Cas Stark Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Just now, DMC said: None of this has anything to do with your original point - which was simply how much damage specifying the person would do vs. not. Further, it's a huge ass assumption to think them going into further detail on all of what you just discussed would cause less damage. Distinct possibility it'd cause much more. IMO, the royal family would be better off to get in front of it, rather than have the racial sword of Damocles hanging over their heads until such times as the person's identity is leaked, which will absolutely happen sooner or later. If it was something truly awful, let the person apologize and move on from there. If it was a 'recollections may vary' situation where the intent/content might be viewed differently, then give the speaker's perspective and let the chips fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Cas Stark said: IMO, the royal family would be better off to get in front of it I agree. Not holding my breath though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cas Stark Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 minute ago, DMC said: I agree. Not holding my breath though. Yeah, well, we all know that isn't the way QEII works. Even the extremely muted responses so far...leaking of the bullying claims, a statement from the queen!!! and William directly answering a question!!! Those tepid actions are actually crazy aggressive by royal standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 3 hours ago, Cas Stark said: Thereby sparking an international 'who was it' game, with only his grandparents exonerated as potential suspects. A cynical person might conclude that the way this accusation was made public was calculated to maximize damage to the family. A cynical person would be correct. Raising the issue in this manner is both cowardly and malicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 3 hours ago, Cas Stark said: Yeah, well, we all know that isn't the way QEII works. Even the extremely muted responses so far...leaking of the bullying claims, a statement from the queen!!! and William directly answering a question!!! Those tepid actions are actually crazy aggressive by royal standards. Oh yes, it might sound like the Queen is doing nothing but this is actually pretty forceful stuff. Her statement that ‘recollections may vary ‘ is coded language for ‘buuuuuuullshiiiit mate!’ 37 minutes ago, SeanF said: A cynical person would be correct. Raising the issue in this manner is both cowardly and malicious. Absolutely. The whole wink wink nudge nudge of it, ‘ oh I couldn’t possibly say it was racist.. but it was’ element of it, the way they wouldn’t clarify the context or who it was is really a deliberate act of revenge. Everything about the interview was designed to extract maximum impact, publicity and sympathy. Not sure they got the last part right though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 28 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Absolutely. The whole wink wink nudge nudge of it, ‘ oh I couldn’t possibly say it was racist.. but it was’ element of it, the way they wouldn’t clarify the context or who it was is really a deliberate act of revenge. Everything about the interview was designed to extract maximum impact, publicity and sympathy. Not sure they got the last part right though I really get a kick out of how deluded some of y'all are. If they were really intent on weaponizing it as "a deliberate act of revenge to extract maximum impact," then the best and most obvious way to do so would have been to name names and detail the context - from their perspective. Supposing otherwise is simply laughably ignorant of how PR actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 23 minutes ago, DMC said: I really get a kick out of how deluded some of y'all are. If they were really intent on weaponizing it as "a deliberate act of revenge to extract maximum impact," then the best and most obvious way to do so would have been to name names and detail the context - from their perspective. Supposing otherwise is simply laughably ignorant of how PR actually works. Yeah that would be the most damaging of course. But then also it would have needed to have actually happened and happened in the way they said it did. Much easier to just fart out a vague accusation and let people make their own conclusions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Heartofice said: But then also it would have needed to have actually happened and happened in the way they said it did. Why? If they're lying about it - and their intent is malicious (which..obviously it would be if they're lying) - then there's no reason not to lie about it in further detail. It's not like any side can "prove" anything either way when it comes to private conversations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 minute ago, DMC said: Why? If they're lying about it - and their intent is malicious (which..obviously it would be if they're lying) - then there's no reason not to lie about it in further detail. It's not like any side can "prove" anything either way when it comes to private conversations. Really? That’s a strange opinion. It’s of course much easier to get away with making vague accusations that cannot be denied if you don’t give actual detail. And really there was no reason to not go into detail if it actually happened. Had they said the exact circumstances and who said what exactly then there could be a proper examination of the issue. I’m sure they both know the charges are quite the nonsense and that is why they tried to dance around anything like detail and instead try to bring it back to their own ‘personal truth’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Heartofice said: And really there was no reason to not go into detail if it actually happened. I think the reason not to name names or go into further detail is fairly obvious - so as to not cause further damage. 