Spare a Moment for H&M Part 2

[SeanF]

22 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I really have to wonder what it is about Meghan that means people aren't allowed to dislike her? Really, why are words like 'disgusting' used for those who criticise her? 

If I think someone is a narcissistic, self serving, attention grabbing... bad person... is it a crime to express that view? 

Plus I think the conversation would stop dead if it wasn't for a bunch of people trying to ringfence and critique of her as 'disgusting' and misrepresent it. 

One has to at least consider the possibility that if someone is very unpopular, it may be down to them, not down to the general public.

[Spockydog]

What is the difference between talking to a non-existent sky god in your home instead of church? They are equally as mental. 

And wasn't that essentially what most of Christ's shtick revolved around? 

Or was that Dan Brown? 

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Anyone who had a friend, relative  or colleague and they told  you 'Hey, I went with my new partner to visit my mother's grave and s(he)/they got down on the ground, put their hands on the stones and asked for guidance'....you would think Danger! Red Alert! Run Lola Run!  

It wouldn't matter if you were religious or not.  You would know that this new partner was some combination of exceedingly manipulative, unbalanced, grifter and dangerous to your friend.  It wouldn't matter what this person's race or ethnicity or education level or career was, you would know that such an action was supremely creeply.

I'd actually give Meghan some slack for this. I suspect partly it is manipulative and sneaky, but it's also probably an act that most people in Hollywood would not bat an eyelid at. The sort of overblown ridiculous spiritual gesture that wouldn't be out of place amongst actors and monied elites. Harry who keeps his mothers hair by his bed seems also prone to odd thinking.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'd actually give Meghan some slack for this. I suspect partly it is manipulative and sneaky, but it's also probably an act that most people in Hollywood would not bat an eyelid at. The sort of overblown ridiculous spiritual gesture that wouldn't be out of place amongst actors and monied elites. Harry who keeps his mothers hair by his bed seems also prone to odd thinking.

Not me.  Random members of the general public already knew that Harry was damaged and obsessed by his mother.  "I have a message from blank from the veil beyond' is one of the oldest grifts in history. But that's what it is, a grift, a way to insinuate yourself into someone's life so you can more easily control and manipulate them.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Multiple fast paced threads disagree with you.

If she was married to some rando British celebrity, nobody would care. 

46 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

She's only the 2nd person to spirit a British royal out of the family in a hundred years, that alone makes her interesting.  I'm sure as a person she's basic as fuck, all you have to do is look at her bland beige mansion or listen to her bland refrigerator magnet musings to know that.  But, as a historical/public figure she's in a category of 2, Duchess of Sussex and Duchess of Windsor...also a much reviled, divorced, American. Hmm.

What does that say about the Brits, their press and how royals try to manipulate both?

[Cas Stark]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

If she was married to some rando British celebrity, nobody would care. 

What does that say about the Brits, their press and how royals try to manipulate both?

It says that people find the lives of the rich interesting.  It may be a historical hangover, but people also tend to find 'aristocrats' with histories that trace back to other famous, rich historical figures even more interesting.  It's not at all surprising.  Yes, the media has been making bank on famous rich people for at least 150 years.  Famous rich people have been using the media to enhance their fame/stature/whatever for just as long.  

It's the same reason the public was obsessed with the Kennedys 1.0, rich, famous, glamorous, powerful. It's only now, after half a century and no one with an ounce of glamor since JFK Jr. that interest has finally diminished.

[Cas Stark]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/12/i-was-alone-abandoned-with-only-a-hundred-million-in-the-bank-spare-digested-by-john-crace

[Gaston de Foix]

Interesting but flawed piece in the Guardian by its royal correspondent: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/09/you-can-see-why-prince-harry-dislikes-the-tabloid-press-but-they-didnt-cause-dianas-death

1.  Yes, the public has an intense interest in the royal family.  But the press shapes that interest and has to do "journalism" ethically.  The existence of a demand doesn't justify feeding it for snuff videos or for lies/privacy violations.  

2.  No mention of phone hacking and relegation of tabloid excesses to "80s and 90s".  LOL. 

3.  What the "main cause" of Diana's death was remains debatable.  Events usually have more than one cause. No doubt Henry Paul being drunk/high was one.  His inexperience driving the car was another Her not wearing a seatbelt was a cause (not of the accident) but of her dying as a result.  Unfamiliarity with the tunnel may have been another one although Henri-Paul was Parisian and presumably knew what all Parisian cabbies knew if we believe the author's anecdote.  This "she should have worn her seatbelt" (she should have) is kind of a libertarian-lite sotte voce argument that she took her chances and deserved to die.  But the fact she was being chased by paps ("even if some distance away on scooters") and therefore probably instructed the driver to speed is definitely a cause of her death.  A conspiracy theory about Diana's death? LOL.  A million flowers have already bloomed. 

4. Does Buckingham Palace leak damaging stories? The author says yes, indirectly re Camilla's campaign to be queen thereby confirming some of Harry's narrative.  But generally speaking, he says, no.  And offers a false dichotomy between current state of affairs and Edward VII/Wallis Simpson.  Yeah, safe to say, we don't want another Wallis do we? 

[Gaston de Foix]

48 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/12/i-was-alone-abandoned-with-only-a-hundred-million-in-the-bank-spare-digested-by-john-crace

FUNNY BUT CRUEL: "Digested read digested: I want my mummy".  

[Spockydog]

50 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

FUNNY BUT CRUEL: "Digested read digested: I want my mummy".  

Yeah, not sure how appropriate it is for this guy, former heroin junkie, John Crace, to be poking fun at a young man for using weed and (probably) having mental health issues directly related to the appalling death of his mother when just a young child. 

Especially a guy who has written plenty of 'woe is me' Guardian articles detailing his lifelong struggles with drug use and mental health. 

Honestly, he can go fuck himself. Cunt. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, Crixus said:

Last, I find myself defending @Heartofice again - it's obvious a lot of people enjoy petty gossip about ultra-privileged twats, hence the success of this thread. That includes everyone who's posting on here, so to try and paint HoI as somehow being the only one who's actually really into this whilst repeatedly continuing to make your own posts seems quite hypocritical. I mean, you can qualify the nature of your interest, sure. You can say 'I just like baiting someone/I like arguing/I enjoy correcting people because they're all fools and I'm a genius/I'm having a laugh/I'm liberal* and he isn't, so I must step in' etc. But at the end of the day, we're all engaging here and to categorise your specific engagement as somehow being morally superior to others is disingenuous and hilarious. 

* So am I, don't lynch me

 

My friend, we're a bunch of assholes who congregate on this forum because we're way too obsessed with a particular work of fiction.  We have endless threads where we speculate about the direction of the MCU or the next Star Wars movie. We have RIP threads where we mourn people we've never met. We have fierce arguments about comic accuracy. "Comic accuracy", man!  

Sure, you could ask, "what's so interesting about this?" You could ask the same thing about every other topic on these forums. And when we do occasionally veer into more serious topics, we might get something out of it personally but it has no broader moral consequence whatsoever. Let's not kid ourselves; we're not collective tapping out a cure for cancer here.

H+M? They seem like perfectly nice, perfectly sincere, perfectly boring people. Their life experiences seem remarkable but not especially so. So how come there are people around the world who legit hate this couple because of the narrative put out by the English tabloid press? Why so much obvious negative spin? Why has this incredibly powerful, wealthy, well-connected industry* attacked these people in this way? Especially when they could be focusing on more salacious or more relevant stories. 

And, "the subjects of the No.1 best-selling book in the world right now" is certainly as interesting as anything else we discuss here. And if it sometimes veers into tittle-tattle or gossip, so what?  

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Buddy, she's not that interesting nor has she said much that's out of line. That's why the negative reaction to her is so weird.

Exactly. I don't care about royal gossip. I think the obsession with it is really un-healthy**. I had a passing awareness of the anti-Megan sentiment (who couldn't), but I didn't give a shit about these two at all until the buzzfeed article came out. A clear, demonstrable bias is being taken here without any regard to its impact on the people involved. Why? 

*A multi billion dollar industry, owned by "Lords" and "Ladies", populated by wannabe "Lords" and "Ladies",  that comes from old money, has historically supported extreme right-wing politics, gets away with criminality, and has produced two of the last four British Prime Ministers. 

** I had no idea who James Hewitt was before this thread, so thanks a lot, fuckers. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

 

3.  What the "main cause" of Diana's death was remains debatable.  Events usually have more than one cause. No doubt Henry Paul being drunk/high was one.  His inexperience driving the car was another Her not wearing a seatbelt was a cause (not of the accident) but of her dying as a result.  Unfamiliarity with the tunnel may have been another one although Henri-Paul was Parisian and presumably knew what all Parisian cabbies knew if we believe the author's anecdote.  This "she should have worn her seatbelt" (she should have) is kind of a libertarian-lite sotte voce argument that she took her chances and deserved to die.  But the fact she was being chased by paps ("even if some distance away on scooters") and therefore probably instructed the driver to speed is definitely a cause of her death.  A conspiracy theory about Diana's death? LOL.  A million flowers have already bloomed. 

