Resistance is Futile - H&M Part 5

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes! Finally you are getting it! Royals DO NOT speak to the press about their personal feelings! For a reason

That's a creepy take. "My leaders, please lie to me, cheat me, steal from me, but do it in silence." 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It's the hypocrisy.  If you hate the media, especially the British tabloids so much so that you left the UK to 'remove public interest' in your actions, why are you giving any interviews?  In the same vein, they cut off her father for ? making money on a tabloid story about his wedding preparations, while they are fine to make tens of millions talking about their own families and don't seem to see a contradiction.

 

There is also the issue that so much of what she has said is untrue.  

To the last part, I think the more accurate term would be disputable.

As I've always said, I think H&M are for the most part uninteresting people. My contention has always been with why the need to attack them so much when they've done relatively nothing. That's where the real hypocrisy is. You and HoI seem to have more venom for this insignificant couple than you do for the horrible institution they're breaking away from and you're praising and/or dismissing the shadow media presence of the crown while complaining about H&M doing some media? That makes no sense. 

[Heartofice]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a creepy take. "My leaders, please lie to me, cheat me, steal from me, but do it in silence." 

But it’s literally royal protocol to not speak to the press about their feelings. They do it for the very good reasons. Their role is symbolic, we aren’t meant to view them as people with feelings.

[Spockydog]

40 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Calling a black person Straight outta Compton is a clear and obvious racial attack against a black person. Perhaps you know less about the US than we know about the UK. 

And calling someone's DNA exotic is xenophobic. The implications are pretty obvious. What's clear is that your head is in the sand and you're refusing to move it. 

You're arguing with a guy who denies the existence of institutional racism in post-Empire Britain.

Just like the Romans convinced their citizens that anyone who wasn't Roman was a Barbarian, the British Establishment has spent the past five-hundred years very successfully othering the people we have conquered and enslaved.

The results of this are evident in almost every single institution in the land, and will not be easily washed away.

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spockydog

[Cas Stark]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To the last part, I think the more accurate term would be disputable.

As I've always said, I think H&M are for the most part uninteresting people. My contention has always been with why the need to attack them so much when they've done relatively nothing. That's where the real hypocrisy is. You and HoI seem to have more venom for this insignificant couple than you do for the horrible institution they're breaking away from and you're praising and/or dismissing the shadow media presence of the crown while complaining about H&M doing some media? That makes no sense. 

I could turn that around and ask why the need to defend two privileged, rich uninteresting people who have done nothing but complain for ther last 5 years, and why the need to believe on such scant evidence, that Meghan is disliked for being biracial?  There are many, many specific actions that the couple have taken which could reasonably lead them to be disliked compared to as I keep saying, a half dozen articles out of thousands.  

I don't think the monarchy is horrible, it's archaic and benign.  The royal family are figure heads, that's it.  Okay they have some? small? amount of soft power, which for the most part they use to spotlight charities. I also don't see much evidence that all the royals are 'horrible people' as you keep saying.  Charles and Andrew have a lot of baggage, but otherwise?  What have Edward, Sophie, Anne, Zara, Princess Margaret's completely low profile children...done to be tagged as horrible liars?

[polishgenius]

32 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I don't think the monarchy is horrible, it's archaic and benign.

 

Benign child fiddling. Fuck's sake man what are you talking about. 

[Cas Stark]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

Benign child fiddling. Fuck's sake man what are you talking about. 

I thought it was clear:  the monarchy.  

It may be in hindsight its going to turn out that Andrew should have let the case go to trial, come what may.  

I will say that when I was 17 I did not consider myself a child

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Calling a black person Straight outta Compton is a clear and obvious racial attack against a black person. Perhaps you know less about the US than we know about the UK. 

And calling someone's DNA exotic is xenophobic. The implications are pretty obvious. What's clear is that your head is in the sand and you're refusing to move it. 

The Compton article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/amp/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html
 
Its talking about the home of Meghans mother, and the point it’s trying to make is that there is a massive wealth disparity between Meghans family and Harry’s. Some people might get up in arms about the headline, but I’d say it was a standard case of writers trying to get a pun in. There isn’t anything racist in the article, it’s just noticing wealth differences and pointing out things that are true. Also, not a negative article, in some ways promoting a positive view of a girl done good.
 

