Yesterday I wrote an article on the conclusion of the Depp vs Heard trial. But just before that, I wrote a piece in response to a Spinster user who replied to related work of mine. Well she got to chatting with me on Poast, and ended up promising to write an article rebutting me.
She was clearly quite piqued by my analysis of this case. I appreciated her enthusiasm, but honestly I’m not going to be spending hours of my life communicating directly with her. I appreciated the chat, but I have more politically productive things to do.
Our communication ended there, but she wrote an incredibly long article rebutting, or at least attempting to rebut, the normal person’s view of the Heard-Depp trial. This was written on the fediverse, and you can see her article here. I’ll be reproducing the entire thing below, so as to make sure that I’m not strawmanning, but I’d suggest only reading the bold parts.
NOTE: When you see the > that means she’s quoted me that paragraph.
So… I’m new to spinster and have been here for all of 5 seconds and a man from poast @theTDC has already written an article on me.
Time to break it down and publicly respond
First of all I want to make absolutely clear that I think all celebrities or people with systematic and institutional power on any level are untrustworthy, degenerative. I couldn’t care less about the Amber Heard v Johnny Depp in the sense of them personally, I am not fond of either of them. My sole issue is how this show trial is going to make life harder for normal people, specifically normal every day survivors and women who come forward about their dv.
Now onto the article about me
> She makes some good points later on, but not here. I’ve covered two pieces by the Epstein Killed Himself Liars where they bemoan the fact that everyone on the internet hates Amber Heard and is making fun of her. It’s not hard to figure out why, because the woman is a slandering nutcase who literally defecated in Johnny Depp’s bed. And no, I don’t think that’s astroturfed, because it’s so natural. People have to be told to not hate Amber Heard.
This is how I can tell this man hasn’t actually looked into the op-ed that Amber Heard has actually been sued for, Amber Heard’s article was actually nothing to do with Depp himself, never named him, wasn’t even really about her personal abuse story. She didn’t release a twitlonger detailing what he did to her, she didn’t go after him publicly, she did none of that. The entire article she wrote was a bunch of typical political babble about congress and what it can do for women, it was actually very little about her relationship at all. The only thing she really said about herself was more about how the public treated her when she unwillingly became the face of DV due to celebrity gossip culture publicising[sic] the fact that she got a restraining order.
I’m going to be nice to this Spinster, because she’s at least somewhat genuine, and arguing in good faith. Having said that, her analysis of this is legally incompetent. This guy below is some globo homo shill, but he did great analysis of the Rittenhouse trial, and he does great analysis here as well. I have started the video from the relevant spot.
Let me transcribe the relevant bit.
And though the [op-ed] does not mention Depp by name, a party alleging defamation need not be specifically named so long as there are enough identifying facts that the person reading it would reasonably understand that the statements referred to the plaintiff.
It was obvious who Heard was referring to when she declared herself a victim of domestic violence. She didn’t need to explicitly say “Johnny Depp abused me,” for everyone to understand who she was referring to. And her court case revolved around very specific statements she made that were deemed to be defamatory.
Secondly, it’s good that her being utterly exposed will lead to less slander of men in divorce courts in the future, just like it’s good that Jussie Smollett being known as a lying anti-White fag is going to lead to less credibility for future anti-White slander. These are good things that should be celebrated, and the premise that they aren’t needs to be attacked.
Innocent men being slandered and having their lives ruined by Amber Heard types happens, and needs to happen less. This does not excuse Weinstein types who literally send Mossad agents to intimidate their victims. Sometimes people are guilty, sometimes people are innocent, and I don’t have much patience for someone arguing that we should privilege one side of this over another.
Here is the entirety of what Amber has publicly written about her and Depp, her only comment on the entire thing, what she is being sued for saying, and I want you to honestly tell me if this is a hit piece or just someone personally recounting their unpleasant experiences, keep in mind this was squashed in an article solely about a bill she wanted passed for congress, and was really a small portion of the overall political rambling
I don’t mean to be catty, but that’s a huge run on sentence that didn’t even end with a period. Ms. Grey, please.
“Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath for women who speak out.
