Keeping up with the Markles

[Tony Edwards]

Do you have any specific allegations you'd like to share or are you (in typical fashion) just trying to say, "them's bad people," and hope somebody finds that convincing, even without anything of any substance having been presented (by yourself).

Racists? Yeah thems bad people alright. Or are you talking about the metoo movement?

 

[FoxEye]

Racists? Yeah thems bad people alright. Or are you talking about the metoo movement?

If a black person ever accused your good self of racism I think you'd be trapped in some kind of paradox.

You'd have to believe them, because you automatically believe such accusations. There is never a need for evidence; all accusations of racism must be true.

But you'd also swear that you're not a racist and racism is bad.

Then I think you'd just start rocking backwards and forwards, unable to resolve the two conflicting inputs.

 

[Tony Edwards]

If a black person ever accused your good self of racism I think you'd be trapped in some kind of paradox.

You'd have to believe them, because you automatically believe such accusations. There is never a need for evidence; all accusations of racism must be true.

But you'd also swear that you're not a racist and racism is bad.

Then I think you'd just start rocking backwards and forwards, unable to resolve the two conflicting inputs.

Ive been called a racist many times. Its not something that bothers me.

I certainly wouldnt walk out of a TV studio/program over it.

 

[R.P.L]

Ive been called a racist many times. Its not something that bothers me.

I certainly wouldnt walk out of a TV studio/program over it.

I'm probably one of the people on here who has called you racist, because you've demonstrated it numerous times. The fact that it doesn't bother you is not a reason for celebration.

 

[Tony Edwards]

I'm probably one of the people on here who has called you racist, because you've demonstrated it numerous times. The fact that it doesn't bother you is not a reason for celebration.

Is that right!

 

[Maccapacca]

Ive been called a racist many times. Its not something that bothers me

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[Skunkworks]

Wokies are atoning for something.

 

[Tony Edwards]

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Who am I racist towards?

 

[Skunkworks]

White saviours inadvertently reveal their low expectations of non-whites all the time. They act like non-whites are children they have to nurture and protect because they don’t know any better.

 

[Maccapacca]

Who am I racist towards?

Probably better off asking those folk you’ve been called a racist by many times.

 

[Kaapstad]

I think this thread really has lost focus, I am finding it difficult to keep up.

 

[omnomnom]

I think this thread really has lost focus, I am finding it difficult to keep up.

Its an absolute mess.

I do find it bizarre that people seem to take what the Mail and co says about the Markles as gospel but when they themselves speak up its without any kind of evidence and is instantly called BS.

 

[R.P.L]

Its an absolute mess.

I do find it bizarre that people seem to take what the Mail and co says about the Markles as gospel but when they themselves speak up its without any kind of evidence and is instantly called BS.

I certainly would never take anything the DM says as gospel (that goes for any media outlet these days) but there are things that Harry and Meghan have implied (e.g. that Archie isn't a prince because Meghan isn't white) that are demonstrably false.

 

[Mint8]

Its an absolute mess.

I do find it bizarre that people seem to take what the Mail and co says about the Markles as gospel but when they themselves speak up its without any kind of evidence and is instantly called BS.

Well to be fair to the Mail article quoted above - they did actually provide evidence (some of it backed up with photos) for a number of points made, - unlike Megs and Hezzer who expect to be believed whilst providing zero evidence for anything.

For example - Harry throws in the comment about bike riding with Archie to contrast his evil Father who didnt do that with him - bad bad Charles - until of course you see the photos of at least two separate outings where Charles ahs Harry in a seat behind him.

Then there are the examples of the "racist" newspaper headlines shown to back up their claims - contrasting with the actual - un-doctored headlines as shown by The Mail which paint an entirely different picture - one of which was actually an article calling out a racist comment but that line had been "mysteriously" edited out of the interview footage in order to give it a completely different spin.

Two minor examples but taken as a whole the article did a good job of exposing the interview as a load of at best - "mis -remembered" trash..

The Royals statement about their version of events varying was put in there for a reason.

 

[omnomnom]

Well to be fair to the Mail article quoted above - they did actually provide evidence (some of it backed up with photos) for a number of points made, - unlike Megs and Hezzer who expect to be believed whilst providing zero evidence for anything.

Im talking about how they are spoken about in general.

 

[R.P.L]

Im talking about how they are spoken about in general.

How should they be spoken about? They're making things up - very damaging things at that.

 

[shifty_uk]

Well to be fair to the Mail article quoted above - they did actually provide evidence (some of it backed up with photos) for a number of points made, - unlike Megs and Hezzer who expect to be believed whilst providing zero evidence for anything.

For example - Harry throws in the comment about bike riding with Archie to contrast his evil Father who didnt do that with him - bad bad Charles - until of course you see the photos of at least two separate outings where Charles ahs Harry in a seat behind him.

Then there are the examples of the "racist" newspaper headlines shown to back up their claims - contrasting with the actual - un-doctored headlines as shown by The Mail which paint an entirely different picture - one of which was actually an article calling out a racist comment but that line had been "mysteriously" edited out of the interview footage in order to give it a completely different spin.

Two minor examples but taken as a whole the article did a good job of exposing the interview as a load of at best - "mis -remembered" trash..

The Royals statement about their version of events varying was put in there for a reason.

Is there a link available to this article?

 

[shifty_uk]

Not true.

It was because morgan was said to be racist.
And she backed him up. Which is false.

I think this is the article I was referring to:
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/26/sharon-osbourne-exits-the-talk/

You're right in that this was brought about by the Piers Morgan incident but I got the impression she has history.

 

[deuse]

I think this is the article I was referring to:
https://pagesix.com/2021/03/26/sharon-osbourne-exits-the-talk/

You're right in that this was brought about by the Piers Morgan incident but I got the impression she has history.

Not to my knowledge.

Sharon kept asking for the others to prove what they THOUGHT.

" Osbourne said. She then challenged the other hosts to tell her “what he’s uttered that’s racist.”

"Sheryl Underwood responded that “the implication” of Morgan dismissing Markle was racist, rather than the words themselves."

Load of bull crap.

 

[Kaapstad]

Am I missing something but isn't Meghan Markle mostly white (about 75%), how can she claim to be black and ignore the other 75% of what she is.

It is a bit like me deciding I am Dutch because one of my grandparents were even though the other 3 were descended from the British Isles.