[jet]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Only if you ignore all the female opinion already posted....

It's only men in the age group of Morgan and Clarkson whose opinions about her are especially terrible though....men of that age shouldn't have negative opinions on 40 yr old women. How very dare they.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

I've already asked that.
Seriously though, the labels that have been put on those who dislike her over the last year plus have been relentless and very derogatory and are used instead of proper debate giving actual reasons why so many take the time to defend her.

............the reasons that so many take the time to defend Meghan and Harry have little to do with Meghan and Harry but, if you were capable of understanding that, and capable of understanding what the actual reasons are, then there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. It’s a bit of a catch 22 really.

I mean do you actually understand that? Do you understand that I (and I assume many here) have no personal feelings one way or the other about Meghan Markle? That that’s really, REALLY not the point (and yet in another sense, the entire point).

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

............the reasons that so many take the time to defend Meghan and Harry have little to do with Meghan and Harry but, if you were capable of understanding that, and capable of understanding what the actual reasons are, then there wouldn’t be an issue in the first place. It’s a bit of a catch 22 really.

I mean do you actually understand that? Do you understand that I (and I assume many here) have no personal feelings one way or the other about Meghan Markle? That that’s really, REALLY not the point (and yet in another sense, the entire point).

Do you actually understand or believe what you are saying?
These threads are actually about Harry’s and Meghans actions and choices!

The threads are not about racism mental health privacy wealth or any other subject in it’s entirety.

The fact that working class people choose to defend a billionaire and that they should have the money instead of charity is the biggest concern in my eyes.

People have been using the race card in order to try and shut people down but it’s simple not about race.

Lately I’m sharing more of my private life on here and for me it will never be and never has been about race

I’ve had a short but good physical relationship with a black South African woman who grew up in a hut I’ve got no hate in my heart towards people of colour.

[Ammi]

...there is very little ‘debate’....I mean, the whole thing about Meghan and Harry is either we like them or we dislike them with very little in between...for me, a ‘natural default’ if you like, is to like someone unless their actions/behaviour would change those feelings about them...Meghan and Harry have quite openly declared their feelings about the U.K. media and their willingness to slant any story any which way so it’s pretty obvious that, that same media are feeling slighted and going to be even less favourable toward them ...they’re determined to keep their ‘cash cows’ in plain site ...so many ‘reporters’, I use that descriptive loosely for some, making healthy incomes from Meghan and Harry but are not held up to any standards for doing that...but the couple who have made a huge life decision of living their life their way, making their income their way, taking control of theirs and their family future etc etc...are almost daily scrutinised within an inch of their lives...not feeling negativity toward someone and not disliking them because that’s the place that the media try to lead to...doesn’t mean that there are thoughts of ‘perfection’ either...many, many people don’t live those extremes of one or the other...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Do you actually understand or believe what you are saying?
These threads are actually about Harry’s and Meghans actions and choices!

The threads are not about racism mental health privacy wealth or any other subject in it’s entirety.

The fact that working class people choose to defend a billionaire and that they should have the money instead of charity is the biggest concern in my eyes.

People have been using the race card in order to try and shut people down but it’s simple not about race.

Lately I’m sharing more of my private life on here and for me it will never be and never has been about race

I’ve had a short but good physical relationship with a black South African woman who grew up in a hut I’ve got no hate in my heart towards people of colour.

I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s mostly about loyalism/nationalism, blue-blood elitism, alongside a sprinkling of misogyny in the toxic tabloid press. Plus the big red faced cuck himself Piers Morgan perched right in the centre. There will be a race element for some but it’s not the main factor and it’s not what I see on here.

When I say it’s not about Harry and Meghan, I mean it’s not about them specifically as people. There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that. They could be anyone. The thing people have a problem with is the overall attitudes, not that they’re directed at someone specific.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don’t think it’s about race, I think it’s mostly about loyalism/nationalism, blue-blood elitism, alongside a sprinkling of misogyny in the toxic tabloid press. Plus the big red faced cuck himself Piers Morgan perched right in the centre. There will be a race element for some but it’s not the main factor and it’s not what I see on here.

When I say it’s not about Harry and Meghan, I mean it’s not about them specifically as people. There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that. They could be anyone. The thing people have a problem with is the overall attitudes, not that they’re directed at someone specific.

