Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

Not true.

So why are you posting on this thread?

I beg your pardon? I initially posted on this thread, a long time ago now, to defend a woman in the public eye against racism and unfair criticism. Cos, you may have gathered, I despise celebrity culture. And that often boils down to those feeding it more than those who are the focus of it

I don't require permission to post. Do I not have a right to share my feelings and opinions? Do I need a pwincess, or a model or some other public figure to share her opinions on the matter to chime with mine before I'm allowed to 'share' my feelings re the vapid celebrity culture and the narcissism it feeds. Would it be ok to post then?

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

Not true.

So why are you posting on this thread?

Please show where I criticised this couple.

meeeeh

I think some on both sides are taking this way to seriously.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

I beg your pardon? I initially posted on this thread, a long time ago now, to defend a woman in the public eye against racism and unfair criticism. Cos, you may have gathered, I despise celebrity culture. And that often boils down to those feeding it more than those who are the focus of it

I don't require permission to post. Do I not have a right to share my feelings and opinions? Do I need a pwincess, or a model or some other public figure to share her opinions on the matter to chime with mine before I'm allowed to 'share' my feelings re the vapid celebrity culture and the narcissism it feeds. Would it be ok to post then?

The height of hypocrisy. You clearly say whatever suits yourself in the moment. You literally just said you couldn't give a shít about them but now you're saying you posted on this thread initially to defend her. Which is it? You can defend her then and that's valid, but no one else can defend her now?

You clearly feel you have the right to share your feelings and opinions, but you despise H&M for doing the same and furthering the conversation with the platform they have? Does she need an "averwage" person on boards to give approval before she's allowed to share her feelings? Would it be okay for her to share then once you're ok with it?

meeeeh

Actually people squabbling about celebrities. I think miscarriage is pretty irrelevant in all this.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

I can say what I damned well please actually and so can you. It's how this works.

You're not famous N.

We're not talking about what's allowed to be said on boards, and you damn well know it. You attempted to say that people should only share their stories among good friends and family. You said there's a concept of oversharing. To reiterate, you don't get to tell people where, when and with whom they get to share their stories to. That's how "this works" in real life.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

As I said before, not everything demands action. It's being listened to, validated, and supported that most people need. It's awareness and shared experiences that change conversations and culture. Change takes time. Not sure what you're looking for here.

This smacks of that simplistic American Oprah culture stuff in a big way. I seem to recall reading this kinda thing in that daft book: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. That suggested that this was how Women(tm) talked. The usual simplistic nonsense of course. Actually many moons ago I did have an ex who fit that to a tee(thankfully the only one like this). Needed to be "heard and validated", but god forbid suggesting change or anything getting fixed if it were fixable, because then she'd have run outa things to whinge about the next week. Like I say it was the only time in my life I had to deal with that and by god it was wearing. I will admit that has coloured my take on this kinda thinking.

And I hate to break it to you but change does not come from sitting around "validating" each other, it comes from seeing what the problem is, seeing what can be fixed or improved(if it can) and actually doing something to change it, so fewer people have to suffer down the line.

On this particular subject of the tragedy of losing a child in pregnancy I don't see how it can be "fixed" though medical science has reduced the risks and hopefully will reduce them further. And people do need to talk and work through the emotions of these things and that's to be lauded, but spare me from celebs milking their brand, often cynically.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

We're not talking about what's allowed to be said on boards, and you damn well know it. You attempted to say that people should only share their stories among good friends and family. You said there's a concept of oversharing. To reiterate, you don't get to tell people where, when and with whom they get to share their stories to. That's how "this works" in real life.

No, but I am free to think far less of those oversharing celebs with emotional diarrhoea who can't stop attention seeking(almost always for their own ends) and those who emulate or are overly impressed by them. That's how this works in life. And yes their is a concept of oversharing. Every single culture on this planet has it and has done from way back.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

This smacks of that simplistic American Oprah culture stuff in a big way. I seem to recall reading this kinda thing in that daft book: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. That suggested that this was how Women(tm) talked. The usual simplistic nonsense of course. Actually many moons ago I did have an ex who fit that to a tee(thankfully the only one like this). Needed to be "heard and validated", but god forbid suggesting change or anything getting fixed if it were fixable, because then she'd have run outa things to whinge about the next week. Like I say it was the only time in my life I had to deal with that and by god it was wearing. I will admit that has coloured my take on this kinda thinking.

And I hate to break it to you but change does not come from sitting around "validating" each other, it comes from seeing what the problem is, seeing what can be fixed or improved(if it can) and actually doing something to change it, so fewer people have to suffer down the line.

On this particular subject of the tragedy of losing a child in pregnancy I don't see how it can be "fixed" though medical science has reduced the risks and hopefully will reduce them further. And people do need to talk and work through the emotions of these things and that's to be lauded, but spare me from celebs milking their brand, often cynically.

Do you have a particular need to invalidate other's opinions because you think it's too "American" somehow? (aka healthy, actually). You do know that Americans post on this board too. So unless one is Irish or takes a typically Wibbs-approved-"Irish" view it's somehow wrong? There are 7 billion + people on this planet and we're entitled to our opinions. :pac:

Yet you clearly read that daft book, ha!

Being heard and validated, loved and accepted, etc are all human psychological needs everyone has. It's not "Oprah-ish" or "American-ish" or "Men are from Mars book-ish." It's just simple human needs. Does talking about our needs make you uncomfortable?

Do tell what is their brand exactly and how speaking up about their personal experience was a cold-hearted cynical calculation to further that brand. What proof do you have that speaking up about their real experience and suffering was not what they personally needed and hoped to help others with.

eviltwin

This reminds me of those photos certain celebs take of themselves breastfeeding in an attempt to "normalise" it when really its all about self promotion.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

No, but I am free to think far less of those oversharing celebs with emotional diarrhoea who can't stop attention seeking(almost always for their own ends) and those who emulate or are overly impressed by them. That's how this works in life. And yes their is a concept of oversharing. Every single culture on this planet has it and has done from way back.

