Spare a Moment for H&M, Part 3

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I can believe they were harassed for a long time by paparazzies. Again, these people are basically professional stalkers. I'm sure they embellished the time length, but it does seem clear that they were being followed in a way both of us would hate.

Furthermore, why do you feel the need to make a quip about his mental health? Or call them jerks? The Queen was one of the biggest jerks to ever live. Harry is probably a dick in a lot of ways, but not as much as her or the current King. I've said forever they should all be striped of their titles and money, but why are you so mad at him?

It's not a quip, I see it as objective reality. He's paranoid, he's angry, and this is after years of therapy acorrding to him. He's almost 40 and as far as I can tell his life is still defined by his dead mother.  That is terribly sad and unfortunate, but when you're almost middle aged and still hanging on to that childhood trauma at some point it becomes a choice, especially when in every other imaginable facet of life you are an 01.%er.

We will have to diagree about the late queen.  I loved her.  Charles is a dipshit and will almost surely be a poor and unpopular king, that's unfortunate because I think the tradition of the monarchy is a good thing for the UK [let's please not relitigate that].

I dislike seeing dishonest people thrive because they've glommed on to the zeitgeist and do some fake performative actions.  So I dislike seeing Harry make millions trashing his family, pontificate on global warming while taking SUVs and private jets everywhere and complain about his Kensington Palace free apartment...and I simply cannot understand why everyone doesn't see him for the petulant spoiled jerk that he is because I feel it is blatant what a liar, fantasist and hypcrite he is.  Meg is just a basic California progressive wanabe famous person who was and still is in over her head.

[Cas Stark]

LOL, it wouldn't be a Harry and Meg thread if there wasn't at least a few posts about how crazy and weird it is to be posting about Harry and Meghan [only when you don't like them] or know any details about them.  That's my cue to exit.  Bless your hearts.  

[Zorral]

Calling these stalkers 'working media' when they are utter parasites working for even bigger parasites and stalkers is mental distortion, at the very least.  Such obsessive hating for these people who haven't committed harm to the world even generally, much less specifically, is ... unbalanced, to say the least, reflecting the same obsessive unbalanced OBSESSIVE coverage ever since Harry got engaged to MM as places such as the Daily Beast and Mail ... which then keep driving the unbalanced obsessive hatred because .... bottom line?  And then people fall for that.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Zorral

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's not a quip, I see it as objective reality. He's paranoid, he's angry, and this is after years of therapy acorrding to him. He's almost 40 and as far as I can tell his life is still defined by his dead mother.  That is terribly sad and unfortunate, but when you're almost middle aged and still hanging on to that childhood trauma at some point it becomes a choice, especially when in every other imaginable facet of life you are an 01.%er.

I just turned 35, am someone who comes from an affluent background, and will probably have to deal with depression for my entire life, on top of substance abuse. Every now and then I put a gun to my head because I like to hear the click. Sometimes you just struggle with shit. I have a vivid imagination, but I cannot pretend to know what it's like to be a prince of England. And I never would want to be one.

Edited May 18, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[DanteGabriel]

26 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Calling these stalkers 'working media' when they are utter parasites working for even bigger parasites and stalkers is mental distortion, at the very least.  

Seriously, when you find yourself defending the papps as "working media" maybe it's time for a perspective check. I guess Piers Morgan is just a hard-nosed truth-seeking journalist as well.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Calling these stalkers 'working media' when they are utter parasites working for even bigger parasites and stalkers is mental distortion, at the very least.  Such obsessive hating for these people who haven't committed harm to the world even generally, much less specifically, is ... unbalanced, to say the least, reflecting the same obsessive unbalanced OBSESSIVE coverage ever since Harry got engaged to MM as places such as the Daily Beast and Mail ... which then keep driving the unbalanced obsessive hatred because .... bottom line?  And then people fall for that.

 

49 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Seriously, when you find yourself defending the papps as "working media" maybe it's time for a perspective check. I guess Piers Morgan is just a hard-nosed truth-seeking journalist as well.

When lady Diana was killed, weren’t there those in the media that deflected responsibility by specifically saying that paparazzi were not journalists? They are freelance photographers, not reporters or newspaper/TV employees.

[Heartofice]

Why does there need to be a choice between hating the press and hating H&M? Can’t they both be bad?

It is funny that actually this thread is constantly being updated by Deadlines, Zorral and Tywin.. yet it’s Cas who is called obsessive. Riiiight.
 

But yeah you can see the familiar tactics being used here, straight for the old Ad Hominem every time someone you disagree with makes a point you can’t counter.

Like here, where it’s proven that H&M have blatantly lied and exaggerated about a situation to make themselves look the victim. It’s not like they have never done that before is it? I mean how much more evidence of their behaviour do you need before you stop automatically defending them?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

We’ll, I’m not tracking their movements if that’s what you mean.

how exactly was it proven?

[kiko]

7 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Why not take the side of working media instead of pampered dishonest millionaires?

Yeah seriously. They are like modern Robin Hoods. They take photos of the rich and give it to the mentally poor. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Like here, where it’s proven that H&M have blatantly lied and exaggerated about a situation to make themselves look the victim. It’s not like they have never done that before is it? I mean how much more evidence of their behaviour do you need before you stop automatically defending them?

