Jump to content

UK Politics: Mone, Mone, Mone. It's not funny. It's a rich toff's world.


Spockydog

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That's like saying there are no racists, just white supremacists. 

Kind of like saying there are no fascists, no misogynists, no xtian domiinionists, no neolibjohngalters, no nazis, only deplorables who disagree with their platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Harry and Megan have done nothing to deserve this level of constant abuse and harassment from the UK tabloid press. 

What are you talking about? OMFG THE WHITE PRINCE FUCKED A BLACK WOMAN AND THEN MARRIED HER!!! These are high crimes!!!

Oh, wait, it's not 1622. Well shit... The way the British press has responded to these two is disgusting. They deserve to get torn down every bit as much as the monarchy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

There are no anti trans people at the guardian. There might be some gender critical people ( although some have left) but there are no ‘anti trans’. Please stop using that term, it’s silly.

All the people I see on the internet call who call themselves gender critical seem to be anti trans, and if there are some who aren't they're very bad at explaining what the difference between the two positions is (and what, if anything, is the difference between being GC and being a TERF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Denvek said:

All the people I see on the internet call who call themselves gender critical seem to be anti trans, and if there are some who aren't they're very bad at explaining what the difference between the two positions is (and what, if anything, is the difference between being GC and being a TERF)

What’s your definition of ‘anti trans’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What are you talking about? OMFG THE WHITE PRINCE FUCKED A BLACK WOMAN AND THEN MARRIED HER!!! These are high crimes!!!

Oh, wait, it's not 1622. Well shit... The way the British press has responded to these two is disgusting. They deserve to get torn down every bit as much as the monarchy. 

See, this is where I diverge from the Megan-critics critics. I don't think it's about race.

That is, it isn't entirely about race. Race is only a part of it.

  • She isn't English, British or even European. She's American. She's a foreigner; at a time when anti immigrant sentiment was on the rise in the UK.
  • She doesn't have a drop of noble or upper class blood in her body. She comes from relatively humble origins. On her mothers side, much more so. In a system obsessed with class, that matters. This is where accusations of "social climber" come from. Although, given that the royal family outranks everyone in that country, anyone who marries into it is a social climber; by definition. 
  • She had a life before she met Harry. A public life and personna. This stands in contrast to other royal wives. 
  • She's somewhat more outspoken when it comes to social justice issues than other royals. Aside from her, have any of them ever uttered the name "George Floyd?"
  • And yes, she's mixed race.

Any one of these things could probably slide. All of them together; she's a perfect storm of stuff that pisses off hardcore nationalistic pro-monarchists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denvek said:

All the people I see on the internet call who call themselves gender critical seem to be anti trans, and if there are some who aren't they're very bad at explaining what the difference between the two positions is (and what, if anything, is the difference between being GC and being a TERF)

I think the main difference is a lot of people who identify as GC are probably not feminists and definitely not radical feminists, such people would never use "feminist" to describe anything about their philosophy or ideology. The convergence of TERFs and people who are anti-trans conservatives and / or toxic masculinists is an enemy of my enemy situation, it seems to me. It's kind of an insult to TERFs to call, say, Ben Shapiro a TERF. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

I think the main difference is a lot of people who identify as GC are probably not feminists and definitely not radical feminists, such people would never use "feminist" to describe anything about their philosophy or ideology. The convergence of TERFs and people who are anti-trans conservatives and / or toxic masculinists is an enemy of my enemy situation, it seems to me. It's kind of an insult to TERFs to call, say, Ben Shapiro a TERF.

According to TERFs, calling them TERFs is an insult. Virtually nobody voluntarily claims the label these days. So the point is moot.

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

See, this is where I diverge from the Megan-critics critics. I don't think it's about race.

That is, it isn't entirely about race. Race is only a part of it.

  • She isn't English, British or even European. She's American. She's a foreigner; at a time when anti immigrant sentiment was on the rise in the UK.
  • She doesn't have a drop of noble or upper class blood in her body. She comes from relatively humble origins. On her mothers side, much more so. In a system obsessed with class, that matters. This is where accusations of "social climber" come from. Although, given that the royal family outranks everyone in that country, anyone who marries into it is a social climber; by definition. 
  • She had a life before she met Harry. A public life and personna. This stands in contrast to other royal wives. 
  • She's somewhat more outspoken when it comes to social justice issues than other royals. Aside from her, have any of them ever uttered the name "George Floyd?"
  • And yes, she's mixed race.