So are other ordinary people, including people on this post, who have shared their experiences, also oversharing and engaging in verbal diarrhoea? Or is it only oversharing and verbal shíte once they're famous? Did they lose the right to their human needs once they became famous?

Be right back

I'm sorry that they lost their baby but reading the article felt a bit like reading a novel with fancy prose and I also don't get what her miscarriage has to do with the BLM movement.

eviltwin

Stateofyou wrote: »

So are other ordinary people, including people on this post, who have shared their experiences, also oversharing and engaging in verbal diarrhoea? Or is it only oversharing and verbal shíte once they're famous? Did they lose the right to their human needs once they became famous?

The people who share their stories on Boards are by and large normal people with the kind of experience most of us can identify with. You read Neyite's story, that is something that will resonate with most Irish women because if we, or our loved ones, are unlucky enough to have a miscarriage that's the system we'll be in, that's the care we'll get.

While on a human level I have every sympathy for megan and harry and what they went through, her experience and the word vomit she uses to tell it leave me feeling a bit cold. It seems insincere.

Neyite

Wibbs wrote: »

You're not famous N.

But but I've 70 followers on my instagram...:(

Stateofyou

eviltwin wrote: »

The people who share their stories on Boards are by and large normal people with the kind of experience most of us can identify with. You read Neyite's story, that is something that will resonate with most Irish women because if we, or our loved ones, are unlucky enough to have a miscarriage that's the system we'll be in, that's the care we'll get.

While on a human level I have every sympathy for megan and harry and what they went through, her experience and the word vomit she uses to tell it leave me feeling a bit cold. It seems insincere.

Did I miss Neyite's "story?" I remember a brief alluding to it but that's it. Apologies if I missed it somewhere here.

The problem with your post here is that thousands of women have already spoken out and thanked Meghan for sharing her story. It has helped thousands of women already. Not just from her own story, but it the encouragement of others sharing their stories too which as you say, there are those who will resonate more. That's what's important here. Not necessarily Meghan's specific story, but in the encouragement of others to not feel silenced by stigma and to share their own if that's what they need. I've already made this point.

Calling someone's personal story of baby loss as "word vomit" is horrible. It's attitudes like yours that contribute to many suffering in silence. They don't want to be judged for their stories and how they tell them and therefore suffer more. They don't want to feel like an emotional burden on anyone. Meghan's speaking out helped people whilst your harsh words would have the opposite effect.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

Do you have a particular need to invalidate other's opinions because you think it's too "American" somehow? (aka healthy, actually).

I'm loving the cocksure confidence of conflating "healthy" with "American". It depends entirely on which "American" philosophy one is exposed to. US college campus intersectional social studies consensus, so long as you agree with the message Oprah level stuff, not so much.

Yet you clearly read that daft book, ha!

Actually I got through two chapters, in a doctor's office of all things. Well it was either that or copies of cosmo, a sailing magazine, or reading leaflets about asthma. I should have picked the leaflets.

Being heard and validated, loved and accepted, etc are all human psychological needs everyone has. It's not "Oprah-ish" or "American-ish" or "Men are from Mars book-ish."

It is when it never bloody ends.

It's just simple human needs. Does talking about our needs make you uncomfortable?

Nope. I can happily zone out the needy talk of some strangers and reserve my sympathy, empathy and support for for friends and family and indeed those strangers who don't suffer from chronic attention seeking.

Do tell what is their brand exactly and how speaking up about their personal experience was a cold-hearted cynical calculation to further that brand. What proof do you have that speaking up about their real experience and suffering was not what they personally needed and hoped to help others with.

Do you work for their PR company? Quite a chunk of our society has become so exposed to this celeb culture that a) they feel they know them and b) seem oblivious to the fact they're selling a narrative. And Lord knows Harry and Meghan are selling a narrative. Just like his family, though they've got centuries of practice at it and way more support.

I actually feel somewhat sorry for how the pair have ended up. Through no fault of his own as the heir to spare he was always going to be in the doldrums, with no defined role. His only hope was to stay in with the military and the Family, marry some "suitable gel" from the Home Counties who produced some photogenic kids, stayed thin and largely quiet while looking good standing in a muddy field in Devon. She really didn't know what she was getting into and her California culture I'm a Woman Of Colour(minus the U)hear me roar let it hang out stuff was never going to go over well with the German High Command British Royal Family. And the British press smelled blood in the water. Some of her extended family smelling cash in the water didn't help.

eviltwin

Stateofyou wrote: »

Did I miss Neyite's "story?" I remember a brief alluding to it but that's it. Apologies if I missed it somewhere here.

The problem with your post here is that thousands of women have already spoken out and thanked Meghan for sharing her story. It has helped thousands of women already. Not just from her own story, but it the encouragement of others sharing their stories too which as you say, there are those who will resonate more. That's what's important here. Not necessarily Meghan's specific story, but in the encouragement of others to not feel silenced by stigma and to share their own if that's what they need. I've already made this point.

Calling someone's personal story of baby loss as "word vomit" is horrible. It's attitudes like yours that contribute to many suffering in silence. They don't want to be judged for their stories and how they tell them and therefore suffer more. They don't want to feel like an emotional burden on anyone. Meghan's speaking out helped people whilst your harsh words would have the opposite effect.

I think its great if it helps someone. Personally my take away from it, and I did manage to read to whole thing, was that it was more about Megan's narcissism than any real attempt to help people in her position.

Wibbs

Neyite wrote: »

But but I've 70 followers on my instagram...:(

I've got 100 followers on Youporn.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

The height of hypocrisy. You clearly say whatever suits yourself in the moment. You literally just said you couldn't give a shít about them but now you're saying you posted on this thread initially to defend her. Which is it? You can defend her then and that's valid, but no one else can defend her now?

You clearly feel you have the right to share your feelings and opinions, but you despise H&M for doing the same and furthering the conversation with the platform they have? Does she need an "averwage" person on boards to give approval before she's allowed to share her feelings? Would it be okay for her to share then once you're ok with it?

