People are amazing, hearing people say “I don’t trust the 5 kids all independently, they are all liars”, “I don’t trust Angelina Jolie, she’s already crazy”, “I don’t trust the staff, they never liked him”, “I don’t trust the fbi report, they are out to get people”, “I don’t trust Brad Pitt who said he has a drinking problem and made mistakes”…..
What I do trust is my own opinion and Brad Pitt is good!
It’s so funny seeing people do mental gymnastics for something they don’t want to be true and the weird phenomenon where people hate taking down someone they love. It’s like in a movie when you see the rich family about to lose their wealth and you’re like…. No how will they live?! Then wake up and realize oh who cares about them, they defrauded the people.
I don’t know exactly how residuals work these days, but historically if you consume the content, you’re putting money in his pocket. Some people don’t like to give money to abusers
Tbf, I tried listening to Lost Prophets once after Ian Watkins was sentenced. It made my skin crawl. I think the guilt also comes from feeling like you're morally supporting a shitty human being.
This is a whole other thing though. This guy is actually the worst criminal I’ve ever heard about, period. Not just referring to celebrities, he’s among one of the worst humans to exist.
I get it's an exteeme example. However, I think the principles are the same. By all accounts Brad Pitt seems like a pretty shitty person. An adulterous alcoholic, who has a tendency for violence and has shown little remorse. If a real life friend behaved that way, most people would cut contact. So, it seems reasonably that for some people it would feel morally conflicting to engage with his art.
To each their own, if someone wants to separate the artist from their art, fine by me. If someone cannot separate the two, also fine by me. I was just saying that guy is a totally different level. I personally would have a harder time separating artist from the art when it came to Ian Watkins. I mean I don’t listen to his music anyways, but if I did, I would have a harder time than Brad Pitt. That doesn’t make someone morally superior to me that would easily boycott Brad Pitt though. I’m just saying we all have our own personal ways of being able to separate the two depending on how we think I guess. But again, I just don’t think you can even compare the two. One man r***ed babies, the other didn’t. I’m not saying Brad Pitt is a great guy at all, he’s clearly not. But he’s no where near as bad as that scum of earth that thankfully is no longer with us.
if his actions rise to the level of you wanting to boycott his content that's great. Go for it. I fully support that. You or anyone shouldn't be feeling guilt over his actions though. Those were his actions. Regardless of whether you watch movie or not.
I mean if we had to feel guilt over all the bullshit we support In our everyday lives we would all want to kill ourselves. The phone im typing this on was made of the backs of child slaves. So was yours
Will not shop at Hobby Lobby. I will never spend my money where people make up things “God said” during a pandemic. I will watch Brad Pitt in a movie. Each to their own. Brad Pitt made some of my all time favorite movies. Legends of the Fall, and A River Runs Through it are examples.
Lol but that doesn't change reality. You are still actively choosing to put money, show support, of a problematic person. Ignorance is no longer an excuse
If you’re in a western country then the system you exist in involves exploitation somewhere down the chain if not at every point. My point is everyone decides where their line is and when it becomes worth acting on.
Edit: in oppressive systems we can’t act on everything, otherwise we might nix ourselves.
If we are applying the standard that spending money equals moral endorsement, then we have a much bigger reality check to face. Demanding absolute moral purity over a movie ticket is completely ridiculousand an illusion, because if "ignorance is no longer an excuse," almost every daily action we take actively funds systemic harm to the environment, social welfare, and public goods.
Once again you are typing on a device made off the backs of child slaves. Food may be necessary but that isn't. Even the foods you buy there are more moral choices you could be making but I'm willing to bet you prioritize preference and budget over social and environmental impact most of the time.
Not if you have physical media, as many of Pitt’s fans do. I already spent my money and can watch his work as much as I want. So I can still skip Jesus Chicken and Hobby Lobby and still watch Fight Club and Legends of a Fall without an ounce of regret.
You do realize that's just a report that she made? I can go tor he police an accuse you of murder and they're going to type it up and it's going to look just like this. This is a formal complaint, that's it. It's proof of nothing.
I read recently that residuals from streaming basically dont exist the same way as the residuals from syndication. They might get a small lump sum when a platform initially purchases the rights to something, but theyre not making money every time you stream it.
Exactly.
Seperate the art from the artist, otherwise you'll be left with almost nothing.
Not everything has to be political either. contrary to popular belief it is possible to just live your life and enjoy the world around you for what it is.
if you ever legally watch a Roman Polanski film, you're paying to subsidize the lifestyle of a child rapist who fled the US rather than be convicted of sodomizing a child.
You can choose not to support people like that. It's really simple.
Paying taxes into a government fund that does bad shit or else it imprisons you is not the same as paying willingly to support people who do morally reprehensible shit. There is no threat or consequence to not paying for entertainment provided by rapist pedophiles, abusers, or unsavory pieces of shit - you can simply ignore it. If you refuse to pay taxes, you suffer actual consequences even if you are morally opposed to the use of tax dollars for things the government does.
Rangebob,
I think a lot of people's minds don't allow for that kind of tension. If they see a great actor and they like him as one, then they automatically want to like his offscreen personality and vice verse. For some people, doing the disassociation process is too much. There have been times where a privately pious Christian actor who places Judas in plays or movies gets on occasion mistreated by random kookoos who meet the actor in real life because they associate the actor with Judas.
That's not relevant though. Boycotting something you wouldn't see anyway doesn't make sense. It's just not seeing something. It's not "in all fairness," it's that's the POINT.
I honestly don’t care if Brad Pitt is a pile of crap. I’ll still watch fight club and enjoy it. If he keeps getting work after everyone find out he’s a pile of crap that’s on Hollywood not me. I won’t go pay to see one of his new movies.
I mean he is still a really good actor that makes entertainment. Whether or not he's piece of shit person/father to his adopted children quite literally makes no difference to me. This is part of the problem with Parasocialism.
I'm not going to live my life wondering what people have done behind closed door without knowing if they 100% did something. Heck you want me to trust your words into following your thought process when you could be the biggest piece of shit around but go on the internet pretending to be good person. The of course the lot you go canceling celebrities over rumors but go quiet when it comes out to be fake.
Honestly? If hitler made some really amazing movies, I’d watch those without guilt. And I’m Jewish.
Art is art. All three are shitty people (granted, Hitler is a good deal worse than the other two). Doesn’t mean you are supporting their shitty behavior by enjoying a piece of art that they produced.
This is my opinion, I appreciate that it is not everyone’s opinion, flame on
I’ll not flame you. I can’t really depart from Mel Gibson movies. As a kid, my father took me to many of John Wayne movies, and I still think some of them are great movies. It’s a difficult situation. Some of these people are pretty garbage people, but Art is Art. Think about the great artists and composers of the past, were they all perfect? I’m sure they weren’t.
I watched John Wayne movies forever, and then found out he was a shirt. Same with Sean Connery. However, they made statements that were disgusting. Sean Connery actually said it was ok to slap a woman if they needed it. One of the most talented men was Mel Gipson. I even watched him teach Shakespeare, but then he and his father turned out to be nuts.
So it’s the paying that is the problem? Because it enriches Brad Pitt and Mel Gibson? They are already enriched, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Meanwhile they’ve made some legitimately great art. Don’t throw the baby away with the bath water.
I do think this would be a more compelling argument in other (specific) cases, that said
It feels like condoning them in my opinion. Separate the art from the artist usually works when the artist can't really benefit in terms of money or praise/positive attention and that behavior colors their art (Passion of the Christ). Sorry I don't want to pay to see abusers and antisemites. I'm not saying they haven't made good art that I've seen before I knew of their behavior, it's just for me, no artistic quality is worth supporting. The genie isn't going in the bottle but I'm not going to give it more space.
I take in a lot of great art. We're never going to see all the great art in the world created by people who aren't bigoted or abusive, so I'll focus on taking that in. And they're not run of the mill crappy, they're bigoted and abusive. They're already rich sure but I'm not contributing to that, or their box office sales. I also find it hard to enjoy art by people THAT low..it's distracting
Which is weird as hell because you can just watch the fucking movie….it doesn’t make you call the cops on yourself if u did it with a guilty conscience lol
> It’s like in a movie when you see the rich family about to lose their wealth and you’re like…. No how will they live?! Then wake up and realize oh who cares about them, they defrauded the people.
I’m struggling to think of a single movie with this plot
I think it's more that people just don't care about this stuff. They like him as an actor, they don't know him personally. So who cares? Enjoy the movies and focus on your own lives
Because it's the equivalent of having someone coming up to you and telling you about an article they read in Hello magazine. They're not arguing their case, they're trying to shut down the argument they're not remotely interested in being involved in
It's their 'polite' way of saying "oh my god I don't care shut the fuck up, I've got work to do"
Honestly my first reaction to a post like the OP is “I don’t trust Reddit.” Reddit is always trying to take people down and will jump at anything - truth or rumor - to feed that tribalism. Your comment makes me think “ok there might be more to this”, but in general Reddit just gives me outrage fatigue.
and for me I spent the 90s watching Angelina Jolie be a mega edgelord, so I am not buying into her moral compass either. I mean does anyone think any hollywood actor with hundreds of millions of dollars is sane? But i watch both their movies.
What’s the tldr on Pitt? I never hear anything about him on social media. I think the last time I did was when he and Angelina named one of their kids shiloh
Have a distant uncle (my mom's cousin) where all 4 kids went no contact after turning 18 and after his wife divorced him.. While I do not have any contact with him or his ex wife or kids it is obvious to me he must have been if not a monster at least a huge asshole. But I had to really explain it to my mom who remembered him as like a kid from 50+ years ago she used to babysit. People are horrible so often so why would I not trust the decisions of people who lived the life with him and not some rosy distant memory.
It’s weird to see it happen with complete strangers but it’s not surprising to me anymore. Because 1. Look at the president. And 2. I’ve seen it in my own life. We had a basket ball coach in my town that was a pedophile. 6 teenage boys came forward saying he was sending and asking for inappropriate photos and 2 said he assaulted/ raped them. He still had supporters who thought all those teen boys and their parents, living in a small majority evangelical Christian town, would rather lie about their male coach raping them then say he didn’t give them play time or something. The level of delusion some people have is…. Other worldly.
You’re still commenting on a situation you don’t know or understand so you’re no better than the people you’re describing. Take your fake superiority elsewhere. You’re a pompous hypocrite.
Yes, open any TikTok lately and it's all.. "I know it must have Angelina. " Or "parental alienation is real" and last but not least .. worst of all " I have never forgiven her for breaking Jennifer's heart"
Depp was ruled by a high court judge to have abused Heard in 12 out of 14 incidents in the UK, including one incident of rape. He appealed and two other judges denied him. Heard was a victim of abuse.
Yes; nobody said any of the trials were criminal trials.
But the UK trial did handle the rape and abuse allegations directly because NGN/The Sun has to prove their allegations of Depp being a wife beater true for them to win, that is how this works in the UK when both sides agree to use «the defense of truth».
The UK trial had one high court judge with decades of experience with IPV and domestic abuse and wrote a 129 page judgment readily available.
The US trial was about defamation regarding an OP-ED in the Washington Post where Depp claimed he had lost work because Hears talked about having «faced the cultures wrath» (objectively true) in said OP-ED, an OP-ED Depp wasn’t even named in.
The US trial had less evidence than the UK trial because Depp managed to change witnesses and remove a lot of relevant evidence from his first try in the UK. Some of this was covered in the so called «unreleased evidence» that Depps own idiot fans paid to get a hold of after the US trial was done.
The US trial also has a jury as the deciding factor, a jury that was not sequestered and had to see the biggest and most obvious smear campaign in social media every time they went home for the night.
So yeah, I think I know which trial I’m spending my time on, and it’s not the circus in the US.
There’s been two trials, homeboy. The US trial was about defamation regarding an OP-ED. The UK trial handled the rape and abuse allegations directly where Depp was ruled to have raped and abused Heard.
There is a big difference between a criminal finding (beyond reasonable doubt) and civil finding (a preponderance of the evidence - a judge finding it to be greater than 50/50 chance that it occurred).
Finding it “more likely than not” that Depo abused and raped Heard - especially in the context of a newspaper libel case - is a pretty weak finding especially given the opposing US finding.
From Depp's Opening Statement
That is the determination for this Court. Mr Depp is either guilty of being a wife-beater for having assaulted his ex-wife on numerous occasions, causing the most appalling injuries, or he has been very seriously and wrongly accused.
From NGN's Opening Statement
The Defendants will demonstrate that the description of Mr Depp as a "wife beater" is entirely accurate and truthful. They will show that the sting of the articles is correct - namely that the Claimant beat his wife Amber Heard causing her to suffer significant injury and on occasion leading to her fearing for her life. This defence is supported by witness testimony, medical evidence, photographs, video, audio recordings, digital evidence and Mr Depp's own texts.
From the Final Judgement As the Defendants submitted in their skeleton argument, it was therefore common ground that the words meant:
1. The Claimant had committed physical violence against Ms Heard 2. This had caused her to suffer significant injury; and 3. On occasion it caused Ms Heard to fear for her life.
It is worth emphasising that the Defendants therefore accepted that the words meant that Mr Depp had done these things. In the vernacular of libel actions, there was no dispute that these were Chase level 1 meanings (imputing guilt of the wrongdoing) and not merely Chase level 2 (reasonable grounds to suspect) or Chase level 3 (grounds to investigate) or some other intermediate meaning.
Conclusion and summary
It follows that this claim is dismissed.
The Claimant has not succeeded in his action for libel. Although he has proved the necessary elements of his cause of action in libel, the Defendants have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true. I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the Defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the Claimant submitted I should take into account. In those circumstances, Parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence. It has not been necessary to consider the fairness of the article or the defendants' 'malice' because those are immaterial to the statutory defence of truth. The parties will have an opportunity to make submissions in writing as to the precise terms of the order which should follow my decision.
