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

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

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

You're probably right, but that's my point. Change one or more of those conditions and this playes out differently. How they are weighted is an open question. That doesn't diminish the fact that racism is at play here. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

You're probably right, but that's my point. Change one or more of those conditions and this playes out differently. How they are weighted is an open question. That doesn't diminish the fact that racism is at play here. 

It's the main thing at play. Mentioning the other stuff is just exploring even more bigotry that could be at play, but race is the biggest factor for many. 

[Wall Flower]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

See my previous post about money. 

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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?

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. 

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

There does seem to be a certain irony in Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson criticising anyone else for being a self-promoting narcissist (even if I bought that view of Meghan).

I absolutely agree that other women joining the Royal family have been brutally targeted by the press. I just don't get why that's an argument for perpetuating the cycle or how this time it must be all Meghan's fault.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

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?

Not to mention how much more photogenic the much younger Meghan is!

I haven't watched the Netflix docu she and her husband have made, but the garbage media -- including whole sections of the Guardian -- can't leave it alone, and haven't for weeks even before it came out, so whether or not one wants to know about what's in it, one has no choice -- at least not someone who does, and is to a large degree required, to keep track of what the blob media is paying attention to and tracking.  (Not the internet media, thank god!  I wouldn't have been able to survive doing fb, twit, insta and all the rest of them!)

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

32 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

There does seem to be a certain irony in Piers Morgan and Jeremy Clarkson criticising anyone else for being a self-promoting narcissist (even if I bought that view of Meghan).

I absolutely agree that other women joining the Royal family have been brutally targeted by the press. I just don't get why that's an argument for perpetuating the cycle or how this time it must be all Meghan's fault.

There has never been an Englishman more in love with the sound of his own voice than either of them; and that's saying something. I'm pretty sure Jeremy comes whenever he quotes Churchill. Piers of course is incapable of climaxing. 

And yeah, "they've all gone through it" is a shitty excuse. We're not talking about an environmental phenomenon here. There are actual people behind this. There are actual people benefitting from this.

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not to mention how much more photogenic the much younger Meghan is!

Camilla has been criticized for hosting Clarkson and Morgan at some celebrity lunch just before Clarkson dropped that insane op ed.

Hold on to yourselves because this is about to get fancy. 

 

[Zorral]

8 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

this is about to get fancy. 

So, you all over there don't think this is going to go away?  That like the Daily Beast these jerkwaddies, inside the garbage media, and in outside venues like tea in the palace, are going to keep lying about Harry and Meghan and their family forever and ever?

Yet, they were actually nice to the nazi Edward and his actually dreadful wife.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

30 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Yet, they were actually nice to the nazi Edward and his actually dreadful wife.

Pre-war, fascism was incredibly popular among the English upper class. Media too.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Pre-war, fascism was incredibly popular among the English upper class. Media too.

I imagine it still is, just not talked about since that Adolf fellow just had to go and put anti-semitism out on display and ruin it for everyone.

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

Not to mention how much more photogenic the much younger Meghan is!

So easy to forget the nasty stuff that was continuously said about Camilla after Diana died, how ugly she was, how she was some disgusting looking home wrecker. 

Then you have Fergie, who was called fat, stupid, badly dressed, there was the whole toe sucking thing, she was followed everywhere.

Diana was basically killed by the press.

This isn’t excusing what the press did, it’s the opposite. But it’s contradicting Meghans attempt to depict her treatment by the press as exceptional due to her race. It isn’t. The race card makes zero sense at all given what a good reception she got for so long from the press. 
 

And in a country with an Asian prime minister and politicians like Priti Patel, Kwarteng and Badenoch, it’s just a bizarre criticism that it would be the person who’s own agent wasn’t even aware was mixed race, that would be the one to receive racist press coverage. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I imagine it still is, just not talked about since that Adolf fellow just had to go and put anti-semitism out on display and ruin it for everyone.

Oh, I'm sure the upper classes in 1930's England were cool with that as well. Middle and lower classes as well. And not just England. 

This is the things that gets me when I see stuff like, "how did hitler bring Germany under his spell? how did Germany go so crazy?" Motherfucker, Mein Kampf was translated into a dozen languages. It was a world wide best seller. It wasn't just Germany. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So easy to forget the nasty stuff that was continuously said about Camilla after Diana died, how ugly she was, how she was some disgusting looking home wrecker. 

