Quoted in "'Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict/It didn’t matter what the verdict was — as one domestic violence survivor puts it, 'this case is my worst fear playing out on a public stage'" (Rolling Stone).
This morning, I'm brushing off the many knee-jerk reactions to the Depp/Heard verdict — low-quality ravings about how women in general will suffer because this one woman wasn't believed. (It seems to me, the greater cause is the truth, and we can very coherently side with real victims and oppose phony victims. This was a case of catching a liar in action.)
But this quote struck me as different and bloggable because it speaks of destroying the buildings that house the governmental entities that are functioning in a way that you believe falls below proper standards: I want tear down every courthouse brick by brick because there is no justice to be had in our system of laws.
It made me think of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Put to the side whether you agree that the 2020 election was rigged or that Amber Heard didn't get justice. The question is, if you do think something like that, should your reaction be to attack the building?
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
Now now, Meghan. Don't get hysterical.
https://www.theroot.com/amber-heard-verdict-sends-a-message-to-black-women-ever-1849004234
Sure. Why not. Destroy the buildings. It's just some psycho chick raving. Probably a white chick at that.
serious Question.. On Jan 6th, how many bricks were injured? Were any bricks even assaulted?
Nag the courthouse.
I probably will not be the first to point this out, but Antifa protesters spent the summer of 2020 trying to firebomb the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
"'Men Always Win’"
Actually, they rarely do. Take a look at child-support, custody and alimony stats.
"I want tear down every courthouse brick by brick because there is no justice to be had in our system of laws."
The leftist impulse since 1789. Which, being leftist, is fine. Woe to a non-leftist even giving the appearance of trying to play the same game.
I think the idea of destroying the building is the very real act of "not providing quarter". I suspect many recently felt similar thoughts regarding the verdict in the Sussman trial. Or another concept that came to my mind regarding the Sussman verdict, Trump failed to drain the swamp.
The answer is NO.
Im so old I took American History, Civic, and Government.
I learned that if you don't agree with how things are run, get involved and improve it. That's how things work in a representative republic.
If BLM, antifa, and federal office holders would just learn the same thing.
As is often the case, Iowahawk (on Twitter) had the best take:
"True wisdom comes from realizing that stories can be dumb and ugly and funny without any special deeper meaning whatsoever"
Leftist soap opera women do not deal with facts.
(my RH impression)
There's a difference between walking through an open door and attacking a building. Even when a building is damaged, that doesn't equate to attacking the building.
"should your reaction be to attack the building?"
Why not?
Antifa did didn't they?
With firebombs.
And lasers.
And explosives.
And guns.
And battering rams.
And acid.
And piss.
And shit.
And not only did they 'attack' buildings, like courthouses, with all these things...they were very successful at bringing them down. But go ahead and keep calling 1/6 an attack.
Of course, for the most part, the Capital BUILDING wasn’t attacked on 1/6. The “protesters” were. A couple broken windows, and it appears, almost by magic, that the instigators breaking the windows were never charged, despite ample video of the events and their culpability. There was a lot more violence on the part of protesters on numerous occasions in the past by the left. The FJB/Garland DOJ is just pretending that there was an attack on the Capital to cover up the fact that the Dems did, indeed, steal the election.
There's a huge difference between a spur of the moment riot and a planned attack on a facility.
In 2020 and the beginning of 2021 (huh, wonder what was happening then) we saw an enormous amounts of riots and a few planned attacks on federal buildings.
Why? Because of a combination of institutions losing trust and people stoking anger and violence.
People will always stoke anger and violent tendencies. The only thing you can do is have institutions act in trustworthy ways.
I want to run, I want to hide
I want to tear down the walls
That hold me inside
No, of course not. That's Civics 101.
But the passions of the insane--I'm looking at you, "Meghan"--override everything in our degenerate society.
Donuts to dollars that the commentary over there is 99% yougogirl!
We’ll find out soon enough with the Supreme Court.
So a shrill harpy is acting like a shrill harpy. You go vomit, dear.
Critical Justice Theory......It's unjust unless I say otherwise.
"It made me think of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building."
LOL, Ann! Is that the one where the protestors were shown walking in front of the velvet ropes, careful not to disturb anything?
In June of 2020, leftist protestors attacked the capitol building in Madison, Wisconsin. They broke in and destroyed statues, broke windows, even attacked a state Senator causing major injuries, according to the Washington Post.
Why is it that only Democrats are allowed to attack capitol buildings? Why is it that this reminded you of J6 ... and event you did not witness ... and not the June 2020 riots, which you did witness, and actually covered on this blog as I recall, with on the scene reporting?
It's because J6 is a misleading and propagandist picture which has been drawn for you by the New York Times, a known purveyor of disinformation you frequently criticize for distributing "fake news." It is a figment of their imagination, imprinted upon your imagination.
I'll leave you with this picture: Washington DC, the entire city, has been razed before. Set fire to and destroyed. The entire city. That's an "attack on the Capitol," maam. Not J6.
America now has this thing called no-fault divorce. A person can get out of a marriage for any reason or no reason at all.
Get out. Move on.
Of course not. Another hysterical female loser. Divorce courts are stacked against men. Everybody knows that.
I don't understand her extreme anger at what is essentially a split decision. It undermines her crazy rhetoric to note that Heard partially won, but since she did, how do we square "there's NO justice" with Heard getting a slice of justice? I ask only because following her "logic" (sic) leads to the conclusion that she thinks Heard should be able to beat Johnny and laugh about it on tape and mock him for being weak because she beat him up, and then suffer no consequences because Depp is a dude and therefore congenitally guilty. That's an even lamer take than dismantling court house brick by stupid brick.
Her quote sounds like a bad remake of "Where the Streets Have No Name" by U2.
At the start of the industrial age, the Luddites destroyed machines because the machines took their manual labor jobs and ruined their lives.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/
In the rough-and-ready logic of the average person, when you destroy part of the process the process cannot be complete or continue. Abstract notions of the justice system are very likely beyond their mental models. We desperately need to teach adequate mental models, not banal junk like "patriarchy" and "White supremacy" and "Black Lives Matter."
Science of mental models: https://fs.blog/mental-models/
“It made me think of the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol building.”
Do you think they were just attacking the building?
Why not physically assault the building - BLM/Antifa were celebrated and feted for attacking government buildings, while the Jan. 6 crowd was jailed and denied their constitutional rights for respecting the building and peacefully leaving.
The attack on Amber Heard, the attack on women, the denial of women's dignity and agency, is analogous to the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
There’s Do The Right Thing. Rather than attack the police who killed Radio Raheem, or the pizza shop opener and his sons as the mob is about to do, Spike Lee’s character Mookie redirects the mob to attack the building.
I've seen nothing to indicate it (Jan. 6) was an 'attack' of any sort, except in the fevered imaginations of Progs, who actually did firebomb government buildings.
If she's a democrat, she can attack any federal buildings with impunity.
Those are the new rules.
There was no "attack on the Capitol building." Very little damage was done to the building itself on Jan 6 - and a good part of that (I speculate) by Progressive provos and/or people who answer to Nancy Pelosi. By George Floyd standards, it was for sure a "mostly peaceful protest." Yet you compare it to "tear(ing) down every courthouse brick by brick."
Buildings should be attacked when they are ugly, and there are plenty of ugly government buildings these days.
Meghans tend to be members of the participation trophy generation. They are a disagreeable lot. (See: Duchess of Sussex) Accustomed to being rewarded for nothing and generally getting their own way, screaming and destructive tantrums are to be expected from anyone named Meghan when thwarted.