No one seems to disagree they were being chased by paparazzi for an extended amount of time. I'm sure you'd be terrified in the exact same situation. 

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No one seems to disagree they were being chased by paparazzi for an extended amount of time. I'm sure you'd be terrified in the exact same situation. 

The word ‘chase’ is doing a lot of work here. 

[BigFatCoward]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No one seems to disagree they were being chased by paparazzi for an extended amount of time. I'm sure you'd be terrified in the exact same situation. 

Yeah, this is my biggest issue, nobody was chasing them, they were being followed, and they had security with them. Its a gross intrusion and an inconvenience and must be fucking draining and emotionally triggering for him in particular, but they weren't in active danger (unless their driver was as bad as his mothers).  

They could have just went home and shut their doors instead of driving round and allowing other peoples lives to be put in danger as well.  Their desire to keep their location where they were staying a secret should have been secondary to the safety of other road users and pedestrians (if accounts of the paparazzi's actions are to be believed). 

The press are about 90% to blame for this, and are frankly parasitic cunts, but if they want this shit to stop, they need to be proactive and do a much better job of not feeding the frenzy.    

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The word ‘chase’ is doing a lot of work here. 

You've clearly never felt the fear of someone following you. Especially if they were driving motorcycles on sidewalks to see you. That should not be seen as normal nor should the people being chased have their feelings dismissed. 

10 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yeah, this is my biggest issue, nobody was chasing them, they were being followed, and they had security with them. Its a gross intrusion and an inconvenience and must be fucking draining and emotionally triggering for him in particular, but they weren't in active danger (unless their driver was as bad as his mothers).  

They could have just went home and shut their doors instead of driving round and allowing other peoples lives to be put in danger as well.  Their desire to keep their location where they were staying a secret should have been secondary to the safety of other road users and pedestrians (if accounts of the paparazzi's actions are to be believed). 

The press are about 90% to blame for this, and are frankly parasitic cunts, but if they want this shit to stop, they need to be proactive and do a much better job of not feeding the frenzy.    

You make it sound so easy though. These are high profile figures. It's not as simple as us going home.
 

[Cas Stark]

People act like if the papparazi 'get' you they're going to drag you out of the car and beat you to death.  They're just photographers.  Annoying, intrusive, sure, that's why rich celebrities pay for security.  But, putting your life or the life of others in danger to prevent them getting photos of you in the back of the car is silly.

[BigFatCoward]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

You make it sound so easy though. These are high profile figures. It's not as simple as us going home.
 

Of course it is, its easier.  They get someone to drive them and someone to protect them, they don't have to make a single decision themselves and their house is secure as fuck when they get there (in all likelihood), they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Regardless of how shockingly they have been treated by the press and his family, they really don't help themselves at all.  

its not even like it was giving away their home address, just somewhere they are staying for a few days.  Other famous (much more famous) people manage it just fine.  

This is in no way a defence of the press, i would fully support outlawing paparazzi full stop, with insane penalties.  Even the most obnoxious figures should have the right to go about their private business without intrusion, even if they actively invite it in their public life. 

Edited May 18, 2023 by BigFatCoward

[Cas Stark]

But this was a public event.  This isn't them going to day care or the market.  This is them attending a gala charity event, which was publicized in advance, giving a speech, picking up an award, and posing for photos.  It is part of the program to be photographed coming and going.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Of course it is, its easier

its not even like it was giving away their home address, just somewhere they are staying for a few days.  Other famous (much more famous) people manage it just fine.  

Have you ever driven a real VIP to their house? Because I have. And FYI, shitty NBA players drive around their neighborhoods over and over again to make sure they're not being followed before they go to their place. It's not anything like the experience you and I have. And these two fuckers are stalked constantly. 

[BigFatCoward]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you ever driven a real VIP to their house? Because I have. And FYI, shitty NBA players drive around their neighborhoods over and over again to make sure they're not being followed before they go to their place. It's not anything like the experience you and I have. And these two fuckers are stalked constantly. 

yeah, nothing says secretive and discreet like driving round and round over and over. 

[Zorral]

7 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Of course it is, its easier.  They get someone to drive them and someone to protect them, they don't have to make a single decision themselves and their house is secure as fuck when they get there (in all likelihood), they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

You are forgetting a very big factor: this is the USA YAY where haters/insane people can and are armed and dangerous and go around shooting people for the lolz.

Also celebrities and the ilks with whom the Sussexes are staying DO EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO KEEP THE REST OF US FROM KNOWING WHERE THEY LIVE.

Plus, you know, even being at a police station didn't stop the crazy papilloma virii of the media.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

But this was a public event.  This isn't them going to day care or the market.  This is them attending a gala charity event, which was publicized in advance, giving a speech, picking up an award, and posing for photos.  It is part of the program to be photographed coming and going.  

Which is fine. You get your picture taken at these events. They're public. But when you leave, especially when you're just trying to get home or to your hotel, you're now clearly being private. Following people doing so is gross. Why are we having to belabor this?