Jump to content
Stefani Tee
Sign in to follow this  
celeb

Meghan Markle says she's "existing not living"

Featured Posts

Varys
4 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

Look. I don’t read tabloids but I do remember that Diana died trying to escape the paparazzi. I’m not claiming I know her or any of her sons or their wives. All I know is that Diana always felt intimidated by the media, they were an invasion of privacy. She did a few interviews here and there but only to keep them at bay.

Meghan is sooooo different to Diana in almost every single way. She loves the cameras. And I’m not judging her for it: although I will defend people’s right to judge her. People are comcerned about the relationship between William and Harry, and the kind of media environment Prince Archie will grow up in. Which to me is perfectly understandable, considering how Diana died. That is all.

Okay this answer is reasonable . Also their was no need at all to use this :creepflop: emote all the time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Temptation
17 minutes ago, Varys said:

Okay this answer is reasonable . Also their was no need at all to use this :creepflop: emote all the time. 

Yes that did get a little out of hand :sharon:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
StrawberryBlond
22 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Well, your comments do sound like those posts :shrug: 

Confronting someone about their views is NOT victimizing. You really think you can post controversial views and not expect anyone to react? That's not how it works. Of course I responded to yours since it struck me in a very bad way. No one else in this thread made comments quite in that category. 

For one, your claim about a woman touching her belly = attention seeking, is crazy. 

All you just mentioned about her are things you can criticize. Go right ahead. 

I am just against all the dehumanizing that went on. And I'm against the tabloids ruining people's lives.

So?

I don't mind people respectfully criticising my views but bullying and victimising me the way you lot have done is not on. Call out my views all you want but claiming that I'm a right-winger, a racist, assuming what things I read and laughing at me is unacceptable. and is a personal attack.

I didn't even bring up the belly-touching in this thread, lego unnecessarily brought it in from elsewhere, to make me look bad and ensuring that everyone focused on something which was, at the end of the day, pointless criticism, so that they wouldn't focus on the concrete criticism as regards wasting taxpayers money and suchlike. And the belly-touching thing wasn't actually what got to me in itself, it's the fact that this was one facet of the way that she conducted her entire pregnancy like a celebrity as opposed to a royal.

So, you think the way I put down those criticisms are fine? So, why are you still going after me?

De-humanising, as in, calling out her hypocritical and manipulative behaviour? And the tabloids will only ruin your life if you've actually done bad things that have been uncovered. Play the game and you won't have any problems. All Harry and Meghan's criticisms are 100% self-inflicted. The public made it clear what was bothering them and they've done nothing to change other than taking an economy flight once or twice and re-using a designer dress or two, as if that's going to make things magically better.

22 hours ago, lego said:

They’re very much comparable, if you would be unbiased person without an agenda, you would admit that instead of writing 2 next paragraphs of nonsense. If we would make a poll now on GGD, most impartial people would see 2 famous pregnant women doing same things in public and getting 2 different treatments by the media, just looking at those headlines and the readers’ comments; one of them saying “it’s disgusting and disrespectful” that Meghan touched her belly and it got almost 3 thousand upvotes. That doesn’t make them right, it makes them hateful idiots. The hate these people have is clouding their judgment. You can’t force people on this forum to dislike someone just because you told them so. No one even cares enough to fact check everything else you mentioned, they might as well all be lies or distortions and exaggerations, but everyone just sees it’s not healthy to hate someone this much and then forcing others to feel the same. 

 

 

 

You should’ve just written that. There are no differences, except in your head, you like one woman and despise the other. You were wrong and everything before that was nitpicking and not a proper argument.

Yes, if you just focused on bump touching and nothing else. But as I said previously, it wasn't the actual bump touching that bothered me in itself, it was part of what made Meghan's pregnancy be conducted like a celebrity's as opposed to a royal's. These articles don't show how Kate conducted the rest of her pregnancy like a royal - announcing to the public that she'd gone into labour, came out with the baby on the steps of the hospital mere hours after the birth for a full profile shot, providing birth certificate, name of godparents, allowing photos of their baby at any opportunity with no fuss. As the public are paying for this child who may well rule one day, she rightfully grants the public permission to see and know information about the baby. Meghan, on the other hand, kept us guessing about due date, it wasn't announced until later that she went into labour, she wanted a home birth but things had to be changed to make it a hospital due to complications, Archie was shown to the world not outside the hospital but within a palace, out of view of waiting public, we didn't see any full profile pictures of him for ages, we were only given teasing photos like pictures of his bare feet in a garden on Instagram (that bit is extremely celebrity), no birth certificate was provided and we still don't know who his godparents are. By all accounts, Archie is older than is claimed as he is bigger than an average 5 month old and seemed to be hitting milestones quicker. It's highly suspect that he had been around for a quite a while before he got shown to the world. Meghan even paraded him around in full profile when she went to South Africa, even though she'd never done that in Britain yet. It all amounts to her being all Hollywood and selective about how her baby is viewed and that's not the point when it comes to a citizen that the public are paying for. She lives off taxpayer money but won't even allow the taxpayers to know the most basic details of her life. It's like she's rejecting us. That's having your cake and eating it too.

