Resistance is Futile - H&M Part 5

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Of course it was a major reason. 

Finally!! Now we are getting somewhere. Why was it so hard to say that?

I'm not sure why we had to go through this entire nonsense of you and Week making claims of strawmanning, pretending we don't all know exactly what your position is and has been for the past 3000 threads. It's so tiresome if you are just going to beat around the bush.

On the subject of strawmanning, I've never said that racism never comes into it, I've been very consistent. My point has been that it is so far down the list of reasons most people dislike her to really even register. A few racists doesn't prove the rule. I always struggle to understand how people can put it all down the racism, when the reasons to dislike her are so numerous and clearly stated, and have nothing to do with race and everything to do with her behaviour, and the things she has said and done. 

[DanteGabriel]

@Cas Stark did you see Spocky's question about your familiarity with the UK and its press?

[Spockydog]

Of course he did. He just doesn't want to admit that his view of British life has been largely informed by repeatedly binge-watching Downton Abbey. 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spockydog

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The evidence shows that Meg was given rapturous, positive press in the beginning.  Even the fact that she cut her own father off, didn't dent things too much.  It was only after the wedding when things began to leak out about her behavior that you started to see a change in the tone of some of the coverage, most notably the Daily Mail. 

Exactly, the reception to Meghan was massively positive, even in rags like the Mail and the Sun. People were turning out in the street for the wedding and there wasn't any negativity towards the couple at all, it was all very exciting for everyone.


OUT OF THIS WORLD Huge Royal Wedding crowds could be seen from SPACE as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry tied the knot

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5747355/Royal-wedding-Crowds-thousands-pour-Windsor.html

It was only afterwards that things started to go downhill, but that is based on story after story of bad behaviour and tensions between William and Harry.

If I was to pin her unpopularity on 2 or 3 things I would say it was primarily that she is seen as the cause of the breakdown in relationship between Harry and his brother and the eventual breaking from the family. Harry went from being the most popular royal to being disliked, his personality seeming to just change as soon as her met Meghan.

Secondly I think there is simply a culture clash going on, her Hollywood veneer and way of acting really just not chime with the British public and is seen as fake and insincere.

Thirdly I just think that she has been caught out lying and twisting the truth too many times, playing the race card, and generally coming across as incredibly manipulative. I always find it curious the different reactions to the Oprah interview from both sides of the pond. In the US it was maybe more natural to just believe every word of it because it ticked a lot of the sob story boxes, but in the UK where we have a more cynical outlook, it just looked embarrassing. That so many of the things she said were clearly untrue and could be spotted a mile off made it even worse.
 

16 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

There is a conversation to be had about whether the tabloids pick a royal to 'target' and the fact that that royal is always a woman who married into the family.  No tabloids have ever been interested in either of Anne's husbands.  But, that's a convo about sexism not racism.

Yes this absolutely happens, the treatment of Fergie and Camilla are good examples. 

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Spockydog said:

Of course he did. He just doesn't want to admit that his view of British life has been largely informed by Downton Abbey. 

 

I'm assuming some encyclopedic and indeed omniscient knowledge of British culture and media due to all the "if I didn't see it it must not have existed" dismissals of everyone else's memories of racist coverage, accompanied by another laughably offensive accusation of "gaslighting."

I think "gaslighting" is the new "woke."

[Cas Stark]

Isn't 'gaslighting' from the old Ingrid Bergman movie "Gaslight"?  It's not new.  

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Isn't 'gaslighting' from the old Ingrid Bergman movie "Gaslight"?  It's not new.  

Well Week was trying to make us think we must be losing our minds, making claims of strawmanning a position that is clearly held by quite a lot of people here... I think it fits.

[Spockydog]

So it would appear that Cas has never been to the UK, but has a deep understanding of the machinations of and prejudices of the British tabloid media. 

With this in mind, I eagerly await his analysis of the tabloid coverage of young black footballers compared to their white counterparts, particularly the stark tonal discrepancies between the reporting of Raheem Sterling and Phil Foden each buying their Mum a house. 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spockydog

[DanteGabriel]

10 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Isn't 'gaslighting' from the old Ingrid Bergman movie "Gaslight"?  It's not new.  

Of course it's not new, no one ever said that it was. But it has a very specific definition, and it shouldn't be lightly applied to squabbles about interpretation of racism in media coverage.

ETA: Oh, I see. I said it was the "new 'woke' " and you jumped from there. I would try to explain what that meant but I don't think it's worth the effort.

Edited August 19, 2023 by DanteGabriel

[Cas Stark]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Well Week was trying to make us think we must be losing our minds, making claims of strawmanning a position that is clearly held by quite a lot of people here... I think it fits.

