The interview

[TheCat]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly. It?s tiresome and seems like a losing

> battle. For my own sanity I have to avoid getting

> involved in things like this as I?m constantly

> dismissed.

>

1) Im not quite certain what you're implying, but given this is an anonymous internet forum, then one would think that your comments being dismissed have absolutely nothing to do with your race and gender - I for one have no idea (or care) about what they actually are.

2) People's comments get dimissed/belittled/ignored all the time on almost every issue you can name (not that this makes it okay of course). Unfort it sort of comes with the territory of an internet forum, no? As an active/vocal forum Leave voter, in what is close to most Remain heavy constituency in the country....I can attset to the fact that the Lounge is no place for the thin skinned (regardless of the colour of that skin!)

[diable rouge]

No one is as anonymous as they like to think they are Cat.

Have you heard about the middle-aged Australian bloke who holds an EU passport due to his Italian heritage, also a UK passport holder after marrying a Brit, has kids, lives near the Plough, and recently changed jobs?...;-)

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I was referring to online and offline. Across all SMs. It?s draining.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Exactly. It?s tiresome and seems like a losing

> > battle. For my own sanity I have to avoid

> getting

> > involved in things like this as I?m constantly

> > dismissed.

> >

>

> 1) Im not quite certain what you're implying, but

> given this is an anonymous internet forum, then

> one would think that your comments being dismissed

> have absolutely nothing to do with your race and

> gender - I for one have no idea (or care) about

> what they actually are.

>

> 2) People's comments get

> dimissed/belittled/ignored all the time on almost

> every issue you can name (not that this makes it

> okay of course). Unfort it sort of comes with the

> territory of an internet forum, no? As an

> active/vocal forum Leave voter, in what is close

> to most Remain heavy constituency in the

> country....I can attset to the fact that the

> Lounge is no place for the thin skinned

> (regardless of the colour of that skin!)

[diable rouge]

If people can't see some of the casual misogyny and lazy stereotyping in this thread then they need to head to Barnard Castle. There are two people in the H&M relationship yet from some of the comments in this thread you'd think it was only one. The narrative by the press and again by some comments in this thread is that of a scheming, manipulative woman out to get her ''15 minutes of fame''. In case people have forgot, M had a career before she met H, and let's be honest, you don't get to choose to have a relationship with a prince, they choose you. If you want to know what scheming and manipulative looks like, look no further than H's mum Diana, chosen purely to be baby machine while Chazzer carried on knobbing Camilla in the pantry. The Royal Family was a bunch of dysfunctional inbreds way before M rocked up...

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Tell me....can any criticism of someone's

> behaviour always be boiled down to their race and

> gender?

An alternative question could be...can anyone be sure they are not capable of casual racism/sexism, unintended or otherwise?...

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No one is as anonymous as they like to think they

> are Cat.

>

> Have you heard about the middle-aged Australian

> bloke who holds an EU passport due to his Italian

> heritage, also a UK passport holder after marrying

> a Brit, has kids, lives near the Plough, and

> recently changed jobs?...;-)

Well I guess keeping a running tab on people's identity is more important so some than others....:)

But seriously...I would hope that short of doing a concerted search through my posting history to remind yourself of these tidbits to make your point above.....this isnt front of mind when you respond to my posts?

I can only speak for myself of course (my truth?)...but much like Data protection requirements, I genuinely dont really retain anyone's personal circumstances/identity info when making comments. I quite like it that way, as theoretically this forum should allow all comments to be taken in good faith and at face value. Of course the theory and practice rarely align, with this thread being a good example....

More specifically on this H&M stuff.....we once again have this extreme reaction in that if someone questions something M has said, then people assume you are questioning EVERYTHING she said (who am to question if she was suicidal?....that's her comment to make, only she can attest to how she felt, I have nothing to say on that). Just becuase people 'ask the question' about the context of 'the baby colour' discussion, doesn't mean they're denying racisms exists in the monarchy, its not making a judgment call either way, its simply asking if there is perhaps more to it in this specific incident. If we cant question a serious accusation where only one side of the story has been heard to date, then we truly are fooked. Some things she said are more than reasonable and fair, others she said (in my opinion) are not....overall I took a negative view of what I saw as a highly subjective and unbalanced performance. To then claim that I take this view because racsism and misogyny is exemplifying the very laziness that you have bemoaned.

[keano77]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

..There are two

> people in the H&M relationship yet from some of

> the comments in this thread you'd think it was

> only one. The narrative by the press and again by

> some comments in this thread is that of a

> scheming, manipulative woman out to get her ''15

> minutes of fame''.