I've.never.met.them
I.dont.know.them.
Why would I give a sh1t about their opinions? They are of no consequence to me. Thay are in no way significant to anyone who doesn't know them. That doesn't mean I bare any ill will. I don't. But I dont bare any feelings of concern either. They dont warrant it. They are wealthy beyond my capacity to comprehend and dont need to occupy any of the'concern' space in my head because nothing in my world would have any impact on theirs. Every physical requirement they will ever have is already sorted. If I see racism, I'll call it . Not because my calling it out will have any positive impact on Meghan or her child but because racism is a cancer that harms everyone and needs to be called when you see it
and the way it was being aimed at Meghan was particularly covert and insidious and all the more dangerous for it. But why do I need to care about these people on a personal level?

My criticism on this thread has been aimed squarely at the people who lap up celebrity and give it significance where it should have none. Not at any particular celebrity. I dont think Meghan thinks she's a special pwincess. But I think those who worship her celebrity do. And yes, I think those people are vacant, immature and quite possibly narcissistic . No idea what Meghan is. Maybe she's a wagon. Maybe she's a lovely woman. Don't know, dont care. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me or you or anyone else except those on her life.

Sardonicat

Wibbs wrote: »

I've got 100 followers on Youporn.

They're not following you, they're investigating

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm loving the cocksure confidence of conflating "healthy" with "American". It depends entirely on which "American" philosophy one is exposed to. US college campus intersectional social studies consensus, so long as you agree with the message Oprah level stuff, not so much.

Actually I got through two chapters, in a doctor's office of all things. Well it was either that or copies of cosmo, a sailing magazine, or reading leaflets about asthma. I should have picked the leaflets.

It is when it never bloody ends. Nope. I can happily zone out the needy talk of some strangers and reserve my sympathy, empathy and support for for friends and family and indeed those strangers who don't suffer from chronic attention seeking.

Do you work for their PR company? Quite a chunk of our society has become so exposed to this celeb culture that a) they feel they know them and b) seem oblivious to the fact they're selling a narrative. And Lord knows Harry and Meghan are selling a narrative. Just like his family, though they've got centuries of practice at it and way more support.

I actually feel somewhat sorry for how the pair have ended up. Through no fault of his own as the heir to spare he was always going to be in the doldrums, with no defined role. His only hope was to stay in with the military and the Family, marry some "suitable gel" from the Home Counties who produced some photogenic kids, stayed thin and largely quiet while looking good standing in a muddy field in Devon. She really didn't know what she was getting into and her California culture I'm a Woman Of Colour(minus the U)hear me roar let it hang out stuff was never going to go over well with the German High Command British Royal Family. And the British press smelled blood in the water. Some of her extended family smelling cash in the water didn't help.

And I'm loving that you automatically equated Oprah and American-ness with "daftness" and "simplistic nonsense." Because Oprah's brand is such a dismal failure that no one loves, obviously. :pac:

So you tried to belittle an opinion by referencing a book style and comparing the two and now you admit you never even read it? So how would you know that you're even correct in any kind of assumption? Bizarre...

Do you work for the DM smear campaign?

I can be kind and sympathetic and supportive to everyone, not just people I know personally. As Meghan, Harry and many others (Caroline Flack, anyone) have spoken about, it's the online bullying and horrible, vile words people say that negatively effects their mental health. They are actually real people too at the end of the day. So perhaps you can extend your sympathy, empathy, support, etc just a little further in future. The world needs more kindness, not less. Or is that too Dalai-Lama-ish for you. :pac:

Agree with a lot of what you said in your last paragraph. She's entitled to be who she is though. She shouldn't have to be smaller or less than or dull her roar to a purr (bet you liked that one, lol) just to please others. She doesn't need to tell her story in a way that pleases others better.

Wibbs

eviltwin wrote: »

I think its great if it helps someone. Personally my take away from it, and I did manage to read to whole thing, was that it was more about Megan's narcissism than any real attempt to help people in her position.

IMHO one of the biggest issues in western culture at the moment is the promotion and monetisation of narcissism. From social media to mainstream media attention seeking and the risky endpoint of that narcissism has been weaponised. There are people in social media and other such companies whose sole job is to build systems which garner and focus attention to get clicks and increase their sales. It may have started in the US*, but it has spread throughout the west. Given most people's fave subject is themselves it was bound to get out of hand to some degree.






*Napoleon(may have) said that the English were a nation of shopkeepers(as a compliment), but I would regard America as a nation of salesmen(again as a compliment), but many are selling snakeoil and it can be hard to tell the difference.

Stateofyou

eviltwin wrote: »

I think its great if it helps someone. Personally my take away from it, and I did manage to read to whole thing, was that it was more about Megan's narcissism than any real attempt to help people in her position.

Well, everyone's story is not for everyone. It helped many others. It helped us too. People with narcissism aren't usually interested in trying to do a good thing for others. Accusing people of being narcissistic is the new fad.

eviltwin

Stateofyou wrote: »

Well, everyone's story is not for everyone. It helped many others. It helped us too. People with narcissism aren't usually interested in trying to do a good thing for others.

Narcissistic people will do something charitable if they benefit from it. That will be the motivation.

I suppose it comes down to why you believe she wrote the piece. Was it purely altruistic or was it garner sympathy? I believe its the latter. I've no doubt her article will be useful to some and as I said that's great, but, I don't think the credit will be solely on Megan, it will be on all the other people who help and support that woman/couple through their loss.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

I've.never.met.them
I.dont.know.them.
Why would I give a sh1t about their opinions? They are of no consequence to me. Thay are in no way significant to anyone who doesn't know them. That doesn't mean I bare any ill will. I don't. But I dont bare any feelings of concern either. They dont warrant it. They are wealthy beyond my capacity to comprehend and dont need to occupy any of the'concern' space in my head because nothing in my world would have any impact on theirs. Every physical requirement they will ever have is already sorted. If I see racism, I'll call it . Not because my calling it out will have any positive impact on Meghan or her child but because racism is a cancer that harms everyone and needs to be called when you see it
and the way it was being aimed at Meghan was particularly covert and insidious and all the more dangerous for it. But why do I need to care about these people on a personal level?