Friends and advisers told me I would never again work as an actress — that I would be blacklisted. A movie I was attached to recast my role. I had just shot a two-year campaign as the face of a global fashion brand, and the company dropped me. Questions arose as to whether I would be able to keep my role of Mera in the movies “Justice League” and “Aquaman.
I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
here she talks about people in hollywood treating her like shit because she had survived abuse, nothing to do with Depp
“I write this as a woman who had to change my phone number weekly because I was getting death threats. For months, I rarely left my apartment, and when I did, I was pursued by camera drones and photographers on foot, on motorcycles and in cars. Tabloid outlets that posted pictures of me spun them in a negative light. I felt as though I was on trial in the court of public opinion — and my life and livelihood depended on myriad judgments far beyond my control.
I want to ensure that women who come forward to talk about violence receive more support. We are electing representatives who know how deeply we care about these issues. We can work together to demand changes to laws and rules and social norms — and to right the imbalances that have shaped our lives.'”
Here she is talking about being harassed by public and paparazzi, and that she just wants to create more support system for women.
Look I am trying my best to be charitable here but come on. Amber Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic violence in 2016. She is obviously referring to him when she bloviates about her pretend victimhood. And nobody believes that she was just “raising awareness for women.” She was raising her own profile and painting herself as a victim by slandering Depp.
Now, remember. This is what she is being sued over. These paragraphs are what is being deemed defamation, career-ruining for Johnny. Something that never mentions him, and was really just talking about the public’s treatment of women. She never actually named him or sent any mobs after him, the only reason people knew it was him is because celebrity gossip columns spread news about her restraining order.
Ah yes, the restraining order that the paperazzi just happened to, purely by chance, get perfect pictures of. Let me go ahead and quote from my old site Hyphen Report for a bit more information.
Key areas in which Amber Heard appeared to be lying involved the gossip outfit TMZ. In 2016, TMZ published a video of an angry Johnny Depp slamming cabinets in a kitchen, pouring himself some wine, and yelling at Amber in response to her pestering him. An unedited version of this same video (which showed Amber Heard setting up the camera first) was evidence in the trial, and it came from her phone. She implausibly denied leaking this video. For his part, Depp admitted to “assaulting some cabinets”.
She also denied tipping off TMZ to the time and place she would be when she went to the courthouse to get a restraining order against Johnny Depp. A former TMZ paparazzi dispatcher gave testimony which implied that the video and tip both came from Amber Heard or her team (he couldn’t directly name the source due to rules) and that the tip included instructions to the photographers about what side of her face a bruise would be on.
Once again, I’m getting Weinstein Defense flashbacks. Amber Heard is not some innocent little deer who just accidentally wrote an Op-Ed that painted her purely as the victim, accidentally leaked edited video of a fight she started with Depp, and accidentally told the paparazzi where and when she would be getting her restraining order and how best they could photograph her to paint her as the victim and slander Johnny Depp. She’s a nasty, manipulative cuntess who absolutely knew what she was doing every step of the way.
But just like with zionist rapist Harvey Weinstein, everybody knows Heard is guilty. Everyone. Only this tiny subsection of spinsters online think otherwise. And no, it’s not because everyone else is being manipulated by the corporate-zionist media or whatever, it’s because Weinstein and Heard are guilty as sin, and it’s ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
So the precedent of this court case means:
Simply saying ‘I was abused’, not even naming your abuser or going after anyone in particular, is an act of defamation.
As shown earlier, no new precedent was set here. It has long been established that you can be accused of defamation despite never naming someone, as long as the public can reasonably figure out who you are referring to.
The precedent it sets is that the freedom to say ‘I was a domestic violence victim’ as a sidenote to typical domestic violence advocacy, is no longer protected speech, and can lead you to being dragged through the court system by your abuser if he so wishes, and I believe it will empower many to do so.
But back to this Daily Rake article (1/?)
I’m going to blitz through the rest of her article. It’s incredibly long, so I strongly recommend skimming.
>Having your partner literally rage shit in your bed buys you a lot of goodwill. I haven’t followed the trial much at all, but from what little I’ve seen Depp truly has been charming, and Heard has been so repugnant that she’s difficult to watch and has been caught lying on the stand. While it’s true that the internet can sometimes lightswitch brain things, pick a side and start cheerleading, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more truly one sided trial. Even Rittenhouse wasn’t this bad.
