because they aren’t making eye contact. Or some such nonsense. Worse, one of her wannabes made a similar complaint to management, and two similar complaints meant a pattern. That one worked in docketing, at the opposite end of the hall, and I rarely said more than a couple words to her a week - because our jobs just didn’t overlap. Both were overweight, married, and had bare high school educations. The furthest thing to my type as you could get. My GF at the time was another attorney, thin, athletic, unmarried, etc. someone I could have intelligent conversations with, despite being a tree hugging liberal. Unfortunately, while I liked her a lot, she turned out to be insanely jealous of my maybe 8 year old daughter back in CO. In any case, I made the claims go away by threatening to counterclaim sexual harassment against the two women, using the testimony of the other secretaries, as well as male attorneys to back me up. My boss, a woman very much my type, was a bit surprised by my response. She had refused to tell me who the two complainants were, but I was able to come back an hour later with their identities, their motives, and a list of witnesses.
Cardinal principles of feminism:
1) The truth is whatever I believe it to be, and if it's truth to me, you have to believe it too.
2) My feelings must, never, ever be hurt.
3) Life must be all bliss, all the time, and involve no risk whatsoever. I must get whatever I want, whenever I want it, and not UNTIL I want it.
Drago said...
"That accusation was part of an appendix that only democraticals added without any republican concurrence"
Link please.
Here's the full report, Sparky. No "appendix".
Mutaman said...
Here's the full report, Sparky. No "appendix".
You appear to have "forgotten" to include your link, Sparky
Link to Bi-partisan Report is in the Times article. Which means you didn't
read the Times article and therefore have not read the report. So you're bsing about something you haven't read.
Link to Bi-partisan Report is in the Times article. Which means you didn't read the Times article
I value my time and privacy, so of course I didn't read the NYT.
YOU Sparky wrote "Here's the full report", but did not actually provide it.
And you still haven't.
Because even you know that you are full of shit
So Greg concedes that he never read the report but he could still post that "That accusation was part of an appendix that only democraticals added without any republican concurrence."
A total bull shit artist. Like arguing with a five year old.
The class clown from trump University.
You can have the last word Sparky. Let me know when you find that "appendix".
Blogger Mutaman said...
So Greg concedes that he never read the report but he could still post that "That accusation was part of an appendix that only democraticals added without any republican concurrence."
That was written by Drago, not me.
Which you'd know if you had bothered to search for that string, or if you had even half a brain, since the word "democraticals" tells you it's Drago.
A total bull shit artist. Like arguing with a five year old.
Self knowledge is the best knowledge, Mutaman
So, to sum up:
Mutaman made a claim
Drago said the claim was garbage
Mutaman said he was posting a link to prove his claim, but didn't actually post a link
I pointed out the lack of link
Mutaman spent two more comments not being able to tell the difference between me and Drago, while at the same time STILL not posting the link he says proves his side
Kind of like McCarthy waving around his paper with traitors at the State Dept.
If people give me a link they're willing to stand behind, I'm often willing to look.
But I try to never hunt down someone's claim for them, because once I show it's BS, they say "oh, it's not THAT link / paper / whatever"
And I'm not going to log in to the NYT to look at anything.
So, we're at an impasse. But claims he's got total proof that he's right, but refuses to share it
Which tells me he's not right
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा