OT: Blues Forum Lounge (Home of All Things OT) - Part 2019

[Lord Helix]

Well, we are living in world where its easy to just blame the men.

 

[David Dennison]

Wasn't aware this was the TMZ thread. Celebrity lives matter.

 

[bleedblue1223]

It's an off-topic thread, if you don't want to be involved in the topic, you can just ignore it...

 

[David Dennison]

It's an off-topic thread, if you don't want to be involved in the topic, you can just ignore it...

Nope, it's a stupid topic and I calls em as I sees em. It's f***ing gossip/PR spin from a celebrity divorce case.

We ignore domestic violence cases 364 days a year, why does this one all of a sudden matter? Because Johnny Depp got beat up by a girl?

 

[bleedblue1223]

Nope, it's a stupid topic and I calls em as I sees em. It's ****ing gossip/PR spin from a celebrity divorce case.

We ignore domestic violence cases 364 days a year, why does this one all of a sudden matter? Because Johnny Depp got beat up by a girl?

You can say we as a society shouldn't care about celebrity news, but to say it's gossip and PR spin is just silly. The context of this case absolutely matters. In the audio she said that no one would believe him because she is a woman, if you can't see how that applies to our current society, then I don't know what to say.

Saying we should ignore this like all other domestic violence is like saying we should've ignored Kobe's death like we ignore all other deaths. It's just silly.

 

[David Dennison]

You can say we as a society shouldn't care about celebrity news, but to say it's gossip and PR spin is just silly. The context of this case absolutely matters. In the audio she said that no one would believe him because she is a woman, if you can't see how that applies to our current society, then I don't know what to say.

Saying we should ignore this like all other domestic violence is like saying we should've ignored Kobe's death like we ignore all other deaths. It's just silly.

Lol, trying to squeeze out societal truths from a potentially unstable celebrity in a bad relationship. This is why obsessing over celebrity lives is brain rotting, it projects this reality that normal people simply don't live in.

 

[Celtic Note]

Lol, trying to squeeze out societal truths from a potentially unstable celebrity in a bad relationship. This is why obsessing over celebrity lives is brain rotting, it projects this reality that normal people simply don't live in.

How many “normal” people actually exist?

 

[Majorityof1]

You can say we as a society shouldn't care about celebrity news, but to say it's gossip and PR spin is just silly. The context of this case absolutely matters. In the audio she said that no one would believe him because she is a woman, if you can't see how that applies to our current society, then I don't know what to say.

Saying we should ignore this like all other domestic violence is like saying we should've ignored Kobe's death like we ignore all other deaths. It's just silly.

If you think it is worth talking about for what it says about our culture, then talking about people's fascination with celebrity is also worth talking about.

Yes, Kobe's death exemplifies that, and a very good argument can be made that we shouldn't have spent so much of our collective attention on Kobe's death. Multiple children died in that crash but they are hardly mentioned. They are far more deserving of sympathy as they were innocents. Thousands of people died the day Kobe did, and I can guarantee some were just as worthy of our collective sympathy. Yet, the world is putting a guy on a pedestal who admitted he may have raped a woman. In his statement about the encounter he said: “Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual. I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. (Source)” Guess what, if she didn't view it as consensual, it wasn't consensual. But this is the guy, the NHL is holding a moment of silence for, the guy who the entire US congress prayed for before a session? What did he do to elevate himself so much over everyone else, especially as he had much to atone? Is it just because he shot a basketball well? Or because he was famous and it draws eyeballs, no matter how problematic that may be?

Whose death got more press: Kobe Bryant or Antonio Litman? I bet you don't even know who Antonio Litman was? He was a philanthropist who founded a charitable organization that has helped 10,000+ families and he has donated much more outside of his foundation to those in need. He was found dead under mysterious circumstances in his NYC home a few days before Kobe. His death is just as worthy of sorrow as Kobe's. But I doubt many here had heard of him much less his death. I equally doubt anyone here did NOT know about Kobe's death. Story on Litman

I am not saying Kobe's death is not sad. I wished him no ill-will, and I feel bad for his children. But he was no more deserving of sorrow than the many, many others who have died unheralded before and since.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Lol, trying to squeeze out societal truths from a potentially unstable celebrity in a bad relationship. This is why obsessing over celebrity lives is brain rotting, it projects this reality that normal people simply don't live in.

Look at Ben Feibleman or plenty of other real-world examples. Just like the MeToo, this stuff doesn't blow up until a public figure is at the core of it because unless it's something that you personally are interested in, the general public tends to not really care when it's regular people involved. It's a shame, but that's a reality of the society that we live in.

