Depp vs Heard, anybody watching?

[iNcog]

I also want to point out that nuance is not going to be a part of many journalistic takes. These days articles seem to be written in a way to solicit emotional reaction more than informing the reader. There's no money in just neutrally reporting the news. There needs to be a hot take on it for people to consume it. It has to be outrageous, it has to be bad, it has to be so horrible that the reader cannot but feel strongly about it. I've noticed this first hand when I see my mood deteriorating after spending half an hour on /r/news or /r/worldnews with my morning coffee. It is quite literally designed that way (and also some headlines are just so... poorly written).

In this case, the #metoo movement is a valid one but frankly speaking has nothing to do with Depp vs Heard. Heard was merely just a domestic abuser and pathological liar. She utilized the #metoo movement for personal gain in the same way that she took advantage of Depp for her own personal career/advancement. When I was following this case, I wasn't at all even thinking of #metoo, I was just following a court case that was centered on domestic violence and slander. Heard obviously released her lies to the world because she wanted to be a part of the #metoo movement (talking about the timing here, of her op-ed and her divorce filing). She is a narcissistic liar and a complete turd for wanting to take advantage of the movement for her own gain.

To even think about invalidating #metoo, or being 'tired of it', or even regarding the movement as a whole, because Turd did turd things, is just ridiculous. It's very similar to trying to disregard the systematic incarceration problem of America because there was a single case of a black person genuinely deserving jail time.....

These tactics are often used by the alt-right and similar buffoons to invalidate social movements. Tucker Carlson is the most mainstream and extreme example of this. Frankly speaking if anyone from the Fox News network were browsing ESOC, they'd probably reach out to Dolan to hire him on as a writer. They're very good at taking an important conversation and muddying it with questionable claims and incel takes.

[iNcog]

[RefluxSemantic]

In a way it does have to do with #metoo. Part of that movement was that it turned out its hard for women to come forward with an accusation of rape/assault/abuse and be taken seriously. The over the top reaction to that (from many people) was to take every accusation from a woman seriously without questions asked. Which resulted in people taking Amber Heard's accusations at face value, and consequently cancelling Depp. Had these accusations been made at a difference moment, things would have been different.

[Dolan]

I also want to point out that nuance is not going to be a part of many journalistic takes. These days articles seem to be written in a way to solicit emotional reaction more than informing the reader. There's no money in just neutrally reporting the news. There needs to be a hot take on it for people to consume it. It has to be outrageous, it has to be bad, it has to be so horrible that the reader cannot but feel strongly about it. I've noticed this first hand when I see my mood deteriorating after spending half an hour on /r/news or /r/worldnews with my morning coffee. It is quite literally designed that way (and also some headlines are just so... poorly written).

In this case, the #metoo movement is a valid one but frankly speaking has nothing to do with Depp vs Heard. Heard was merely just a domestic abuser and pathological liar. She utilized the #metoo movement for personal gain in the same way that she took advantage of Depp for her own personal career/advancement. When I was following this case, I wasn't at all even thinking of #metoo, I was just following a court case that was centered on domestic violence and slander. Heard obviously released her lies to the world because she wanted to be a part of the #metoo movement (talking about the timing here, of her op-ed and her divorce filing). She is a narcissistic liar and a complete turd for wanting to take advantage of the movement for her own gain.

To even think about invalidating #metoo, or being 'tired of it', or even regarding the movement as a whole, because Turd did turd things, is just ridiculous. It's very similar to trying to disregard the systematic incarceration problem of America because there was a single case of a black person genuinely deserving jail time.....

These tactics are often used by the alt-right and similar buffoons to invalidate social movements. Tucker Carlson is the most mainstream and extreme example of this. Frankly speaking if anyone from the Fox News network were browsing ESOC, they'd probably reach out to Dolan to hire him on as a writer. They're very good at taking an important conversation and muddying it with questionable claims and incel takes.

I think your problem is that you live in the USA so you already have the brain disease called US culture. So you're equating what I say to Carlson Tucker and whatever other US cultural diseases you have there because you can't understand that someone could criticise US culture from another point of view than your local one. For some reason people in the USA seem physically unable to get other cultures and the fact that their own is really just some particular, weird spawn, riddled with its own colonial legacies. Only morons think 'by association' then jump to making a downright equivalence between what they themselves associated by muddying the nuances.

I didn't even make any assertion about the validity of the #metoo movement and you're already making all these claims about what I actually think or support and equating me to Carlson Tucker and the alt right. Absolutely brainless.
Or you're just flaming, then it would make sense. That would be a cunt move, if so.

[Dolan]

The G was right, why did I even get into this thread. It's not my problem, should just ignore this sort of debates from the US "culture".
It's just nothing but mind poison.

[iNcog]

I seem to have struck a cord. I'd feel bad, but then I remember that you have a penchant for eugenics and misogyny, historically speaking.

I'm surprised that you dislike the Tucker Carlson comparison, I would have thought that you liked the guy. You're often talking about multiculturalism being a failure and so.