My criticism on this thread has been aimed squarely at the people who lap up celebrity and give it significance where it should have none. Not at any particular celebrity. I dont think Meghan thinks she's a special pwincess. But I think those who worship her celebrity do. And yes, I think those people are vacant, immature and quite possibly narcissistic . No idea what Meghan is. Maybe she's a wagon. Maybe she's a lovely woman. Don't know, dont care. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me or you or anyone else except those on her life.

But clearly they are of consequence to you as you said you initially posted here to defend her. Or against the thing that you think is wrong, which is what I'm doing too.

They are "significant" to people who don't know them. They have spoken up and taken action on matters that are important to a lot of people. As you rightly say, on issues that are basically a cancer to society. Many people in the world loved his mother princess Diana yet they wouldn't know her personally. Same goes for Jesus, ha ha. However, no one said you need to care about them on a personal level. Where was that ever said.
No one is lapping up celebrity, either. You have wrongly decided that is the case and have been railing against it in a one-sided battle with no opponent or dog in the fight with you.

Stateofyou

eviltwin wrote: »

Narcissistic people will do something charitable if they benefit from it. That will be the motivation.

I suppose it comes down to why you believe she wrote the piece. Was it purely altruistic or was it garner sympathy? I believe its the latter. I've no doubt her article will be useful to some and as I said that's great, but, I don't think the credit will be solely on Megan, it will be on all the other people who help and support that woman/couple through their loss.

She literally said why she wrote it, in her piece. And knowing that she actually went through that horrible experience, her grief would be real. Obviously. And she has a long history, before she ever met Harry, of speaking up and trying to do good in the world where she can.

Again, as I've said a few times now, the credit is not solely on Meghan but on all the other people who speak up with their stories, in to those who help and support women & couples through their loss. You're very right about that.

How does people here cutting down Meghan and Harry and questioning their motives help and encourage others to speak up and seek help when they may be suffering in silence in fear of being judged and not supported?

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

But clearly they are of consequence to you as you said you initially posted here to defend her. Or against the thing that you think is wrong, which is what I'm doing too.

They are "significant" to people who don't know them. They have spoken up and taken action on matters that are important to a lot of people. As you rightly say, on issues that are basically a cancer to society. Many people in the world loved his mother princess Diana yet they wouldn't know her personally. Same goes for Jesus, ha ha. However, no one said you need to care about them on a personal level. Where was that ever said.
No one is lapping up celebrity, either. You have wrongly decided that is the case and have been railing against it in a one-sided battle with no opponent or dog in the fight with you.

I have not criticised Meghan or her husband or any other celebrity. I have criticised celebrity culture and the need for celebrity validation and approval. I will call out racism where I see it because to not do so is cowardly and to leave it unchallenged is a threat to all of us I will call it our regardless of my personal opinion (if any) of the individual target of racism.
I have no idea what motivated Meghan to write the article and will not speculate as its pointless and further feeding the celebrity beast. I will 'assume' her intentions were good. I continue to maintain that the consumption of her story is a symptom if a sick culture. A culture where human beings can market their 'brand' is a culture where nothing is real and nothing is of real value.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

And I'm loving that you automatically equated Oprah and American-ness with "daftness" and "simplistic nonsense." Because Oprah's brand is such a dismal failure that no one loves, obviously. :pac:

The most popular media outlet on the planet is the Daily Mail. It's sh1te. Just because something sells to lots of people in no way guarantees quality or truth. Indeed it usually guarantees the opposite. Though back to my generalisation about America being the land of the salesman. If it sells it has to be good.

So you tried to belittle an opinion by referencing a book style and comparing the two and now you admit you never even read it? So how would you know that you're even correct in any kind of assumption? Bizarre...

Two chapters were suffice to see page after page of either misrepresentation of actual research, or utter bollocks aimed at the unwary, or thick, or those who wanted validation for their ideas on men and women. Y'know that idea that woman talk more and have higher vocabularies than men? That kicked off because it was in that tome and was then repeated as fact elsewhere and it's a complete and utter nonsense.

I can be kind and sympathetic and supportive to everyone, not just people I know personally. As Meghan, Harry and many others (Caroline Flack, anyone) have spoken about, it's the online bullying and horrible, vile words people say that negatively effects their mental health. They are actually real people too at the end of the day. So perhaps you can extend your sympathy, empathy, support, etc just a little further in future. The world needs more kindness, not less. Or is that too Dalai-Lama-ish for you. :pac:

Me being supportive to someone I know has a direct and demonstrable effect. Being supportive to a complete stranger and if a celeb one that is usually selling some sort of narrative has none, bar some empty dopamine hit. Though people do love their dopamine hit. Being a dick to a complete stranger is worse of course but also utterly pointless. What the world actually needs less is less bullshit.

Agree with a lot of what you said in your last paragraph. She's entitled to be who she is though. She shouldn't have to be smaller or less than or dull her roar to a purr (bet you liked that one, lol) just to please others. She doesn't need to tell her story in a way that pleases others better.

She does if she wants to operate in a world that operates in a very different way. If she doesn't want to prostitute herself and stay true to who she is, which is 100% fair enough, then you don't seek out an environment that will mean you have to and then complain when that all goes south. It's not as if she was walking into some secretive world. It's not as if she didn't have advisors from his side telling her what was what. It's not as if he himself didn't warn her. That's akin to deliberately standing in front of a rogue bull elephant and being shocked you get trampled and then complaining about it. It's not as if she was a 19 year old getting into this. She was a grown woman in her 30's. The Diana one got spat out by that lot(and the press) and she was born into it and was a teenager when she first encountered it. Meghan surely saw that. You'd want to be either brave, or entitled, or dumb, or have an ego the size of a small planet to think you could fight that and win. And so far they haven't. That lot have loooong memories.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

The most popular media outlet on the planet is the Daily Mail. It's sh1te. Just because something sells to lots of people in no way guarantees quality or truth. Indeed it usually guarantees the opposite. Though back to my generalisation about America being the land of the salesman. If it sells it has to be good.

Two chapters were suffice to see page after page of either misrepresentation of actual research, or utter bollocks aimed at the unwary, or thick, or those who wanted validation for their ideas on men and women. Y'know that idea that woman talk more and have higher vocabularies than men? That kicked off because it was in that tome and was then repeated as fact elsewhere and it's a complete and utter nonsense.

Me being supportive to someone I know has a direct and demonstrable effect. Being supportive to a complete stranger and if a celeb one that is usually selling some sort of narrative has none, bar some empty dopamine hit. Though people do love their dopamine hit. Being a dick to a complete stranger is worse of course but also utterly pointless. What the world actually needs less is less bullshit.

She does if she wants to operate in a world that operates in a very different way. If she doesn't want to prostitute herself and stay true to who she is, which is 100% fair enough, then you don't seek out an environment that will mean you have to and then complain when that all goes south. It's not as if she was walking into some secretive world. It's not as if she didn't have advisors from his side telling her what was what. It's not as if he himself didn't warn her. That's akin to deliberately standing in front of a rogue bull elephant and being shocked you get trampled and then complaining about it. It's not as if she was a 19 year old getting into this. She was a grown woman in her 30's. The Diana one got spat out by that lot(and the press) and she was born into it and was a teenager when she first encountered it. Meghan surely saw that. You'd want to be either brave, or entitled, or dumb, or have an ego the size of a small planet to think you could fight that and win. And so far they haven't. That lot have loooong memories.

The Daily Mail in no way compares to Oprah Winfrey. If ever there was a false comparison here it's that.

Your comparison of a not even half read old book entitled Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus also has nothing to do with anything else here. You only tried to make a comparison in order to belittle my opinion which is just rude. If you have a point to make, make it soundly and maturely with relevance.

You not only can be supportive of a famous figure, which also has a direct impact on their mental health (the collective "you") but the important thing here is you can choose to be supportive of a good and well intentioned message that was aimed at helping society. Because when people call those speaking up about their personal tragedies as attention seeking and narcissistic and purely for personal brand or sympathy, and comments about how they didn't speak up the "right way" in the "right" tone with the "right" words and questioning their motives, suggesting one is "prostituting themselves" or criticising for what some say is complaining or moaning in spite of blessings, saying they should suffer privately and see a shrink instead, etc. then it has a silencing and damaging impact on others. The culture of sweeping things under a rug and the stigma against speaking out about your mental health and the things that affect us needs to change.
Also saying that someone "knew what they were getting into" when they couldn't have possibly predicted the landslide of bs is victim blaming and by definition is what being a díck actually is, as you put it. Age has nothing to do with it. What was that about the world needing less bs? Maybe start with yourself and what you're putting out into it?
They have won some battles, and some are still ongoing so I wouldn't necessarily say they haven't won. Even if they lost this one particular media battle, they've won others, they stuck it to them and took a stand, and maybe they will think twice before printing bile in the future that actually affects real people. And it affects the people reading it too, making society that much more horrible towards one another. The media, especially the rags are very manipulative and are only interested in making money. They don't care who they chew up and spit out and the effect their agenda and lies and vileness have on society.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

The Daily Mail in no way compares to Oprah Winfrey. If ever there was a false comparison here it's that.

In your opinion. I have always found her standard talk show host exploitative with the occasional burst of social conscience going on(cut to Oprah looking concerned, or dancing to a song, making sure the camera's on her). I most certainly admired her rise to the top against many many odds, but she's just a little too "faux concerned" and showbiz in the way American TV personalities tend to be. Never mind she promoted the careers of utter snakeoil peddlers like "Dr" Phil(not a doctor) and Dr Oz(real doctor pushing snakeoil) and Deepak Chopra, or that Tolle eejit, never mind the utter scutter and dangerous scutter with it of The Secret which she had the horn for. Then again anyone who bought into that was a thundering moron, so there's that.

Your comparison of a not even half read old book entitled Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus also has nothing to do with anything else here. You only tried to make a comparison in order to belittle my opinion which is just rude. If you have a point to make, make it soundly and maturely with relevance.

Yes Ma'am. Though I thought it pretty relevant as your reasoning certainly seems to be coming from that environment.

You not only can be supportive of a famous figure, which also has a direct impact on their mental health (the collective "you")

Yes I'm quite sure Meghan and Harry can feel my support through the ether. Use the force Luke...

The culture of sweeping things under a rug and the stigma against speaking out about your mental health and the things that affect us needs to change.

Well given more people than ever are on mental health meds and therapies yet we've never talked about it so much and never had so many avenues to talk about it, suggests it's not really working.

Also saying that someone "knew what they were getting into" when they couldn't have possibly predicted the landslide of bs is victim blaming and by definition is what being a díck actually is, as you put it.

Annnnnd we have the "victim blaming" bonus round. the [insert oppressed group here] are always agentless victims and its always somebody else's[insert oppressor group here] fault. Handy way of avoiding all responsibility, though that's very fashionable of late too. And that nonsense most certainly had its origins in the social studies(and I use the term advisedly) faculties of US universities. It's divisive nonsense too.

Age has nothing to do with it. What was that about the world needing less bs? Maybe start with yourself and what you're putting out into it?

Age has nothing to do with it eh? So an 18 year old is as clued in as a 35 year old in your world? More responsibility avoidance.

They have won some battles, and some are still ongoing so I wouldn't necessarily say they haven't won. Even if they lost this one particular media battle, they've won others, they stuck it to them and took a stand,

He's lost what purpsoe he had, the family have him on the long finger. She's going to find casting agents a bit resistant and she was hardly first tier to start with. They could well translate the royal exoticism into careers and cash and America is the place for that, but they've a long road ahead.

and maybe they will think twice before printing bile in the future that actually affects real people. And it affects the people reading it too, making society that much more horrible towards one another. The media, especially the rags are very manipulative and are only interested in making money. They don't care who they chew up and spit out and the effect their agenda and lies and vileness have on society.

So long as they make bank, nothing will change. Never mind that they only make bank if people buy their stuff. I remember when his mother Diana was killed and all the usual talking heads were clutching pearls over the paparazzi and vox pops on the street were doing the same, yet most of the talking heads were in bed with the press to sell their stuff and the people on the street were buying up all the pics and stories they could on the same "people's princess". That's why the paparazzi were chasing her through the streets of Paris. The mob have always been potentially(and regularly) cruel and full of bile and curiosity and quick to lie to themselves when it goes sour and claim, oh no not me.

