Harry and Meghan

[vonuber]

bhstewie said:

Quite a thought provoking piece about where and why some of the stuff you base your opinions on comes to be.

There’s a reason why the royals are demonised. But you won’t read all about it

No you don't get it, it's all HER fault, she's a snake, dragging poor harry down, evil harpy is what she is, like all women are, including my wife who left me and took the kids. All i have left now is NPE and my IT directorship.

[MC Bodge]

El stovey said:

Exactly.

I don’t get annoyed by Lilly Allen because I don’t read her opinions, either on twitter or wherever she makes them or in the daily mail where they’re repeated as click bait.

Same with Owen Jones, although you do see him now and then being interviewed on the news etc.

I suspect they’re both mouthy plonkers but they don’t annoy me because they’re quite easy to avoid.

Reactionaries hate them because they’re bombarded by them by actively reading their opinions to enforce their dislike of them.

It’s very negative behaviour. Decide you dislike Owen Jones (or whatever) then actively seek out his views to get even more upset and justify your dislike of him in the first place. That’s why the daily mail and that journalist mentioned before, Rod Liddle are popular, because they’re feeding the dislikes of the reactionary readers and making them even more angry and dissatisfied with the (modern) world.

Good Post.

I don't know people who use the words Boomer or Woke in the real world. Nor do I know people who are big fans of Owen Jones or Lily Allen.

People sometimes say things I agree with, sometimes they don't. Not everything needs to be balc and white/polarised.

Being against anything that is considered "progressive" or not right wing does seem ridiculous.

[MC Bodge]

smn159 said:

It's classic groupthink, based on tribalism. There's a substantial group of posters with identical (and equally angry) views on all of the above subjects. No doubt if a flat Earth was considered right wing and championed by the Daily Mail, they'd believe that too

It is quite bizarre that concern for the environment has become seen to be "left wing", when it should t even be political. I would suggest that it has more to do with one's position on the scale of selfishness.

[JagLover]

MC Bodge said:

smn159 said:

It's classic groupthink, based on tribalism. There's a substantial group of posters with identical (and equally angry) views on all of the above subjects. No doubt if a flat Earth was considered right wing and championed by the Daily Mail, they'd believe that too

It is quite bizarre that concern for the environment has become seen to be "left wing", when it should t even be political. I would suggest that it has more to do with one's position on the scale of selfishness.

What is rather political is your virtue signalling heroes who prattle about their environmentalism before hopping on to a private jet.

Genuine environmentalism is of neither left nor right. What is of the left is an agenda to force the economy onto a hard left path using the cloak of environmentalism and the usual "woke" agenda which has little to do with sensible recycling or reduction in Co2 emissions. Bringing it back on topic Meghan is going to sort out "climate justice for girls", which is nice of her, no doubt in between flights by private jet.

[smn159]

MC Bodge said:

smn159 said:

It's classic groupthink, based on tribalism. There's a substantial group of posters with identical (and equally angry) views on all of the above subjects. No doubt if a flat Earth was considered right wing and championed by the Daily Mail, they'd believe that too

It is quite bizarre that concern for the environment has become seen to be "left wing", when it should t even be political. I would suggest that it has more to do with one's position on the scale of selfishness.

I suspect that it's the required collective action to resolve it that the right don't like. Additionally, the fossil fuel industry has heavily funded conservative groups and proposed a number of '‘contrarian’ scientists in an effort to provide the forces of denial with the guise of scientific credibility, magnifying the visibility and impact of the contrarians’ views'

https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/978...

You can generally spot someone who has fully bought into their bullst by their use of the word 'woke' as an attempted insult.

[MC Bodge]

JagLover said:

What is rather political is your virtue signalling heroes who prattle about their environmentalism before hopping on to a private jet.

Genuine environmentalism is of neither left nor right. What is of the left is an agenda to force the economy onto a hard left path using the cloak of environmentalism and the usual "woke" agenda which has little to do with sensible recycling or reduction in Co2 emissions. Bringing it back on topic Meghan is going to sort out "climate justice for girls", which is nice of her, no doubt in between flights by private jet.

There you go again, "your virtue signalling heroes". You nothing about whether or not they are my heroes and "virtue signalling" is another one of those reactionary internet warrior by numbers phrases like "woke" that you drop like to drop into every post.