But to make it clear, I don't agree with the comment that said her touching her stomach was disgusting and disrespectful. I think some people get carried away when scrolling through comments and feel compelled to upvote every single one when they all have the same narrative. I only upvote comments I totally agree with and we should take more time to realise what we're supporting when it comes to stuff like that. And I'm not saying people should hate someone because I say so. I write what I do in the hopes that people will research my claims and make their own conclusions independently. I don't want people to just take my word for it for then, their opinion is meaningless if they were just gullible enough to believe the first person who came along.

And it seems like you're just enjoying getting to me to admit I'm wrong more than anything else.

21 hours ago, Whispering said:

Is it the British version of Fox News? Some of these complaints remind me of the time that the Obama’s were in the White House.

Remember when President Obama dared to wear a tan suit or use Dijon mustard? Remember how he was “spending so much time golfing”? Now we hear nothing from those that were calling for his job because he dared to go 20 miles to golf on a couple of Saturdays a month. (when the weather cooperated)

Remember when Michelle Obama dared to wear sleeveless dresses or when the two pre-teen Obama girls dared to wear skirts that hit them mid-thigh?

The way people blew things out of proportion, twisted things to mean something they didn’t, and ignored the fact that everyone else in their position had done the same before and after...makes you think that maybe they hated the Obamas for something more than just being Democrats. 

Most Americans just like to compare British tabloids to their equivalent media but the fact is, they don't actually read our publications, they just believe what detractors say about them. Hell, even some Brits have never actually read the papers they like to insult. The Sun truly is the gutter press and The Daily Express is the most close-minded but even though The Daily Mail follows in a similar conservative, populist tone, I have never detected hatred from its pages (sometimes its columnists can be but they have an independent opinion). They just report on news, they really don't insert their view into it at all. It's the paper my family has read for years, even though we've always been a Labour family, so that's got to tell you something. My parents buy it for the great puzzle pages, truth be told! I like the way the paper is laid out, they've got a great health section and its puzzles (from those who do them) are apparently challenging but not impossible. Their website also has a great layout that I really like. I can read virtually any newspaper site but this one just lays it all out in the most aesthetically attractive way, so it's the one I'm most comfortable with. I've always found that it's very snobbish to judge people by what paper they read - most of us just follow what our parents read, so you're subtely insulting someone's family when you judge them most of the time. Even though I bashed The Sun and The Daily Express, I wouldn't actually judge their readers. The paper and the reader of that paper can be two very different beasts. Just like how some people can come across as being one way politically but actually vote another. The values people live by aren't always the ones they vote for and vice versa. I just read papers to get news and then I make up my own mind about it, regardless of which source it's come from. I'm not so easily led that I believe only what my chosen paper tells me.

And what you're describing about the Obamas is stuff from conservative American media which was very different to British media, we didn't do nitpicking stuff like that. Yes, those level of nitpicks should be questioned because it's all so superficially based that you have to wonder if there's not a vendetta against them. But the stuff being questioned about Meghan is actually concrete stuff, her fashion choices, messy hair and bump-touching are all small fry compared to the real stuff involving how she's conducting her royal duties and spending taxpayer money. I notice that the majority who don't get the hate towards her are Americans and that's because they've never had a royal family that they've had to pay for so find it difficult to work out where the criticism comes from.

21 hours ago, lego said:

 

Stop talking like you knew her personally. She wasn’t forced, she gave consent so stop talking nonsense. No one claims they’re the same women, but Diana’s sons have all the right in the world to compare the situations and how they feel.

