On and On About Harry & Meghan Part 4

[Tywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I didn’t ask if you liked  or respected any conservative talk show host or in media.

I asked if you can point to any conservative talk show who you find personally horrendous, like you can comfortably say you hate them, and yet still recognize they’re good at their job, they’re talented at doing at what they’re being paid for or assigned to do.

This mindset of people you disliking/hating having to be incompetent is unwise.

 

Why would I say someone I find to horrendous personally is good at their job when their work is why I find them horrendous? Rush Limbaugh was good at his job in the sense he made a lot of money for himself and those he worked for. But he was a complete piece of shit who lied to his audience and warped a generation of pathetic white men. So overall no I don't think he did a good job. 

There are plenty of conservatives I disagree with, but find to be relatively good people who are also good at their jobs. I'm not going to say the clear and obvious grifters who sowed hate to make money are. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why would I say someone I find to horrendous personally is good at their job when their work is why I find them horrendous?

Oh because with the acknowledgment you can actually know how best to deal with them or how to advise others to deal with them.

The thought the people you hate have to be incompetent is comforting—but it’s not always true.

Being talented at something doesn’t equal virtue and using that talent for horrible ends doesn’t detract from the talen

27 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Rush Limbaugh was good at his job in the sense he made a lot of money for himself and those he worked for.

He made a lot of money because he was really talented making an entertaining show that even people who absolutely despise him for him for his politics could hate-listen to for entertainment.

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But he was a complete piece of shit who lied to his audience and warped a generation of pathetic white men.

Yes.

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So overall no I don't think he did a good job. 

you keep doing this where you’re conflating competency and proficiency, talent at accomplishing a certain goal  with moral virtue.

30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There are plenty of conservatives I disagree with, but find to be relatively good people who are also good at their jobs. I'm not going to say the clear and obvious grifters who sowed hate to make money are. 

A strong respectable ethical framework is at best unnecessary for propagandists like rush and hannity at worse major impediment.

[Tywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

He made a lot of money because he was really talented making an entertaining show that even people who absolutely despise him for him for his politics could hate-listen to for entertainment.

No, I'd argue it's because his audience was really, really dumb. Almost everyone has a hateful drunk middle aged man in their family that could put on the exact same show with a bunch of producers in their ear telling them what to say. And it's important to keep that last part in mind. On TV and radio they're being fed lines by a large team of production staff. Very few of these people are talking without any aid.

Quote

A strong respectable ethical framework is at best unnecessary for propagandists like rush and hannity at worse major impediment.

Again, money does not necessarily mean you're good at your job unless you simply don't give a shit about ethics. And today people are encouraged more and more to not do so. I'd argue that means as a society we've failed. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I'd argue it's because his audience was really, really dumb.

Sam Seder enjoyed listening to rush while going through physical therapy.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Almost everyone has a hateful drunk middle aged man in their family that could put on the exact same show with a bunch of producers in their ear telling them what to say.

But not everyone has a hateful drunk middle age uncle who can make comfortable living off their political rhetoric—much less transform media political discourse the way rush did.

instead of just going with the answers that seem the least threatening/comforting as to why people you hate are successful, it’s okay to recognize the talents that make them so.

 

Ive seen too many people with political views I largely agree get assume their political opponents would be so easy to destroy with the argument they thought of in the shower but flail and fail with put in direct conflict with them.

36 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

On TV and radio they're being fed lines by a large team of production staff. Very few of these people are talking without any aid.

Quote

Even if so Then can you say the production staff that’s feeding them the talking points are talented?

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, money does not necessarily mean you're good at your job unless you simply don't give a shit about ethics.

Again virtue does not equal talent.

You keep trying to frame your personal admiration of a person’s moral character as the measure of whether they’re competent at their job or pursuing their ambitions.

 

Hannity’s job as conservative talk show host isn’t to be a pillar of honesty and truth-telling, it’s not to even give his personal view of the situation it’s to be a backbench propagandist to gear people up for more entertaining and or persuasive propagandists.

 

[Heartofice]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/harry-meghan-archetypes-podcast-patent-rejected/

So H&M have not been able to patent the name Archetypes for their failed podcast. Sad face.