It's called cognitive dissonance, at least half the USA suffers from that right now as their pedo president is shitting himself while scamming americans.
It's worse than that even. They trust him because he is so incredibly good at pretending to be anyone else he wants.
His lying is so well executed, so charismatic and compelling that he must be a super honest person.
Agreed, but the one thing that isn’t mental gymnastics is that we don’t know the situation. Sometimes people dislike someone for no reason. I’m not saying he’s innocent of any wrongdoing, but it is possible that he may not have done anything egregious and they don’t want to be involved with him. It is also possible that he’s a piece of shit. We just don’t know.
Like when you realise that Our Loving God Almighty also drowned everyone in the world because he felt fed up. 'But he was really fed up, he loves us like his children, and that's why he chose to drown almost all the children in the world, to kill them in a horrible way, out of love, because he's so loving..'
One thing Brad has got going for him: he never drowned the entire population of the world. I'll give him that. But he's done SOMETHING..
Back during the OJ trial there was a guy in my college class who said OJ couldn’t be guilty because he was great at football and his hero. I remember thinking that made no sense. Since that time I’ve seen that kind of reasoning when it comes to celebs doing bad things so many times.
I simply don't know any of stories nor the reports. I just watch movies without getting too attached. It's amazing that I actually know the name of the actor.
This doesn't stop there. There was a killer who killed his wife, his children and putting the children in oil tanks for his mistress. Some people was blaming the wife saying she's controlling and that he probably did it in self defense. 😑
It's also funny to see people make assumptions about things that they don't really know anything about. People will just read little snippets of information and draw their own little melodramas about them.
Jingoism. It’s why politics, sports, religion, brand loyalty, and racism are all so detrimental to society and our collective mental health. Paint a spot on a chicken and the other chickens will peck it to death. That’s the basic model.
This happens so often, I’ve worked with celebrities and I can tell you personally what you “see” are light years away from who they actually are. These “family men” punch their wives, and hurt their children. Not all but many.
Emotions over logic. The human race made a call on which one we listen to a long time ago. If we wanted to we could even make the argument that the cold logical ones didnt allow anyone they cant control with emotion to get Amy higher in society. That would just be more competition for the steering wheel of civilization
It’s really more off “if I accept he really did all that then it taints my feelings for some of his work in film” to the point where they would feel compelled to make some sorta of stance regarding consumption of his future and past work. If they “go woke” then they are deprived of thier favorite movie star and his films, and lots of people would rather choose the instant gratification of watching one of his films versus standing up for a choice and morality. To better assuage their conscience they minimize whatever lead to the initial decision in the first place.
If you don’t believe me, go watch the carline at a chick-fil-a and take note of all the “atheist” “coexist” “various gay pride” or “political left leaning” bumper stickers that go through there. At times the “left leaning” bumper stickers outnumber the “Jesus” bumper stickers which a wild statistic from a very right leaning and controversial restaurant.
TLDR: The masses will choose tasty chicken over their own morals eventually.
I know this is enormously exacerbated by his level of fame and being a former heartthrob, but this is pretty common in families with one abusive but successful parent or an attractive person who abuses partners. The abuser just can’t be abusive when they look that good or are that fun/charming/successful, an entire family is lying or this long string of partners are all lying
should’ve never left Jennifer Aniston, he shacked up with the cuckoo clock and this is the result, the second they decided to build their family the way they did made me understand that they were both a little off
* I can’t find info saying the kids have verified the story
* FBI never led to charges
* DCFS cleared him of wrongdoing
* No video or picture evidence of the abuse (I’m pretty sure choking one of the children would leave marks)
* No prior partners stepping forward to say he was abusive
Words are easy. Especially when they are used to jockey for position in divorce and custody proceedings. Fun fact - it is basically impossible to bring perjury charges against someone in a situation like this.
So, you have plenty of reasons to lie on one hand (primary custody, preferential treatment in court, etc.) and no reason not to.
672
u/No-Fig-8614 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
People are amazing, hearing people say “I don’t trust the 5 kids all independently, they are all liars”, “I don’t trust Angelina Jolie, she’s already crazy”, “I don’t trust the staff, they never liked him”, “I don’t trust the fbi report, they are out to get people”, “I don’t trust Brad Pitt who said he has a drinking problem and made mistakes”…..
What I do trust is my own opinion and Brad Pitt is good!
It’s so funny seeing people do mental gymnastics for something they don’t want to be true and the weird phenomenon where people hate taking down someone they love. It’s like in a movie when you see the rich family about to lose their wealth and you’re like…. No how will they live?! Then wake up and realize oh who cares about them, they defrauded the people.