Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[Hap Shaughnessy]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/f-d-signifier-how-did-we-let-johnny-depp-get-away-with-this.1009260/page-4#post-130175565

User banned (2 weeks): inflammatory comparisons

I agree with you. Maybe I didn't articulate well, but my question is, why are we doing this "progressives should have all be defending Heard" thing again.

It's unfortunate that misogynists took advantage of the fact that , in this case, a woman was abusive, and used it to generally discredit woman who are abused.

It's also unfortunate that many progressives couldn't just accept the fact that Heard was the aggressor, and move on. Here we are, all this time later, still trying to play to people who haven't seen the evidence and convince them or reinforce their biased assumption that this was a miscarriage of justice.

I dunno, I feel like progressives aren't supposed to be the ones trying to bend reality to fit a narrative. Men can be victims sometimes. Imperfect ones even. It happens.

Not to drag someone into a thread but their post in another thread (totally different context) I'm reading really touched home to what we're discussing here:

The doubling down isn't happening in a vacuum. I'm sure there's a study out there that shows people entrench their views when confronted by assholes.

I don't know. The whole thing rubs me the wrong way and is just symptomatic of wider societal decline. Based on everything I've seen the case went the right way - justice was won in the context of the case itself. But I'm not going to celebrate Depp either.

I feel like the Heard thing really ties into TERFism as well, a lot of signal boosting and sharing "women's concerns" to them is feminism and progressive when in reality it's pure bigotry and discrimination. It's maddening.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/f-d-signifier-how-did-we-let-johnny-depp-get-away-with-this.1009260/page-4#post-130179246

User Banned (1 Week): Inflammatory comparison, trolling over multiple posts, account in junior phase

Yes, the thesis in the OP has a really confusingly phrased line. It comes from when FD says in reference to people who attach their identity to a specific take on something, they will believe misinformation not because they think it's true, but because it is their truth.

Meaning they believe the misinformation not because they evaluated it as true through any process of examination, but because they want and need it to be true as part of how they define themselves.

I think an easier way of framing it is that people have a tendency take information that affirms their beliefs at face value, and will largely dismiss information that conflicts with their beliefs.

In the context of this trial, many of the people here already strongly believed that Depp was the real victim based on the leaked audio tapes. Because of this, they took evidence/legal rhetoric supplied by Depp's team at face value, and actively tried to find ways to discredit any evidence/testimony from Heard's team, regardless of whether the evidence from either side was actually relevant or credible.

I honestly believe that if people actually looked at the evidence from the trial in context, it's abundantly clear that:

1. The evidence in this case overwhelmingly affirms Heard's version of events, and

2. Believing that Amber Heard is the real abuser/that her allegations are a hoax requires about as much mental gymnastics as a typical qanon conspiracy theory.