Harry and Meghan

[DeepEnd]

loafer123 said:

In my experience, those that accuse people of being racist, sexist and unpleasant are usually projecting their own objectionable views.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I racism and sexism are simply bizarre in my mind...they make no sense.

I do, however, not like hypocrites, which is why I am not a fan of Harry and Meghan.

Is the hyposcrisy the main thing then?

What are the top five hypocritical things about them that warrants the torrent of abuse they seem to attract?

I'd like to see Sway's top five reasons to be annoyed by H&M too.

It just looks like you don't like people asking why people hate H&M - what about that is an "objectionable view?".

It could be more a case of "don't expose the awkward gulf between the massive rage some seem to have towards H&M and the actual wafer thin (and not at all unique to them) basis for actually being wound up by their actions."

[105.4]

bhstewie said:

I'm suggesting you don't know Harry or Meghan just as I don't so any perception you have of just how badly either of them have acted it because of how they're portrayed in the media.

I'm sure they've been hypocritical and I'm sure their actions don't match their words but they won't be the first or last couple in a position of privilege to have done that.

So just what is it that makes Harry and Meghan just so different to single them out for this treatment compared to William and Kate?

Or did you form all your views on them completely independently based on your personal knowledge of them that definitely didn't come from the media?

Going against my better judgement, I’m going to weigh in here.

I don’t read The Mail, read any gossip columns, or watch much in the way of MSM. Therefore my opinion could not have been swayed by any of these sources

I didn’t even know that Megan Merkle was ‘black’ until she started screaming it from the rooftops. It would seem to me to be a classic case of playing the race card in an effort to further advance her public profile and gain sympathy. That’s pretty poor form IMO.

Harry and Megan have waxed lyrical about wanting their privacy, and to be honest, who could blame them? Despite certain privileges that you or I are never going to experience, I can’t imagine Royal life being a particularly easy one, especially for the higher ranking Royals, (in regards to privacy and public scrutiny).

Harry and Megan have the money and the available support to completely disappear from public life, which based upon their previous comments, is what they want. But yet here they are doing the exact opposite. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

Then we get on to saving the polar bears, how is plebs should forsake enjoying certain luxuries whilst they still can. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

If being unimpressed by blatant hypocrisy makes me a sexist and a racist, then a sexist and a racist I must surely be. I’m not going to argue with someone who fails to differentiate between calling out hypocrisy and what real racism and real sexism actually is.

(the paragraph above isn’t directed at you personally Stewie, so please don’t take it that way mate).

[loafer123]

DeepEnd said:

loafer123 said:

In my experience, those that accuse people of being racist, sexist and unpleasant are usually projecting their own objectionable views.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I racism and sexism are simply bizarre in my mind...they make no sense.

I do, however, not like hypocrites, which is why I am not a fan of Harry and Meghan.

Is the hyposcrisy the main thing then?

What are the top five hypocritical things about them that warrants the torrent of abuse they seem to attract?

I'd like to see Sway's top five reasons to be annoyed by H&M too.

It just looks like you don't like people asking why people hate H&M - what about that is an "objectionable view?".

It could be more a case of "don't expose the awkward gulf between the massive rage some seem to have towards H&M and the actual wafer thin (and not at all unique to them) basis for actually being wound up by their actions."

You do like reading a lot between lines that isn’t there.

I don’t think they do deserve the torrent of abuse they get...I just said I am not a fan.

As for hypocrisy, it is in the eye of the beholder, but if they wanted privacy, I believe they could get it. As it is, they seem to be seeking publicity, and to monetise it.

[anonymous-user]

loafer123 said:

and to monetise it.

Yet not getting paid for the interview,,

[AnotherClarkey]

Lexington59 said:

Hypocracy? See spouting woke bks about climate change whilst private jetting across the Atlantic on a whim for a Hen weekend as the tip of the iceberg.

Their PR up to this one had been horribly managed.

That doesn't make them any more hypocritical than, say, Prince Charles though does it? Or the Queen, who is concerned about climate change and has been known to jet about a bit.

[bitchstewie]

105.4 said:

Going against my better judgement, I’m going to weigh in here.

I don’t read The Mail, read any gossip columns, or watch much in the way of MSM. Therefore my opinion could not have been swayed by any of these sources

I didn’t even know that Megan Merkle was ‘black’ until she started screaming it from the rooftops. It would seem to me to be a classic case of playing the race card in an effort to further advance her public profile and gain sympathy. That’s pretty poor form IMO.

Harry and Megan have waxed lyrical about wanting their privacy, and to be honest, who could blame them? Despite certain privileges that you or I are never going to experience, I can’t imagine Royal life being a particularly easy one, especially for the higher ranking Royals, (in regards to privacy and public scrutiny).

