Harry and Meghan to resign

Tombstone said:
I don't know, I mean obviously there will be some people for whom its a racial thing, every country on the planet has racism after all but I would say that's in the VAST minority in this. I think its extremely overplaying it to be saying its the reason, which is of course what many flag wavers and virtue signallers are saying. Quite a few of my friends and colleagues dislike her, not one is because of her skin colour, its for a bunch of other reasons (things she has done, things she has said and in the case of some of my female friends and colleagues a sort of protective mothering instinct over Harry). But then the race card fills a more weighty agenda than a just don't like you card.
Click to expand...

Expect there are plenty of both given the nature of this delusional isle. I wonder how it would have played out if the media had not completely shafted her consistently though.
 
chroniclard said:
Expect there are plenty of both given the nature of this delusional isle. I wonder how it would have played out if the media had not completely shafted her consistently though.
Click to expand...

I would concur that the media have played their part, as is the nature of the media here on so many things. However I disagree entirely with you about it being the nature of this delusional isle. I feel like that is labelling 70 million people with the actions of a minority. I don't believe for a moment that our nation as a whole, or even as a majority, is that way. I'm not really much of a patriot but equally I'm not in the lets bash our country because its cool to hate on it end of the spectrum either. I'm sat firmly in the middle, in a position of there is good and bad in every nation and every large group of people but the key is the definition of majority and minority.

EDIT: Just to be clear, as text isn't the best form of communication, I am not saying that you are in the lets bash our country because its cool to hate on it, side of things. Just that there are some out there who never have a good thing to say about our own nation. If anyone, from any country, asked me if Britain and its people were inherently racist, I would say no. Firmly no. Some people, a minority, are. But not the nation as a whole. (pretty much the same as every other nation really. Just as I would deny that british people have bad teeth, americans are fat, French are cowards and germans like sausages :D )
 
Last edited:
It seemed to me that it was more of an anti American and anti virtuous celebrity attitude than an issue of race.

With respect to Meghan, I can imagine that her relative light skin tone afforded her more general acceptance than someone with more dark pigmentation.
 
Tombstone said:
The fact that she just started repeating the phrase "white privileged man" over and over pretty much showed what her agenda was. The moment you start simply repeating a catchphrase you are no longer showing independent thinking, you're then just showing fanatical thinking. The whole racism thing is frankly ridiculous and pathetic, there are a lot of people out there who just didn't like Meghan and I would wager the vast amount of those people didn't like her because of perceived character traits and apparent attitude rather than the colour of her skin. If the country, as a whole, was as racist as these people make out then there are a million british black actors, actresses and sports people who would be constantly vilified because of their skin colour, instead of held in general high regard like the Idris Elba's, Lennox Lewis's, Ian Wrights and Richard Ayaode's of the country.

A decent comparison would probably be Diane Abbott, she is held in a fair bit of contempt and dislike by many in the country, its not because of her skin colour, its because of her. The whole Meghan racism thing is just a big old smokecloud.
Click to expand...

I think you are kidding yourself if you think racism isn't still rampant in this country. You mention various people of colour there but I bet if you were to ask them if they are their family members have experienced racism in the last 10 years they'd all say yes. And comparing her to Diana Abbot is ridiculous.

I posted this early in the thread and its a perfect example of how differently the press has covered her and Kate. The public at large form their opinions on what they read in the press.

Compare These 20 Headlines To See How Differently Royal Reporters Treated Kate Middleton And Meghan Markle
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I think you are kidding yourself if you think racism isn't still rampant in this country. You mention various people of colour there but I bet if you were to ask them if they are their family members have experienced racism in the last 10 years they'd all say yes. And comparing her to Diana Abbot is ridiculous.

I posted this early in the thread and its a perfect example of how differently the press has covered her and Kate. The public at large form their opinions on what they read in the press.

Compare These 20 Headlines To See How Differently Royal Reporters Treated Kate Middleton And Meghan Markle
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
Click to expand...

I think you would have to define "rampant" and if you mean its a majority of the 70million inhabitants then you would have to provide evidence to me to show that. I do not and never would deny that there is racism, there is racism in every country in the world, what I do deny is that the MAJORITY of this nation are racist and also that the Meghan situation is BECAUSE of racism.

My point with the Diane Abbott thing was that Diane Abbott could claim that people diss her because of racism but the evidence to me seems to suggest that its not that people dislike Diane Abbott because she is black but because they dislike her as a person (which is what I mean in reference to Meghan too, I do not think that the majority of the millions of people who dislike Meghan is because of racism but because they dislike her as a person , for whatever reason)

And as I posted earlier in the thread I agree that the media reports differently on Kate and Meghan. That I entirely agree with you on, as I mentioned before. But the media is not representative of 70 million people nor do I think that the Media are doing that because of racism, I suspect the truth is that they are doing it because it sells and gets hits (by tapping into a wider dislike of Meghan and/or what they are doing)

EDIT : To give some clarification on my own view of the situation. I have absolutely no issue with it, if Meghan and Harry want to go and live in another country, thats fine with me. I see no problem with it, its their choice. I dont even care if it was her idea, his idea or a joint idea. If they want to give up royal duties thats their choice also. My only stipulation would be that if they do it, they do it without financial backing from our nation and also that they dont expect to simply walk back into a royal role at a later date down the road. If its given up, its given up properly and permanently imo.

