Amber Heard, Israel and Darvo

[Image Credit]

Johnny Depp's lawsuit against Amber Heard was probably the most prominence that the concept of DARVO got in the general public. Or rather not the general public (since a lot of them believed Depp) but those who had an idea of what was actually happening.

DARVO stands for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, and is a standard MO for an abuser who has been accused of abuse. This doesn't mean all abusers do this but a lot do. And it works a lot of the time. There are lots of factors including our systemic bias but I think part of it is the social contract. If someone says something very strongly (including a denial), we are inclined to believe them. Our template for lying doesn't account well for open, brazen lying against the evidence. I think this has helped shape the public reaction to the Depp/Heard trial too, since the evidence that Depp was a long term abuser was in my opinion absolutely overwhelming.

I think DARVO can help explain the moral rage I've been feeling at the vast majority of pro-Israel talking points. There's something in common here. The more overwhelming the evidence the angrier the denials and the more likely it is that the accusation is turned around against the accusers. Thus, despite the fact that the Israeli government has admitted to not letting in aid multiple times -- and being confirmed by pretty much every aid agency working on the ground -- not only are the acusations denied but the acuser is accused of blood libel or some such.

Now I've seen the DARVO accusations made against people who are demanding that Israel stop its genocide, but to me that mainly proves that any rhetorical term that's out there in the discourse can and will be weaponised in bad faith.

Of course me accusing of Israel and its supporters of DARVO doesn't by itself prove the case. I'm just providing a psychological explanation of my own anger and sense of injustice. Another term you could use (if I may steal from Zionists) is the "inversion of morality" since that's certainly been going on as well.

Knowing about DARVO by itself doesn't guarantee that we'll be immune to it. The evidential aspect of the accusation is of course the main part, and prematurely applying psychological explanations to your opponent is dehumanising. But knowing that it's there at least tells us that we need to be aware of the tacit assumptions of our social contract. That sometimes people can be vocally and angrily denying something for which there is overwhelming evidence, even when that evidence is right in front of you. Because sometimes it works.

And that means that we should be ready to examine every assumption of the social contract for bad-faith misuse.