Harry and Megan have the money and the available support to completely disappear from public life, which based upon their previous comments, is what they want. But yet here they are doing the exact opposite. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

Then we get on to saving the polar bears, how is plebs should forsake enjoying certain luxuries whilst they still can. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

If being unimpressed by blatant hypocrisy makes me a sexist and a racist, then a sexist and a racist I must surely be. I’m not going to argue with someone who fails to differentiate between calling out hypocrisy and what real racism and real sexism actually is.

(the paragraph above isn’t directed at you personally Stewie, so please don’t take it that way mate).

Not taken personally

Where do you form your opinion of her and them from?

Do you follow their Instagram?

Seems unlikely but I didn't really have Nicholas Witchell Sway down for that kind of thing either.

Do you watch the interviews?

I don't as I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say.

I don't follow them closely and I can absolutely get why accusations of hypocrisy are levelled at them.

Sometimes the extent to which people seem to lose their st over things that don't actually impact them seems a bit disproportionate though and this seems a prime example.

Having been on PistonHeads long enough to have a reasonable level of familiarity with "snakes with tits" and the direction of many threads on women in positions of power (Diane Abbott or Priti Patel thread anyone?) hopefully you can see why it seems reasonable to pose the question about just what it is about Megan that attracts such bile hopefully.

(the paragraph above isn’t directed at you personally, so please don’t take it that way either).

[eldar]

The Spruce Goose said:

Yet not getting paid for the interview,,

Probably true up front, but worldwide free positive publicity is worth a lot. Assuming it is positive.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

105.4 said:

Going against my better judgement, I’m going to weigh in here.

I don’t read The Mail, read any gossip columns, or watch much in the way of MSM. Therefore my opinion could not have been swayed by any of these sources

I didn’t even know that Megan Merkle was ‘black’ until she started screaming it from the rooftops. It would seem to me to be a classic case of playing the race card in an effort to further advance her public profile and gain sympathy. That’s pretty poor form IMO.

Harry and Megan have waxed lyrical about wanting their privacy, and to be honest, who could blame them? Despite certain privileges that you or I are never going to experience, I can’t imagine Royal life being a particularly easy one, especially for the higher ranking Royals, (in regards to privacy and public scrutiny).

Harry and Megan have the money and the available support to completely disappear from public life, which based upon their previous comments, is what they want. But yet here they are doing the exact opposite. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

Then we get on to saving the polar bears, how is plebs should forsake enjoying certain luxuries whilst they still can. Such hypocrisy is pretty poor form IMO.

If being unimpressed by blatant hypocrisy makes me a sexist and a racist, then a sexist and a racist I must surely be. I’m not going to argue with someone who fails to differentiate between calling out hypocrisy and what real racism and real sexism actually is.

(the paragraph above isn’t directed at you personally Stewie, so please don’t take it that way mate).

Not taken personally

Where do you form your opinion of her and them from?

Do you follow their Instagram?

Seems unlikely but I didn't really have Nicholas Witchell Sway down for that kind of thing either.

Do you watch the interviews?

I don't as I'm not particularly interested in what they have to say.

I don't follow them closely and I can absolutely get why accusations of hypocrisy are levelled at them.

Sometimes the extent to which people seem to lose their st over things that don't actually impact them seems a bit disproportionate though and this seems a prime example.

Having been on PistonHeads long enough to have a reasonable level of familiarity with "snakes with tits" and the direction of many threads on women in positions of power (Diane Abbott or Priti Patel thread anyone?) hopefully you can see why it seems reasonable to pose the question about just what it is about Megan that attracts such bile hopefully.

(the paragraph above isn’t directed at you personally, so please don’t take it that way either).

So you don't actually listen to anything they say directly, and agree they are probably massive hypocrites - yet the reasons for criticism are purely sexism and racism...

The bile from me is due to rank the hypocrisy is, especially with things like crying about losing military honours after skipping a Marine benevolent dinner to go pimp for voice-over work...

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

So you don't actually listen to anything they say directly, and agree they are probably massive hypocrites - yet the reasons for criticism are purely sexism and racism...

The bile from me is due to rank the hypocrisy is, especially with things like crying about losing military honours after skipping a Marine benevolent dinner to go pimp for voice-over work...

The words "pussywhipped" and "gold digger" ring a bell from the last few pages on this thread along with "she's a full on mental" which isn't something I can recall reading about Kate but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I listed six reasons people might see Meghan slightly different from Kate.

You've seized on two of them which were race and sexism but in fairness I probably should have said misogyny.

Do you honestly think none of the reasons I listed play a part in some of the views expressed?

No argument on them skipping a service dinner looking appalling taken at face value.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

So you don't actually listen to anything they say directly, and agree they are probably massive hypocrites - yet the reasons for criticism are purely sexism and racism...

The bile from me is due to rank the hypocrisy is, especially with things like crying about losing military honours after skipping a Marine benevolent dinner to go pimp for voice-over work...