William did the same when Kate’s nude pics leaked 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/02/duchess-cambridge-topless-holiday-photos-privacy-trial-begin/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AnwrSK3jjSQV

 

Kate's topless pictures leaking was an actual invasion of privacy, though, royal or not. No one has a right to use a zoom lens to get a shot of you in a state of undress on private property. That's a level of privacy invasion that can only be compared to the scrutiny Diana recieved, so it was a very reasonable time for William to bring up how this had parallels to the unreasonable press interference his mother endured. Until Meghan experiences something on that level, there should be no needs for complaint or Diana comparisons. It really is quite creepy how there's a Diana narrative being pushed here, Meghan wants to be compared to her in a favourable way, you can just tell. Her make up artist was on American tv earlier, claiming that she "just wants her boys to be safe." First of, that is a very weird way to describe your husband, as a "boy" just like your son, when it should be "husband and son." And secondly, that line was something Diana once said. Now add to this that an eagle-eyed viewer noticed a book about Diana on her bookshelf in a video from her old Tig blog...yet she claims she didn't know anything about Harry before she met him. And hasn't Meghan claimed to be a humanitarian and likes to show she's helping out so many charities? It's all pointing to something in quite bad taste when you think about it. If you don't quite know what I'm on about, search the term "the communal narcissist."

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morphine Prince

@StrawberryBlond This is my last post to you in this thread. I won’t waste my time any longer. I hope you find peace. 

The friends I've had to bury, they keep me up at night
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering

According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Daily Mail is a questionable source.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.

Reasoning: Right Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News

In review, the Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari”, which is a misleading headline. In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing as well as sourcing to themselves.

 

Fox News is actually rated better than The Daily Mail, lol, so it’s really out there. 

 

Edited by Whispering
  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ally Campana

I swear a certain someone mistook this thread for an essay writing competition. :teehee:

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
StrawberryBlond
4 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

@StrawberryBlond This is my last post to you in this thread. I won’t waste my time any longer. I hope you find peace. 

Whatever. I am at peace in how I view the world. I think some of you think I'm this deeply troubled person who must hate myself to hate on so many celebrities but it's really not that deep. I've always been critical of celebrities when I'm happy just as often as when I'm sad, this will always be the persona I adapt when I get into celebrity culture. I may not be perfect but I'm not self-hating. My mental health and my deep dive into celebrities are two very different things that never meet.

3 hours ago, Whispering said:

According to Media Bias/Fact Check, The Daily Mail is a questionable source.

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.

Reasoning: Right Propaganda, Conspiracy, Some Fake News

In review, the Daily Mail tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wordings such as “Woman, 63, ‘becomes PREGNANT in the mouth’ with baby squid after eating calamari”, which is a misleading headline. In 2017, Wikipedia banned the Daily Mail as an ‘unreliable’ source. When it comes to sourcing information they use minimal hyperlinked sourcing as well as sourcing to themselves.

 

Fox News is actually rated better than The Daily Mail, lol, so it’s really out there.

When I say "news," I'm talking about anything that happened in the world getting reported on. You know, the stuff that newspapers do. I'm not just talking about politics either. When things happen in real time, you see the story unfolding on the DM site as it happens. I've seen story after story that was completely accurate on that site before. Newspapers use sensational headlines all the time to grab attention, all papers do this. Even if a story is a bit badly researched, just go looking for it on other sites to get the true details if you have to. I will say that the online version is quite badly composed in lots of ways with cringey phrasing and spelling mistakes that isn't really becoming of supposed professional journalists. Even the readers cringe at this stuff, picking out the ones that keep popping up like "poured her curves into a dress" and that kinda thing. When it comes to the print version, unlike papers like The Sun, for example, they focus more on the story as opposed to the photos so there's always lots of reading material and it's aimed at those of an intelligent reading level. It's nigh on impossible to read the whole thing in one day as it's so jam-packed with reading material. If you read through it, you'd be pleasantly surprised at how normal it is but as usual, so many people don't bother.

No way is it worse than Fox News, the two aren't even on the same planet. I've never heard of this site you looked up but I was relieved to find that there's a section for left wing bias as well, so it's not like the whole site is a left wing agenda, it's meant to be neutral. But I always find it funny that liberals act like liberal media never lies. They've lied, misled and poorly researched over the years, all the while, liberals cite them as a great source. It's like, have some neutrality and just see it for what it is no matter what you believe. CNN and ABC News did some of the worst ones. And see when a story was exposed as a hoax, liberal channels hardly ever do a retraction. I say all this as a liberal myself. I can just look at things with no bias when it's necessary. I've seen so many liberals shut out the truth when it's not what they want to hear. I want the truth, whether it supports what I want to believe or not.

1 hour ago, Ally Campana said:

I swear a certain someone mistook this thread for an essay writing competition. :teehee:

Only because people are responding to me in droves and I have to reply to them all. Duh. And real original, pointing out how long my posts are. If I had a pound for every time someone told me that one. I'm never changing my style of posts, so don't waste your time.

  • LMAO 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ally Campana
2 hours ago, Ally Campana said:

I swear a certain someone mistook this thread for an essay writing competition. :teehee:

This stands true. :teehee:

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...