Any one of these things could probably slide. All of them together; she's a perfect storm of stuff that pisses off hardcore nationalistic pro-monarchists. 

Intersectionality is a concept with which a lot of the right have no truck. The idea that someone may face racism because they are a mixed race foreign woman is dismissed because hey. it's not solely because of her race, so it isn't racism. Nuance and complexity isn't allowed. Racism has to be obvious, conscious, direct and solely due to race, or it doesn't count and isn't there.

The trouble is, the world is a complex, nuanced place, particularly when it comes to prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denvek said:

Opposing the rights of trans people to freely participate in the public sphere as their chosen gender.

Great. Thanks. By that definition I know very few gender critical people who would have a problem with that at all. So I am not sure why you or anyone else would define them as ‘anti trans’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

See, this is where I diverge from the Megan-critics critics. I don't think it's about race.

That is, it isn't entirely about race. Race is only a part of it.

  • She isn't English, British or even European. She's American. She's a foreigner; at a time when anti immigrant sentiment was on the rise in the UK.
  • She doesn't have a drop of noble or upper class blood in her body. She comes from relatively humble origins. On her mothers side, much more so. In a system obsessed with class, that matters. This is where accusations of "social climber" come from. Although, given that the royal family outranks everyone in that country, anyone who marries into it is a social climber; by definition. 
  • She had a life before she met Harry. A public life and personna. This stands in contrast to other royal wives. 
  • She's somewhat more outspoken when it comes to social justice issues than other royals. Aside from her, have any of them ever uttered the name "George Floyd?"
  • And yes, she's mixed race.

Any one of these things could probably slide. All of them together; she's a perfect storm of stuff that pisses off hardcore nationalistic pro-monarchists. 

 

So look, I do think there is an element of her being an uber woke Hollywood actress that irritates the press, and a lot of brits. But I think there are a lot of reasons why the press turned against her.

Also, this is an important point, opinion of her was very very positive to start off with, the press loved her, the country was very happy she was marrying Harry, it was all very pro Meghan. That really just seems to wreck the narrative she is attempting to portray.

Opinion tended to turn on her more and more after every one of her attention grabbing antics, each new story of her being difficult and a diva, bringing staff to tears, making Kate cry. 

And sure the way she seems to have turned Harry from the lovable rogue of the royals into some sad looking lapdog ,I’m sure annoys people. 
His moving away from the royal family is seen as mostly motivated by her, he’s just doing what she wants ‘Meghan gets what Meghan wants’ I think is a direct quote from Harry. It’s Wallace Simpson all over again. 

Most of all though I think she embodies almost every single negative quality Brits perceive about Hollywood. She’s self obsessed, narcissistic and manipulative, she makes hollow noises about social justice to make herself appear saintly, she’s a liar, she’s fake, she tries to appear down to Earth but is anything but. She treats people badly but puts in enormous efforts to portray herself as a victim.

I think also that the more she fights back about negative stories the more the press go after her, she’s made it into a war. The press aren’t used to it. A point that often gets forgotten is that the press have gone after almost every female entrant into the royal family. Camilla who is now seen as establishment was absolutely wrecked by the press in her time, the horrific things they said about her seemingly forgotten. Then there is Fergie.. and of course Diana.

 

Meghan getting negative press is hardly unusual, in fact she had it far better than many others, but her attempt to make herself exceptional or somehow special is only making things worse. 
 

It’s like the more she shouts ‘why don’t you like me!!!’ .. the less likeable she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

See, this is where I diverge from the Megan-critics critics. I don't think it's about race.

That is, it isn't entirely about race. Race is only a part of it.