But the amusing bit in that story is that there are accusations that Meghan wasn't even taking the interviews herself, but getting staffer to do it and have her voice layered on later asking questions.
 

Quote

It comes after Ms Markle was accused of "faking" some of her interviews with guests for the podcast.

Ms Markle is accused of getting producers to interview guests on the show, before having her own questions edited into the audio track.

Multiple sources told podcast-focused outlet Podnews that "some interviews on the show were done by other staffers, with [audio of Meghan’s] questions edited-in afterwards."

The report did not specify which interviews were edited this way, but journalist Alison Yarrow revealed last year that her interview on the show was conducted by producer Farrah Safarfi.

Ms Yarrow, who appeared on an episode about the origin of the word 'b****', hared an image of herself in front of a sign for the audio production company Gimlet, and thanked Ms Safarfi for being an "excellent interviewer".

I think the word 'Grifter' seems appropriate here.

[Cas Stark]

From what I understand, she only did the celebrity interviews herself.  The riff raff eperts were interviewed by staff.  That's fine I guess, but not really 'on brand' with Archetypes which was supposed to showcase stories of the marginalized and shine a light on ?something? new.  If the podcast had aired in 1982 instead of 2022, it might have been fresh and illuminating. This is their chief problem with anything outside of the royal family, their views/ideas are totally Basic 101, points that anyone can pick up googling for 10 minutes.

It will be interesting if they deny the stories that they have/are considering changing their last name to Spencer.

**This is another downside of suing everyone all the time.  When you decline to sue or demand a retraction it leaves the impression that whatever has been said must be true.  

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

11 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

 

It will be interesting if they deny the stories that they have/are considering changing their last name to Spencer.

**This is another downside of suing everyone all the time.  When you decline to sue or demand a retraction it leaves the impression that whatever has been said must be true.  

Why would this be interesting? One way or the other, why the hell do you even care? Would you even approve one way or the other? 

And why is it “a problem” if they don’t address this? Something that I guarantee you is baseless speculation. And have you not been paying attention? The sheer volume of shit that gets published about them in the British tabloids and they’re supposed to answer all of it? Touch grass.

[Varysblackfyre321]

15 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

From what I understand, she only did the celebrity interviews herself.  The riff raff eperts were interviewed by staff.  That's fine I guess, but not really 'on brand' with Archetypes which was supposed to showcase stories of the marginalized and shine a light on ?something? new.

Well if you give proper acknowledgements it can  fine—megan is far from unique in taking undue credit for those who work under her’s work especially as a celebrity but it’s still a bad practice.

15 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

If the podcast had aired in 1982 instead of 2022, it might have been fresh and illuminating. This is their chief problem with anything outside of the royal family, their views/ideas are totally Basic 101, points that anyone can pick up googling for 10 minutes.

Eh you can make anything sound entertaining with the right presentation and level of charisma.

3 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

The sheer volume of shit that gets published about them in the British tabloids and they’re supposed to answer all of it?

I guess it’s resting on the assumption that considering a name change so great crime or immoral act that’d need immediate denial.

 

Though I imagine if they did come out and say they’re not or never did  they’d be accused of attention seeking again and any talk hypocrisy of those grilling them over this would summarily dismissed as naive. 

[Heartofice]

15 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

If the podcast had aired in 1982 instead of 2022, it might have been fresh and illuminating. This is their chief problem with anything outside of the royal family, their views/ideas are totally Basic 101, points that anyone can pick up googling for 10 minutes.

I think the content of those podcasts is telling, that she prefers to speak to all her celeb mates. I can imagine her just going to dinners with her elite pals and thinking this could be her calling, and that ‘peasants’ would love to hear her discuss deep topics she knows little about on a podcast.
Of course nothing unusual about that, which celebs haven’t gotten on the podcast train, even over here everyone who goes on a reality tv show does their own podcast, interviewing other Z listers. It’s a sign of serious narcissism, but that’s hardly uncommon.

