[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Opposites often attract but over time the differences become the thing that will split them apart. I think their family backgrounds are so different i cant see it lasting at all

They're not opposites though, she's exactly the type of wife you could have guessed Harry would choose since his teens when everyone already knew he was a Royal Black Sheep. History is being willfully re-written on this one to pretend that he was "with the programme" before he met Meghan Markle. He blatantly was not and everyone knew it.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes because that's what we should be wary from when it comes to the wimminfolk - they're just after our monies and precious seed, makes us fills them with babies they does and then they breaks us, tearses us away from Granny they does... cuts us off when happy we was... vicious, horrible wimminses.

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMerceB6e/

The only one talking about 'all wimminses' is you. Very sexist to think all women are alike because we're discussing one woman.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

The only one talking about 'all wimminses' is you. Very sexist to think all women are alike because of one woman.

I'm just calling a spade a spade, the idea that a woman is "just after ____" when there's just NO evidence of that at all is blatant misogyny rooted in an idea that any woman who ends up in a relationship with a "man of status" must be regarded with suspicion as some sort of leech or gold digger. Anyone who fawns over Kate for being meek and quiet whilst fuming about Meghan Markle for saying too much has - in my opinion - some subconscious issues with women in general to address.

It's OK jet we all have our unconscious biases - the important thing is to acknowledge them and do a li'l better each day

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I'm just calling a spade a spade, the idea that a woman is "just after ____" when there's just NO evidence of that at all is blatant misogyny rooted in an idea that any woman who ends up in a relationship with a "man of status" must be regarded with suspicion as some sort of leech or gold digger. Anyone who fawns over Kate for being meek and quiet whilst fuming about Meghan Markle for saying too much has - in my opinion - some subconscious issues with women in general to address.

It's OK jet we all have our unconscious biases - the important thing is to acknowledge them and do a li'l better each day

The reaching.
Not any woman who ends up in a relationship with a 'man of status'.
Meghan and Harry. Meghan and Harry - which this thread is about.
Understand that yet?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They're not opposites though, she's exactly the type of wife you could have guessed Harry would choose since his teens when everyone already knew he was a Royal Black Sheep. History is being willfully re-written on this one to pretend that he was "with the programme" before he met Meghan Markle. He blatantly was not and everyone knew it.

he is a little boy lost and she is a wiley 40 year old hustler

i cant see it lasting tbh

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

The reaching.
Not any woman who ends up in a relationship with a 'man of status'.
Meghan and Harry. Meghan and Harry - which this thread is about.
Understand that yet?

Endless assumptions about her without a shred of proof or even a specific indication, and they are oozing misogyny, and a little bit of classism and sectarianism, but let's face it it's all quite entertwined.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

[img] misogyny, and a little bit of classism and sectarianism

did someone hack my online dating profile?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

did someone hack my online dating profile?

Not yours LT

"... reasons I left my last partner ..."

[rusticgal]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Endless assumptions about her without a shred of proof or even a specific indication, and they are oozing misogyny, and a little bit of classism and sectarianism, but let's face it it's all quite entertwined.

Assumptions are less dangerous than Accusations without proof...

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Endless assumptions about her without a shred of proof or even a specific indication, and they are oozing misogyny, and a little bit of classism and sectarianism, but let's face it it's all quite entertwined.

Who are 'they'? Are 'they' the people you are making assumptions about?

[rusticgal]

I’m seeing lots of pictures of Harry either on the back of his dads bike...being towed by his dad on a bike and cycling with his family as a young boy....contrary to what Harry said in the interview...
The untruths just seem to keep coming...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

Assumptions are less dangerous than Accusations without proof...

Potayto potahto

Originally Posted by jet

Who are 'they'? Are 'they' the people you are making assumptions about?

I wouldn't like to comment. Well, I would like to comment but I'd get'n twouble again.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

LT you're in such a huff about Meghan at the moment, it's delicious reading. But why though? Oh... Oh no... Did she ghost you after you went out for drinks, too? DAMNIT Markle this is becoming a pattern!

After a few dirty Martini's and put in a taxi

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

...heh... bad faith commentators who are also stupid and gullible. "Royal Essperts"

Youtube video

Note that THIS video was published 2 days before the interview aired

You're way behind - there was a thread about this days ago. All but one (who nobody has ever heard of) are royal authors, not Royal reporters or commentators and never have been.
Edit - one is not a Royal author but a long retired press secretary to the Queen.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

You're way behind - there was a thread about this days ago. All but one (who nobody has ever heard of) are royal authors, not Royal reporters or commentators and never have been.
Edit - one is not a Royal author but a long retired press secretary to the Queen.