  • She isn't English, British or even European. She's American. She's a foreigner; at a time when anti immigrant sentiment was on the rise in the UK.
  • She doesn't have a drop of noble or upper class blood in her body. She comes from relatively humble origins. On her mothers side, much more so. In a system obsessed with class, that matters. This is where accusations of "social climber" come from. Although, given that the royal family outranks everyone in that country, anyone who marries into it is a social climber; by definition. 
  • She had a life before she met Harry. A public life and personna. This stands in contrast to other royal wives. 
  • She's somewhat more outspoken when it comes to social justice issues than other royals. Aside from her, have any of them ever uttered the name "George Floyd?"
  • And yes, she's mixed race.

Any one of these things could probably slide. All of them together; she's a perfect storm of stuff that pisses off hardcore nationalistic pro-monarchists. 

What does it say about the UK press when you have to ask if they're being disgusting towards a person because of their race, gender, country of origin, class, profession or all of the above? Not a great look any way you want to slice it.

And her race is probably the biggest hang up. Do we think this all plays out the same if Harry married Amanda Seyfried? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Most of all though I think she embodies almost every single negative quality Brits perceive about Hollywood. She’s self obsessed, narcissistic and manipulative, she makes hollow noises about social justice to make herself appear saintly, she’s a liar, she’s fake, she tries to appear down to Earth but is anything but. She treats people badly but puts in enormous efforts to portray herself as a victim.

So even if this was 100% true, which I don't believe it is, what you're describing is a...royal. Funny that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

even if this was 100% true

Funny that too, how nobody seems to have noticed that all the reasons justifying hating Meghan are more than likely, if not only exaggerations, are downright planted lies?  Particularly considering the sources for these stories are the Brit garbage press which has had for decades a close relationship with the palace HR.  And here Daily Beast, which is pretty much garbage media too, existing to flog paid product reviews.

It does make a person wonder why the Beast, which is supposedly a piece of the US garbage media, has had for years and years every single day, even before the wedding, trashing the woman for being mean to the royals.  It still goes on.  That and Harry being mean to 1) William; 2) his dad; Camilla; etc.  Not to mention Meghan poor daddy.

After all, those tours on which she went with Harry -- the press in those countries loved her, as did the crowds, it seems, by-and-large.  However Willian and Kate in the Caribbean ... not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm heartened to hear that gender crit people are fully supportive of trans-people (in particular trans-women) participating in sports and using public rest rooms according to their personal gender identity. Or does "freely participate in the public sphere as their chosen gender" mean different things to different people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So look, I do think there is an element of her being an uber woke Hollywood actress that irritates the press, and a lot of brits. But I think there are a lot of reasons why the press turned against her.

Also, this is an important point, opinion of her was very very positive to start off with, the press loved her, the country was very happy she was marrying Harry, it was all very pro Meghan. That really just seems to wreck the narrative she is attempting to portray.

See my previous post about money. 

Quote

Opinion tended to turn on her more and more after every one of her attention grabbing antics, each new story of her being difficult and a diva, bringing staff to tears, making Kate cry. 

They are only "attention grabbing" because the tabloids spin it that way.  Lord knows they would never print rumor or innuendo. And they would certainly never print anything untrue.

One of the biggest bombshells that came from the Oprah interview was Harry's belief that the tabloid press are partly responsible for his mothers death. Was there even a word of comment about that from anyone in the UK? 

And of course the UK tabloids won't mention the lawsuits the Sussexes brought against them (and won) after no longer being bound by the terms of the Royal Rota. That's not newsworthy I guess.

Quote

And sure the way she seems to have turned Harry from the lovable rogue of the royals into some sad looking lapdog ,I’m sure annoys people. 
His moving away from the royal family is seen as mostly motivated by her, he’s just doing what she wants ‘Meghan gets what Meghan wants’ I think is a direct quote from Harry. It’s Wallace Simpson all over again. 

Harry dealt with this noise his whole life and I'm sure he didn't need that much of a shove. They are capable of making those decisions together. Unless you're suggesting he's lying in the portions of the documentary where he discusses the way their exit was negotiated with the royals; negotiations for which Megan wasn't even in the country when they took place. Will the tabloids print that? Doubt it.