If the allegations and accusations have got people excited wait for the divorce. You ain?t seen nothing yet.

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I guess keeping a running tab on people's

> identity is more important so some than

> others....:)

>

> But seriously...I would hope that short of doing a

> concerted search through my posting history to

> remind yourself of these tidbits to make your

> point above.....this isnt front of mind when you

> respond to my posts?

> I can only speak for myself of course (my

> truth?)...but much like Data protection

> requirements, I genuinely dont really retain

> anyone's personal circumstances/identity info when

> making comments. I quite like it that way, as

> theoretically this forum should allow all comments

> to be taken in good faith and at face value. Of

> course the theory and practice rarely align, with

> this thread being a good example....

No need for running tabs or in-depth searches, that was all top of the head stuff, the Plough reference was fresh from Sainsbury's in-store bakery this morning!

As for the passport/nationality stuff, you have to admit that's fairly unique, which is probably why it stuck in the memory bank.

I think it's quite common for people to build up a mental picture of a poster from what they write, over time developing the 'character', no different to say from reading a book or listening to a radio play.

I also think what a poster writes does influence how people react to their posts, just like it would in the 'real world'. It would be na?ve to think that everyone gets a clean slate with each post. Dare I say it, it's a form of prejudice.

> ............. To then claim that I take

> this view because racsism and misogyny is

> exemplifying the very laziness that you have

> bemoaned.

I didn't have your posts in mind when referring this afternoon to the casual misogyny in this thread.

See what happens when you carry prejudicial thoughts...;-)

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

>

>

> > ............. To then claim that I take

> > this view because racsism and misogyny is

> > exemplifying the very laziness that you have

> > bemoaned.

>

> I didn't have your posts in mind when referring

> this afternoon to the casual misogyny in this

> thread.

> See what happens when you carry prejudicial

> thoughts...;-)

Ha....touche:)

[diable rouge]

On the subject of prejudice and predictability (out now in paperback), at the start of this thread I could've drawn up a list of the anti-Meghan posters and would've been spot on bar one.

Surprise, surprise, they all have one thing in common...

[KidKruger]

Ha ha yeah I wonder if any Brexit supporters don?t dislike Meghan !

[spider69]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the subject of prejudice and predictability

> (out now in paperback), at the start of this

> thread I could've drawn up a list of the

> anti-Meghan posters and would've been spot on bar

> one.

> Surprise, surprise, they all have one thing in

> common...

What?

[Jules-and-Boo]

The thing that makes me think this is wrong is that you wouldn?t have a go at and upset your Nan when your Granddad has just had a heart operation.

Their motivation is not what it seems at face value

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

It?s hardly their fault that the timing was off but guess what, the timing would never be right regardless. 🙄

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The thing that makes me think this is wrong is

> that you wouldn?t have a go at and upset your Nan

> when your Granddad has just had a heart

> operation.

>

> Their motivation is not what it seems at face

> value

[keano77]

What?s sad about all this is when Meghan first appeared on the scene she was welcomed with open arms by most sensible people.

On Harry and Meghan?s walkabouts here and overseas people of every race, creed and colour turned out in their tens of thousands to greet them, some who didn?t have two pennies to rub together, and Meghan?s bubbly, unstuffy approach allowed selfies and hugs. Here was a breath of fresh air that would make the monarchy more approachable, more relevant. She inspired hope in many.

Now, most people will understand that it can?t be easy being catapulted into the A++ league of stardom with all the attention and scrutiny that brings. However, by fleeing and taking refuge in a Disney-type enclave of millionaires have they let down the very people who loved and placed their hope in them?

I didn?t see the interview but I suspect it was a bit sugar-coated for American audiences and real questions such as duty and public service weren?t asked.

[KidKruger]

?.. et down the very people who loved and placed their hope in them? ?

Huh ?

People put their hope in rich toffs ?

More the fool them 🤣🤣

Cap-doffing BS, no ?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Watch it, it?s the only way to judge.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What?s sad about all this is when Meghan first

> appeared on the scene she was welcomed with open

> arms by most sensible people.

>

> On Harry and Meghan?s walkabouts here and overseas

> people of every race, creed and colour turned out

> in their tens of thousands to greet them, some who

> didn?t have two pennies to rub together, and

> Meghan?s bubbly, unstuffy approach allowed selfies

> and hugs. Here was a breath of fresh air that

> would make the monarchy more approachable, more

> relevant. She inspired hope in many.