[Dolan]

I seem to have struck a cord. I'd feel bad, but then I remember that you have a penchant for eugenics and misogyny, historically speaking.

What the fuck. Now you're just making things up.

I'm surprised that you dislike the Tucker Carlson comparison, I would have thought that you liked the guy. You're often talking about multiculturalism being a failure and so.

Yeah multiculturalism never really works but this is an idea as old as civilisation. You can find precursors in Roman historians and such, when they were talking about Rome becoming the stage for all sorts of cultural fads, brought from all across the empire.
And it didn't end well for them eventually, that's what it usually happens when local cultures get weakened. What do you replace them with, volatile fads coming from all around the world? The latest product, the latest Netflix series, the latest thing promoted by Microsoft™ Xbox™ corporate sales? How do you even manage to keep any values in that society when those who migrate have radically different ones from the local ones? You get to the kind of conflicts we've seen in the UK and elsewhere with muslim parents pulling their kids out of classes because their values disagree with the local curriculum.

I've no idea what Carlson says about this and I might have arrived at a similarly sounding conclusion based on very different arguments, including historical ones. And anyway, converging on some points with someone doesn't mean you converge with them on anything or more than that. I might share a similar opinion with Redditors that drinking water is good for you.

I'm not even sure the USA has multiculturalism, as those who migrated there were pretty much forced to adopt the local Anglophone culture and put a damper on their original native culture.
The US society seems a lot more aggressive when it comes to forcing integration than what we have Europe, where migrants were kinda left to their own devices and they just continued to live in their own enclaves as if they're still in Iraq, except that they're getting a paycheck. That's definitely not integration and it's not a showcase for multiculturalism working.

[ShinkuroYukinari]

ESOC having a normal one.

[Goodspeed]

The US society seems a lot more aggressive when it comes to forcing integration than what we have Europe, where migrants were kinda left to their own devices and they just continued to live in their own enclaves as if they're still in Iraq, except that they're getting a paycheck. That's definitely not integration and it's not a showcase for multiculturalism working.

I'm not sure about the procedures in the US but immigrants here are tested for their knowledge of Dutch language and society. Some of the exams are notoriously hard.

[Narida]

The US society seems a lot more aggressive when it comes to forcing integration than what we have Europe, where migrants were kinda left to their own devices and they just continued to live in their own enclaves as if they're still in Iraq, except that they're getting a paycheck. That's definitely not integration and it's not a showcase for multiculturalism working.

I'm not sure about the procedures in the US but immigrants here are tested for their knowledge of Dutch language and society. Some of the exams are notoriously hard.

I read something once that said the reason US immigrants integrate better than in European countries is because of the lack of government benefits. People are basically obligated to integrate in order to be successful in the job market and survive.

[Dolan]

Yeah, American society seems to be a lot more "sink or swim". They cut the bullshit fast.
There's a lot more leniency and complacency in Europe.

[Goodspeed]

The US society seems a lot more aggressive when it comes to forcing integration than what we have Europe, where migrants were kinda left to their own devices and they just continued to live in their own enclaves as if they're still in Iraq, except that they're getting a paycheck. That's definitely not integration and it's not a showcase for multiculturalism working.

I'm not sure about the procedures in the US but immigrants here are tested for their knowledge of Dutch language and society. Some of the exams are notoriously hard.

I read something once that said the reason US immigrants integrate better than in European countries is because of the lack of government benefits. People are basically obligated to integrate in order to be successful in the job market and survive.

Makes sense, but definitely not the full story. EU immigrants are refugees rather than opportunists. Mexican immigrants in the states go there typically to make more money. EU immigrants typically move to survive. Obviously that makes a huge difference when it comes to integration.

[Narida]

That's probably part of the story but I dont think the difference in proportion of economic migrants is as big as you think. Before the Trump days the US accepted a lot of people from crisis regions.

[Dolan]

Show hidden quotes

The US society seems a lot more aggressive when it comes to forcing integration than what we have Europe, where migrants were kinda left to their own devices and they just continued to live in their own enclaves as if they're still in Iraq, except that they're getting a paycheck. That's definitely not integration and it's not a showcase for multiculturalism working.

I'm not sure about the procedures in the US but immigrants here are tested for their knowledge of Dutch language and society. Some of the exams are notoriously hard.

I read something once that said the reason US immigrants integrate better than in European countries is because of the lack of government benefits. People are basically obligated to integrate in order to be successful in the job market and survive.

Makes sense, but definitely not the full story. EU immigrants are refugees rather than opportunists. Mexican immigrants in the states go there typically to make more money. EU immigrants typically move to survive. Obviously that makes a huge difference when it comes to integration.

