Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Seems like a good jumping off point.
 

Vamos

Edited January 17, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Mowgli]

It's nice to see Clarkson dropped from Amazon for that article. Certainly a net positive. 

[BigFatCoward]

29 minutes ago, SleepyArt said:

It's nice to see Clarkson dropped from Amazon for that article. Certainly a net positive. 

Since that was your first post, you should have said 'that cunt Clarkson' it would have got you many many brownie points. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I’m floored this has gone to three threads.  (And one thread hijack).

Edited January 17, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[DMC]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m floored this has gone to three threads.  (And one thread hijack).

You're just jealous the thread has gone on this long focusing on one topic - rather than creating multiple tangent threads that peter out much quicker.  I'd say quality over quantity, but the former clearly isn't accurate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're just jealous the thread has gone on this long focusing on one topic - rather than creating multiple tangent threads that peter out much quicker.  I'd say quality over quantity, but the former clearly isn't accurate.

Civil War thread time? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

You're just jealous the thread has gone on this long focusing on one topic - rather than creating multiple tangent threads that peter out much quicker.  I'd say quality over quantity, but the former clearly isn't accurate.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Civil War thread time? 

I am reading John Matteson’s 2021 book A Worse Place Than Hell following five different (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., George Whitman, and Louisa May Allcott) people regarding their experience of the Battle of Fredericksburg.  It is very well written… but… no. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Ser Scot A Ellison

[James Arryn]

To reiterate what Ty, as one example, was saying towards the end of the last thread:

 

I had exactly ZERO skin in this game. Pay no attention to RF, never understood why Diana was this big icon, though she seemed nice enough from the little I’ve seen of her on old clips. Probably prefer the RF retain their ceremonial status but am disturbed by links like Ripp’s in the last which showed that the RF wield considerable influence on policy behind the scenes. I’d prefer no monarchy to one that interferes, but I’m wary of calculating what is too much, whether the examples in Ripp’s thread were them moving the needle or just politicians using their agreement to do what was going to be done anyways, but it bears serious examination imo. 
 

That aside I have virtually no interest in the RF, before this scandal wouldn’t have bet money on getting the princes’ names right, or indeed any member of the RF excepting the monarchs and Diana. Never heard about Harry’s possible alter father, none of that. Zero interest. I even paid little attention when this scandal began, for a while thought one of Charles’ sons was the prince accused of assaulting minors, only noticed the schism when local media were talking about H&M possibly moving to Canada and wondered what that was all about but didn’t pursue details. Never saw the Oprah interview people reference a lot. Have always been aware British tabloids are next level intrusive/persistent, and though Di I suppose is the greatest illustration, my own lifetime’s reference points are more specific to British actors et al being ~stalked by paparazzi. 
 

Then all this about the book and the discussions in here and I assumed H&M were doing some pretty heinous shit to explain the furor, gradually came to see that none of the horrible things seemed to amount to much, then also began to see the political/ideological commonality in virtually everyone clutching pearls over this, came to realize that the old ‘accusations of racism are much, much worse than demonstrations of racism’ trope was in full swing, and then really took note when the normally anti-press right-wingers were repeatedly citing the tabloids and crapmeisters like Morgan as support for their over the over the over the over the over the over the over the top responses to trivial statements or events, to say nothing of the very clear vitriol behind it. 
 

And finally we AGAIN have the people posting the most, and the most emotionally charged, again trying to pretend that their remarkable volume of posts on this topic is explained by others talking about it, and that somehow compelling them to rise again and again (and again, and again, and again) in defence of Windsor and St. George or w/e. Cognitive dissonance in royal purple. 
 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by James Arryn

[Heartofice]

I want to thank Tywin again for being so completely disinterested in this topic that he creates yet another thread. Good job.

 

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I had exactly ZERO skin in this game. Pay no attention to RF, never understood why Diana was this big icon, though she seemed nice enough from the little I’ve seen of her on old clips. Probably prefer the RF retain their ceremonial status but am disturbed by links like Ripp’s in the last which showed that the RF wield considerable influence on policy behind the scenes. I’d prefer no monarchy to one that interferes, but I’m wary of calculating what is too much, whether the examples in Ripp’s thread were them moving the needle or just politicians using their agreement to do what was going to be done anyways, but it bears serious examination imo. 
 

That aside I have virtually no interest in the RF, before this scandal wouldn’t have bet money on getting the princes’ names right, or indeed any member of the RF excepting the monarchs and Diana. Never heard about Harry’s possible alter father, none of that. Zero interest. I even paid little attention when this scandal began, for a while thought one of Charles’ sons was the prince accused of assaulting minors, only noticed the schism when local media were talking about H&M possibly moving to Canada and wondered what that was all about but didn’t pursue details. Never saw the Oprah interview people reference a lot. Have always been aware British tabloids are next level intrusive/persistent, and though Di I suppose is the greatest illustration, my own lifetime’s reference points are more specific to British actors et al being ~stalked by paparazzi. 
 

Then all this about the book and the discussions in here and I assumed H&M were doing some pretty heinous shit to explain the furor, gradually came to see that none of the horrible things seemed to amount to much, then also began to see the political/ideological commonality in virtually everyone clutching pearls over this, came to realize that the old ‘accusations of racism are much, much worse than demonstrations of racism’ trope was in full swing, and then really took note when the normally anti-press right-wingers were repeatedly citing the tabloids and crapmeisters like Morgan as support for their over the over the over the over the over the over the over the top responses to trivial statements or events, to say nothing of the very clear vitriol behind it. 

I think this is a pretty good illustration of what I was saying before. Essentially there are a bunch of people who seem to have rather strong opinions about H&M, even if they try to deny it but what they have in common is:

1. They find it all very uninteresting (supposedly)
2. They were never very interested in the topic before all this book and Netflix stuff.
3. They know very little about the Royal Family.
4. They know very little about Harry and Meghan and have never bothered to find out more
5. They know very little about Britain.
6. They make a series of assumptions based on what H&M have said and assume it is accurate.
7. They ignore any evidence that there might be some sort of legitimate reason why H&M might be unpopular.

So it is really interesting how much they want to comment on the topic.

 

[Zorral]

50 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I am reading John Matteson’s 2021 book A Place Worse Than Hell following five different (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., George Whitman, and Louisa May Allcott) people regarding their experience of the Battle of Fredericksburg.  It is very well written… but… no. 

Last month I read The Lion and the Fox: Two Rival Spies and the Secret Plot to Build a Confederate Navy (2022), by Alexander Rose (same fellow who wrote Turn: Washington's Spies, from which the brilliant television series was adapted).  It's location is Liverpool, of course, primary seat of England's African slave trade, and then, naturally, the English Cotton Exchange, so there was naturally enormous sympathy for the traitors out of Dixie (including members of Parliament) -- run, of course, by Theodore Roosevelt's uncle -- for both cotton smuggling and building war ships to prey on US mercantile and military navies.

We could start there, while keeping to the spirit of these thread of relentless hate for a mixed race woman from the United States who makes a whole lot of Little Englanders see RED! RED! RED!

Edited January 17, 2023 by Zorral

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I want to thank Tywin again for being so completely disinterested in this topic that he creates yet another thread. Good job.

 

I think this is a pretty good illustration of what I was saying before. Essentially there are a bunch of people who seem to have rather strong opinions about H&M, even if they try to deny it but what they have in common is:

1. They find it all very uninteresting (supposedly)
2. They were never very interested in the topic before all this book and Netflix stuff.
3. They know very little about the Royal Family.
4. They know very little about Harry and Meghan and have never bothered to find out more
5. They know very little about Britain.
6. They make a series of assumptions based on what H&M have said and assume it is accurate.
7. They ignore any evidence that there might be some sort of legitimate reason why H&M might be unpopular.