Here TDC admits the trial is entirely onesided, as most of the clips circulating on youtube and tiktok are Amber Heard’s unflattering moments and Johnny Depp’s flattering ones. This alone should be a redflag that what we witnessed was a showtrial in the court of public opinion, and that it never had a chance for any sort of legal justice to actually prevail.
Both parties had their unfortunate times on the stand, Depp and Heard alike where it seemed like they could be lying, both parties had mountains of evidence against them for typical degenerate celebrity behaviour. Amber clearly shat in a bed and hit Johnny, Johnny clearly sent many rape and death threats to Heard, had video footage on him going on drunken rampages and breaking everything in the house, he also admitted in messages to beating her and headbutting her etc. It is clear neither party is innocent in these transactions. It’s clear that both parties are mentally ill, both parties hit eachother etc
You find Johnny charming though because you too are swayed by typical celebrity status and charisma as well as npc propaganda spread all over the internet, but we shouldn’t make big decisions like this based on charisma and internet trends. Not to mention he only came out looking more charismatic because of his fans on social media clipping all his best moments, and highlighting her worst. An actual unbiased look at the case shows that they both were extremely violent degens in an incredibly toxic relationship, and so then it just really becomes the question of
Is a man hitting a woman the equivalent of a woman hitting a man?
The answer for anyone who accepts the reality of sex difference is a resounding no
Now whenever you try to acknowledge the difference between the sexes, mras will strawman
‘so you think its okay women hit men with impunity?’
no, acknowledging the disparity is not for that, acknowledging the disparity is for cases such as these, where both the man and the woman have both clearly hit eachother, not just a one-sided attack
Remember the whole “these marxist neo-nazi feminists will strawman you as defending Harvey Weinstein’s politics,” that angry manlet Andrew Anglin did? Well the spinster version is “Mens Right’s Activists will just strawman us as not acknowledging that women should be able to violently assault men.” In both cases I don’t really think it’s all that productive to defend yourself against the strawmen too forcefully. 99.9% of the World hates Weinstein and Heard, and it’s not because we’re all neo-natzee marxist feminazi Mens Rights Activists.
here is the meat and potatoes of the article, in the point @theTDC responds to I made it clear that it was hypocritical of him to be against the system of upper echelon sexual abuse by cabals run by the likes of epstein and weinstein that he thankfully opposes passionately, while ignoring the sexual abuse carried out by lesser entities that also goes to benefit that sytem
>This sentence right here is why I felt the need to write this piece. Johnny Depp is not a part of a Mossad blackmail ring where they rape young girls, and then sic “ex” Mossad agents on them to shut them up. Johnny Depp does not bribe politicians to enact his zionist political agenda. Johnny Depp is literally just a man who had an abusive wife who slandered him as a wife beater while pretending to be the victim in this whole situation.
The fact that Johnny depp is not as powerful as epstein and weinstein is irrelevant, any rapist, abuser, narcissist, whether they are a celebrity or an average joe benefits the system.
I’m a bit baffled when she says things like this. She goes on a long rant about how “the system,” wants people to be sexually broken. I think this is the way that people who don’t want to say “jew,” cope with the fact that the privileged class is full of malicious and evil people who want only the worst for average everyday people.
Sure, maybe the privileged class wants to turn a blind eye towards rapes, but they also most definitely want to throw innocent men in jail, and destroy our families in the process. Material reality is simply that we have biased divorce courts that encourage women to destroy healthy families, and encourage women to make up slander of their husbands. That’s just the way it is.
Why do you think they pump out porn nonstop? Because those in power want absolute sexual decay and brokeness, it doesn’t matter if it’s them doing the breaking all the coomer army they have created.
Just when these spinsters are getting too annoying, they totally redeem themselves.