Illustrates the general mindset quite well I think - all had made up their minds before even seeing it. Its called confirmation bias: you'll see what you want to see.

[arista]

Originally Posted by jet

You're way behind - there was a thread about this days ago. All but one (who nobody has ever heard of) are royal authors, not Royal reporters or commentators and never have been.
Edit - one is not a Royal author but a long retired press secretary to the Queen.

Was that thread Padlocked?
Jet

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Illustrates the general mindset quite well I think - all had made up their minds before even seeing it. Its called confirmation bias: you'll see what you want to see.

I agree with what BOTS said: "they weren't caught lying. They were invited to comment before they had seen the video using their judgement on what they speculated it would contain. Big difference."

.....and my goodness, when I watched it again afterwards their speculations were so spot on you'd swear they HAD seen it.
They had her measure, just like most of the UK public do who are over 24 (according to all the polls, 18 - 24's is where the majority of their support comes from).

[jet]

Originally Posted by arista

Was that thread Padlocked?
Jet

It wasn't Arista.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

I agree with what BOTS said: "they weren't caught lying. They were invited to comment before they had seen the video using their judgement on what they speculated it would contain. Big difference."



.....and my goodness, when I watched it again afterwards their speculations were so spot on you'd swear they HAD seen it.

They had her measure, just like most of the UK public do who are over 24 (according to all the polls, 16 - 24's is where the majority of their support comes from).

They were caught lying, they presented the information as what they had seen, not what they expected to see. I'm unsurprised by the tedious denial, though.

As for it being "so spot on you'd swear they had seen it", see above re: confirmation bias.

I've still yet to have anyone link me to one of these polls, also, their validity depends entirely on where it was that ran the poll.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They were caught lying, they presented the information as what they had seen, not what they expected to see. I'm unsurprised by the tedious denial, though.

As for it being "so spot on you'd swear they had seen it", see above re: confirmation bias.

I've still yet to have anyone link me to one of these polls, also, their validity depends entirely on where it was that ran the poll.

Their confirmation bias turned out to be confirmed though, what they expected to see was correct.

I posted a link to the latest YouGOV poll elsewhere.
Here it is: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...w-harry-meghan

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by rusticgal

I’m seeing lots of pictures of Harry either on the back of his dads bike...being towed by his dad on a bike and cycling with his family as a young boy....contrary to what Harry said in the interview...
The untruths just seem to keep coming...

What did he say about that?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Their confirmation bias turned out to be confirmed though, what they expected to see was correct.



I posted a link to the latest YouGOV poll elsewhere.

Here it is: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...w-harry-meghan

That's not what confirmation bias means, jet.

Confirmation bias is the reason that you view the interview and think "Oh boy, they/I were correct, exactly what I expected".

A subconscious selective focus on certain pieces of information that happen to back up your preconceptions, whilst disregarding information that might counter those thoughts.

Its very common and we're all susceptible to it. It's what makes Social Media so successful (and toxic), for example.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

What did he say about that?

"Harry said he doesn't get on with his dad and there are issues there, but I saw him on his bike with him when he was 5 and he was SMILING AND LAUGHING so oh umm what a liar."

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

"Harry said he doesn't get on with his dad and there are issues there, but I saw him on his bike with him when he was 5 and he was SMILING AND LAUGHING so oh umm what a liar."

I was wondering what people were talking about with Harry on his bike , wow the reacting of all this .

[user104658]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I was wondering what people were talking about with Harry on his bike , wow the reacting of all this .

He did specifically say he wasn't able to do things like go on bike rides with his dad when he was young and there are pictures of him on a bike with Charles. He looks very young and the likelihood of him actually remembering this is very slim so people's outrage and calling it lying is obviously over the top - although it is technically untrue, which he may himself be surprised to find out I suppose. I doubt he was lying, so much as not remembering doing things like that with his dad. There's a suggestion that there are "tonnes" of these photographs but the only ones I;ve seen look like they were all taken on the same day.

Regardless, people are laser-focussing on it in bad faith: he's using it as an illustrative example, all he's REALLY saying is "I don't remember spending much time as a family when I was a kid and I want things to be different for my children". Countering with "Aha! See you DID spend some time with your family!!" is really nit-picking. It's like someone saying "I was always unhappy in my marriage right from the start" and then someone else saying "AHA here's a picture of you smiling and laughing together - explain that!!" as evidence that not every single minute was misery. It's supposed to be a "gotcha", but it's only that to people who have expremely black & white thinking, either through inability for more nuanced consideration or just the usual banal pantomime where people pretend they don't get it.