Stateofyou

I need the TLDR version. No one's got time for that.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

I need the TLDR version. No one's got time for that.

Oprah's a chancer who promotes bigger chancers but who did well to come from where she came from.

You come across as someone who has absorbed the thinking of US social studies campuses.

Celebs don't care what you think unless it hits their bottom line.

"Victim blaming" is all too often a cop out and responsibility avoidance.

Mental health issues are going up even though we've never talked about it so much.

The media only reflects what the mob wants or they wouldn't do what they do.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Oprah's a chancer who promotes bigger chancers but who did well to come from where she came from.

You come across as someone who has absorbed the thinking of US social studies campuses.

Celebs don't care what you think unless it hits their bottom line.

"Victim blaming" is all too often a cop out and responsibility avoidance.

Mental health issues are going up even though we've never talked about it so much.

The media only reflects what the mob wants or they wouldn't do what they do.

You're obsessed with and begrudging of the US a little too much, me thinks.

Celebs are people too and do care actually, they also have mental health concerns. Shocker to some, I know.

Then you have the audacity to acknowledge that mental health issues are going up?

Wrong. The media drives the mob and whips them up.

Mrsmum

Celebs are nothing without the media. Most celebs understand this and accept the pluses and minuses of the game. Harry and Meghan are funny because as celebs and for their causes/self promoting, depending on your viewpoint, they too need the media. They want and need the media reporting on their do-gooding but can't bear the other side is the questioning of their 'sainthood'. Personally I would prefer all celebs to stick to their day jobs. Course Harry and Meghan have no day jobs anymore hence the popping up here, there and everywhere.

Stateofyou

Mrsmum wrote: »

Celebs are nothing without the media. Most celebs understand this and accept the pluses and minuses of the game. Harry and Meghan are funny because as celebs and for their causes/self promoting, depending on your viewpoint, they too need the media. They want and need the media reporting on their do-gooding but can't bear the other side is the questioning of their 'sainthood'. Personally I would prefer all celebs to stick to their day jobs. Course Harry and Meghan have no day jobs anymore hence the popping up here, there and everywhere.

That's so disingenuous. They're famous but also they're part of the royal family, so it's not the same thing. There's a specific history with the English press and a lot of bad blood there. This isn't some typical Hollywood celeb situation. They need A media, but they don't specifically need or want rag media. One of the reasons why they left as senior royals was so that they didn't have to deal with those certain rags who are part of the royal rota system. They want to choose or at least be able to control a little better where and how their own work, lives, information gets told-it seems to be that they most want it to be accurate and with a focus on their work. So now that they've left, they have a large say in who gets this information. This quid pro quo toxic situation that the rags/courtiers/RF had with their media pool isn't held over their head any longer.
It's not about promoting their sainthood. Because they are members of the royal family, and in keeping with their own personal goals, their main professional lives are centered around charity work. Or "do-gooding" as you begrudgingly refer to it. That is their "day job." And they have raised many many millions in the course of their work/duty, which is more than you or I or any of here put together can ever say. Harry also served his country in the military for 10 years, also serving in the front line, twice I believe. Have you?

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

You're obsessed with and begrudging of the US a little too much, me thinks.

Nope, only one very particular and minority part of US culture.

Then you have the audacity to acknowledge that mental health issues are going up?

You

---

Country mile

---

Point.

We've never talked so much about mental health issues. We've never had so many public figures talking about mental health issues. We've never had so many therapists and therapies and financial and social support for mental health issues. Yet mental health issues have apparently continued to go up? It seems talking about it isn't working so well.

Wrong. The media drives the mob and whips them up.

The tail wags the dog eh? Sounds nice and comforting, but even a passing glance at human nature shows the reality not to be so comforting. At best it suggests a large chunk of the population of average people are thick as bottle pig poo and easily led.

Gervais08

Not to be picky but Dr Phil McGraw is a real doctor.

He has a PhD in Clinical Psychology - he may have let his license lapse due to other work like TV but you can’t takr away his credentials.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

That's so disingenuous. They're famous but also they're part of the royal family, so it's not the same thing. There's a specific history with the English press and a lot of bad blood there. This isn't some typical Hollywood celeb situation. They need A media, but they don't specifically need or want rag media. One of the reasons why they left as senior royals was so that they didn't have to deal with those certain rags who are part of the royal rota system. They want to choose or at least be able to control a little better where and how their own work, lives, information gets told-it seems to be that they most want it to be accurate and with a focus on their work. So now that they've left, they have a large say in who gets this information. This quid pro quo toxic situation that the rags/courtiers/RF had with their media pool isn't held over their head any longer.
It's not about promoting their sainthood. Because they are members of the royal family, and in keeping with their own personal goals, their main professional lives are centered around charity work. Or "do-gooding" as you begrudgingly refer to it. That is their "day job." And they have raised many many millions in the course of their work/duty, which is more than you or I or any of here put together can ever say. Harry also served his country in the military for 10 years, also serving in the front line, twice I believe. Have you?

What is their work?

Sardonicat

Gervais08 wrote: »

Not to be picky but Dr Phil McGraw is a real doctor.

He has a PhD in Clinical Psychology - he may have let his license lapse due to other work like TV but you can’t takr away his credentials.

Well, you can if you let them lapse.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, only one very particular and minority part of US culture.

You

---

Country mile

---

Point.

We've never talked so much about mental health issues. We've never had so many public figures talking about mental health issues. We've never had so many therapists and therapies and financial and social support for mental health issues. Yet mental health issues have apparently continued to go up? It seems talking about it isn't working so well.


The tail wags the dog eh? Sounds nice and comforting, but even a passing glance at human nature shows the reality not to be so comforting. At best it suggests a large chunk of the population of average people are thick as bottle pig poo and easily led.

When you're challenged Wibbs, you have a pattern of trying to belittle that poster by referencing someone or some thing affiliated with the US. I've seen you reply in that manner here on boards many times. When you haven't got a valid point to make, you seem fall back on that. Do you even realise you do that? Why? Talk about a country mile...