EDIT 2 : Sorry, to further clarify on my views of Meghan/Harry, I dont like them in regard of the virtue signalling (the same reason I dont like Lewis Hamilton or Millie Bobby Brown), as I detest all people who virtue signal. But in the regard of the actual discussion issue, which is the whole stepping down/leaving the country thing, I have no problem with them doing that (as above).
 
Last edited:
chroniclard said:
I don't think it rampant but it's sadly there and it does seem that some have come out the closet a bit more in the last few years.
Click to expand...

Its definitely there and I think you're right it has come out of the closet a bit more in the last few years, not sure whether thats because its increased or whether its because instances of it are more talked about now.
 
Tombstone said:
Its definitely there and I think you're right it has come out of the closet a bit more in the last few years, not sure whether thats because its increased or whether its because instances of it are more talked about now.
Click to expand...

Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because of propaganda and the fact that anything other than (fashionable) racism and absolute obedience is called (unfashionable) racism.

Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because people who devoutly believe in biological group identity can't understand anything else and so assume that any action towards any person is solely due to whatever biological group identity they assign that person to. Which is only true for devout believers in biological group identity, of course, as they're the only people incapable of understanding the concept of "a person".

For example, I have contempt for Diane Abbot. That's because she's a sexist, racist, terrorist-supporting incompetent with far more power than she deserves. I don't give a rat's arse what her sex is or what some other people say her "race" is. I don't believe in race and since I'm neither her doctor nor her lover her sex is irrelevant to me. But my position will be counted by some as racism and sexism because those people are too racist and sexist to be able to perceive anyone as a person rather than as a biological group identity.

Or because racism causes racism.

We have a society in which anti-"white" racism is seen as a good thing, a thing that people can (and do) proudly boast about in public and in many cases is publically enforced as a means of gaining positive publicity. Anyone who thinks that doesn't cause pro-"white" racism is stupid or lying and usually hypocritical because the usual defence of racism is that racism is the best response to racism. They're using the "racism justifies racism" argument themselves, so they really shouldn't be surprised at other people using it too.

Irrational prejudice of any kind is one of the best ways to create more irrational prejudice of the same kind. Racism causes racism, sexism causes sexism, etc. The only path to equality is equality.
 
Angilion said:
Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because of propaganda and the fact that anything other than (fashionable) racism and absolute obedience is called (unfashionable) racism.

Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because people who devoutly believe in biological group identity can't understand anything else and so assume that any action towards any person is solely due to whatever biological group identity they assign that person to. Which is only true for devout believers in biological group identity, of course, as they're the only people incapable of understanding the concept of "a person".

For example, I have contempt for Diane Abbot. That's because she's a sexist, racist, terrorist-supporting incompetent with far more power than she deserves. I don't give a rat's arse what her sex is or what some other people say her "race" is. I don't believe in race and since I'm neither her doctor nor her lover her sex is irrelevant to me. But my position will be counted by some as racism and sexism because those people are too racist and sexist to be able to perceive anyone as a person rather than as a biological group identity.

Or because racism causes racism.

We have a society in which anti-"white" racism is seen as a good thing, a thing that people can (and do) proudly boast about in public and in many cases is publically enforced as a means of gaining positive publicity. Anyone who thinks that doesn't cause pro-"white" racism is stupid or lying and usually hypocritical because the usual defence of racism is that racism is the best response to racism. They're using the "racism justifies racism" argument themselves, so they really shouldn't be surprised at other people using it too.

Irrational prejudice of any kind is one of the best ways to create more irrational prejudice of the same kind. Racism causes racism, sexism causes sexism, etc. The only path to equality is equality.
Click to expand...

Cause and effect, Every action has an equal reaction.
 
Tombstone said:
I think you would have to define "rampant" and if you mean its a majority of the 70million inhabitants then you would have to provide evidence to me to show that. I do not and never would deny that there is racism, there is racism in every country in the world, what I do deny is that the MAJORITY of this nation are racist and also that the Meghan situation is BECAUSE of racism.