Either way, I do find it interesting that she does an episode on the meaning of the word Bitch. It’s shows such an enormous lack of self reflection and humility. Clearly she knows she’s been labelled ‘difficult’, and from all accounts treats staff terribly. But rather than think there might be a problem on her side, she doubles down and says stuff like:

Quote

, "So, perhaps the truth is that labeling a woman is the B-word, or is difficult, is often a deflection, a way to hide some of her really awesome qualities, her persistence, her strength, her perseverance, her strong opinion, maybe even her resilience."

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-releases-latest-episode-archetypes-podcast-on-b-word/
 

Yes maybe being terrible to people is a positive and we should admire how badly you treat your underlings. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I think the content of those podcasts is telling, that she prefers to speak to all her celeb mates. I can imagine her just going to dinners with her elite pals and thinking this could be her calling, and that ‘peasants’ would love to hear her discuss deep topics she knows little about on a podcast.

She’s no queen of England. Or king I guess lol.

But overall not too bad assumption on her.

 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Of course nothing unusual about that, which celebs haven’t gotten on the podcast train, even over here everyone who goes on a reality tv show does their own podcast, interviewing other Z listers. It’s a sign of serious narcissism,

And then things get unhinged. We’ve an instance where Markle actually looks bad, yet you still feel the need to try smuggle in some bizarre digs at her for things no reasonable human being should feel is “a sighn of serious narcissistism” like having a podcast. It’s just weird and unnecessary guy. Like you don’t have catastrophize everything she does.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

So, perhaps the truth is that labeling a woman is the B-word, or is difficult, is often a deflection, a way to hide some of her really awesome qualities, her persistence, her strength, her perseverance, her strong opinion, maybe even her resilience

Eh that’s true enough. there’s a disparity in what people expect/tolerate/respect  from woman in a position of leadership vs a man.

Though the invocation of sexism is a way for some women to divert attention away from legitimate behavior worth critism.

Edited June 23 by Varysblackfyre321

[Cas Stark]

9 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Why would this be interesting? One way or the other, why the hell do you even care? Would you even approve one way or the other? 

And why is it “a problem” if they don’t address this? Something that I guarantee you is baseless speculation. And have you not been paying attention? The sheer volume of shit that gets published about them in the British tabloids and they’re supposed to answer all of it? Touch grass.

How can you guarantee its baseless speculation?  Indeed, one of Harry's chief complaints about the palace staff was that they would not answer 'all of it' and he was again and again advised that it was both foolish and impossible to address every single dumb story.  Harry's MO is to threaten to sue over stories he considers false, exactly what he did over the stupid Lilibet kerfluffle.  It is a reasonable conclusion that if they don't deny something there is a reason for it. 

It would be interesting that anyone who is almost 40 would be considering a name change as part of a rebranding effort.  I have no idea why anyone at this point defends either of these two strange and unkind people.  Prince Harry, he who barely graduated from UK version of high school and has never had a job thinks his peer group is Putin, Zuckerberg and the Pope.  That is beyond laughable.  

News about the royals is entertaining for some people, some many millions of people, including me.  I don't need to 'touch grass' but thanks for the concern.  Bless your heart.

 

[maarsen]

Why single out Harry as not being too bright? The apple did not fall far from the tree.

[Cas Stark]

39 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Why single out Harry as not being too bright? The apple did not fall far from the tree.

He's the only one who doesn't seem to understand that everything he has is due to his parents.  The idea that Vladimir Putin and Zuckerberg and the Pope would talk to Harry shows exactly what an entitled prat he actually is, and that all of his progressive talk is fully performative.  When he looks in the mirror he sees His Royal Highness Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, a Blood Royal and Very Important Person.  When he says 'just call me Harry' its the equivalent of the Lord of the Manor throwing out coin on his birthday to the peasants.

At least Meghan, while I don't think she is a nice person, has a list of accomplishments that pre date her involvement with Harry.

Edited June 23 by Cas Stark

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

He's the only one who doesn't seem to understand that everything he has is due to his parents. 

I think you can say that about most of the royals.

Quote

At least Meghan, while I don't think she is a nice person, has a list of accomplishments that pre date her involvement with Harry.