Then you have Fergie, who was called fat, stupid, badly dressed, there was the whole toe sucking thing, she was followed everywhere.

Diana was basically killed by the press.

You're right. She's overreacting. Megan should be grateful. "The media hasn't killed me yet." Good job, media.

The people you listed, how much online harassment did they receive? Oh, that's right, that wasn't a thing back then. Dailymail.com? Launched in 2003. Twitter? nope. Anti-Diana youtube channels? What's a "youtube"?

And none of the examples you mention justify the treatment she received, or, preclude race as motivating that treatment, even if only partially. Sorry.  

Quote

This isn’t excusing what the press did, it’s the opposite. But it’s contradicting Meghans attempt to depict her treatment by the press as exceptional due to her race. It isn’t. The race card makes zero sense at all given what a good reception she got for so long from the press. 

What's this endless epoch you refer to when Megan was treated so well by the press? She basically got a few months of mixed coverage during the engagement that trended strongly positive during the few weeks bracketing the wedding. That's it. And that was almost 5 years ago. Of course, that didn't stop the English media from giving her insane half-sister a platform every chance they got. 

Quote

And in a country with an Asian prime minister and politicians like Priti Patel, Kwarteng and Badenoch, it’s just a bizarre criticism that it would be the person who’s own agent wasn’t even aware was mixed race, that would be the one to receive racist press coverage. 

Sunak is British PM is because the incompetent, unqualified white woman the Tories initially chose over him was a complete disaster. It was a choice between Sunak or reinstating Boris Johnson. No one else is stupid enough to want the job and the Tories are terrified of calling an election. Call it what it is.

And none of those people you mentioned have married into the royal family, have they? No cheeky articles mentioning Sunak's "exotic DNA"? It's fine. 

[Denvek]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

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’

You're unsure why I would consider someone who opposes trans people having the same rights as they do anti-trans? I know you enjoy being deliberately antagonistic on here, but you're not stupid.

How would you define the terms "anti trans" and "gender critical"?

[Heartofice]

35 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

You're right. She's overreacting. Megan should be grateful. "The media hasn't killed me yet." Good job, media.

The people you listed, how much online harassment did they receive? Oh, that's right, that wasn't a thing back then. Dailymail.com? Launched in 2003. Twitter? nope. Anti-Diana youtube channels? What's a "youtube"?

And none of the examples you mention justify the treatment she received, or, preclude race as motivating that treatment,

This is a big, so what. You think because Twitter didn't exist back then that their lives were totally easy and it's a walk in the park. Get out of here man seriously.
 

36 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

What's this endless epoch you refer to when Megan was treated so well by the press? She basically got a few months of mixed coverage during the engagement that trended strongly positive during the few weeks bracketing the wedding. That's it. And that was almost 5 years ago. Of course, that didn't stop the English media from giving her insane half-sister a platform every chance they got. 

Point being she was overwhelmingly positively received when she arrived. The press LOVED her. The public LOVED her. This all despite this mythical racism. Its a real problem for her narrative because if the backlash was racially motivated then there would have been a backlash as soon as she arrived, but it never happened.

38 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Sunak is British PM is because the incompetent, unqualified white woman the Tories initially chose over him was a complete disaster. It was a choice between Sunak or reinstating Boris Johnson. No one else is stupid enough to want the job and the Tories are terrified of calling an election. Call it what it is.

And none of those people you mentioned have married into the royal family, have they? No cheeky articles mentioning Sunak's "exotic DNA"? It's fine. 

Again. What is this argument? I'm not sure what you are even trying to do here. Where is this racist backlash to Sunak in the press? Where is the racist backlash to Patel, Badenoch or any other the very many other minority Tories? It isn't happening and it's just another bit of reality to throw cold water on Meghan's victim complex. The race thing is an entire fiction created by her because in her circles it's probably the first tool in your arsenal if you get bad press, it's the Hollywood thing to do.

[Varysblackfyre321]

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Thanks. By that definition I know very few gender critical people who would have a problem with that at all.

Oh now you’re just lying dude lol.

Some Terfs have kept the act of civility up, but many, like Rowling, they think recognizing trans people as their gender is dangerous and ludicrous and have made legal pushes to insure trans people don’t get gender affirmative treatment, changes to their legal documentation(birth certificates) to better fit their identity.