As for the ‘exotic DNA’ comment, it’s actually part an article praising Meghan and lauding the idea that the Royal family won’t be so white any more. Hard to see the racism intent in that, and it’s overwhelmingly positive in favour of Meghan. 
 

“Johnson described Markle as genetically "blessed." She wrote that the then-actress' "rich and exotic DNA" would thicken the royal family's "watery, thin blue blood."

"Miss Markle's mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye," she wrote.

https://www.insider.com/reporter-called-meghan-markle-exotic-says-would-be-canceled-2021-11?amp
 

I could go on about every single one of these weak ass examples but in every single case they don’t stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny 

[Spockydog]

Revolting. She was trafficked, ffs. 

And whatever your personal preferences might be for having sex with children, Prince Andrew broke the law of the land governing age of consent. 

And then his mum used £7m of public money to hush it up. 

So, yeah. Benign af. 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Spockydog

[Raja]

'Rich and exotic DNA'

Johnson really did write some racist drivel

[Cas Stark]

13 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Revolting. She was trafficked, ffs. 

And whatever your personal preferences might be for having sex with children, Prince Andrew broke the law of the land governing age of consent. 

And then his mum used £7m of public money to hush it up. 

So, yeah. Benign af. 

 

What's the age of consent in the UK again?

[polishgenius]

lmao you're really out here running defence for Prince Andrew

[Week]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

lmao you're really out here running defence for Prince Andrew

Répéter:

2 hours ago, Week said:

"Maybe we are the baddies?"

...

...

What is the age of consent for rape?

Edited August 19, 2023 by Week

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

But it’s literally royal protocol to not speak to the press about their feelings. They do it for the very good reasons. Their role is symbolic, we aren’t meant to view them as people with feelings.

They do it for their benefit. Man you must be easy to con. And they'd be better leaders is they were seen as people. Instead you praise them for being essentially nothing and you're happy to foot their bill for it. That's weird.

1 hour ago, Cas Stark said:

I could turn that around and ask why the need to defend two privileged, rich uninteresting people who have done nothing but complain for ther last 5 years, and why the need to believe on such scant evidence, that Meghan is disliked for being biracial?  There are many, many specific actions that the couple have taken which could reasonably lead them to be disliked compared to as I keep saying, a half dozen articles out of thousands.  

I don't defend them. They mean nothing to me. What I do is point out how they're treated verse the RF writ large and ask what's the obvious difference? The black woman from the US at a time when political powers talk about keep England England might be your first hint.

 

Quote

I don't think the monarchy is horrible, it's archaic and benign.  The royal family are figure heads, that's it.  Okay they have some? small? amount of soft power, which for the most part they use to spotlight charities. I also don't see much evidence that all the royals are 'horrible people' as you keep saying.  Charles and Andrew have a lot of baggage, but otherwise?  What have Edward, Sophie, Anne, Zara, Princess Margaret's completely low profile children...done to be tagged as horrible liars?

They have immense soft power. It's just used to protect themselves more so than guiding public policy. And that's the point, they are a major player in the negative press while at the same time making sure they generate a lot of positive news for themselves. 

And it's pretty lame to mention the unimportant actors here when obviously we're talking about people like the former queen and his sons, the shit king and his creep of a brother. 

59 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I will say that when I was 17 I did not consider myself a child

You seriously think this when a powerful person in their 40s is trying to fuck you at that age? Okay...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The Compton article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/amp/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html
 
Its talking about the home of Meghans mother, and the point it’s trying to make is that there is a massive wealth disparity between Meghans family and Harry’s. Some people might get up in arms about the headline, but I’d say it was a standard case of writers trying to get a pun in. There isn’t anything racist in the article, it’s just noticing wealth differences and pointing out things that are true. Also, not a negative article, in some ways promoting a positive view of a girl done good.
 

As for the ‘exotic DNA’ comment, it’s actually part an article praising Meghan and lauding the idea that the Royal family won’t be so white any more. Hard to see the racism intent in that, and it’s overwhelmingly positive in favour of Meghan. 
 

“Johnson described Markle as genetically "blessed." She wrote that the then-actress' "rich and exotic DNA" would thicken the royal family's "watery, thin blue blood."