My point with the Diane Abbott thing was that Diane Abbott could claim that people diss her because of racism but the evidence to me seems to suggest that its not that people dislike Diane Abbott because she is black but because they dislike her as a person (which is what I mean in reference to Meghan too, I do not think that the majority of the millions of people who dislike Meghan is because of racism but because they dislike her as a person , for whatever reason)

And as I posted earlier in the thread I agree that the media reports differently on Kate and Meghan. That I entirely agree with you on, as I mentioned before. But the media is not representative of 70 million people nor do I think that the Media are doing that because of racism, I suspect the truth is that they are doing it because it sells and gets hits (by tapping into a wider dislike of Meghan and/or what they are doing)

EDIT : To give some clarification on my own view of the situation. I have absolutely no issue with it, if Meghan and Harry want to go and live in another country, thats fine with me. I see no problem with it, its their choice. I dont even care if it was her idea, his idea or a joint idea. If they want to give up royal duties thats their choice also. My only stipulation would be that if they do it, they do it without financial backing from our nation and also that they dont expect to simply walk back into a royal role at a later date down the road. If its given up, its given up properly and permanently imo.

EDIT 2 : Sorry, to further clarify on my views of Meghan/Harry, I dont like them in regard of the virtue signalling (the same reason I dont like Lewis Hamilton or Millie Bobby Brown), as I detest all people who virtue signal. But in the regard of the actual discussion issue, which is the whole stepping down/leaving the country thing, I have no problem with them doing that (as above).
Click to expand...

I think it's a fairly large percentage. Not necessarily racist in that they would personally make a racist comment directly at someone but they hold racist attitudes. Thing is, we pretty much all do. We either make a choice to see those are just tribal feelings that once served a purpose but no longer are relevant other than in things like sport or we chose not to and see people of a different skin tone and culture as a threat or inferior.

Diane Abbot is a politician, Meghan isn't As politicians go she is terrible lol and she's made a few classic public **** ups. Though to be fair I've seen other MPs make similar **** ups with maths and not get ridiculed like she did. That said she does on occasion play the race card and it actually hurts her more than it helps. I follow David Lammy on twitter and the openly racist comments or ones with racist undertones he gets every tweet is ridiculous. I can only think its because a fair amount of his tweets are about issues facing people of colour, hardly surprising when a large percentage of his constituents or people of colour and he himself is black. He was/is a big advocate for the Windrush victims and even then some of the replies to his tweets on the subject were repulsive. So although I do think progress has been made and compared to some countries I have been to the UK isn't that bad but its there, just under the surface, waiting to raise its ugly head. With Meghan I think a larger part of what the press went after her for is she's an outspoken feminist and liberal. Those are two HUGE targets on her back for the rag top press and as soon as she gave them an opening they attacked.
 
Angilion said:
Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because of propaganda and the fact that anything other than (fashionable) racism and absolute obedience is called (unfashionable) racism.

Or because it hasn't really and the perceived increase is because people who devoutly believe in biological group identity can't understand anything else and so assume that any action towards any person is solely due to whatever biological group identity they assign that person to. Which is only true for devout believers in biological group identity, of course, as they're the only people incapable of understanding the concept of "a person".

For example, I have contempt for Diane Abbot. That's because she's a sexist, racist, terrorist-supporting incompetent with far more power than she deserves. I don't give a rat's arse what her sex is or what some other people say her "race" is. I don't believe in race and since I'm neither her doctor nor her lover her sex is irrelevant to me. But my position will be counted by some as racism and sexism because those people are too racist and sexist to be able to perceive anyone as a person rather than as a biological group identity.

Or because racism causes racism.

We have a society in which anti-"white" racism is seen as a good thing, a thing that people can (and do) proudly boast about in public and in many cases is publically enforced as a means of gaining positive publicity. Anyone who thinks that doesn't cause pro-"white" racism is stupid or lying and usually hypocritical because the usual defence of racism is that racism is the best response to racism. They're using the "racism justifies racism" argument themselves, so they really shouldn't be surprised at other people using it too.

Irrational prejudice of any kind is one of the best ways to create more irrational prejudice of the same kind. Racism causes racism, sexism causes sexism, etc. The only path to equality is equality.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with a lot of what you said I don't believe the comment I put in bold is true at all.
 
The people that are constantly crying Racism, Far-Right, Fascist etc have to exaggerate the problem, because without an omnipresent and omnipotent foe, what are they other than paranoid fanatics. This is why the bar is now set so low because they have a supply and demand problem. They will their enemy into existence and then pretend they’re a mighty holy warrior. Sad broken people.
 
Skunkworks said:
The people that are constantly crying Racism, Far-Right, Fascist etc have to exaggerate the problem, because without an omnipresent and omnipotent foe, what are they other than paranoid fanatics. This is why the bar is now set so low because they have a supply and demand problem. They will their enemy into existence and then pretend they’re a mighty holy warrior. Sad broken people.
Click to expand...

Oh so it doesn't exist then? My politics are pretty much down the centre. I lean left on some issues, right on others but I can clearly see racism is still an issue and the far right has had a resurgence since the 2008 crash. There is nothing like hardship to fuel extremism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom