The Profiles of Amber and Johnny: Depp vs. Heard Analyzed 

"So no one really won personally, only their profiles won". At this point I smiled feeling perfectly satisfied by a video that could put so much order in a given topic. A second later I was a bit disturbed by how perfectly this also meant that RU-vid had attracted my attention and professor Moeller's profile had been consolidated in my mind.

"Everyone wants a profile, everyone is attaching themselves to this case and making an effort to curate their own profile.." _Fai starts talking and his profile picture comes up_ _Fai likes this comment for the sake of profilicity_

Your acknowledgement of the rush to produce this video in order for it to be relevant struck me as so funny.

Sorry for having to re-upload the video! Please leave your comment again if you posted your comment in the old video. ---Fai

‘He was on display, he thought, as he had been for much of his life, more as an ambassador for himself than a person’ The Magician

What was amazing while watching this trial was these people became very human. As you went well beyond the profile and saw the people through evidence, a lot of it audio so often in their own words, and testimony it revealed a lot. It really did demonstrate money and fame cannot buy you happiness. It really showed no matter how "privileged" you are you're never totally safe from abuse. Things did get laid bare in the courtroom and you did experience a profound sense of authenticity as the truth no matter how ugly or inconvenient was revealed.

Up until this point, I have avoided watching anything related to Depp and Heard, but I never miss a Carefree Wandering video and find myself in a predicament with only one solution. Watch the video because I will learn something valuable, even if it comes at the expense of learning about two people I have no investment in at all. Sigh.

It's funny. I've been reading "the moral fool" and I had mentioned the book with some friends while they were discussing this case. I wondered if you might do an analysis of the case in terms of amoral vs moral and the way the trial becomes scandal which is used as a product by the media. Then you have released this video with a very different angle. I wonder would an amoral analysis end with a different conclusion to this discussion on profile?

I like the infomercial style of the video, this pretended spontaneity of the conversation on the streets and its progression through diferent backgrounds,making Herr Moeller's profile richer in sarcastic content and ideology and so on and so on

Never was really invested in the case. Was kind of disappointed when I saw that you made a video about it but then I started thinking that this is probably an excellent exercise in profilicity. Thanks for making the videos. Loving the outdoors aesthetic.

I was waiting for this video, i watched the whole thing with the teachings of the professor in my mind, also fi i really liked how you summed up it in one sentence at the end

thank you very much for posting this. i don’t think ive heard a single intelligent thing said about this case in the past week, until i watched this.

I love that focus not on results of mundane squabble but analysis of symptoms then pathology of the big picture of reality. indeed they both won and media won as well. Show must go on!

Carsick Cars outro music! Good to find another fan. I saw them in Australia 10 years ago. They were fantastic.

I've been waiting for this

Will you ever speak on what brought you to Macau? I'm curious what you have to say about Eastern philosophy or cultural differences you see as significant.

i forgot what you prefer to be called hans, but i really love your perspective and your book is great

outdoor setting is nice

Do you feel the culture of profilicity is driving a widespread distrust in social systems? If there’s a constant battle to forge one’s most desired profile and any attempt to critique or affront that profile is more easily denied on the grounds of subjectivity/opinion. Could this morph morality into a kind of pseudo-identity; morality as an element of your profile? Where what’s right and wrong is dictated more by subjectivity and less by the systems or communities we are a part of. Could social systems become tangled up in a kind of war of morality, where the lines between right and wrong are increasingly burred? Would be interested to hear your take on where you feel profilicity fits into the evolution of morality.

"- what's his name?“ " Elon Musk? " " Elon Musk, yes."

This is the only bit of content I've paid attention to about this little drama. I've otherwise avoided it like the plague.

Dr. Moe, consider me as a PhD student. Love your work. All the best

Its working well for me now!

Another banger prof. My question: what do you view as the limit of proflicity? Can we see hints of what would be next?

turns out theres no escaping this case on youtube lol.

Why is he holding a small bush in hus hand?

Brilliant!!

Caesar Nemkin asked The Professor: "what do you view as the limit of proflicity? Can we see hints of what would be next?" Only I've responded so far, but I'd really like to see more people respond to the great question above if possible, and in the case of the Professor, that might make for a really interesting video! A Foxy Fox responds: "That is a great question and I hope that he answers it, but I wouldn't mind in the meantime if you and others give it a shot too! One should consider first the sequence which the Professor typically presents which led up to this point, and see if we accept that as true or real, if anything can be calculated based on prior trends with different conditions. Here is one idea though, the same "thing" is in some senses manifesting in each stage and variety, but the differences only exist due to the dimensions and availability of certain things present which make it turn out the ways that it has. Profilicity (which is almost like a play on the word Prolificity, to be Profilic in some regard), has seemingly manifested due to the creation of certain technologies that achieved certain things for people in ways that were not as easily possible before, and the ease with which one can accomplish these things, things that people would've done in earlier stages had there been some easy opportunity to do so (we assume), have no found the right conditions to achieve what it is they are achieving, and in doing so have created another "market" and "marketplace" where they communicate, trade, and increase and decrease in the new currency of esteem, valued differently by different groups who might "collect" and even "fund" these people, who have practically become "products" which others associate with, and by association some of their quality or value, both in quantifiable ways and more vague senses can rub off on others (such as through shared audiences or numbers and also one heightening the way people see them through association or recommendation or whatever ways in which one person might be trying to present a connection to another person). It is political too, in the sense of social politics but on a seemingly larger scale because people can reach much further without much effort and can also reach more than ever before. It is like one big classroom or office or even prison, and the same sort of social dynamics seem to operate now, largely online. I don't see the internet going anywhere, but I do think there is increasing pushback regarding people participating in an unnecessary seeming struggle which can look intimidating, frightful, and overwhelming, as various people originating from different classes now enter a kind of online battlefield to potentially change their social status and social standing towards the public, a public which in the past might never have known they existed and a public which still often can't do much about their existence, except that now people can also monetize simply being known, seen, or heard from. What will happen, most likely, is a generation may emerge which finds the way things are to be unfashionable and shun it as embarrassing and something that they and their peers would look down upon each other for participating in and being part of. Also, this has been a democratizing of something that was available to other parts of society earlier, these prestige and reputation wars and scandals and all that were mostly the concern of groups of people, and concerns to the general public only when some prestigious people were involved, rather than just anyone now being able to become a celebrity just by having their images and voices or commentaries distributed widely. What tends to then happen, is that an elite or smaller group moves on to the next big thing, some of them getting into things which go nowhere, a few being lucky enough to have found the next big thing which catches on more, and then it catches on so much that everyone is doing it again, and so this no longer helps the first group in standing out if that was their objective, and they have to move on, or they have reached an age where they fall away. So this is just based on how things have gone and seem to be going, but some of these earlier stages that have been mentioned in other videos have lasted very long periods of time, but these days we see things seemingly moving so fast. I can also look to myself, and in my case, as a late adopter, I've finding that entertainment is being produced more widely be more people and less dependence on corporations is occurring in some senses, where we're seeing non-professional or un-skilled workers providing services "for free" in some senses (even though it isn't really), and I too plan on making such things, for myself as well, so the democratization of things produced by experts or a minority might in at least some areas become more normal or common. So what I'm seeing is a kind of "social leveling" going on, where past hierarchies are being seemingly reduced, even the Depp and Heard case has made people feel that they can now reach out and touch people they might not have felt they could before, and that they are not at such a different level overall, despite the differences in wealth and their lifestyles, they are being brought down to the the level of the people, and the people are being brought up to the level of those who can mingle with them and deal with them almost directly."

I think I get it, reputation is just a part of a profile. Wait, maybe profitability is concerned mostly with subjective qualities? I mean, there's not a lot of quantitative data in a profile.

Nice views of the city

I’m sorry, but “poor elon musk”??? Explain

dear professor... I was with you until you used the phrase "poor elon musk". the man is neither poor nor is he particularly deserving of our sympathy. of course I know that's not what you meant, all jokes aside: I would love to see you responding to musk as a phenomenon, being as he is the richest man in the world and also is actively curating an interesting profile of his own. thank you, love the show.

Much better 😌😘

If morality is what we need in order to fit in certain group, then how should people mainly think in amoral terms survive. I go on to reddit and point out Heard was not a victim, I got downvoted. On another thread I claim Depp won doesn't mean JP's critic on feminism is right, I still get downvoted. I seems to have nobody to guide me how to curate a profile that maintains an amoral stance in this society that requires you to have a moral profile.

Sir, I have two questions which are not relevant to this video but you must be the one who can easily answer. 1. You successfully debunked the claim that Wokeism is based on Marxism. Marxism is not about the oppressor vs. the oppressed. It was considered as a science. That's what I learnt from your lecture. Then what about the new left? Marcuse suggested "liberating tolerance" in the teeth of "repressive tolerance" Thus he justified discrimination based on profile. Would you say Marcuse misunderstood or misinterpreted Marx? Is Marcuse a maverick or a heretic in Marxism like as Xunzi is in Confucianism? And I'm obviously not an expert of Foucault who is the father of postmodernism unmasking naturalized power structure. Do you think Wokeism is linked with Foucault? 2. Have you ever seen the movie The Square? A few days ago Cannes Film Fest's over giving the best prize to Ruben Östlund who also made The Square got the same prize 5 years ago. I checked the movie again and found that this is similar to your Michelangelo of profilicity but saying a bit different stuff. The (empty) Square is a virtual/actual system. So the museum and the screen playing movie are. The System decides which is legitimate or not. If you're in, you should follow the rule, try to (at least pretend to) understand other members/artworks as allowed. The Square tends to expand and to collect the outside like imperialism/Wokeism does, unlike Trump supporters who don't want to curate unfamiliar identities. (Alexander Sokurov once called this desire "museum fever" in his film) The modern museum(a square) is neo-liberal that pursues any kind of presentation getting more attention. The movie ends with a certain moral that you should care for others, should regulate intensity of artworks. Critics are divided. Some says it's a masterpiece while others think it's too shallow. I think you're also a good film critic. I hope I would listen to your opinion about this film.

I like the videos more that aren't held as an interview outside.

It doesn't need to be a petersonian case against wokeism, though.

Profiles are so disconnected from everyday life so why should we care about them?

Listen and verify. Always.

Actress professor, actress.

It's pretty weird to have an opinion on the trial based on profiles and not on whether or not he abused her.

Of course you’re also familiar with systems theories. Lol I’m trying to be on your level

I agree until you start talking about wokeism. There are plenty of woke people who support Johnny Depp. It was only a woke profile thing in the large media , among regular people, political and social leanings became united on the side of truth. If you watched the proceedings, the truth and lies were stark and clear.

I really did not want to see this become another pop culture commentary channel

Also, besides all this rationalizing, he like gossip.

This really helps to understand the public reaction to this, and of people I know. I realize now that some of the responses that I took offense with - either in support of Amber Heard or Johnny Depp - were people who basically didn't see this case as two people who were in an abusive relationship, but as spokespeople to either side of a movement. Conservatives see Johnny Depp as a hero fighting against the woke movement, while in fact he is just a victim of abuse who has been accused of being the abuser, and wants to clear his profile. Woke people see Amber Heard as a martyr who must be telling the truth because otherwise their slogans from 5 years ago are proven to be false, while none of this is necessarily true, Amber Heard could just be a pathological liar, or she was speaking the truth and Johnny Depp acted abusively in retaliation. This tells us nothing about past cases; Harvey Weinstein and Louis CK are still abusers. Neither parties seem to actually genuinely care about the people involved; just the profile they share with the one or the other party. They both see it as an attack on "believe all women", while any sane person should see this as just a case of domestic abuse in which one party has been distorting the truth. We're witnessing a war between two groups of highly immature people (how did they get into positions of such prominence, hmm... maybe because it generates clicks?) who take this slogan too literally to mean "women NEVER lie". Every sane person understands that it's not that dogmatic, it means "if you need a conspiracy theory of evil women in order to back up your defense of the accused, then it's better to not defend this person". In general this should be a rule of life: "if your reality requires a conspiracy to be true, then alter your view of reality". By following this rule I had come to the conclusion that I believed AH, and after further evidence was shown I decided I believe JD, until (once again) further information is released. This feels imperfect, but the way we believe the earth is round, or that atoms exist, is not much different. I don't feel dumb for believing AH first, just as I don't think people who believed the earth was flat were dumb before any conclusive evidence that challenged what seemed obvious was shown to them. Therefore, even from the perspective of the movement, this case is not so controversial, unless you're being extremely dogmatic. And on the other side, neither Johnny Depp and Amber Heard give a fuck about any movement; JD just wants his story to be told, and AH just misused the movement to her benefit (until further evidence is provided).