You don’t get to look at cases of abuse and go “not as bad as epstein” to dismiss them, because some of the ritualistic abuse done by that trafficking cult is as horrific and extreme as abuse can get. Extreme abuse doesn’t mean that lesser instances need to be treated less seriously, if anything knowing the extremes should make it a topic to be dealt with extremely seriously, in all cases. I brought up the fact you oppose systematic abusers as an example of why you should be all the more concerned about all sexual abuse as a whole, because all abuse is beneficial to the system, dysfunction is beneficial to the system, the breaking of women’s bodies and minds is beneficial to the system, whether that’s done by a powerful zionist politician or not
The Epstein abuse ring was not a “trafficking cult.” It was a Mossad backed blackmail ring that is used to get dirt on politicians and other powerful people to further the interests of Israel. This isn’t even my conclusion, Maria Farmer herself said as much.
The “system,” wanted that to continue, and did its best to cover up any details at the trial, because that specific thing serves the interests of the zionist jews. We don’t need any sort of far fetched psy-op theorizing here.
Again, what slander? Before this case all that was out about the pair was Amber heard basically saying ‘as a domestic abuse victim I think [political policy]”
The only reason you know the intimate details of their relationship is because of the many, many court cases Depp has repeatedly dragged her through so that neither can move on from the relationship.
>The reason why Weinstein finally got a tiny amount of the justice that he deserved was because the women that he abused hit critical mass where it was undeniable. And the reason why Johnny Depp is being championed is because his supporters hit critical mass where it is undeniable that he was wronged. In reality, the (((system))) wants Weinstein and Epstein to go about raping and blackmailing as many goyettes as possible, while also using the courts to abuse innocent men like Johnny Depp.
I do not deny that the system wants as much rape as possible, while it also wants to incriminate as many innocent people as possible. But the people the system falsely incriminates is not their own, its not celebrities like Depp, it’s actual dissidents to its politics who it has reason to go after. Depp is not a threat to the system, he has done nothing to show he is, he wouldn’t have made it as far in hollywood if he was.
How is it possible to be this tantalizingly close to the truth, and whiff so hard? Hollywood is run by jews, and not just people who happen to be jews, card carrying zionist members of the ADL. To view their actions without a racial lense is simply to miss the point.
Johnny Depp might not himself be a “threat to the system,” but neither are all of the goy men who have been fucked over in divorce court. The fact that Weinstein’s defense team was literally all feminist, all jew should tell you everything you need to know about feminism. It is simply a mask for jew power. That’s why abortion is effectively illegal in Israel, along with gay marriage, along with interracial marriage, along with every other anti-social cause that the Weinstein’s promote here in goyland.
This idea that the WMD Liars aren’t trying their hardest to shill for Amber Heard is ridiculous. The idea that people were lied to, and told to believe that Amber Heard was a malicious slanderer is simply ridiculous. Who specifically was doing this lying?
In reality, the opposite is true. And while it may be true that Depp has more fangirls online than Heard, Amber Heard is a beautiful woman with her own fans. If she was at all sympathetic, she’d have a legion of SIMPs defending her every word. That she doesn’t speaks volumes.
This ‘critical mass’ and ‘undeniable evidence’ you claim that shows Johnny Depp was wronged is again entirely the sensationalism, gossip culture, and reddit npc hivemind you seem to have tapped into despite claiming you oppose it. Watching the full trial, and not just pro-johnny clips circulating on youtube incriminates both of them as absolute nutcases really, and then when its seen that the two mutually abused eachother, the question instead becomes
‘Is it protected speech to say you are a domestic abuse victim? Especially if you are as vague as Amber was and never go after anyone, just do dv advocacy’
‘Is a man hitting a woman the equivalent to a woman hitting a man in the event they are both hitting eachother’
The obvious answer to these questions being overlooked are the two precedents being set
The system benefits from these two precedents
As I said earlier, one blurs the difference between the sexes and furthers the agenda of total sex blindness and “equality”, never to acknowledge men and women are inherently different and aren’t interchangable
And one fucks with the ability of freedom of speech, especially freedom of speech in cases of abuse (3/?)
Let me just go ahead and steal my own line from the previous article.
Two years later, and tiny fag Andrew Anglin’s predictions that every single man accused of rape will be convicted have been shown as ludicrous. If we wait another two years we will find the Spinster’s predictions, which is that every single woman who accuses a man of abuse won’t be believed, will also be shown as ludicrous. Although in fairness, these catladies never explicitly said that, probably because they’re more mentally healthy than these guys.