Big doubt on that. Refugees that move to survive don't move from Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq one quarter of globe away to the "closest" countries like Germany, Sweden, the UK.
If you go that far to get into a particular country, it's obvious you're not just trying to save your life. It'd be a lot easier to flee to Turkey or India or Niger.
But obviously those don't have as comfy welfare systems as Europe does. The vast majority of migrants in Europe are economic opportunists.
Only those who flee nearby warzones, like Ukrainians, qualify for the technical definition of refugee. Because they're obviously seeking refuge in the nearest safe countries, not in New Zealand or Canada.

[Dolan]

It's just that Europe has this system of "human rights", equality, respect for life, that is based on Enlightenment values and the rest of the world correctly perceives you can take advantage of that.
I mean, it's not even only non-Europeans who take advantage of that. Romanians too are notorious for having taken advantage of Western Europe's welfare system.
Paris is full of Romanian gypsies who beg on the streets, pretending to be poor Syrian refugees, while also taking welfare checks from the French government.
And so was the UK, that's why they Brexited, they had enough of this.

[iNcog]

Whenever someone whines about welfare I think they do it on principle as opposed to having real numbers to work with.

In the mean time the wealthiest aren't paying taxes. But yeah gypsies are the cause of societal collapse.

[princeofcarthage]

Can you show where wealthy are making money but not paying taxes?

[iNcog]

Can you show where wealthy are making money but not paying taxes?

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Panama+papers

[princeofcarthage]

Can you show where wealthy are making money but not paying taxes?

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Panama+papers

Panama papers primarily leaked financial details of wealthy and influential people. That in itself is not proof of any illegal activity. Much of the transactions where legal (maybe unethical bit still legal). A very very few individuals were ever arrested because of the leak and they do not stand in same class or group in sense of ultra rich you mention like Bezos of Musk or Hollywood celebrities. Yes there are people who obviously avoid taxes, rich and poor alike but can you show with proof that majority of wealthy people who earn do not pay taxes?

When you say do not pay taxes or avoid taxes you imply criminal intent or illegal activity.

[Dolan]

there are people who obviously avoid taxes, rich and poor alike but can you show with proof that majority of wealthy people who earn do not pay taxes?

The rich have access to legal schemes that allow them to move money to places where they get zero taxes or close to zero. You need money to afford the lawyers and accountants that take care of creating offshore shell companies where you can move and keep your money away from the reach of tax authorities.
If that wasn't the case then most people would move to Monaco and have zero income and profit taxes.

[iNcog]

Highly uncertain that the activities described in the panama papers are legal. If you could back up that statement, maybe, but a cursory search shows that there is deep rooted corruption and tax evasion. Which is illegal, yes.

Frankly speaking if the world reduced inequality between billionaires and non-billionaires, everyone would be better off. we could actually pay for the social services that are in dire need of funding. e.g. education, health care, etc.

I don't think this is exactly a crazy stand to take. There is tax evasion out there and its repercussions are felt by most people. On top of that, there is legal wealth inequality as well. I won't call that illegal per se, that'd be ridiculous. However there are arguments to made that it shouldn't be legal. Our legislators are bought out, however. Again, don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

[princeofcarthage]

there are people who obviously avoid taxes, rich and poor alike but can you show with proof that majority of wealthy people who earn do not pay taxes?

The rich have access to legal schemes that allow them to move money to places where they get zero taxes or close to zero. You need money to afford the lawyers and accountants that take care of creating offshore shell companies where you can move and keep your money away from the reach of tax authorities.
If that wasn't the case then most people would move to Monaco and have zero income and profit taxes.

Correct but that is still legal *in most cases. Or you can take loans and use dividened to pay it off at much lower rates than tax. Still legal though. Apple doesn't bring roughly 200 billion back to US to avoid paying 40% tax. Still legal. Technically even a middle class person could do the same. But obviously not much benefits to him.

And actually these creates lots of jobs, accountants, lawyers, bankers and stuff. Not sure if there is but if such an analysis could be made then the net taxes lost could be significantly lower.

[callentournies]

https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/joh ... -heard?s=r

[Dolan]

@princeofcarthage
Nah this offshoring business doesn't really create that much economy, a few thousand jobs tops. There are such offices managing multiple rich clients and they have just a few employees. It's paper economy.
This is bad especially in cases like Italy's, where avoiding taxes is a national sport, which pushed their govt into borrowing more and more to keep social benefits paid. So now Italy has a huge debt, because people avoid paying taxes but they like their publicly funded benefits.
Otherwise collecting more taxes doesn't necessarily improve things. There are also a lot of public funds getting wasted. And not all problems are solvable through public funding

[princeofcarthage]

@princeofcarthage
Nah this offshoring business doesn't really create that much economy, a few thousand jobs tops. There are such offices managing multiple rich clients and they have just a few employees. It's paper economy.
This is bad especially in cases like Italy's, where avoiding taxes is a national sport, which pushed their govt into borrowing more and more to keep social benefits paid. So now Italy has a huge debt, because people avoid paying taxes but they like their publicly funded benefits.
Otherwise collecting more taxes doesn't necessarily improve things. There are also a lot of public funds getting wasted. And not all problems are solvable through public funding

Maybe, still not illegal.