Is heard Ukraine or is she Russia?? I need to know so i can now on which side I'm on

A case that sets precedent for men to sue their abuse victims for defamation and silences thousands is not just a woman and a dude beefing like its some kind of weekly twitter drama.

cringe. unsubbed

The concerning issue should be that major institutions entrusted with fostering open dialogue double down on supporting Amber Heard even though the larger society has deemed her narrative to be false. This has done real harm to the credibility of the ACLU & the Washington Post which up to a point were generally considered to be arbiters of the public good in the US. Turning them into partisan players in a cultural dispute has degraded the quality of the entire discourse.

Johnny Depp is woke. This is one of the first times I’ve seen people take female-on-male IPV seriously. I think it adds an important nuance to the me-too movement, which nuance was communicated by depps team in their arguments.

I think using a political lens to view this situation is not really practical nor relevant. Sure you can say that the dynamic between Johnny and amber was binary. And the dynamic between wokeness and toxic masculinity is also binary. But amber hardly represented wokeness and most woke people did not support her. Most woke media was infact against her. Maybe you are referring to a small minority of woke people that supported her but they do not reflect the whole group.

Interestingly, I disagree very much with a lot of the finer points of your analysis. I see Depp's win as a good thing, and I see this as a good thing for metoo/wokeism as well. It's important that these things don't become synonymous with "women never do wrong" and "the white man is always bad". I am a supporter of metoo/wokeism (to an small extent - I am very critical of metoos excesses) but am also deeply happy that someone who certainly was a victim of abuse (but also a perpetrator to an extent) received justice. Though I see myself as on the left, I did not see the case in the same way, and think. The idea that Depp represents a sort of Petersonesque conservatism with the white man fighting back is absurd to me. It is perhaps my own bias, but considering he joked about killing Trump and is avidly not a conservative, and the fact that MANY MANY people who are fans and supporters of Depp are also supporters of metoo, etc. I think it would be odd to frame it in this way. I doubt he sees this as only conservatives rooting for him. Such a framing would only be valid, in my view, if this was a case where 1) she had never abused him, 2) her allegations were generally false. Neither are true. Also, i see a LOT more support for Depp, both in the media and in the places I frequent, than I have seen for Heard. I've only seen dislike or indifference. Honestly, this video was disappointing for me

Perhaps the better question is why people could call you a women hater (a universal) and keep going with their lives instead of addressing the particular case of an unbelievable violent self-serving spoiled and mentally ill woman which was feared by her own mother. There is a plethora of angles to this. Even Elaine (Miss Heard's lawyer) feels like gaslighting the entire population of the world, she almost called mistrial on TV just like her represented used to gaslight her own husband in the intimacy of their home. No matter whether we already saw the case with our own material eyeballs, it exploits our need to offer empathy and abuses our good will. Let's talk war. Same thing.

Johnny Depp is one of the great comedic actors of his generation - nobody disputes this - he may be spending his talent in strange ways in recent years, but nobody disputes his excellence at what he does professionally. Amber Heard? Amber Who?? Aquaman??? Does anyone remember Robin Williams? the most talented comedic actor who has ever lived? Killed himself, was destroyed by a succession of Amber Heard wives. I am so very glad that Johnny Depp succeeded in protecting himself, his reputation, *and his property* from a vindictive, greedy, abusive, shrew.