Back to her piece.
In response to my point that due to the fact the case is the current thing and has names attached to it, it will be used in nefarious ways, ways in which I’ve already proved are happening in which women coming forward are taunted with the very name Amber Heard, TDC admits its possible but response
>Yes, but those are copes. The way that the (((Weinstein’s))) are going to cope with Depp winning his trial, my anticipated outcome, is by trying to discredit the many women who have legitimate complaints about these filthy kkes getting handsy with them or worse. But once again, Depp wasn’t a man with institutional power over Amber Heard, he was just her husband. Weinstein and the rest of the #meToo’d had institutional power over women, and used it to abuse them. It annoys me when people conflate the two.
I admire the honesty of admitting that the case will be utilised to discredit women with legitimate complaints, but again you make the mistake of only seeing a complaint as legitimate when it is against a very powerful zionist, it is just as legitimate in any other case, even cases with lesser power
I never actually said that. Cases should be looked at on an individual basis. I’ve done that here, which is why I think that Heard is a lying abuser.
Also, when people bring up the institutional power imbalance between Depp and Heard they aren’t saying that he is the equivilant of Epstein or a Weinstein, but merely that he’s been in more movies, has more diehard fans that will attack her, and all of this is blatantly true, just look at the deppford wives that scream and attack Heard everytime she left the building, or the internet behaviour and current thing attitude that you admitted was incredibly onesided. Not all institutional power has to be a massive disparity to be institutional power, it can simply be two celebrities, one in lots of films and one barely in the scene like we have here.
He goes on to make a false comparison, of women who are concerned about the precedent of this case to the insane homosexual American First cult and how they were concerned about Weinstein getting arrested because a rapist getting convicted would mean ‘all men are in danger’
Like I said, these catladies aren’t all bad.
>But it’s funny to me how we have the Manlet Cult on one hand, who write 20k word screeds about how kke rapist Harvey Weinstein getting convicted is something that is terrible, no good, very bad, because of utterly non-existent precedent being set where every man will now just be convicted of rape. Then we have the Spinster catladies, who are assblasted that innocent man Johnny Depp is about to win his trial (I hope), because of utterly non-existent precedent being set that now no woman will ever be believed again. In both cases, these anti-social losers can’t just acknowledge the actual facts of each case, and both of them rely on uncritically repeating jew feminist copes where the (((Roberta Kaplan’s))) of the World LARP like they can use these results to further their agenda.
A rapist getting arrested for being a proven rapist is not going to lead to all men getting falsely accused
A complicated and messy show trial about a dysfunctional relationship getting solely pinned on a woman who did nothing publicly except for saying ‘as a dv victim i think [political policy] should be made’ is. Especially due to the celebrity worship involved and the vocabulary it has given abusers, the empowerment to drag their victims through ongoing costly legal battles so that they can never move on.
And that is why you should always be skeptical of the ‘current thing’ no matter how convincing the propaganda may seem. Rule of thumb, if a bunch of redditors and neolibs are completely and passionately on board with something, treating it like a black and white situation, demonising one side and fanatically worshipping the other, chances are there is always a lot more to it, its a lot more complicated.
And that’s what we see here.
We’re finally done. Look, I don’t want to be snarky, and I’ve written enormous wall of text myself, but sometimes the length of words used to defend an argument is the most damning evidence. Johnny Depp is a degenerate Hollywood actor, who nevertheless was slandered by his malicious and sociopathic ex-wife. He is the victim, conversation over.
But like I said, these spinsters aren’t all bad. The problem is just that they are grown women who are on Team Women, just like the manlet cultists are grown men on Team Man. As a result, neither of them are capable of having rational takes on things that affect Their Team, just like sportsball fans will tell you, no matter how ridiculous, how unfair the refs are to their favourite sportsball team. Just take a look at the above two comments, and tell me that this isn’t two sides of the same coin.
I felt the need to respond to her article because we had a cordial chat on the Fediverse. But also because of this comment of hers, which needs to be seriously rebutted.
I wrote out my response in specific regard to the Johnny Depp Amber Heard case and why you misunderstand it and have been brainwashed by ‘current thing’ drivel but perhaps your biggest misunderstanding I wanted to adress here is your theory that ‘spinsters’ got this way out of sexual rejection, you are again ignoring the difference between the sexes and our different experiences, women aren’t really rejected at all in our youth.