The Queen was probably far worse than her. She just didn't say anything publicly and also privately used the press to her advantage. 

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The Queen was probably far worse than her. She just didn't say anything publicly and also privately used the press to her advantage

Maybe true, but then you question why Meghan didn’t learn a lesson from that 

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you can say that about most of the royals.

The Queen was probably far worse than her. She just didn't say anything publicly and also privately used the press to her advantage. 

Maybe.  Prince Phillip is on record saying that royals need to remember people don't come to see the individual but the 'role' which seems pretty self aware to me.  The Queen's father was also humble about his own lack of capabilities.  I'd imagine being at the pinacle of your country's social system, living the life of an oligarch, you'd need to actively work not to be an arogant jerk though.

Meghan, in her short few years as a super famous person has done many, many things that show me she is manifestly not a nice or sincere person.  I can't say the same for the queen.  Maybe she was a cruel bitch, but I doubt it.  Too many people from across the world including the Obamas spoke too fondly of her.  At the very least, QEII kept any bad deeds behind closed doors and that served her very very well.  Her grand daughter in law would have been wise to take a lesson there.

 

[Tywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe true, but then you question why Meghan didn’t learn a lesson from that 

Let me get this straight, you're saying that someone that married into a family mostly comprised of self-centered assholes should have learned not be an asshole, but said family of assholes can keep on being a family of assholes? And you're cool with them grifting you?

 

Edited June 23 by Tywin et al.

[Tywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Maybe.  Prince Phillip is on record saying that royals need to remember people don't come to see the individual but the 'role' which seems pretty self aware to me.  The Queen's father was also humble about his own lack of capabilities.  I'd imagine being at the pinacle of your country's social system, living the life of an oligarch, you'd need to actively work not to be an arogant jerk though.

 

It's commonly said of Charles that he would have been a failure if he had to live a normal life. And he's king. They're all pretty unimpressive people. And they're mostly jerks. The royal family is the perfect example of why we shouldn't have royal families based on blood (which in and of itself is fucking weird to still defend). If you want a ceremonial figurehead, elect one every few years and give them no power of any kind. Don't give it to one family to abuse for generations.

Quote

At the very least, QEII kept any bad deeds behind closed doors and that served her very very well.  Her grand daughter in law would have been wise to take a lesson there.

I do not get this constant need to hold Meghan to a higher standard than the Queen who fucking raised a sex offender she protected while being an even bigger asshole than Meghan is. Think about that. It makes no sense. Keeping it quiet is no excuse. 

Edited June 23 by Tywin et al.

[Cas Stark]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's commonly said of Charles that he would have been a failure if he had to live a normal life. And he's king. They're all pretty unimpressive people. And they're mostly jerks. The royal family is the perfect example of why we shouldn't have royal families based on blood (which in and of itself is fucking weird to still defend). If you want a ceremonial figurehead, elect one every few years and give them no power of any kind. Don't give it to one family to abuse for generations. I do not get this constant need to hold Meghan to a higher standard than the Queen who fucking raised a sex offender she protected while being an even bigger asshole than Meghan is. Think about that. It makes no sense.

You're projecting.  You don't like the royal family and you think the hereditary aristocracy is bad, fine.  Ask yourself, why Meghan continues to call herself the Duchess of Sussex and was so hot to ensure her chileren got the Prince/Princess titles.  Maybe she doesn't actually share your view there, when the title affords her all kinds of privilege. 

 

 

Edited June 23 by Cas Stark

[Tywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

You're projecting.  You don't like the royal family and you think the hereditary aristocracy is bad, fine.  Ask yourself, why Meghan continues to call herself the Duchess of Sussex and was so hot to ensure her chileren got the Prince/Princess titles.  Maybe she doesn't actually share your view there, when the title affords her all kinds of privilege. 

Lol. Projecting is accusing Meghan of having all the worst traits of the royal family while not holding them accountable for their garbage which is far worse. I've never said she's a wonderful person or anyone I'd want to spend time with, but given the amount of hate some of you have given her I'd think you'd shit on the royal faimly itself a hundred times more.