Yes and what happens when more people speak up about their mental health issues- it's documented more. People aren't suffering in silence anymore keeping the true numbers and figures hidden. I should think that's obvious. Yeah, a lot of people are easily led. Just look at the absolute rubbish spouted here most days because they read the Daily Mail and rely on that as gospel. So then it follows it's important or prudent for one to want to cut out rag media to liaison with more responsible and principled media, no? Kinda made my point there so you did.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

What is their work?

Try and Google it and learn something not from the Daily Mail.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

Try and Google it and learn something not from the Daily Mail.

I'm interested in what you class as 'work'. Do you think being photographed us work? Do you think talking about an issue is work? How much does this kind of work pay?

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

When you're challenged Wibbs, you have a pattern of trying to belittle that poster by referencing someone or some thing affiliated with the US.

Nope, just a particular set of US campus social studies identity politics simplistic thinking. The US is a nation of fantastic and oft fantastical contradictions. On the one hand you'll find some of the daftest woolly headed thinking, on the other you'll find some of the most advanced thinking on the planet, thinking that has made huge strides in human progress. You'll not find a single instance of me belittling the latter.

Yes and what happens when more people speak up about their mental health issues- it's documented more. People aren't suffering in silence anymore keeping the true numbers and figures hidden. I should think that's obvious.

Increased diagnosis is but a part of the puzzle. However it's certainly not close to all of it. Now these are US and Canada figures, but they're reflected elsewhere in the west.[link]

A 2010 study done by the National Institute Of Mental Health found that for the first time, youth are disproportionately affected by mental disorders.[3] The study found that one in five youth are affected by at least one type of mental disorder. According to the NCS-A researchers, the percentage of youth suffering from mental disorders is even higher than the most frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including asthma or diabetes.

Speaking of suicide, it doesn’t get any better.

A study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting this past May (2017) found that the number of children and teens admitted to children's hospitals for thoughts of suicide or self-harm have more than doubled during the last decade.[5]

Unfortunately, there are numerous studies all reporting the same trends: a dramatic rise in mental illness and suicide. This is particularly true for children and teens.

Yeah, a lot of people are easily led. Just look at the absolute rubbish spouted here most days because they read the Daily Mail and rely on that as gospel. So then it follows it's important or prudent for one to want to cut out rag media to liaison with more responsible and principled media, no? Kinda made my point there so you did.

I think you'll find you made mine. Significantly more people read rags like the Mail than "responsible and principled media". In the UK and elsewhere tabloids sell far more than broadsheets and that trend isn't going away any time soon and has long been the case with it and long before the internet. And how pray tell do you define "responsible and principled media"? Outlets that happen to agree with your worldview? That's generally the yardstick as human nature shows that people would prefer to have their personal "truths" reinforced, rather than have to think too deeply and that matters little whether you read the Guardian or the Mail.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm interested in what you class as 'work'. Do you think being photographed us work? Do you think talking about an issue is work? How much does this kind of work pay?

I already said what the work is-charity. Why are you still interested in what I think their work is when I very clearly already said that. Perhaps you can read my posts more carefully in future.

As far as I know they have US and UK charities and they still have UK patronages. They work with conservation causes as well and they have other projects in progress - Netflix for example. They publicly stated what they want to do in regards to that work. It's there for you all online to discover if you care to really know instead of just reading tripe for cheap entertainment.

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, just a particular set of US campus social studies identity politics simplistic thinking. The US is a nation of fantastic and oft fantastical contradictions. On the one hand you'll find some of the daftest woolly headed thinking, on the other you'll find some of the most advanced thinking on the planet, thinking that has made huge strides in human progress. You'll not find a single instance of me belittling the latter.
Increased diagnosis is but a part of the puzzle. However it's certainly not close to all of it. Now these are US and Canada figures, but they're reflected elsewhere in the west.[link]

A 2010 study done by the National Institute Of Mental Health found that for the first time, youth are disproportionately affected by mental disorders.[3] The study found that one in five youth are affected by at least one type of mental disorder. According to the NCS-A researchers, the percentage of youth suffering from mental disorders is even higher than the most frequent major physical conditions in adolescence, including asthma or diabetes.

Speaking of suicide, it doesn’t get any better.

A study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies meeting this past May (2017) found that the number of children and teens admitted to children's hospitals for thoughts of suicide or self-harm have more than doubled during the last decade.[5]

Unfortunately, there are numerous studies all reporting the same trends: a dramatic rise in mental illness and suicide. This is particularly true for children and teens.


I think you'll find you made mine. Significantly more people read rags like the Mail than "responsible and principled media". In the UK and elsewhere tabloids sell far more than broadsheets and that trend isn't going away any time soon and has long been the case with it and long before the internet. And how pray tell do you define "responsible and principled media"? Outlets that happen to agree with your worldview? That's generally the yardstick as human nature shows that people would prefer to have their personal "truths" reinforced, rather than have to think too deeply and that matters little whether you read the Guardian or the Mail.

There you go again. You need to stop. If you can only converse by belittling others by comparing their opinions to what you see as a school of thought somehow beneath you or Irish people then you need to look at that in yourself as to why that is. It really is very strange. Perhaps you are just anti-education and would prefer to stay locked in your own insulated beliefs. Who knows.

The US is a nation of fantastic and oft fantastical contradictions. On the one hand you'll find some of the daftest woolly headed thinking,

And so are we. See anti mask rallies here in Dublin and go to any comment section on Independent or Irish times articles and you'll see daft thinking about masks, injection/vaccination misinformation and conspiracy theories, 5G consipiracy theories... full of such bad grammar that you would wonder if they passed the leaving. Need I go on?

Would you like to start a separate thread about the cause and effect of mental health in western societies and what should be done about it? I can't see the point of your tangent here in this topic.

Oh-so you know what the reading trends and revenues are of all major media sources and you've been able to draw conclusions? Source please?
So many silly, time-wasting, and disingenuous questions by some here-including you.

