The Packers have a game Monday night against the defending Super Bowl champion Rams, which I’m sure schedulers thought was going to be the “highlight” of the season. So today I’m going to do my Depp-Heard update. Actually there is not a lot going on; a few mainstream media outlets have reported Johnny Depp’s assistance to the terminally ill boy in the UK with his YouTube channel, with the expected exceptions such as diehard Amber Heard apologists like Newsweek, NBC News and frankly almost the entire American mainstream national news outlets which are under the thumb of gender activists. It was reported that Kraken the Box was briefly removed by YouTube because its “algorithms” interpreted its huge increase in subscriptions as “suspicious,” but this was quickly corrected when it was pointed to the humans that real people were responding to the entreaties of supporters like Dwayne Johnson and Depp.
On the legal front there was no word on Depp attorney Ben Chew’s request for the Virginia appeals court to throw out the Heard “friends of the court” briefs, which as mentioned don’t add any new “facts” to Heard’s claims, but are simply meant to gaslight the court. There was also an interview on Court TV with members of Depp’s legal team, which among other things we are told that Heard lost not just because of her lack of credibility, but she was “unlikeable” and “burned bridges.” Most of her non-“expert” witnesses, like Raquel Pennington and former make-up artist Melanie Inglessis, admitted that while they were not “enemies” of Heard, they were no longer “friends” with her either, and seemed put-upon to even consent to depositions. Outside of Heard’s sister in regard to one alleged incident, none agreed to testify in court or would claim to have seen Depp abuse Heard.
Another item of interest was one not about either Depp or Heard directly, but one about a story that likely involves a Heard supporter which only proves that those still behind Heard are a particularly sorry, discreditable lot. Here Larry Forman (The DUI Guy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqHUQxxAkow
examines the lawsuit by the parents of Stanford student Katie Meyer, claiming that the school is complicit in the suicide of their daughter, There is mostly a list of accomplishments by Meyer meant to reveal that she was an outstanding student-athlete and solid citizen with a great future who was unjustly being charged with an absurd incident, involving the spilling of coffee on another student, a football player who had been accused of “sexual assault” against a soccer teammate of Meyer, but was later cleared.
Now on a previous occasion, I was in disagreement with the DUI Guy concerning the origin of Michele Dauber’s radical gender politics, and the facts suggest that I was correct in this. Dauber at one time suffered from mental health issues (we hear a lot about that now to “excuse” behavior), and didn’t become this wacked-out gender victim activist until after the suicide of her daughter at the age of 25, who seemed to have a future as an artist but apparently also had serious mental health issues which did require medication. It was revealed that after some female students approached Dauber to “commiserate” with her about their own “suicidal” thoughts, what she “learned” from these conversations convinced her that the blame was on the male species; she has been on the misandrist offensive since.
The overview of the current lawsuit against Stanford I also find problematic. First off, it insists that the case Stanford was pursuing against Meyer shouldn’t have been filed in the first place because the football player she spilled the coffee on should already have been kicked out of school anyways concerning an alleged incident with one of Meyer’s teammates—without regard to his due process rights. The case against the football player was dismissed, but since the school was following the “old” Title IX policy, he was “guilty” based merely on the accusation. Yet later in the lawsuit, it is claimed that the same “due process” rights it would deny the football player should nevertheless have been allowed for Meyer.
But all that is not really the
“problem” here. The football player not only was not the one who initiated the
coffee-spilling complaint, but had argued against it as noted in the lawsuit,
So who did? The lawsuit seems to insist that the Stanford administrators were
solely responsible for harassing and threatening Meyer. I don’t believe this to
be the case; I think that Stanford administrators were “persuaded” to do this
under the threat of bad publicity by a certain someone and her organization. Further, I have no doubt that Meyer was also receiving threatening messages that have not been made public from other parties if she didn't "cooperate."
Meyer didn’t do anything “wrong,” so it doesn’t make sense to have pursued this unless someone within the school with an agenda was angry that the football player wasn’t found “guilty,” and out of vengeance was threatening the school with a negative PR campaign accusing the school of allowing “violence” against women—and we know that a certain faculty member has a track record that includes not only social media hate speech that suggested “deserved” violence against men who provided her cause a higher profile (such as Depp), but was previously successful in getting the local (and national) media to aid her in the recall of a judge in regard to a questionable case that she used to promote her agenda.
We know that some radical gender activists have sought to use specific incidents as “proof” that "female-as-victim-of-the-system" could be "useful" when paired with cases where males are supposedly "protected" by that same "system." Nothing could be further from the truth of course, particularly in regard to how Title IX has been abused, or how men lose their jobs in the media for “interoffice relationships,” but the women involved are still allowed to keep their jobs. But we know of at least one individual who could see the "benefit" in pushing this line, one of those “Jane Doe 1-25” in the lawsuit.
So the attack on Meyer could actually have been a "plot" to bring back attention to the case involving the football player and reopening it, and “desperate measures” had to be taken against Meyer to convince her to “aid” in this endeavor with her so close to graduation. We can see that if this is largely true, then this effort clearly went too far, and it isn’t surprising that Stanford has persuaded an at present unnamed person in the lawsuit to remain silent on social media for the time being; as this case moves forward, I suspect that those already named in the lawsuit will start naming other names to include this individual’s involvement—and the damage it will cause to the “movement” and the individual’s own position will be something along the lines of “sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”
Of course I may be completely wrong about all of this. But I doubt it. We will see.
No comments:
Post a Comment