Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!)

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?...;-)

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!)

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...

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?...

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.

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.

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...;-)

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 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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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)

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?

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...