It's why the general public grieves or reacts more to Kobe Bryant and that tragedy than reports of soldiers dying overseas in a helicopter incident.

 

[bleedblue1223]

If you think it is worth talking about for what it says about our culture, then talking about people's fascination with celebrity is also worth talking about.

Yes, Kobe's death exemplifies that, and a very good argument can be made that we shouldn't have spent so much of our collective attention on Kobe's death. Multiple children died in that crash but they are hardly mentioned. They are far more deserving of sympathy as they were innocents. Thousands of people died the day Kobe did, and I can guarantee some were just as worthy of our collective sympathy. Yet, the world is putting a guy on a pedestal who admitted he may have raped a woman. In his statement about the encounter he said: “Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual. I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. (Source)” Guess what, if she didn't view it as consensual, it wasn't consensual. But this is the guy, the NHL is holding a moment of silence for, the guy who the entire US congress prayed for before a session? What did he do to elevate himself so much over everyone else, especially as he had much to atone? Is it just because he shot a basketball well? Or because he was famous and it draws eyeballs, no matter how problematic that may be?

Whose death got more press: Kobe Bryant or Antonio Litman? I bet you don't even know who Antonio Litman was? He was a philanthropist who founded a charitable organization that has helped 10,000+ families and he has donated much more outside of his foundation to those in need. He was found dead under mysterious circumstances in his NYC home a few days before Kobe. His death is just as worthy of sorrow as Kobe's. But I doubt many here had heard of him much less his death. I equally doubt anyone here did NOT know about Kobe's death. Story on Litman

I am not saying Kobe's death is not sad. I wished him no ill-will, and I feel bad for his children. But he was no more deserving of sorrow than the many, many others who have died unheralded before and since.

Yeah, that's why I said we can say as a society we shouldn't care as much about celebrity news as we do, that's a perfectly fine position to take and one that I mostly support. I also support displaying empathy to anyone, celebrity or not.

 

[Ranksu]

Whose death got more press: Kobe Bryant or Antonio Litman? I bet you don't even know who Antonio Litman was? He was a philanthropist who founded a charitable organization....

 

[David Dennison]

Look at Ben Feibleman or plenty of other real-world examples. Just like the MeToo, this stuff doesn't blow up until a public figure is at the core of it because unless it's something that you personally are interested in, the general public tends to not really care when it's regular people involved.

It's why the general public grieves or reacts more to Kobe Bryant and that tragedy than reports of soldiers dying overseas in a helicopter incident.

Weinstein-killer Ronan Farrow himself is all about thorough interrogation and imvestigstion of the victims claims.

But this is not that, it's a single grainy audio that leaked by one sides legal team to the tabloids in a messy divorce. What is said in the tape is microscopic compared to what is not said. It's catnip for people that want to confirm their previously held beliefs. Both sides are trying to win in the court of public opinion, and you absolutely have a choice to not give a shit and let the legal side play out. It's not perfect, but it gets the story correct much more often than the public does.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Weinstein-killer Ronan Farrow himself is all about thorough interrogation and imvestigstion of the victims claims.

But this is not that, it's a single grainy audio that leaked by one sides legal team to the tabloids in a messy divorce. What is said in the tape is microscopic compared to what is not said. It's catnip for people that want to confirm their previously held beliefs. Both sides are trying to win in the court of public opinion, and you absolutely have a choice to not give a **** and let the legal side play out. It's not perfect, but it gets the story correct much more often than the public does.

What does your Weinstein/Farrow point mean? I'm not understanding it.

This isn't about a divorce, that was finalized long ago. It's not about a defamation suit where Heard wrote an op-ed that basically said she was a domestic abuse victim and Depp was the abuser. To act like this is one sided is a bit silly. To act like there aren't real-world examples of this is a bit silly, those examples just don't get coverage because they are regular people.

This has nothing to do with previously held beliefs.

 

[David Dennison]

What does your Weinstein/Farrow point mean? I'm not understanding it.

This isn't about a divorce, that was finalized long ago. It's not about a defamation suit where Heard wrote an op-ed that basically said she was a domestic abuse victim and Depp was the abuser. To act like this is one sided is a bit silly. To act like there aren't real-world examples of this is a bit silly, those examples just don't get coverage because they are regular people.

This has nothing to do with previously held beliefs.

You are obviously very well versed in this case lmao. I have my doubts it doesn't confirm your prior beliefs, or else you wouldnt care this much.