>

> Now, most people will understand that it can?t be

> easy being catapulted into the A++ league of

> stardom with all the attention and scrutiny that

> brings. However, by fleeing and taking refuge in a

> Disney-type enclave of millionaires have they let

> down the very people who loved and placed their

> hope in them?

>

> I didn?t see the interview but I suspect it was a

> bit sugar-coated for American audiences and real

> questions such as duty and public service weren?t

> asked.

[keano77]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?.. et down the very people who loved and placed

> their hope in them? ?

>

> Huh ?

> People put their hope in rich toffs ?

> More the fool them 🤣🤣

> Cap-doffing BS, no ?

Remember when Obama became President?

And the disappointment?

[diable rouge]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/10/soci

> ety-of-editors-steps-back-claim-racism-no-part-meg

> han-coverage?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

>

> ETA: This now links to an article which has been

> updated since I posted the link.

The IoE bloke has apparently also resigned, not surprised after this wretched performance yesterday...https://twitter.com/TomHourigan/status/1369227842941255681

[keano77]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Watch it, it?s the only way to judge.

>

Fair point. Perhaps I ought to.

But I won?t for these reasons. Firstly from what I understand Oprah does light-weight popular interviews. Nothing wrong with that. Secondly, given the teasers released before the interview was broadcast and the wall-to-wall coverage on TV, radio and in the papers since I think I?ve got the gist of it.

Basically, about half the population think Harry and Meghan are victims and the other half think they are ungrateful.

Now if Stephen Sackur or Zeinab Badawi from HARDtalk were to give them a grilling I would watch that.

(Edited spelling)

[TheCat]

Picking up on some comments from yesterday...I'm keen to understand how it is that many people conclude 'racism' or 'misogyny' when they see criticism or negative comments on certain public figures?

There seems to be an accepted view in some quarters that Meghan suffered horrendous racial bias from the British press. And stories often referenced as evidence are stories where Kate Middleton got more positive coverage on a similar topic (namely avocadoes and touching the baby bump). No doubt it does indeed seem a little unfair the difference in the coverage when looking at those two different issues...but I genuinely don't understand why 'racism' is pointed to by many as the 'obvious' reason...it 'might' be a reason, but that is far from clear to me. Accordingly, it seems like many people get to that answer, because it suits their pre-existing worldview, rather than on strength of evidence on this particular issue?

(I should point out....Im not suggested that there is nothing racist published by the British press from time to time on various issues - i.e. The Daily Mail cartoon on Tom Jones's ancestry in 2015 was pretty unacceptable. And that should be rightly 'called out' when it occurs)

More broadly it does seem to me that claims of racism seem to get louder when the potential 'victim' has certain political or world-views....i.e. Diane Abbott is often cast as a victim of horrendous racial and misogynistic abuse even when the specific criticism in question in no way references race or gender; but Priti Patel gets lambasted from all sides over a good many issues and I dont see her being cast as a victim of identity driven abuse? Similarly, much of the progressive/identarian/woke/left (choose whatever label you wish) seems to see Meaghan as sharing in many of their values, so perhaps is seen as one of 'us' by that group....therefore when its suggested that she bullied staff in palace....well, that's is a racially motivated smear; whereas when Patel is accused of bullying Home Office staff, and no one seems to be calling her detractors racially motivated.

My overall point is that when there are so very many differences between two individual people, it seems very odd to me that criticism should be assumed to be driven by just one (race) or two (gender) of those many characteristics that make up an individual...

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, when Meghan first was announced as Harry's partner, seems to me that there was a huge amount of goodwill towards her; and as time went by public opinion started to turn somewhat for whatever reason...now her race and gender have never changed....so perhaps that change in opinion was driven by something else?

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

70 MPs came out in support and stood up against the overt racism Meghan endured. Enough said.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a29636162/more-than-70-female-british-politicians-have-signed-a-supporting-letter-for-meghan/

[TheCat]

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 70 MPs came out in support and stood up against

> the overt racism Meghan endured. Enough said.

> https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-n

> ews/a29636162/more-than-70-female-british-politici

> ans-have-signed-a-supporting-letter-for-meghan/

Enough Said? No. Not really.....

Evidence that people think something is in no way justification for why they think it.

[KidKruger]

...it seems entirely predictable to me that criticism is driven by just one (race) or two (gender) of those many characteristics that make up an individual...

It?s the British gutter press after all, playing to a largely prejudiced and sexist base.

[diable rouge]

100...