Two points:

1. The driver is absolutely responsible for the accident; but it goes without saying that he would not have been speeding in that tunnel without the paparazzi chasing him. Even the police know to end a pursuit when it gets too dangerous, and they tend to chase criminals.

And don't underestimate the impact that the cameras themselves can have. We've all had the experience of a camera flashing in our eyes. It's disorienting. It momentarily blinds you. That's a single flash. Imagine multiple flash bulbs all aimed at you, going off rapid-fire, on a street at night. Anyone who says the press have no culpability in her death is an idiot.   

2. My understanding is that the impact was so severe that the radiator ended up in the passenger compartment. A seat belt might not have saved her.

ETA: I'm reading about the toxicology reports of Henri Paul and I have to say I'm skeptical. If that guy had all that stuff in his system, how the hell was he even conscious, much less driving a car? The French are sturdier than I am I guess.  

44 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, not sure how appropriate it is for this guy, former heroin junkie, John Crace, to poke fun at a young man for using weed and (probably) having mental health issues directly related to the appalling death of his mother when just a young child. 

Especially a guy who has written plenty of 'woe is me' Guardian articles detailing his lifelong struggle with drug use and mental health. 

Honestly, he can go fuck himself. Cunt. 

I've smoked weed. Statistically, half the people I know have smoked weed at least once. Also, it's legal here now. 

Yeah, he can fuck himself.

[RhaenysBee]

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jan/12/i-was-alone-abandoned-with-only-a-hundred-million-in-the-bank-spare-digested-by-john-crace

That’s that’s that’s that’s…   if the book (which I will never buy) is truly written in that style (minus the parody and the exaggeration), I hope Harry didn’t pay the ghost writer much. I mean come on, what a rip off, it should be nicely written at least. As for the journalist, insensitive indeed, but the guardian approved and published his piece and that adds up. 

[RhaenysBee]

I came across a meme that the book says Daenerys was his favorite character because they are alike. Is this for real or someone on tiktok made it up? And the editor left it in? For real?  Give me all the tea  

[Derfel Cadarn]

11 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

That’s that’s that’s that’s… /cdn-cgi/mirage/ca3e6ef1cd57daafcfe04d1a83b69623db6c8083fcf5e8394ead0868740b860a/1280/https://asoiaf.westeros.org/uploads/emoticons/default_eek.gif  if the book (which I will never buy) is truly written in that style (minus the parody and the exaggeration), I hope Harry didn’t pay the ghost writer much. I mean come on, what a rip off, it should be nicely written at least. As for the journalist, insensitive indeed, but the guardian approved and published his piece and that adds up. 

He paid either a million £ or million $
Not that there’s a massive difference thanks to the Tories and Brexiteers tanking the £

[RhaenysBee]

Just now, Derfel Cadarn said:

He paid either a million £ or million $
Not that there’s a massive difference thanks to the Tories and Brexiteers tanking the £

Damn… I know he will see a serious ROI but damn, the amount of authors who could do a better job for a tenth of that money… 

[Cas Stark]

11 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Damn… I know he will see a serious ROI but damn, the amount of authors who could do a better job for a tenth of that money… 

It does sound a little pretentious, but the ghostwriter is fairly famous for a ghost writer.  He wrote Agassi's book and he aslo wrote The Tender Bar [didn't read it, and stopped watching it half way through].  I didn't see anything mainstream that says he is like Dany, he did say in one of the 78 interviews that he didn't watch GOT, so maybe a rumor.  Not sure.

[Derfel Cadarn]

18 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Damn… I know he will see a serious ROI but damn, the amount of authors who could do a better job for a tenth of that money… 

An interesting comment given you’ve not read the book

[IheartIheartTesla]

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

What is the difference between talking to a non-existent sky god in your home instead of church? They are equally as mental. 

As a matter of fact, numerous later-year converts or reverts to Christianity claim to have 'personal experiences' that brought them in o back to the fold. Some of those experiences may even include conversations or signs with this theoretical construct others like to designate 'god' provided them.  I find nothing out of the ordinary in whatever Harry experienced or did.