2 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Had they said the exact circumstances and who said what exactly then there could be a proper examination of the issue. "Further examination" would still boil down to a "he said, he/she said" situation. Unless there were somehow recordings of it. In which case it'd be pretty dumb to lie about it in the first place. 5 minutes ago, Heartofice said: I’m sure they both know the charges are quite the nonsense and that is why they tried to dance around anything like detail and instead try to bring it back to their own ‘personal truth’ LOL, yeah it's so totally unbelievable a Windsor said something racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Your line of reasoning is quite frankly bizarrely confused. If there was any part of them that was worried about causing damage then they wouldn’t have brought up an incident which quite frankly could and probably is a case of someone saying something stupid and misinterpretation, whilst letting the accusation of racism just hang in the air. If they genuinely believed what they were saying and saw it as a serious incident then they should and would name names and give some actual gods honest detail about it. They didn’t do that. Probably because they can’t. Along with a number of other sly comments in the interview it’s quite clear that garnering sympathy and getting revenge on the royal family ( whilst cleverly making sure not to trash the Queen herself lol) was the main outcome hoped for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Heartofice said: Your line of reasoning is quite frankly bizarrely confused. Only to those deluded into thinking being accused of racism is worse than racism. 11 minutes ago, Heartofice said: If there was any part of them that was worried about causing damage then they wouldn’t have brought up an incident which quite frankly could and probably is a case of someone saying something stupid and misinterpretation, whilst letting the accusation of racism just hang in the air. Or, maybe they were very hurt by the racist comments - which any normal person would be coming from family - and they wanted to express that while causing as little damage as possible. 7 minutes ago, Heartofice said: If they genuinely believed what they were saying and saw it as a serious incident then they should and would name names and give some actual gods honest detail about it. They didn’t do that. Probably because they can’t. Along with a number of other sly comments in the interview it’s quite clear that garnering sympathy and getting revenge on the royal family ( whilst cleverly making sure not to trash the Queen herself lol) was the main outcome hoped for. Again, this is ridiculously garbled absurd logic. "They're lying to exact revenge, and the best way to do this is to..somehow hold back and not name names or go into salacious detail. Cuz that'll show em!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 50 minutes ago, Heartofice said: Yeah that would be the most damaging of course. But then also it would have needed to have actually happened and happened in the way they said it did. Much easier to just fart out a vague accusation and let people make their own conclusions In general, it’s for the person making an allegation to provide proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heartofice Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 13 minutes ago, DMC said: Only to those deluded into thinking being accused of racism is worse than racism. Ugh, honestly? Who is arguing that? What kind of strawman are you whipping out here? 13 minutes ago, DMC said: Or, maybe they were very hurt by the racist comments - which any normal person would be coming from family - and they wanted to express that while causing as little damage as possible. Ok I really just want you to take some time out and think about what you just said here. Think about it. Do you think there is any world in which you can accuse the Royal Family of racism, whilst causing very little damage? Its nonsense. If your concern is not causing damage you dont go and meet Oprah and let the world know. 13 minutes ago, DMC said: Again, this is ridiculously garbled absurd logic. "They're lying to exact revenge, and the best way to do this is to..somehow hold back and not name names or go into salacious detail. Cuz that'll show em!" Its pretty simple. They are probabaly telling half truths, because the actual truth is far more mundane and less damaging. If you outright lie about something then those lies can easily be exposed. You can't get accused of lying if you don't really say anything too exact, it can all be held up as someones 'personal truth' which is worth more than facts anyway. Meghan didn't even have the courage to say it was racism, she just doesn't know, she wasn't even there. But she didn't correct Oprah when she put that perspective on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.