Don't forget that time she touched her stomach when she was pregnant, Allegedly, of course. :laugh:

Again - there's a difference between how a chef chops a carrot and how my 11 year old chops a carrot, but at the end of the day you're still eating carrots.

Your error here is mis-remembering anywhere that I said any of this is bad. I don't think it's "bad" that the Royals support charities (if they must exist, it's the least they can do) or that celebrities support charities. I find the methods of both ham-fisted but each to their own ... the Royal methods seem less "dignified and refined" once you see them for what they are (PR) but ultimately wherever/whenever money is getting where it needs to go, that's a positive.

So I don't think the Royals are "bad" for doing charity.

I don't think The Rock and Oprah are "bad" for doing charity.


...I just think they're exactly the same... and noted a very vocal Royal-fan being very critical of celebrity charity. Which is just sheer hypocrisy.

Well good for them..

SB decided to bring the Royals into the equation...no one is Justifying the Royals Charity work because its part of what they do...trying to make a comparison is simply ridiculous.

The fact that they go and see it with their own eyes and choose - yes, choose - to remain a part of the hyper-privileged and wealthy global elite and ride around in gold-adorned horse drawn carriages makes me dislike them all the more, not less. Imagine travelling the world and seeing real poverty, and then flying back to your literal palace and not entering deep existential crisis.

But they don't because they believe about themselves the same things that you believe about them;

That they're better, and deserve better, because they have superior blood.

It's gross as **** and the more I think about it the worse it gets.

Again it's only ridiculous to you because you lavish them with special status;clearly, it's not ridiculous to compare "celebrities doing charity" with "other celebrities doing charity in fancier clothes".

Says he who defends Harry and Meghan to the hilt...:joker:

That's not what you said originally though, you said it left a bad taste in your mouth but when the Royals do it it's fine.

The comparison seems pretty valid to me

That isn't even true, I pointed out Harry's privilege quite openly with the whole "people should leave jobs they're not happy in" thing. I agreed with him that people shouldn't just stick with their lot, but that it's not as simple as he made out and most normal people need to seek an alternative that pays the same or better and can't simply walk away.

Harry and Meghan at least, though, are just what they are - plain old celebrities. Yes with all of the wealth and privilege that can come with that. THe same privilege that people like Oprah and The Rock have. Like I said they're all the same - just celebrities.

The difference is - AGAIN - that they're not pretending to be something better than that, and they don't have a legion of people insisting the same thing. The Royal Family are just celebrities no better than any of the others mentioned. No better or different at all. It's a fairytale, an illusion.

turning a Oprah and The Rock thread into a Harry & Meghan thread

https://media.tenor.com/dMygK5llMOcA...be-shocked.gif

I was referring to their donation...nothing else.

Tell me about it...:laugh:

:joker:

:huh:

It isn't a strawman though, it's a pretty fair comparison.

Even if it was a poor comparison it would have nothing to do with strawmanning... it's just something LT's heard other people use as a term and is (incorrectly) parrotting. :hehe:

While they present themselves as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their children as Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet, (which they insisted upon) they don’t see themselves as just plain old celebrities and they have, and do, expect to be treated differently to those plain old celebs.
Otherwise they would be just plain old Harry and Meghan Windsor.

They wanted to be half in, half out; the status without the hard dreary work. They very much wanted to still be part of the Royal family. The Queen said you are either in or out and they have been trying to get their revenge ever since.
You can't abhor Royalty and support the titled, also privileged, lazy ones who rarely do darn all good for anybody.

See now this, is a strawman argument:

I didn't mention Harry and Meghan in this thread or bring them into it to support them or otherwise, I didn't say they "do good charity", and I didn't say they aren't privileged, nor did I say that The Rock or Oprah aren't also privileged and very wealthy.

I drew a direct comparison between the active Royals and the Hollywood celebs mentioned in this thread to point out that they are the same, and to counter people criticising those celebs for charity work whilst lauding The Royals for their charity work. As I've said - it's the least that any of them can do, and if one wants to criticise wealth, privilege and supposed status, charitable appeals are not really an ideal place to start.

But instead of arguing against the idea that The Royals are inherently different to Hollywood celebrities in any meaningful way, multiple people have attempted to "defend the Royals" by bringing Harry and Meghan (the strawman, here) into it :shrug:. No one was talking about Harry and Meghan! I didn't say anything about them at all, supportive or otherwise!

:joker: :joker: Did it really take you half an hour to google Strawmanning and then find another logical fallacy that might fit?

I commend your commitment to your further education LT but as I've outlined 5 or 6 times that I draw no distinction whatsoever between Hollywood Celebrities and Royal Celebrities, and the thread is on the rights and wrongs of privilege and celebrity charity... I'm afraid Whataboutism doesn't fit either. Back to the drawing board.

It isn't changing the subject though, it's odd to support one set of millionaires trying to raise money for charities while admonishing another, it's the same thing

Just to clarify: I don't think mentioning H&M is in itself a strawman OR whataboutism in this thread either. I think their charity work is exactly the same as their charity work when they were active Royals, and the same as the current active Royals, and the same as Oprah, and the same as The People's Champion.

So there you go. That's my opinion on Harry and Meghan's charitable activities. It is also exactly the same as these other examples. No better, no worse, no different.

I've strongly objected to all the charity fundraisers where people add their names to increase their own profile.

I object to all the day time adverts saying give x per month to help xxxxxx. I object to charity christmas cards where they give something like 1 penny to charity. I object to charities like oxfam that are still up and running when they have repeatedly raped and abused women overseas.

They all stink

I don’t know or care who brought Meghan and Harry into it, I was referring to what you said in that particular paragraph about seeing them as just plain old celebrities. But you diverted by changing the subject.

People who were born into the jobs of charity ambassadors handle it differently to those who weren't?

How surprising.