Regarding the Bastille:
The Parisian mob (it's an anachronism to label them revolutionaries) was in a blind panic over the price of bread or rumors of roaming brigands or the Duke of Brunswick's army. What they wanted was the store of weapons and gunpowder kept in the Bastille's magazines. At first, the negotiations between the fortress commandant, the Marquis de Launey, and the leaders of the mob (if a mob can have leaders) were quite peaceful, even cordial, de Launay even invited them into his headquarters for lunch. But the situation quickly devolved into a full-blown siege when someone, probably a sans-culotte, fired a shot.
The incident of 14 July 1789 isn't really comparable to Meghan's desire for destruction. (Nor is the incident of 6 January 2021 for that matter.) The popular notion of the Bastille as a looming reminder of oppression is a Victorian literary trope exploited by Charles Dickens and many others. Most Frenchmen either ignored that 14-century fortification built to help protect Paris from the English or were completely ignorant of it. From the reign of Louis XIII, it did serve as a prison for those persons arrested under the power of letters de cachet, but few if any French commoners were abused by such arrests and imprisonment. Lettres de cachet was a means to protect the nobility from scandals. If the wastrel son of a duke raped and murdered a peasant girl the families reputation could perhaps be protected by the avoidance of a public trial in the local Parlement court through the issuance of a secret royal arrest warranty called a lettre de cachet (literally an order of hiding). The Parlements consistently denounced such arrests as flagrant circumventions of their constitutional role. Louis XVI, an insecure man anxious to be seen as a reforming king, curtailed such warrants to the point that by 1789 the Bastille only imprisoned a pair of banknote forgers and a lunatic who believed he was Saint Louis IX. Malcontents among the lower orders never saw the cells of the Bastille, they were just publically hanged or mutilated or whipped after a public trial. No lettres de cachet would rescue them.
Regarding January 6: The use of the word "attack" is inaccurate and inflammatory. Except for a fatal and completely warrantless shooting perpetrated by a plain-clothes Capitol cop, the incident was the most peaceful and harmless "attack" on a public building in history.
But to call her hysterical would be misogynistic
Had the Rolling Stone reporter lined up 10 self-described victims of abuse so the reporter could poll them immediately after the verdict? Check the words from the article in which the Althouse callout appears:
“I’m sickened. This is a gag in the mouths of victims who were just beginning to speak,” Meghan said immediately after the verdict came in. “I want to scream. I want to vomit. I want tear down..."
Could they even have been on hand in a focus group? Those logistics sound tough. Note that the writing of the article is all in present tense. More likely, it was mostly assembled in advance and then finished by Rx on the verdict news. That way might require a couple of versions, and this is the one that would be most conducive to getting cranked up by the writer into the most dramatic tone, using the most dramatic utterances of a number of sources most of whom already know they will be anonymous.
It's journalism-beyond-the-pale. The author is the one removing the bricks from institutional buildings, metaphorically. Or trying to rouse others to do it for her. That burn-it-all-down spirit reflects those on the losing side of a cause sensing their imminent defeat.
That's the good news, in theory. The other good news in theory is, it's just talk. In fact, it's talk that is remarkably close to those U2 lyrics. And this IS Rolling Stone. Was it the source?, was it the writer?
Who knows. But even though it's just talk in this format, some will take it as a serious program. The mood is catching; you can hear it at times in some of the comments here. Frustration feeds on itself. Someone somewhere is cranking that up right now because we are already at war, aren't we? So, even if Meghan doesn't tear down any bricks, even if author Whoever doesn't, they are doing their part in the destruction they advocate. Their role is cheerleading -- supply that emotion! Who cares about facts. Think what Charlie Manson did in the '60s with the Beatles' music. The crazies are coming; the supply of good sense is finite.
“I am woman, hear me WWAAAAHHHHHH!”
I can understand why an unhinged woman would identify with her, and take the verdict personally. The most notable thing about the trial is that Amber Heard showed once again that she is a terrible actress.