The words "pussywhipped" and "gold digger" ring a bell from the last few pages on this thread along with "she's a full on mental" which isn't something I can recall reading about Kate but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

I listed six reasons people might see Meghan slightly different from Kate.

You've seized on two of them which were race and sexism but in fairness I probably should have said misogyny.

Do you honestly think none of the reasons I listed play a part in some of the views expressed?

No argument on them skipping a service dinner looking appalling taken at face value.

Some, yes - it's the way you're applying the same thinking to everyone (and indeed expand it out to a "large section of pistonheads") who has criticised them that feels a bit odd...

[DeepEnd]

It doesn't take long to find Prince Harry has won substantial damages from those behind the The Mail On Sunday and MailOnline over claims that he "turned his back" on the British Armed Forces.

He's never seemed the sort to do anything against the military, and he seems genuinely sad that he could not continue his duties.

It is hard to sift through fact from fiction in what is in the media, but there seems to be lots of similarities to the rage seen over EU Laws (which when pressed no one can list any that affect them, save washing machines and hoovers or bendy bananas).

And it seems to affect the same posters.

[XCP]

I have nothing against either of them, why should I have? I can't raise much more than a slight interest really.

The institutions they are no longer a part of will survive without them.

[bitchstewie]

Sway said:

Some, yes - it's the way you're applying the same thinking to everyone (and indeed expand it out to a "large section of pistonheads") who has criticised them that feels a bit odd...

Maybe put the same time and effort into picking up the people who use that language that you do into picking people up for daring to use the words "large section" eh?

Just a thought as not doing so "feels a bit odd..." especially given your dislike of hypocrites.

[Sway]

bhstewie said:

Sway said:

Some, yes - it's the way you're applying the same thinking to everyone (and indeed expand it out to a "large section of pistonheads") who has criticised them that feels a bit odd...

Maybe put the same time and effort into picking up the people who use that language that you do into picking people up for daring to use the words "large section" eh?

Just a thought as not doing so "feels a bit odd..." especially given your dislike of hypocrites.

They make themselves look like idiots (at both ends of the spectrum) - and so I don't engage with either.

All the pile in does is remove any genuine debate - as those opposing the criticism aren't doing so against the rational points raised but instead focusing solely on the muppets (and pushing everyone else into the same category). It's pure stifling of opposing views by pointing at the muppet and saying 'see, you agree with him, and he's a mysogynist'.

[hyphen]

Unfortunate coincidence of timing...

[DeepEnd]

hyphen said:

Unfortunate coincidence of timing...

Daily Mail of course. Are you posting this to show how rancid this paper is? You should given them credit - you weren't trying to avoid linking to them surely?

"the watchdog has not yet determined whether or not there was any wrongdoing."

Their charity was looked at last year and the "Commission deemed the transfer of money from the Royal Foundation to Sussex Royal appropriate"

The story rakes up some randoms as being disappointed. Funny that.

Whilst the DM is awful for doing this - the real issue is those that lap it up, it seems unquestioningly and are all too keen to further the muck spreading.

[Jazzer77]

hyphen said:

Unfortunate coincidence of timing...

Very quick google will show 2 x CBE and 1 OBE receipient on the Charity Commision board.

[hyphen]

DeepEnd said:

Daily Mail of course. Are you posting this to show how rancid this paper is? You should given them credit - you weren't trying to avoid linking to them surely?

"the watchdog has not yet determined whether or not there was any wrongdoing."

Their charity was looked at last year and the "Commission deemed the transfer of money from the Royal Foundation to Sussex Royal appropriate"

The story rakes up some randoms as being disappointed. Funny that.

Whilst the DM is awful for doing this - the real issue is those that lap it up, it seems unquestioningly and are all too keen to further the muck spreading.

As the article in the Mail says, it's not their story. They have just read it on the Telegraph and are rehashing it. So all your hate to the DM on this occasion is wrongly directed.

I didn't link to them as it's just a filler piece. Until the commission finishes their report, not much to read. But here you go:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2021/03/0...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9331959/H...

Edited by hyphen on Saturday 6th March 14:58

[DeepEnd]

hyphen said:

As the article in the Mail says, it's not their story. They have just read it on the Telegraph and are rehashing it. So all your hate to the DM on this occasion is wrongly directed.

Well they rehashed it - just as you have done here.

So I'll judge you both still, thanks.

[pquinn]

DeepEnd said:

hyphen said:

Unfortunate coincidence of timing...

Daily Mail of course. Are you posting this to show how rancid this paper is?

High quality argument there.

You can find the same story reported in any other paper you like. It's a factual story not an opinion piece.

Unsurprising to see how many will pop up just to have an argument on any subject, then rely on trying to just throw insults rather than having a counter argument.