So it is really interesting how much they want to comment on the topic.

 

Well, right off the bat I don’t know anything about any Netflix angle to this story. I know a shit ton about British history, and have travelled there for months at a time on many occasions, mostly London and Oxford, but also several long tracks, the SW coast trail, the Cotswold Way, the Thames path, etc. 

I am making zero assumptions, I have only read what they have said when it’s quoted here, and none of them seem to be anything like as horrendous as the reactions to same. And, again, about their unpopularity, when there’s an established pattern of behaviour (for RF or tabloids) we don’t NEED an alternate explanation for them behaving exactly like they already do. And if you want more, I mentioned the free agency/sports analogy. Virtually ever big name free agent who teams want back but choose to sign elsewhere become figures of hatred and derision in the cities they chose to leave. Should we explore each and every one of those departed free agents behaviour to explain this phenomenon, or should it’s ~ universal concurrence with leaving be explanation enough?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We could start there, while keeping to the spirit of these thread of relentless hate for a mixed race woman from the United States who makes a whole lot of Little Englanders see RED! RED! RED!

There are no intellectually valid reasons to object to “mixed race” relationships.  That’s a hill I will die upon.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I want to thank Tywin again for being so completely disinterested in this topic that he creates yet another thread. Good job.

Again, I find Meghan to be rather uninteresting. The backlash towards her is and is worth exploring. Especially when people like you want to call her a liar when the accusations are pretty thin while ignoring how the royals are so much more guilty of the same thing. I'll always find hypocrisy like this interesting.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There are no intellectually valid reasons to object to “mixed race” relationships.  That’s a hill I will die upon.

Agree, and coincidentally Mixed race relationships in the UK are actually pretty popular. 
 

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, I find Meghan to be rather uninteresting. The backlash towards her is and is worth exploring. Especially when people like you want to call her a liar when the accusations are pretty thin while ignoring how the royals are so much more guilty of the same thing. I'll always find hypocrisy like this interesting.

Meghan's ability to tell to the truth is kind of at the core of all of this, because she continuously asks that we believe her 'truth'. The problem with that is that she has show time and time again that her 'truth' is pretty unreliable. If she is going to make all these claims, knowing full well that the Royal Family are not going to come out and directly talk about it, then it is pretty relevant that she has a long history of lying about even trivial things. 

But I think this also gets to the heart of it, because you don't really pay attention to any of the history of what was said or done, you aren't aware of the context, your interest in the whole topic is more based around 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', so it's not like anything you say on the matter is really worthwhile.

[Spockydog]

 

 

[Mowgli]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Since that was your first post, you should have said 'that cunt Clarkson' it would have got you many many brownie points. 

I said cunt in America once and you should have heard the reaction. It was like I had told one of them they're not allowed to own guns anymore. 

Edit: ( To be clear, I was talking about the then PM, David Cameron) 

Edited January 17, 2023 by SleepyArt

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, SleepyArt said:

I said cunt in America once and you should have heard the reaction. It was like I had told one of them they're not allowed to own guns anymore. 

Yeah one of my closest friends from grad school is from Manchester.  He used the term liberally, and I had to repeatedly explain to him - at bars - that you don't want to say that word in the US.  Pretty interesting difference.

[Mowgli]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah one of my closest friends from grad school is from Manchester.  He used the term liberally, and I had to repeatedly explain to him - at bars - that you don't want to say that word in the US.  Pretty interesting difference.

Yes, this was at a bar in the mid west and it is certainly a difference. To be fair, I was referring to David Cameron and I think that's quite reasonable. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m floored this has gone to three threads.  (And one thread hijack).

UNNNNNNLIMUHTED POWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

-

Regarding the discussion in the previous thread about press intrusion; what makes anyone think the UK press would give H+M+kids the same deference they give W+K+Kids? Harry's whole position is that he and Megan were basically being served up to the press by competing palace interests.