Re: "firing him was a business decision".

Yes, a deeply shortsighted one. You can't pretend to separate matters of business from matters of the heart when a business decision hits people in their hearts.

APPARENTLY it was a bad decision (see also: "total backfire").

So to tell people to accept a business decision because it's "just business" is to tell them, in this case, to let an abuse victim be thrown under the bus so other people can make money.

We understood this from the beginning. We just don't accept it. That's been the whole point!

We understand that, to make our matters of the heart be taken seriously, we need to translate them into business. What do you think a boycott out of moral principle is?

It's not just that people think the third FB movie won't be good without Johnny Depp...

It's that it hurts people's hearts too much to spend their money on something when an abuse victim had to be deprived of what he loves most in life, his art, for that something to come into being. It's too cruel. Too callous. It's unacceptable. That's why we boycott.

And yes I say abuse victim, and yes we can know what happened behind closed doors, we can hear it on the recordings.

We hear her admit to physically abusing him.

We hear her *actively* emotionally abusing him.

We hear his pain. "Don't tell me what it feels like to be punched!"

When you say "their pain", it's like they share in it. Amber Heard doesn't share in his pain, she mocks it. Her own pain fuels her to hurt him. She relieves her own pain by hurting him. He bears all of it. She bears none of it. That's what abuse is.

Finally: "it should've stayed private".

That's not wisdom—and please don't take this as an attack on an 8-y/o, I don't demand wisdom from one, nor do I think she got that from anyone other than her parents.

Besides, I realize this seems wise from a distance.

It's the cleaner option, after all. None of the controversy, none of the firing.

He'd also have had to live with all his wounds in private. He would've had to watch her be loved and admired for the beautiful person she pretends to be, while knowing how cruel she is inside.

He would've had to stand by and watch as more people fell for her trap, fell for her image, and got hurt by her reality.

He would've been powerless as she created more victims, because no one was forewarned.

Abusers live by the power of divide and conquer.

And regardless of all of this, it wasn't his choice anyway. He tried to walk the cleaner route, but *she kept smearing him*.

Her op-ed, speeches at the women's march, she kept going at him.

Should he have let her?

That she shouldn't have done this, we can probably all agree on. But if you take *her* actions as part of your reasoning why it's defensible that *he* got fired, whether you intend this or not, that is what victim-blaming is.

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes, privacy would have been the cleaner route. But life isn't clean, and sometimes things need to get messy. I think of all who risked their careers airing out all the Hollywood rot in the Me Too-movement, and wonder if you would also tell them it's all best kept private.

Johnny Depp has brought unprecedented awareness to male abuse victims. You can't break such barriers without going at them with a sledgehammer. We had hoped that Warner Bros would have kept standing by him as he did so.

The bottom line in this story is not the movie. It's not money. It's demanding a world worth living in, and that includes justice for male abuse victims.

#JusticeForJohnnyDepp
#AmberHeardIsAnAbuser
#BoycottFantasticBeasts
#BoycottWarnerBros
#BoycottAquaman2