"Miss Markle's mother is a dreadlocked African-American lady from the wrong side of the tracks who lives in LA, and even the sourest spinster has to admit that the 35-year-old actress is extremely easy on the eye," she wrote.

https://www.insider.com/reporter-called-meghan-markle-exotic-says-would-be-canceled-2021-11?amp
 

I could go on about every single one of these weak ass examples but in every single case they don’t stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny 

That you can't see the racism in this just speaks to your blindness. 

[Cas Stark]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

You seriously think this when a powerful person in their 40s is trying to fuck you at that age? Okay...

Yes.  But my point is that her age is the not issue with the Andrew case.  Its a dumb, transparent way people try to score points.  Oooh, pedophile, ooh kiddle fiddler.  The issues with Andrew is whether 1) he knew or did not know that she had been trafficked and thus would be unable to consent, 2)  did he use force.   

If people in general object to the age of consent in the UK, which is 16, or the US, which is 16 in about 2/3 of the states, then fine, object.

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Cas Stark

[Heartofice]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

They do it for their benefit. Man you must be easy to con. And they'd be better leaders is they were seen as people

Yes they do it for their benefit, that’s the point, so that the public don’t hate them.. for example.. Meghan.

You are wrong on the second point, I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding. Also they aren’t leaders. 

[Cas Stark]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And it's pretty lame to mention the unimportant actors here when obviously we're talking about people like the former queen and his sons, the shit king and his creep of a brother. 

Okay.  I don't see any reason to dislike the late queen other than you just dislike the monarchy for whatever reasons.  Same for William, what has ever done that is so terrible? He's starting initiatives on homelessness and the environment, seems pretty good use of whatever 'power' he has.  That leaves Charles, who is a jerk and is unsuited to the public life that is his birthright, which is too bad for all concerned, and Andrew.  But, it's a little disingenious that you keep saying how the royal family is full of liars and terrible people, but narrow the scope down to the 2 worst, Charles and Andrew.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Yes.  But my point is that her age is the not issue with the Andrew case.  Its a dumb, transparent way people try to score points.  Oooh, pedophile, ooh kiddle fiddler.  The issues with Andrew is whether 1) he knew or did not know that she had been trafficked and thus would be unable to consent, 2)  did he use force.   

If people in general object to the age of consent in the UK, which is 16, or the US, which is 16 in about 2/3 of the states, then fine, object.

 

Yeah, I do object to a powerful man in his 40's fucking a 17 year old. Everyone should. That you care less about that while acknowledging she may have been a forced sex worker than MM giving an interview is not a good look.  

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yes they do it for their benefit, that’s the point, so that the public don’t hate them.. for example.. Meghan.

You are wrong on the second point, I’m not sure what you aren’t understanding. Also they aren’t leaders. 

If they're not leaders then why do they even exist? Don't ya'll sing god save the king and now save the king? And the public should hate them if it turns out who they really are behind closed doors is shitty people. Praising them for hiding their true selves is again just weird. It's like you want the Wizard of Oz to remain behind the curtain. 

22 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Okay.  I don't see any reason to dislike the late queen other than you just dislike the monarchy for whatever reasons.  Same for William, what has ever done that is so terrible? He's starting initiatives on homelessness and the environment, seems pretty good use of whatever 'power' he has.  That leaves Charles, who is a jerk and is unsuited to the public life that is his birthright, which is too bad for all concerned, and Andrew.  But, it's a little disingenious that you keep saying how the royal family is full of liars and terrible people, but narrow the scope down to the 2 worst, Charles and Andrew.

The queen probably wouldn't piss on your face if you needed water in the desert. She raised two shitty sons who have a ton of power, one being the king now, and we're suppose to shrug at it and pretend she was a great mother? And spare me that he's starting an initiative on the homeless right now. The whole family could have done more for generations and never noticed their bank accounts decrease. It's just bullshit PR. You could probably pick a random educated person from the UK and they'd have done at least as good of a job. The whole thing is a joke. For example, if you made @Raja or @Isis king or queen the country would be in a much better place right now. Even @BigFatCoward could probably do better. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Tywin et al.

[polishgenius]

A few hours ago I made a post comparing Cas Stark to Piers Morgan.

That was uncalled for. 

It is with a heavy heart that I must recant, withdraw my comment, and apologise to Piers Morgan.