It seems to me, the greater cause is the truth, and we can very coherently side with real victims and oppose phony victims.
Woke up! So-called “truth” is merely a tool of the patriarchy! Believe all women!
Choose your causes and heroines more wisely, or just do without them.
For a building that was supposedly "attacked," on January 6, 2021, the building came through quite nicely, thank you very much. What, was there a broken window or two? The isolated violence that occurred was deplorable, of course, but the extreme punishment of citizens for merely parading through the building non-violently is a stain on our country.
No woman must be made to feel bad about, or responsible for, anything ever.
It’s funny, because it made ME think about the antifa siege of the federal COURTHOUSE in Portland, Oregon. How they spent night after night literally trying to burn that building down with people trapped inside.
And how few people have suffered any consequences for it.
I think it’s fair to say that Christine Blaizy Ford is also a product of this mentality.
It’s not about the truth, it’s about the big meta-truth in which they believe.
From the article:
"I want [to] tear down every courthouse brick by brick because there is no justice to be had in our system of laws."
Isn't that what the rioters have been trying in Portland? The rationale sounds similar, too.
Typo alert: If the wastrel son of a duke raped and murdered a peasant girl the families reputation could perhaps be protected by the avoidance of a public trial in the local Parlement court through the issuance of a secret royal arrest warranty called a lettre de cachet (literally an order of hiding).
Should read: If the wastrel son of a duke raped and murdered a peasant girl the family's reputation could perhaps be protected by the avoidance of a public trial in the local Parlement court through the issuance of a secret royal arrest warrant called a lettre de cachet (literally an order of hiding).
There are always typos and other nonsensical errors in my comments. I can't fix'em, but I can point them out.
I keep seeing Amber Heard referred to as an actress, or if you prefer an actor of the female persuasion. I have never heard of Heard. There are lots of celebs that I don't really know who they are but I've heard of them; Heard ain't one of them.
The most notable thing about the trial is that Amber Heard showed once again that she is a terrible actress.
Despite her miserable acting abilities, Little Miss Heard will be cast in Aquaman 3. Nor will she be digitally excised from Aquaman 2 regardless of the nearly 5 million-signature petition to that effect. The wokerati won't permit it, and nobody watches Aquaman or any comic-book movie for the acting performances.
The 9/11 highjackers destroyed buildings.
“Men always win.”
I promise there are millions of American men suffering tremendous psychological and economic abuse by their spouse who will get up and go to work tomorrow for their kids. They don’t feel like they’re winning.
Amber is her class and generation's Hillary--playing the woman wronged by beastly men.
Some people lap that stuff up.
(Quaestor, I knew what you meant.)
Meghan should repeatedly head butt the brick courthouses until she gets her way.
Much worse would happen if on Jan 6 if Biden was in the lead for hours and suddenly that lead evaporated, after suspiciously long delays in the count.
"I want to scream. I want to vomit. I want tear down every courthouse brick by brick because there is no justice to be had in our system of laws."
Said a woman — identified only as "Meghan" — who had experienced "physical and emotional abuse" during her marriage.Quoted in "'Men Always Win’: Survivors ‘Sickened’ by the Amber Heard Verdict/It didn’t matter what the verdict was — as one domestic violence survivor puts it, 'this case is my worst fear playing out on a public stage'" (Rolling Stone)
So, your "worst fear" is that an abusive woman (deliberately pooping on the bed where your partner will have to deal with it is abuse) who lied about being the victim of abuse will not get away with it?
Honey, you're severely f'ed up.
You know how to convince us that you have NOT undergone abuse, and that there's very little abuse out there: by clinging to an obvious liar.
Amer Heard USED ever woman who has actually been the victim of abuse. For them to rally around her is insane
"I want tear down every courthouse brick by brick because there is no justice to be had in our system of laws."
Amber Heard lied, and justice WAS done in this case.
To pretend otherwise, is to tell us we should never believe you about what is "just"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा