Harry and Megan

[LP]

Bill Gates has been in the public eye for close to 50 years, and in that time would be lucky to have received 1% of the vitriol and hate that Markle has received in 2022., despite Gates being guilty of a string of personal and professional misdemeanours, and Markle being guilty of precisely nothing, other than the very sophisticated grievance that she is a (gulp)........opportunist, or even worse, (double gulp)...................... a hypocrite. Wow. Talk about protected species.

For all Clarkson stated and profited from, it was Ardern's non-commissioned royalty free public service announcement that pulled the latest rug, maybe Ardern is a closet capitalist or a monarchist mole, both groups apparently have it in for Harkle!

Am I allowed to say "Pulled the Rug", or is that also some obscure reference to a Game of Thrones moment?

[PaulP]

Sorry LP, but Bill isn't a WASP, even if you include Northern Europeans within the artificial Anglo-Saxon construct.  Bill's Scottish ancestors would be spinning in their graves at being lumped in with Sassenachs!  Although he attended a Congregational church as a child, Bill, Melinda and their children regularly attend/ed a Catholic church.  He is white, but not really from a US political elite family so the WASP label doesn't apply. 

Apart from when it clashes with his interests and objectives, Bill is as woke as you can get and is criticised by groups like Parents Defending Education and the Murdoch media for bankrolling the woke education agenda.

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

[LP]

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

It's not the corridors of power that are the judge in the Harkle debacle, and it's not the corridors of power that ultimately foot the bill, it's more of a social and emotional grifting operation.

Apparently we have to believe Harkle, not because it's fashionable to ignore words contradicting actions even when 3rd parties expose inconsistency, after all Harkle speaks their truth, but because the story comes to us with a series of intermittent pearly white smiles interspersed with the odd tear.

Someone like Gates holds very little privilege or influence in that sphere of this debate, even if Gates offered a rational opinion it is more likely that he would find himself disadvantaged by public perceptions regardless of how bizarre they might be.

I realise now Her Majesty made a massive blunder, she should have responded to Harkle via Conan, a newbie mistake I suppose!

[Baggers]

I get it [member=61]Baggers[/member] , I also get that she is a professional actress.

None of what I have seen or read explains the apparent contradictions in words versus actions.

As for the charitable stuff that wins over the public, I suspect that is what it is designed to do with little on no attached altruism, if and it is a big if, if there is some altruism it's potentially just a side effect. Win, win!

This is why I was hoping you'd seen the doco. The philanthropic work that Harry and Meghan do is not a platitudinous publicity machine for their egos. They actually work with the people doing the leg work... boots on the ground. Yes, there will be fluff and gloss and pearly white teeth and all the other trappings that go with promoting and attracting funding to a cause - one of the reasons that charities realise that they need high profile patrons. If you like, Harry and Meghan are patrons to their own charity (Archewell) who also get down and dirty in the trenches with their employees, as well as playing the glitz and fluff game to get attention. Their causes are ambitious and relevant. Especially empowering women.

[kruddler]

Right. So according to this, the reason for him not to say it is not because it is vile, offensive, misogynistic and overall just plain wrong. Oh no. The reason for him not to say it is because there are certain demographics who have no sense of humour, or at least not the requisite sense of humour. And who might those demographics be ? Well let's see : there's 6000 complainants, there's women (50% of the human species), many young people, libtards and members of the wokerati, progressives, minority groups of various stripes. By the time you go through the list, there's really only one demographic who thinks this is funny.

That type of statement highlights what i am referring too.

Question - Do you have a favourite comedian?

[DJC]

If nothing else, a Markle / Gates comparison provides an elegant snapshot into how power and privilege operate in contemporary society, if only in relative terms - who has it and who doesn't, who is able to obtain it and who isn't, what benefits it provides etc. One can quibble about whether or not Gates is "genuine" establishment, but the advantages afforded to him by his power and privilege completely dwarf Markle's.

True, but Meghan, by virtue of her age, smarts, physical attributes, choice of partner, good works and developing media clout, has far greater potential to influence younger folk and women.  It’s that potential that has galvanised opposition to her among those who feel threatened; the Royals, elements of the media, the establishments, and people of influence; generally older, white men.

If Harry was going solo with this, I suspect that there would far less opposition and very little of the snide and offensive commentary.

[PaulP]

That type of statement highlights what i am referring too.

Question - Do you have a favourite comedian?

No. There are people who find dogs mauling each other to death funny. Hate speech is precisely that. Dressing it up as an over the top, in joke, pop culture reference does not make it funny, does not make it clever, and does not make it acceptable. Rather than wasting your time, let me make it perfectly clear - there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. Some things simply are not on.

[Macca37]

True, but Meghan, by virtue of her age, smarts, physical attributes, choice of partner, good works and developing media clout, has far greater potential to influence younger folk and women.  It’s that potential that has galvanised opposition to her among those who feel threatened; the Royals, elements of the media, the establishments, and people of influence; generally older, white men.

If Harry was going solo with this, I suspect that there would far less opposition and very little of the snide and offensive commentary.

I agree with you. After several visits on business to England between 2010 and 2018 I became quite aware that elements of xenophobia and racial superiority were very close to the surface among the people we met.  When you add in Meghan's colour , she was in for a hiding from the media at the first opportunity.

[Lods]

Sorry to harp on about this but do folks have a breakdown on the demographics.
I generally think older white males don't get too worried about Meg and Harry.

They've got the young vote, no doubt... but my perception, reading some of the comments on social media and the news article comments, that most of the scathing criticism comes from middle aged to older females.

[kruddler]

No. There are people who find dogs mauling each other to death funny. Hate speech is precisely that. Dressing it up as an over the top, in joke, pop culture reference does not make it funny, does not make it clever, and does not make it acceptable. Rather than wasting your time, let me make it perfectly clear - there's nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. Some things simply are not on.

'No' was the answer i was expecting.

Always serious. Can't enjoy the little things and have a laugh.
Always looking for someone to point the finger at.

Australia has lost its sense of humour, larrikin, easy going nature.....and a lot of the world has too.

Too many Karens out there.

I'll say it again, just for the sake of clarity.
Should he have said it? Probably not.
Did he mean it word for word? Almost definitely not.
Is it a bad example to be saying such things? Sure.
Does it deserve the type of carry-on that it has received? Probably not.