And this isn't close to Wallace Simpson. Harry isn't the King for one thing. He isn't even the heir. He's 5th in the line of succession at the moment.  He isn't abandoning his country on the eve of war and neither of them are colluding with fascists. And I guarantee you, once Edward abdicated, the press coverage of those two, if there was any, was far more flattering. 

Quote

I think also that the more she fights back about negative stories the more the press go after her, she’s made it into a war. The press aren’t used to it.

They ran stories about her baby bump being fake and the Grenfell Fire victims being linked to ISIS. They publicly accused her of lying when she said there were times when she considered ending her life. And don't even get me started on "celebrity psychologists" or "body language experts". Fuck the tabloid press. I hope she demolishes them.

Quote

A point that often gets forgotten is that the press have gone after almost every female entrant into the royal family. Camilla who is now seen as establishment was absolutely wrecked by the press in her time, the horrific things they said about her seemingly forgotten. Then there is Fergie.. and of course Diana.

Tittle tattle about Camilla doesn't sell papers anymore. And why would they go after the Queen consort when they have Megan to beat up on?

Quote

Meghan getting negative press is hardly unusual, in fact she had it far better than many others, but her attempt to make herself exceptional or somehow special is only making things worse.

Who has had it worse? Dianna maybe? We know how that turned out.

When they were staying on Vancouver Island; out of sight, out of mind, they were there maybe a few weeks before the English tabloid press showed up. What did they do to provoke that? The weekend she was back in the UK for QE's funeral there were literally hundreds of negative articles about her. What did she do to provoke that? Just being there?

Quote

It’s like the more she shouts ‘why don’t you like me!!!’ .. the less likeable she is.

She's putting out her own counter narrative to what the tabloids are putting out. They want to cry foul? Fuck them. I hope Harry can get 5 minutes alone with Jeremy Clarkson in a room with no windows. 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

So even if this was 100% true, which I don't believe it is, what you're describing is a...royal. Funny that. 

I was going to say, "Piers Morgan", but yeah, sure.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm heartened to hear that gender crit people are fully supportive of trans-people (in particular trans-women) participating in sports and using public rest rooms according to their personal gender identity. Or does "freely participate in the public sphere as their chosen gender" mean different things to different people?

Right...

Gender-critical feminism is a euphemism for TERF. Rejecting the concept of 'gender identity' and believing that people belong to the sex assigned at birth. 

If you identify as gender critical or trans-exclusionary feminist then you do not believe in the bold line at the end of @Denvek's post "Opposing the rights of trans people to freely participate in the public sphere as their chosen gender." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 That and Harry being mean to 1) William; 2) his dad; Camilla; etc. 

These people are touched by god with special blood. How could you ever think they'd be mean and flawed!?!?!?!?

9 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I was going to say, "Piers Morgan", but yeah, sure.  

Awful as he is most royals are a lot worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Funny that too, how nobody seems to have noticed that all the reasons justifying hating Meghan are more than likely, if not only exaggerations, are downright planted lies?  Particularly considering the sources for these stories are the Brit garbage press which has had for decades a close relationship with the palace HR.  And here Daily Beast, which is pretty much garbage media too, existing to flog paid product reviews.

It does make a person wonder why the Beast, which is supposedly a piece of the US garbage media, has had for years and years every single day, even before the wedding, trashing the woman for being mean to the royals.  It still goes on.  That and Harry being mean to 1) William; 2) his dad; Camilla; etc.  Not to mention Meghan poor daddy.

After all, those tours on which she went with Harry -- the press in those countries loved her, as did the crowds, it seems, by-and-large.  However Willian and Kate in the Caribbean ... not so much.

One of the things that they sort of hint at in the documentary is the possibility that some of the "republic energy" from nations like Barbados and Jamaica might have something to do with the UK press' treatment of the first modern royal who's a POC. 

I think that's a bit of stretch. But I also realize that, regarding Megan's treatment by the English tabloids, the perceptions of nations within the commonwealth that have majority POC populations were totally off my radar.

This also came became abundantly clear following the death of the Queen. There are a lot of people out there who fucking hate the British Monarchy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

This also came became abundantly clear following the death of the Queen. There are a lot of people out there who fucking hate the British Monarchy. 

People have long memories. Especially when it comes to things like subjugation and genocide.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...