First of all, at the risk of being rude, I need to point out that it isn’t 1982. With the rise of the internet, we can see what feminists look like. And what they look like is this.
This idea that the ladies on Spinster are there because they’re just getting offered way too much dick needs to be Citation Needed as hard as possible. Furthermore, this idea that young girls are all drowning in cock needs to be burned at the stake. It’s just empirically not true.
Why would there be such thing as the “femcel,” if women “don’t really get rejected in [their] youth?” And why is there such thing as “Female Dating Strategy,” one of the cringiest and most toxic LARPfests on the internet, where young girls who clearly have zero real life experience share dating advice on how best to abuse men in a variety of ways?
This is one of the most bizarre crossovers from constantly online types. Most young women can’t get dick to save their lives. Maybe this was radically different three decades ago, but those times are long past. Have you seen the virginity rates these days?
More and more young people are abstaining. No less than 27 percent of 15- to 24-year-old men have never had any form of sexual contact (oral, vaginal, or anal) with another person, up from 22 percent in 2002. Meanwhile, 29 percent of females in that age bracket have never had sex, also up from 22 percent at the time of the last study.
“Abstaining,” is the wrong term for this. It’s not like these girls want to not have romantic companionship, they just can’t get it. Here’s another article, this one from 2017.
Twenty-five years ago, almost 60 percent of female teens had done “the deed.” By 2013, that number had dropped by 14 percent. The numbers are even more drastic for guys. In the past 25 years, virginity among male teens has jumped up by 22 percent. And if you think things get easier as you get older, think again.
It’s just not true this weird claim you hear online about how every young woman is just getting cocks constantly offered to her. The redpilled manletsphere makes this claim, as does the spinster crowd, and it’s just flat out not true. Anecdotally, most of the younger women I know don’t even have a boyfriend, although they would appreciate one. Maybe they got themselves drunk and had horrible, unfulfilling sex once, but that’s not what any psychologically healthy person wants. And that’s just as true for men.
‘spinsters’ got this way because of the opposite of rejection, because of ongoing sexual abuse and unwanted advances, I myself have been trafficked by a pornographer when I was just a young girl in highschool. I’m sure many of these ladies, especially the more radical ones who take manhatred too far, have been through the same.
Your biggest concern is not getting laid
Ours is having our sexual modesty or morale infringed upon against our will
Sure thing Jan. That’s why there are no good looking women in feminism. Because they’re all there because they were just getting offered too many cocks.
I don’t want to downplay her claims of being trafficked by a pornographer while still in high school. I’m sure that this kind of thing does happen, and it deserves the utmost sympathy. But the idea that feminism is anything other than the sad ugly girls club is not born out through experience.
Which mine was, as is the case for many others.
I’m not saying that the loneliness of males isn’t a suffering in itself, but these two sufferings are not equivalent, and therefore the perversion and insanity of incels/america first is not comparable.
This is something of a nasty comment. I make a lot of fun of the manlet cult, but the one thing I’ve always had sympathy for is their inability to reproduce. After all, there are a lot of people suffering romantically who aren’t posting about locking women in cages and raping them, like Andrew Anglin.
It’s not a competition here. Young women being taken advantage of, and losing their “sexual modesty,” and young men not being able to get romantic companionship are two serious problems that deserve to be taken seriously. Only someone on Team Women would even think to compare them as a means of denying the suffering of another person. But I’m not even sure that I accept the premise, because we’ve got plenty of femcels out there.
The reason why these gals pretend that every young girl is getting as much cock as she wants is because it makes them feel better, being on Team Women. It’s like their team is winning, and the loveless men, who are on the opposite team, are losing. In reality societal destruction affects both sexes, and this type of nasty behaviour is unproductive at best. That’s true no matter who is pushing it and for what reason.
That was a lot of words, and it got a bit harsh at the end there. Frankly, it could have been a whole lot harsher had I really spoke my mind, but I felt like being nice to this woman. Maybe at some point down the line we’ll have to ally with these types just to stop the child tranny garbage. You never know.