Well those labels are new and original, I’ll give you that. The reasons people come up with as to why Meghan in particular isn’t liked are getting more and more outlandish.
Could you explain how what you have come up with has anything whatsoever to do with the ACTIONS of Meghan and Harry, and yes, Meghan in particular, past and present?
It’s how she behaves, the way she treats people, and all in all what an irritating, publicity and sympathy seeking person she is with a spectacular record of divisiveness in regard to her friends and her and Harry’s respective families and turning strangers against each other. She’s quite a fascinating study.
It could be anyone. High profile public figure Harry could have married Flossie Farkle and if she behaved like Meghan, we would be saying exactly the same about Flossie Farkle.

And really, I’m even more interested in people and how they react to it all on this forum than in Meghan or Harry themselves, believe it or not. I’m fascinated by peoples reactions to the whole ongoing saga. It’s a very illuminating phenomenon in that way.

[jet]

"There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that."

Furthermore TS, it clearly is for some.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

It’s how she behaves, the way she treats people, and all in all what an irritating, publicity and sympathy seeking person she is with a spectacular record of divisiveness in regard to her friends and her and Harry’s respective families and turning strangers against each other. She’s quite a fascinating study.

I understand that you think that but unconscious bias is called unconscious bias for a reason; you're predisposed to judging Meghan Markle harshly, and active royals more favourably, and that is WHY you believe her behaviours to be "terrible" to quite frankly a sometimes completely unrealistic extent. It ranges from her "just not being cut out for it" to some sort of evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person - not realistic human psychology). The hyperbole is at times absolutely staggering, and the down-playing of any fault on the side of "the family" extremely illuminating.

Originally Posted by jet

"There seems to be a misunderstanding that the people fighting against the sneering monarchism are “Meghan fans” and “love Harry and Meghan so much” when it’s clearly got nothing to do with that."

Furthermore TS, it clearly is for some.

It isn't, they are winding you up, the "Yas Queen Meghan" stuff? It's a piss take. It's deliberate counter-hyperbole in 99% of cases. That seems pretty obvious to me - it's a counter-reaction to increasingly extreme (again unrealistic) ideas about Meghan. Is she perfect? No I imagine not. Is she "a great person"? I have no idea and frankly don't care. But she's being painted as Rita Repulsa in these threads to an extent that's both frustrating and hilarious.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I understand that you think that but unconscious bias is called unconscious bias for a reason; you're predisposed to judging Meghan Markle harshly, and active royals more favourably, and that is WHY you believe her behaviours to be "terrible" to quite frankly a sometimes completely unrealistic extent. It ranges from her "just not being cut out for it" to some sort of evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person - not realistic human psychology). The hyperbole is at times absolutely staggering, and the down-playing of any fault on the side of "the family" extremely illuminating. .

In that case then you and others are predisposed to judging Meghan favourably and the Royals harshly by default, because the downplaying of any wrongdoing on Meghan’s part is frankly astonishing.
Is it as simple as that?
We’ve seen what Meghan is like because she is out there preaching in a hypocritical way on podcasts or being disloyal and lying in tell - all interviews, we ‘ve seen her in action. Whereas we don’t really know what the senior Royals are like because when they are out there they are on their best behaviour and they don’t talk about personal stuff - what Meghan tells us can’t be regarded as the truth as she is proven in the past, and present, to lie to suit her narrative.

I believe in Monarchy, yes. Do I adore and revere the present Royals, no. I admire and respect the Queen for good reason, I think William and Kate do a great job and are very likeable and their kids are adorable, apart from that the present monarchy are possibly the most uninteresting in terms of fascination compared to a long line of fascinating history and characters. On the Royal forum I am on, we discuss past monarchies far more than the present one.

"evil, cackling harpie whose entire life is devoted to destroying her husband's family (in other words, a caricature - not a realistic description of an actual person".

I always detest OTT statements like this, because by exaggeration they are aimed at rubbishing a person’s opinion. No, her whole life wasn’t devoted to destroying the Royals, but in the interview she was hell bent on discrediting them. If Meghan is judged harshly, it’s because of, once again the ACTIONS we have seen and the WORDS she has spoken, and the RESULTS of those actions and words, both from her own mouth and by proxy by her friend in his bio of her.

And I don’t believe you or others have no feelings about her one way or the other. People don’t spend time defending people they don’t like or have no interest in, so you must like her in some way. Why do you?