And how pray tell do you define "responsible and principled media"? Outlets that happen to agree with your worldview?

Obviously, and objectively those with a regard and respect for honest and moral journalism. My worldview doesn't come into it. But once again, all you have are belittling comments and disingenuous questions rather than having a mature and relevant discussion.

Sardonicat

Stateofyou wrote: »

I already said what the work is-charity. Why are you still interested in what I think their work is when I very clearly already said that. Perhaps you can read my posts more carefully in future.

As far as I know they have US and UK charities and they still have UK patronages. They work with conservation causes as well and they have other projects in progress - Netflix for example. They publicly stated what they want to do in regards to that work. It's there for you all online to discover if you care to really know instead of just reading tripe for cheap entertainment.

Oh, so they get up at the crack of dawn and volunteer in soup kitchens all day long? They help provide physical care for the infirm destitute - bathe, feed, toileting? They physically build homes destroyed by warfare, floods and hurricanes? Or do they talk about stuff? 'This thing that's happening is bad. Please give money to this charity, because we think it's a good cause and because we say so you'll think so too." How exhausting for them! And how noble! And how much does that gig pay?

'Work' me h0le. And the fukking saps who buy into it.

Stateofyou

Sardonicat wrote: »

Oh, so they get up at the crack of dawn and volunteer in soup kitchens all day long? They help provide physical care for the infirm destitute - bathe, feed, toileting? They physically build homes destroyed by warfare, floods and hurricanes? Or do they talk about stuff? 'This thing that's happening is bad. Please give money to this charity, because we think it's a good cause and because we say so you'll think so too." How exhausting for them! And how noble! And how much does that gig pay?

'Work' me h0le. And the fukking saps who buy into it.

Yeah the crack of dawn. Surely. In fact, wasn't that something Meghan was criticised for by the Daily Mail? Staff unhappy with her because she got up early with her emails and agenda's annoying everyone? :pac:

The rest of your post is a complete and utter nonsense. You'd like to turn them into super humans doing everything for everyone every minute of every day or else they're what? Complete wasters doing no good for anyone? We've already established the work and millions of pounds or dollars raised by them has had great impact.

No one said they're exhausted by their work. You're the only one saying it and then using your own stick to beat them with it. You seem really worked up about them. For someone who claims not to care about them whatsoever you sure spend a lot of time thinking about and discussing (vilifying) them with unreasonable expectations and judgement.

Wibbs

Stateofyou wrote: »

There you go again. You need to stop. If you can't belittle others by comparing their opinions to what you see as a school of thought somehow beneath you or Irish people then you need to look at that in yourself as to why that is. It really is very strange. Perhaps you are just anti-education and would prefer to stay locked in your own insulated beliefs. Who knows.

I have little idea what you're rambling on about here tbh and Lord knows where you got anti-education from. I suspect you're more used to echo chambers and people agreeing with you. When they don't you go on the defensive. Very much a trait of the "school of thought" I was referencing. That and the "there must be something wrong within yourself, you need a hug" or whatever method of "debate".

Would you like to start a separate thread about the cause and effect of mental health in western societies and what should be done about it? I can't see the point of your tangent here in this topic.

You brought up the whole we need to talk more about mental health. I pointed out it doesn't seem to be working.

Oh-so you know what the reading trends and revenues are of all major media sources and you've been able to draw conclusions? Source please?
So many silly, time-wasting, and disingenuous questions by some here-including you.


Obviously, and objectively those with a regard and respect for honest and moral journalism. My worldview doesn't come into it. But once again, all you have are belittling comments and disingenuous questions rather than having a mature and relevant discussion.

When you are adrift in the discussion you tend to roll out "disingenuous" and "belittling" etc in lieu of a point. I can rattle out sources, but I suspect, nay bet you'll just ignore them. Just like a Daily Mail reader when challenged on their worldview. That you think your worldview doesn't come into it suggests a self awareness deficit. Common enough mind you.

You seem really worked up about them.

Jaysus, you could be one of their staffers. :pac:

Sardonicat

No I wouldn't like to turn them into super humans I'm trying to point out to you that they are merely human. Not deities. Talking about stuff isn't work. They've raised millions? How? Would those charities mot have made millions without them? Why do people need celebrities to highlight issues and why does highlighting issues class as work? Again, how much does that gig pay?

Stateofyou

Wibbs wrote: »

I have little idea what you're rambling on about here tbh and Lord knows where you got anti-education from. I suspect you're more used to echo chambers and people agreeing with you. When they don't you go on the defensive. Very much a trait of the "school of thought" I was referencing. That and the "there must be something wrong within yourself, you need a hug" or whatever method of "debate".

You brought up the whole we need to talk more about mental health. I pointed out it doesn't seem to be working.

When you are adrift in the discussion you tend to roll out "disingenuous" and "belittling" etc in lieu of a point. I can rattle out sources, but I suspect, nay bet you'll just ignore them. Just like a Daily Mail reader when challenged on their worldview. That you think your worldview doesn't come into it suggests a self awareness deficit. Common enough mind you.

Jaysus, you could be one of their staffers. :pac:

Instead of arguing your own opinion and backing that up, or when you can't, you turn in personal and you resort to simplistic thinking by comparing someone else's viewpoint to something or someone affiliated with the US. It's a very strange habit. Perhaps you can just leave all that out and have a more mature and decent conversation about a topic. The height of example of an echo chamber here is in you-if someone has a different way of looking at something than you and you no longer have a valid point you just resort to dragging in the US and using that to belittle someone on that mode of attack instead of just sticking to the actual point. You do it here on boards all the time.

You went off on a complete tangent about mental health not even relevant to the discussion. As per usual. I also think that's another habit-if you just throw out a bunch of unrelated nonsense and increase the word salad the other person or people will just give up in frustration or annoyance. You do it on boards all the time.

If I say you or others are being disingenuous and using belittling tactics it's because it's directed at the same people who engage in that style of debate here all the time.

Go on, "rattle out" those sources. I am interested to see them. Now please stop with the personal attacks and I would appreciate if you would just stay on topic, without comparing mine or others opinions and views to other countries which you clearly hate so much.