I and most other people are not hard left in way, shape or form. Most people are not angry reactionaries, though, which appears to be what annoys you.

You appear to dislike Meghan Markle for various reasons.

[JagLover]

smn159 said:

You can generally spot someone who has fully bought into their bullst by their use of the word 'woke' as an attempted insult.

Actually the use of "woke" as an insult has nothing to do with environmentalism and refers to the backlash against those who have been ruining many of our films and TV shows over the last few years.

[bitchstewie]

JagLover said:

Actually the use of "woke" as an insult has nothing to do with environmentalism and refers to the backlash against those who have been ruining many of our films and TV shows over the last few years.

Come again?

[MC Bodge]

JagLover said:

Actually the use of "woke" as an insult has nothing to do with environmentalism and refers to the backlash against those who have been ruining many of our films and TV shows over the last few years.

What?

If it isn't Mrs Brown's Boys or re-runs of 70s sitcoms it's rubbish?

[JagLover]

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Actually the use of "woke" as an insult has nothing to do with environmentalism and refers to the backlash against those who have been ruining many of our films and TV shows over the last few years.

Come again?

Err have you never heard the expression "get woke, go broke". I missed out computer games from the above list as the backlash against Battlefield V was one of the examples.

Anyhow that is the origin of the term, nothing to do with environmentalism, very much a reaction to some of the developments in popular culture over the last few years, in particular extreme feminism that mixes that with misandry.

[poo at Paul's]

Sway said:

bhstewie said:

There was an interesting interview on LBC yesterday with a journalist who's spent 15 years on royal duty for the Mail of all papers.

I forget her name but she said Harry basically spent 15 years telling her he wished he could simply walk away from it all.

Her view was that whilst meeting Meghan may be the catalyst for this and has given him a reason to do so it's wide of the mark to say it's her "doing".

I still think there's way too much projection going on here and I think some of you would be massively uncomfortable if someone were talking about your wives or mothers in similar terms based off so much smear and innuendo and so little little direct knowledge.

That, I can understand - the "walking away from it all".

Seems to fall apart when the "walking away from it all" really isn't, and instead is "walking into even worse, but with dosh coming into the current accounts".

I'm with you on this entirely. Look at some of the other "Royals" such as the Tindals, Beatrice and Eugenie etc. Even Anne and Capt Mark then her new bloke. They all have set up businesses, many to do with Horses, farming, (although more PR based for the Yorks, agreed), but Harry could have EASILY (15 years ago), decided to do go and look after one of the massive estates, farms, etc within the Royal portfolio etc, and kept his titles, status, and gone about his private life pretty much un-harassed, as the others do.
but he didn't, either wasn't interested, or decided he wanted something more. And again, it is odd, when Kate and Wills went on tour and on engagements, he went with them often, when if he wanted to step away from it all, seems odd.

I am convinced that he's changed his tune much more recently than that LBC article suggests. As for why, well who knows!

Although Charles' son (!), I cannot see why he could not have done pretty much what the York's kids have done with their lives, ie gone and got fairly regular jobs / businesses. They've got more regular partners, ie non celebrities, and seem to get on with life unabated by press intrusion. One wonders if Harry and certainly HArry and Meghan are blameless in the way the media see them.

[MC Bodge]

JagLover said:

bhstewie said:

JagLover said:

Actually the use of "woke" as an insult has nothing to do with environmentalism and refers to the backlash against those who have been ruining many of our films and TV shows over the last few years.

Come again?

Err have you never heard the expression "get woke, go broke". I missed out computer games from the above list as the backlash against Battlefield V was one of the examples.

Anyhow that is the origin of the term, nothing to do with environmentalism, very much a reaction to some of the developments in popular culture over the last few years, in particular extreme feminism that mixes that with misandry.

"Reaction" being the operative word.

[bitchstewie]

JagLover said:

Err have you never heard the expression "get woke, go broke". I missed out computer games from the above list as the backlash against Battlefield V was one of the examples.

Anyhow that is the origin of the term, nothing to do with environmentalism, very much a reaction to some of the developments in popular culture over the last few years, in particular extreme feminism that mixes that with misandry.

Can't say I have.