[jet]

[QUOTE=Toy Soldier;11025633


It isn't, they are winding you up, the "Yas Queen Meghan" stuff? It's a piss take. It's deliberate counter-hyperbole in 99% of cases. .[/QUOTE]

Once again, it is far more than that for some. I'd say in 90% of cases it isn't just 'piss take'. I don't take piss take like the example you gave under my notice, does anyone?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

I always detest OTT statements like this, because by exaggeration they are aimed at rubbishing a person’s opinion. No, her whole life wasn’t devoted to destroying the Royals, but in the interview she was hell bent on discrediting them. If Meghan is judged harshly, it’s because of, once again the ACTIONS we have seen and the WORDS she has spoken, and the RESULTS of those actions and words, both from her own mouth and by proxy by her friend in his bio of her.

The thing is though, she demonstrably did not go out of her way in the interview to discredit or badmouth the family. It flat out didn't happen... and I can't understand how anyone who actually watched it can argue that it did. The closest she came to a negative comment about ANY named Royal was Kate and what she said about Kate wasn't even negative. This interview where they sat and badmouthed the family is imaginary.

And I don’t believe you or others have no feelings about her one way or the other. People don’t spend time defending people they don’t like or have no interest in, so you must like her in some way. Why do you?

That's where you're again wrong but if you don't understand that as a general concept it's unlikely I can explain it in a way that you can understand. I like debates to be balanced and I try to address imbalance where I see it. The vitriol for Meghan Markle is imbalanced and rooted in bias and that is why I go to bat for the alternative view. I actually had this very conversation with my wife recently and used this very debate as the prime example; I often get frustrated when I can see some inconsistencies and criticisms that I would normally agree with, for example the Oprah interview (and the faults of that style of interview in general - NOT specific to H&M) but I hold back on agreeing with those points because it offers a bolstering or ammunition to an argument that is already woefully skewed in absurd ways. They are all just PEOPLE. Harry and Meghan, the other Royals, Piers Morgan... just a bunch of humans like anyone else having their very human squabbles, disagreements and rifts. There are no heroes, there are no villains, but there should be some aspect of fairness and balance and it's just blatantly absent.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The thing is though, she demonstrably did not go out of her way in the interview to discredit or badmouth the family. It flat out didn't happen... and I can't understand how anyone who actually watched it can argue that it did. The closest she came to a negative comment about ANY named Royal was Kate and what she said about Kate wasn't even negative. This interview where they sat and badmouthed the family is imaginary.

If you REALLY believe that and it isn't just a piss take then there is no point in carrying on talking to each other because it would be a waste of time. Our opinions and observations are extreme polar opposites and unlikely to move closer in any way.

[Tom4784]

I mean, she literally praised the queen and made a clear distinction between 'the firm' and the family. It's just a fact that she didn't discredit the family in that interview.

People are struggling to differentiate between what they want to be true (they want her to have trashed the royal family to give them a reason to complain) and what is actually true (she went out of her way to present the queen in the best light possible and made it clear that she had issues with the system, not the family). Disregarding the facts doesn't invalidate them.

It's not really an 'observation' if you're disregarding what happened in favour of an imaginary scenario that's more to your liking.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

If you REALLY believe that and it isn't just a piss take then there is no point in carrying on talking to each other because it would be a waste of time. Our opinions and observations are extreme polar opposites and unlikely to move closer in any way.

You could change my mind with a quote or a clip that shows them badmouthing the family, but I've yet to see one. If you can't and there's nothing to directly quote, then it's just your interpretations reading between the lines, and that's purely subjective and WIDE open to bias.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I mean, she literally praised the queen and made a clear distinction between 'the firm' and the family. It's just a fact that she didn't discredit the family in that interview.

People are struggling to differentiate between what they want to be true (they want her to have trashed the royal family to give them a reason to complain) and what is actually true (she went out of her way to present the queen in the best light possible and made it clear that she had issues with the system, not the family). Disregarding the facts doesn't invalidate them.

It's not really an 'observation' if you're disregarding what happened in favour of an imaginary scenario that's more to your liking.

The irony in my coming away from that Oprah interview liking The Queen MORE than I did beforehand . I actually think Meghan did a great job of humanising her and making her seem kind/relatable/like a doting grandmother.

So really for me, what it did was;

- IMPROVE my image of The Queen and Phil
- Keep my image of Charles et al UNALTERED
- Keep my thoughts on William and Kate largely unaltered BUT actually with a little more sympathy for them due to what Harry had to say about Royal life.


