Jump to content

Resistance is Futile - H&M Part 5


Fragile Bird
 Share

Recommended Posts

For a single example, from nearly the moment the two announced their engagement the Daily Beast went after her, with links to and synopses of pieces out of the British tabloids, as well as just making up shyte whole sale.  This is how I learned of the woman's existence.  Harry's existence also had barely registered with me.

The Beast was filling up screen after screen every days with screeds about how awful she was, her family was, etc.  It was literally hysterical as the wedding got close.

These stories ALWAYS featured references to her skin tone, her 'mixed race' heritage and how awful her Black Family was, and so on ad nauseum.

This is how I came to follow this shyte with mouth open in shock at the Brit papers in particular.  Though I wasn't surprised in the least.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the good old days when we were demanding precision in the language we used about child molesting princes? 

1 minute ago, Week said:

Bud. Cmon.

I’m just trying to understand. You mean people can say one thing while implying another? A “dog whistle”, if you will?

I wonder if the English tabloids know about this rhetorical sleight of hand. No telling what they could do with it…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

What happened to the good old days when we were demanding precision in the language we used about child molesting princes? 

I’m just trying to understand. You mean people can say one thing while implying another? A “dog whistle”, if you will?

I wonder if the English tabloids know about this rhetorical sleight of hand. No telling what they could do with it…

I'm being facetious. The poster in question whined about 'personal attacks' and yet the only personal 'insult' that I could identify was 'magnanimous.' Jokes truly do benefit from a tortured explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

There is also a very big difference between claiming that media coverage is racist, which has been claimed on this board many times and is routinely stated as a fact by writers, reporters, broadcasts, politicians.....and that some level of racism might be at play in why some number of people don't like Meghan and Harry. 

The first is, as far as I can tell, objectively false.

Curious. How much time have you actually spent in the UK?

Because you seem to be positioning yourself as some kind of expert on the inherent nature of the British media.

So, come on. When was the last time you were here, and how long did you stay for?

Which papers did you read? Which news programs did you watch?

Curious.

 

Edited by Spockydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Week said:

I'm being facetious. The poster in question whined about 'personal attacks' and yet the only personal 'insult' that I could identify was 'magnanimous.' Jokes truly do benefit from a tortured explanation.

That same poster was looking for examples of racism in the British media and apparently didn’t get the subtleties.

I feel like this similar conversations have taken place on these threads many, many times.

Edited by Deadlines? What Deadlines?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know about others but I've traveled to the UK a lot -- before the pandemic and BREXIT and their corrupt government.  As I don't expect people in other countries to support our fascists by coming to the US and spending their money, I won't go there now. So the last time I was there was 2018.  Not to mention my first three degrees were in the literature and history of the US and the UK, specializing in the 18th and 19th century. Also the next degree Information Sciences, so ya, one does see things. :read:  Also, you know :cheers: (i.e. beer and friends in the UK).

In the meantime there is this newfangled thing, the internet, and one can read UK papers and those from other nations every frackin' day.  Particularly in a library, where all the subscriptions are available.  Funny that as I work in one. Ha! 

In the meantime you know the UK has hordes of writers, film makers, historians, etc. all of whom are available,  past and present, right here in the USA, within and without libraries, and in bookstores even.

Good grief . . . you know right? it's . . . ah, 2023? :lol:

But I never did watch Suits and didn't pay attention to Harry and the Big M -- until this racist bs started.  Very sensitive to this stuff, considering my history research, scholarship, etc.

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok so it’s a major factor. Great. At least we can get agreement on your position and Week can come back and apologise for trying to gaslight everyone on this board. Thank you. 

Stop trolling. You're too old to be doing so.

31 minutes ago, Zorral said:

This is how I learned of the woman's existence. 

This is the weird thing about all of this. She's not a star. Idk if I've ever seen her in anything. Looking at her IMDB, it's pretty slim. She played a bit role in a movie I kind of like which I don't remember her even being in and an episode of a TV show I watched which again have no memory of her. It's strange seeing people hate on her because she's some fancy Hollywood celebrity when in reality she was a relative nobody before she started dating Harry and again, she really hasn't said all that much, he has. The negative response against her makes no sense until you begin to factor in bias. Maybe it's race, maybe it's xenophobia, maybe it's misogyny, you can go down the line, but saying it's primarily about how she acts is bullshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Curious. How much time have you actually spent in the UK?

Because you seem to be positioning yourself as some kind of expert on the inherent nature of the British media.