Might I just ask, is there a prize today for the most buzzwords or something?

[MC Bodge]

bhstewie said:

Can't say I have.

Might I just ask, is it a competition on the most buzzwords or something?

It's almost concerning. He seems quite an angry chap.

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th January 17:24

[Disastrous]

I suspect age plays a large part in the anger.

In the younger generations the following is true:

Nobody really cares for the values Rod Liddle espouses as being ‘British’ (thank God) any more.

Nobody cares much about what the Royals do or don’t do.

People DO care about the environment and don’t believe climate change deniers.

They also care about their fellow man and will seek to put human rights over economics.

What makes the gammons angry is that they know this deep down, and that in just a generation or two, everything they’re cross about (Europe, Political Correctness, Woke culture, gender fluidity, the Royals etc) will all be reset as if they’d never been there.

All the things they’ve bayed and howled over will be forgotten as time rolls on and the things they like will be consigned to history.

It’s that really, isn’t it?

[vonuber]

JagLover said:

Err have you never heard the expression "get woke, go broke". I missed out computer games from the above list as the backlash against Battlefield V was one of the examples.

Anyhow that is the origin of the term, nothing to do with environmentalism, very much a reaction to some of the developments in popular culture over the last few years, in particular extreme feminism that mixes that with misandry.

Oh dear, you are one of those MGTOW types aren't you.

[smn159]

vonuber said:

JagLover said:

Err have you never heard the expression "get woke, go broke". I missed out computer games from the above list as the backlash against Battlefield V was one of the examples.

Anyhow that is the origin of the term, nothing to do with environmentalism, very much a reaction to some of the developments in popular culture over the last few years, in particular extreme feminism that mixes that with misandry.

Oh dear, you are one of those MGTOW types aren't you.

I had to look that up... jeez there's some nutters in the world!

[MC Bodge]

Disastrous said:

I suspect age plays a large part in the anger.

In the younger generations the following is true:

Nobody really cares for the values Rod Liddle espouses as being ‘British’ (thank God) any more.

Nobody cares much about what the Royals do or don’t do.

People DO care about the environment and don’t believe climate change deniers.

They also care about their fellow man and will seek to put human rights over economics.

What makes the gammons angry is that they know this deep down, and that in just a generation or two, everything they’re cross about (Europe, Political Correctness, Woke culture, gender fluidity, the Royals etc) will all be reset as if they’d never been there.

All the things they’ve bayed and howled over will be forgotten as time rolls on and the things they like will be consigned to history.

It’s that really, isn’t it?

I suspect so.

Its interesting that not everybody of a certain age is like that, though.

I consider myself fortunate in having parents and other older relatives who are not cantankerous, reactionary, fist shaking nostalgics.

I'm in my Forties, and hope that I do not become one in future years.

Ps. Rod Riddle comes across as a horrible man in his columns and on TV/radio.

I don't agree with everything I read in the Independent or the Guardian, but I find reading the modern day Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the Express genuinely quite unpleasant. If one of those is your only source of news and opinion, then it may explain a lot.

[MC Bodge]

smn159 said:

I had to look that up... jeez there's some nutters in the world!

And there is a group of them in N,P&E.

This news non-story is like the goose that lays golden eggs for the angry, confused, old British man. So many things combining upon which to focus their anger.

Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th January 17:49

[Welshbeef]

Disastrous said:

I suspect age plays a large part in the anger.

In the younger generations the following is true:

Nobody really cares for the values Rod Liddle espouses as being ‘British’ (thank God) any more.

Nobody cares much about what the Royals do or don’t do.

People DO care about the environment and don’t believe climate change deniers.

They also care about their fellow man and will seek to put human rights over economics.

What makes the gammons angry is that they know this deep down, and that in just a generation or two, everything they’re cross about (Europe, Political Correctness, Woke culture, gender fluidity, the Royals etc) will all be reset as if they’d never been there.

All the things they’ve bayed and howled over will be forgotten as time rolls on and the things they like will be consigned to history.

It’s that really, isn’t it?

Likewise when they are older and their kids and grandkids are up and coming the same thing will happen again and again.

Previously we never had this / there is no way not matter what if my parents when young disagreed with their grandparents would they disrespect them sadly respecting your elders seems to be an erroding commodity.