Shame you didn’t stop to think about that before making that comparison in the first place but at least you’ve made it clear now. About time.
And then you simply go and make that comparison again.
No it isn’t. You may notice I’ve got no problem stating what I think.
no I didn’t mean to say anything else other that what I did. I responded to Gyrate’s comment on the criticism of Harry and Meghan, nothing to do with physical endangerment.
Try reading to the end of that first post instead of mentally stopping at the point that suits your preconceptions. The bad attention I am referring to is negative publicity and opinion.
And it is clear that you already know that is what I mean due to your obvious clumsy avoidance of even referencing it.
Bolding is of course mine.
It’s very difficult, in the context of Smapti’s post to which you are replying, to interpret those bolded phrases as referring to mere criticism or negative media. Smapti specifically references protection from paparazzi as something which Harry clearly wants, and “hounding” as something he clearly does not want.
You respond that as he has chosen to write books and give interviews he knows “exactly what comes with that” - in the context of this conversation, it is evident that “exactly what comes with that” is “hounding by the paparazzi” to a degree that requires protection from law enforcement. And indeed we are all perfectly well aware that this harassment is “what comes with that”! Harry is constantly pursued by paparazzi and has his privacy invaded. And here you are, arguing that he has chosen to court this harassment (“that additional level of attention” in the context of Smapti’s post, can only mean paparazzi harassment, after all).
Only if he retires entirely will you be sympathetic about any “hounding by the press” - otherwise, obviously, you think the hounding is fair game.
If you honestly didn’t mean that - if you responded to a post about Harry being hounded by paparazzi and seeking protection from them by law enforcement by using the phrases “he knows exactly what comes with that” “that additional level of attention” and “When he chooses to live a quiet life out of the media spotlight and still gets hounded by the press, then he will have more sympathy from me” and didn’t intend to say that constant hounding by paparazzi was something Harry had chosen then… I mean, you’ll understand if people are surprised.
That’s a fair reading. But the “hounding” that I’m talking about is not outright harassment and endangerment. I’m happy to condemn that for anyone whether I like them or not.
They have chosen to court press attention, I think we can agree with that can’t we?
No.
I fundamentally don’t agree that because someone has published a book or given an interview or appeared at a charity gala that this means their lives must be an open book or that the press consequently have a right to invade their privacy or follow them wherever they go or camp outside their house or speculate sans evidence on their emotional state or turn a photo of them eating an avocado sandwich into four columns of character assassination. I think that’s fucking creepy and that the people who do it are morally bankrupt.
You don’t think they have purposefully courted press attention? I think they’ve done precisely that and they are very much unhappy when the attention they get is not wholly positive or believing of what they say.
I agree that the horrible things the press do to people should be clamped down on. I’ve said so elsewhere.
I think that is an obviously leading question designed to smuggle in an assumption you accept and I don’t - to wit, that press attention is indivisible and the act of giving an interview to Oprah, say, necessarily to opens the doors to whatever bullshit the press decide to throw at you. To court press attention for a book launch is not to simultaneously and inevitably court long-range photos of your children or unevidenced speculation by strangers on the lingering effects of your massively traumatic childhood. You want me to say that they have courted attention for their projects so that you can say that this means they agreed to all the other bullshit by doing so and that is the point on which we differ.
More feigned dudgeon to deflect, I see.
Deny all you want, but you’ve made it clear to pretty much everyone in the thread what you meant and how you meant it, as has been repeatedly explained to you.
What I meant is what I wrote. Take me at my word or not. Your choice.
Some clarification may be in order. Is it your position that some instances of victim-blaming are deserving of condemnation and others are okey-dokey, and that the victim-blaming directed towards Essex is of the latter kind?
Or is it your argument that your posts cannot be legitimately characterized as victim-blaming?
I’m just reading the thread, myself, and don’t find myself heavily invested in the topic, but I’m getting a strong vibe that the first option better describes your participation (although it doesn’t strike me as particularly well-articulated).
If it’s the second, you might want to start actually crafting such an argument.
I’m not a fan of the concept of “victim blaming”. It is a very broad and imprecise spectrum.
I’ve never met anyone who believes all potential scenarios on that spectrum are of equal worth or seriousness.
Of which “being raped or killed for what you wear” is at one end and “getting bad publicity, criticism and attention from the media that you set out to engage with” is at the other.
These are people who got bad publicity, criticism and negative attention for liking avocados. This is not a normal situation, they have not actually caused people harm, or done anything to deserve the “bitch eating crackers like she owns the place” attitude they get from the UK media. Public figures act they would cheer if Meghan died in a fiery car crash, presumably because she wasn’t appropriately deferential to her future in laws.
We took you at your word. That what you wrote is not what you think you wrote is not our fault.
So, nothing to do with what Gyrate was talking about by “this”, then…
Oh, I know it’s what you mean now, once your velocipede has hit full reverse. Of course, when you were replying to Gyrate’s post, which was explicitly about the car chase…
Here’s what Jeremy Clarkson had to say about Meghan Markle in a column in the Sun just six months ago:
"I actually feel rather sorry for [Harry]…
"Meghan, though, is a different story. I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or [serial killer] Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.
"At night, I’m unable to sleep as I lie there, grinding my teeth and dreaming of the day when she is made to parade naked through the streets of every town in Britain while the crowds chant, ‘Shame!’ and throw lumps of excrement at her.
“Everyone who’s my age thinks the same way.”
Worse than Rose West? Whoa. That’s some spittle-flecked craziness.
Was Gyrate’s throwaway “this” the main point of his post? or was it the explictly stated “bashing” of Meghan and Harry?
I think you know.
“Throwaway” is your self-serving gloss, but yes.
Also yes.
What, you thought the two things were disconnected?
You think a lot of things. Yet show pretty skimpy evidence of any thought for all that.