So, come on. When was the last time you were here, and how long did you stay for?

Which papers did you read? Which news programs did you watch?

Curious.

 

Uh oh, there you go indulging in personal attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

I'm being facetious. The poster in question whined about 'personal attacks' and yet the only personal 'insult' that I could identify was 'magnanimous.' Jokes truly do benefit from a tortured explanation.

Maybe a bit ironic that someone complaining about a couple of personal attacks in an online forum also thinks that Meghan is a whinging prima donna for daring to complain about thousands of negative and often downright vicious media articles.

Still, I have learned that there's apparently an acceptable level of racism that people should just over and stop making such an annoying fuss about.

It definitely seems naive to suggest that the tabloid or RW media, in Britain and elsewhere, doesn't regularly flirt with racism, misogyny and classism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, just to remind you all that both Week and Dante paraded into this thread demanding that Cas stop strawmanning everyone, nobody has ever said any of these things have they.. oh no! 
 

So the easy way to clear it all up is to state your position. I stated mine and was very clear.

Dante swerved and used vague language, even admitting his wording could mean whatever you want it to mean, and now refuses to actually say a simple line which would clear the whole thing up.

Week has of course totally backed out of the whole thing. 
 

Twyin at least had the courage of his convictions to admit that yes, he does think that racism plays a major factor in meghan’s popularity. Which is great, we know where he stands. 
 

So now we at least know that Week and Dante were trying to gaslight us all into believing something that was clearly not true at all, we can move past it. Great work guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I predicted you'd lie about anything I said, and here we are. I've been consistent in how I've talked about this and even used quotes to demonstrate how both you and Cas change your own language.

It's particularly galling that you're now misusing "gaslight" in service of your bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

See, I predicted you'd lie about anything I said, and here we are. I've been consistent in how I've talked about this and even used quotes to demonstrate how both you and Cas change your own language.

It's particularly galling that you're now misusing "gaslight" in service of your bullshit.

I’m just trying to get clarity from your statement. You asked me to give my opinion and you gave a slightly wooly one that you openly accepted is open to interpretation. If you want to make this easier just say you don’t think racism was a major reason for dislike of Megan, or say that you do think so. I’m not sure why you find that so hard to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Zorral said:

For a single example, from nearly the moment the two announced their engagement the Daily Beast went after her, with links to and synopses of pieces out of the British tabloids, as well as just making up shyte whole sale.  This is how I learned of the woman's existence.  Harry's existence also had barely registered with me.

The Beast was filling up screen after screen every days with screeds about how awful she was, her family was, etc.  It was literally hysterical as the wedding got close.

These stories ALWAYS featured references to her skin tone, her 'mixed race' heritage and how awful her Black Family was, and so on ad nauseum.

This is how I came to follow this shyte with mouth open in shock at the Brit papers in particular.  Though I wasn't surprised in the least.

 

I'm pretty sure this never happened.  Her mother has gotten almost completely positive press and her black relatives not only weren't at her wedding but they have been almost invisible in any media coverage. 

Maybe you are thinking about her father's side of the family, as the Markles indeed have generated a lot of negative press.

I read Tom Sykes, he's the royal reporter for the Daily Beast and he leaned mostly pro Harry and Meg until very recently.

I'm going to have to file this post under 'gaslighting'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it was a major reason. You and Cas have been claiming all this time, as I quoted, that people here were blaming the negativity only on racism.

I said it was a fool's errand to try and fix exact amount or percentage because that is, in fact, hard to quantify, for reasons I didn't think I had to explain. I also acknowledged that everyone's sense of the proportions were different. Ty gave you an actual percentage. Good for him, and good for you for whatever satisfaction that may have brought you.

I realize now you just wanted that in order to be able to try and make another bullshit projection of bad faith onto other people. I was trying to find the space for nuance and maybe even common ground, and you just used it to make accusations. I won't make that mistake again.

You, at least, have admitted to the existence of racism somewhere within the bad reactions to Meghan Markle. That's at least more than you admitted to when you were denying that racism could have had any effect on Brexit. So, progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for Tywin for giving a percentage. I think that is wildly high, if I were to give a percentage I'd put it at 10%. 

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. 

There is much more evidence that her own behavior is what caused the change from positive to negative, rather than her being biracial.  It is just not true that coverage of Meghan was negative from the beginning, certainly not compared to Kate Middleton who was still getting razzed for her family's non aristo background right up until Meghan came on the scene.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...