... if it's an attempt at badmouthing it's the worst I've ever seen.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You could change my mind with a quote or a clip that shows them badmouthing the family, but I've yet to see one. If you can't and there's nothing to directly quote, then it's just your interpretations reading between the lines, and that's purely subjective and WIDE open to bias.

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

The irony of accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses when you can't see things for what they are and are demanding that TS disregard the facts to see things from your own blinkered perspective.

It's just a fact that she didn't trash the family, you're just confusing your imagination for reality, and that's quite worrying, tbh.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Watch it again and really pay attention without the rose tinted glasses on.

In other words, don't listen to what was actually being said, go in with the idea that it was badmouthing and then try to "second guess" what was being said to come up with what was "secretly, really" being said. No that's OK thanks.

They certainly badmouthed how the Royal Institution works and outlined how it is stifling for all involved. They show little, if any, overt ill-will towards the family. You may BELIEVE that this is disingenuous and their thoughts are actually different to what they're saying but this is purely supposition and guesswork ... you have no evidence of it whatsoever. That's what makes it farcical as a debate point that's supposed to be taken seriously.

"They have bad intentions!"
"Show me proof of this."
"Uhh if you watch the interview keeping in mind that they have bad intentions, you will see that they clearly have bad intentions!"

Circular nonsense.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

The irony of accusing people of wearing rose tinted glasses when you can't see things for what they are and are demanding that TS disregard the facts to see things from your own blinkered perspective.

It's just a fact that she didn't trash the family, you're just confusing your imagination for reality, and that's quite worrying, tbh.

Did you hear her saying Archie wouldn't be given a title because of his colour? The Americans were outraged! As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist! Only what she said was a outright lie and a very serious one to discredit the Royals. Just ONE example.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Did you hear her saying Archie wasn't given a title because of his colour? The Americans were outraged! As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist! Only what she said was a outright lie and a very serious one to discredit the Royals. Just ONE example.

Again, supposition on your part.

The reality is that she made a clear distinction between the family and the firm, and she was only really critical of the firm. People who make such a leap of logic to assume the queen is a racist is as deluded as those that watched that interview and believe Meghan attacked the royal family despite the quotes saying the opposite.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

As the Queen is the one who gives the titles that means the Queen must be racist!

They also made it abundantly clear that in their experience and opinion, The Royals are not in full control like this and are all essentially part of a system that they are duty-bound to play along with. You might believe that to be true or not, the important part is that they expressed it, and thus THEIR criticism is of the system and not The Queen herself.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, supposition on your part.

The reality is that she made a clear distinction between the family and the firm, and she was only really critical of the firm. People who make such a leap of logic to assume the queen is a racist is as deluded as those that watched that interview and believe Meghan attacked the royal family despite the quotes saying the opposite.

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

I mean you have literally no way of being certain that The Queen has full control over things like that. You can personally believe that she does, but there are conflicting accounts so .

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by jet

Not supposition. She said it, clear as day and made no such distinction when doing so.
The firm don't bestow titles, the Queen does. Your excuses are embarrassing.

I've got no excuses, just the facts. She clearly criticised the system rather than the royal family.

If you want to talk about embarassing things, look no further than your own zealotry.

Also you are fuelled by supposition, perhaps you should become acquainted with what words mean before you try to shut them down.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

They also made it abundantly clear that in their experience and opinion, The Royals are not in full control like this and are all essentially part of a system that they are duty-bound to play along with. You might believe that to be true or not, the important part is that they expressed it, and thus THEIR criticism is of the system and not The Queen herself.

BS.
See, this is why there is no point. Titles are the Queens domain, no one else's. Why say anything about the title if not to discredit the royals and make people feel scandalized on her behalf? Why?

Did you hear her saying that one of the family showed concern about what colour Archies skin was likely to be, and Oprah gasping WHAT!
If that is true, why would she reveal that to millions if not to discredit the royals? For what purpose? “oh I’ll just tell you this as a little amusing aside to entertain”. I think not.
I suppose she was just telling 'her truth' and didn't think for a minute that she might be damaging the royals in any way? She hasn't one iota of bitterness towards them that they didn't pander to all her demands to change things to suit her, no siree! You're not that gullible surely - or maybe you have some reading up to do on her time in the job.
Now I'm really finished with this particular subject. The excuses are just silly. I rest my case.