 

Hey does any remember that crazy terf who ranted on Twitter  for days about children’s book character being referred to as a they? She made multiple tweets on how the existence of the character was an attack on mothers and speculated on the characters genitals?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Denvek said:

You're unsure why I would consider someone who opposes trans people having the same rights as they do anti-trans? I know you enjoy being deliberately antagonistic on here, but you're not stupid.

How would you define the terms "anti trans" and "gender critical"?

Oh I’m guessing he realizes he can’t really try defining being gender critical isn’t bigoted without just arguing for  bigoted things.

Like people who say they’re race-realists instead of racists.
oh It should be noted  a lot of Terfs are racist. And homophobic. And generally misogynistic.

 

HOI will insist gender critical/=anti-trans without defining the grievances explicitly.

Because the grievances when spoken often sound bigoted and upon inspection are.

 

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Sunak is British PM is because the incompetent, unqualified white woman

This sort of thing reminds me of US conservatives how can America have a racism problem? They elected a black guy. Twice! 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

This is a big, so what. You think because Twitter didn't exist back then that their lives were totally easy and it's a walk in the park. Get out of here man seriously.

Not remotely what I was saying and you know it. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Point being she was overwhelmingly positively received when she arrived. The press LOVED her. The public LOVED her. This all despite this mythical racism. Its a real problem for her narrative because if the backlash was racially motivated then there would have been a backlash as soon as she arrived, but it never happened.

The Daily mail hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her almost immediately after the engagement announcement, good morning Britain and several tabloids platformed Samantha Markle Grant before the wedding. The "exotic DNA" crack and the narrative of her mother raising her in a crime ridden slum started before the wedding. The bullshit about her wedding demands started before the wedding. The coverage of her during the engagement was mixed, at best. This, "they were cool to her for sooooo long" bullshit is bullshit. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Again. What is this argument? I'm not sure what you are even trying to do here. Where is this racist backlash to Sunak in the press? Where is the racist backlash to Patel, Badenoch or any other the very many other minority Tories? It isn't happening and it's just another bit of reality to throw cold water on Meghan's victim complex. The race thing is an entire fiction created by her because in her circles it's probably the first tool in your arsenal if you get bad press, it's the Hollywood thing to do.

Again what? I just responded to your response. 

I'll spell it out for you: pointing at Sunak or any other Brit POC does not prove there is no racism in the UK and does nothing to disprove claims of racism against Markel. Get it?

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

I'll spell it out for you: pointing at Sunak or any other Brit POC does not prove there is no racism in the UK and does nothing to disprove claims of racism against Markel. Get it?

 

 perhaps this will get through to him.

@Heartofice Boris Johnson only a couple months ago was PM. He was a cis-het white guy and he didn’t face that much opposition from the press in the beginning of PMsip. I’m assuming you’d frown at the insinuation that there’s no hard bias against cis-het  white men in general  due to how Boris was treated.

 

There isn’t but hopefully you understand why  your argument for why racism against non-white people in Britain isn't a major issue is just dumb. 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

So Reform is now sitting at 7% after Nigel Farage complained about Britian becoming  less white.

 

[mormont]

Re: defining 'gender critical', this goes back to a previous post about 'gender ideology'. 'GC' people adopt that name because they are critical of what they claim is the 'ideology' of gender, specifically the idea that one can have a gender different from one's biological sex assigned at birth. That's what the term 'gender critical' means.

Inherently, therefore, it means that GC people deny the validity of trans people's identity. This manifests in a range of activity from deadnaming, misgendering, and harassing trans people to campaigning against recognition of trans people's gender identity (legal or otherwise), denying them access to gender-based services, and trying to ban gender-affirming treatment (medical or otherwise).

I would say that's pretty anti-trans, to the point where the terms are interchangeable. It certainly doesn't fit with Denvek's earlier statement: I'd say that if you're GC, by definition you can't be OK with allowing trans people to exist in their preferred gender in the public sphere, because you believe that identity to be invalid. I'm sure there are people who sympathise with GC views who would wish to believe otherwise. But words mean things, and that's what it means to be 'gender critical'.

[Spockydog]

What next?

"I'm not racist, I'm just melanin critical."