Ha.  Oh it totally fits.  It's not a matter of 'dozens and dozens' of racist articles about Meghan that don't appear to exist, it's the dozens of posts right here on this forum that made it clear posters believe that racism is the primary reason for dislike of Meghan.

Doesn't anyone wonder what kind of person would have acted the way Meghan did in the run up to the wedding behind the scenes?  Why would you be antagonizing people right and left the way she did?

 

[Cas Stark]

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So it would appear that Cas has never been to the UK, but has a deep understanding of the machinations of and prejudices of the British tabloid media. 

With this in mind, I eagerly await his analysis of the tabloid coverage of young black footballers compared to their white counterparts, particularly the stark tonal discrepancies between the reporting of Raheem Sterling and Phil Foden each buying their Mum a house. 

 

Hmmm.  What's the point here?  Are you going to try to deplatform anyone who isn't British on this subject, or just me?  Is there some minimum number of times visiting the UK on holiday qualifies one to comment on tabloid stoires that are available to anyone with a computer or a phone?  Do the visits have to be recent?  How recent?  How many visits make it acceptable in your opinion to comment?  What a weird litmus test for a global story.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This is becoming high comedy. Yes, I said a third of it was due to her being black. Another third is due to her being foreign. The last third can be a mix of things. But what is ridiculous is to claim it's because she's an asshole when most of the royals are probably far worse assholes. Your dead queen was a notorious asshole. Did you hammer her for that? If not, hush. 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Hmmm.  What's the point here?  Are you going to try to deplatform anyone who isn't British on this subject, or just me?  Is there some minimum number of times visiting the UK on holiday qualifies one to comment on tabloid stoires that are available to anyone with a computer or a phone?  Do the visits have to be recent?  How recent?  How many visits make it acceptable in your opinion to comment?  What a weird litmus test for a global story.

I’d also point out that I highly doubt Spocky is an avid reader of tabloid newspapers, certainly doesn’t read the daily Mail so is no more an expert than anyone else.

 

[polishgenius]

Cas, are you Piers Morgan?

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

But what is ridiculous is to claim it's because she's an asshole when most of the royals are probably far worse assholes. Your dead queen was a notorious asshole. Did you hammer her for that? If not, hush. 

You keep saying this stuff but you keep missing the point that Meghan has exposed her own negative traits by actually talking, most royals don’t ever do that, and when they do it goes very badly for them. 

[Spockydog]

9 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Hmmm.  What's the point here?  Are you going to try to deplatform anyone who isn't British on this subject, or just me?  

No. Only people who make the absurd claim that the British tabloid press isn't racist. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

You keep saying this stuff but you keep missing the point that Meghan has exposed her own negative traits by actually talking, most royals don’t ever do that, and when they do it goes very badly for them. 

She doesn't talk that much, Harry does. And the queen talked by heavily influencing the British press. I'd say that's way more shady. Do you really think she had no idea about all the pro crown stories being fed to them or the ones denigrating the people she had issues with? Come on dude.

[Spockydog]

8 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’d also point out that I highly doubt Spocky is an avid reader of tabloid newspapers, certainly doesn’t read the daily Mail so is no more an expert than anyone else.

 

Like anyone who follows politics in this country, I am regularly exposed to the vile front pages of the gutter tabloids. And my mum has been buying this shite for years. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spockydog

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Ha.  Oh it totally fits.  It's not a matter of 'dozens and dozens' of racist articles about Meghan that don't appear to exist, it's the dozens of posts right here on this forum that made it clear posters believe that racism is the primary reason for dislike of Meghan.

Doesn't anyone wonder what kind of person would have acted the way Meghan did in the run up to the wedding behind the scenes?  Why would you be antagonizing people right and left the way she did?

 

There's the intentional dishonesty. Immediately after Ty, Dante, and I made it quite clear what our stance was to juxtapose against this exact statement. Dante even quoted three straight posts of you moving the goalposts only to end up back here (racism is the only factor >> racism is the primary factor >> racism exacerbates the response).

It's just such a bizarre reaction to angrily whinge that while racism is inarguably a factor in animating some people to tear down and say/post/write vitriol about MM that it is not THAT significant and that you're completely comfortable continuing to rail against her. Maybe listen to others experience? Ultimately, the point that Ty, Dante, I, and others are making is that maybe you should pause and consider before piling on more vitriol. Instead, you rankle at such an anodyne concept and double down. Why do you think that is?

[Heartofice]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

She doesn't talk that much,

Recently no, but she used to. You don’t remember the Oprah interview. You keep saying she has barely said anything but there is a litany of lies and exaggerations on her side. 
 

If she doesn’t speak directly to camera much these days it’s because she made such a mess of it before