My point is Heard writing an op ed and throwing accusations around isn't a thorough investigation. This grainy tape released is not a thorough investigation. Neither proves guilt nor exonerates either party. They are single pieces of evidence in a messy relationship. The legal system does a pretty good job of sorting this stuff out, let it do it's job rather than jump and single pieces of evidence that confirm your beliefs.

But the vast majority of those in a violent relationship don't get the benefit of writing a Wapo op ed, most don't get involved in many million dollar defamation cases. Trying to act like this is the normal way domestic violence cases play out is laughable.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You are obviously very well versed in this case lmao. I have my doubts it doesn't confirm your prior beliefs, or else you wouldnt care this much.

My point is Heard writing an op ed and throwing accusations around isn't a thorough investigation. This grainy tape released is not a thorough investigation. Neither proves guilt nor exonerates either party. They are single pieces of evidence in a messy relationship. The legal system does a pretty good job of sorting this stuff out, let it do it's job rather than jump and single pieces of evidence that confirm your beliefs.

But the vast majority of those in a violent relationship don't get the benefit of writing a Wapo op ed, most don't get involved in many million dollar defamation cases. Trying to act like this is the normal way domestic violence cases play out is laughable.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here, and now this whole thing has gone off the rails.

 

[David Dennison]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions here, and now this whole thing has gone off the rails.

BUt ItS aN OfF ToPiC tHrEaD.

I will light a candle for Johnny and Amber tonight. Oh, no wait, I couldn't care less about a celebrity defamation case. I will, however, light a bong because it's Friday and I am awesome.

 

[bleedblue1223]

BUt ItS aN OfF ToPiC tHrEaD.

I will light a candle for Johnny and Amber tonight. Oh, no wait, I couldn't care less about a celebrity defamation case. I will, however, light a bong because it's Friday and I am awesome.

You realize, this all started by Ranksu making a comment and then I said it was a crazy audio. You then acted like it's blasphemy that we even comment on it here, which I said you can just ignore it, and then it devolved from there. There's been nothing of substance added to the discussion. I don't even know what your point is in all this, and you are making assumptions on what mine are...

 

[David Dennison]

You realize, this all started by Ranksu making a comment and then I said it was a crazy audio. You then acted like it's blasphemy that we even comment on it here, which I said you can just ignore it, and then it devolved from there. There's been nothing of substance added to the discussion. I don't even know what your point is in all this, and you are making assumptions on what mine are...

I love how you say I "can" ignore your comments, but you are completely incapable of ignoring my comments.

You point is equally opaque, but you seem to be dancing around something borderline ignorant.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I love how you say I "can" ignore your comments, but you are completely incapable of ignoring my comments.

You point is equally opaque, but you seem to be dancing around something borderline ignorant.

Ok...

 

[David Dennison]

Ok...

You are "free" to ignore it lmao.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You are "free" to ignore it lmao.

Ok...

 

[Note Worthy]

Lol I love this thread.

 

[David Dennison]

Lol I love this thread.

I believe Captain Jack Sparrow.

 

[Majorityof1]

You are obviously very well versed in this case lmao. I have my doubts it doesn't confirm your prior beliefs, or else you wouldnt care this much.

My point is Heard writing an op ed and throwing accusations around isn't a thorough investigation. This grainy tape released is not a thorough investigation. Neither proves guilt nor exonerates either party. They are single pieces of evidence in a messy relationship. The legal system does a pretty good job of sorting this stuff out, let it do it's job rather than jump and single pieces of evidence that confirm your beliefs.

But the vast majority of those in a violent relationship don't get the benefit of writing a Wapo op ed, most don't get involved in many million dollar defamation cases. Trying to act like this is the normal way domestic violence cases play out is laughable.

I can't believe I am going to weigh in again, especially where this has devolved into since this comment.... As a point of fact, the legal system does an especially inadequate job with domestic abuse and sexual assault. Much of the forensic evidence present in an assault can also be present in a rough but consensual encounter. Or in an abuse case, any physical marks cannot definitively be linked to the accused. Too often it is a he said, she said issue. Too often the abuser has more money and power, making it difficult for the abused to get a fair trial in a system that depends more on skilled representation than facts. That is not my opinion as a layman, but something I have heard from people who work in the legal system on those types of cases.

Yeah, that's why I said we can say as a society we shouldn't care as much about celebrity news as we do, that's a perfectly fine position to take and one that I mostly support. I also support displaying empathy to anyone, celebrity or not.

Fair enough. Re-reading what you wrote, you do say that. I misread your point.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Can we start an Off-OT thread for regular off-topic stuff, and keep this one for observing arguments neither party seem invested in?