|
Post by pg13 on Mar 11, 2021 22:31:20 GMT
I get what you’re saying, though I more often than not believe victims. But I know it’s problematic for those who have been falsely accused like mj and countless others. I don’t worry about whether this is true or not with Meghan but someone saying they don’t believe her and posting it publicly are communicating to others that they wouldn’t believe anyone suicidal or depressed and that can alienate people. I’m more concerned about the invisible population of people who are alone with their ideation and I have a soft spot for them cause I’ve been in that position myself in the past. Bit in bold - that really doesn't follow. It's perfectly possible to disbelieve one person's claims and believe another person's claims. The argument that Piers Morgan disbelieves Meghan Markle and, therefore, Piers wouldn't believe another unrelated person's claims and/or experiences is based on the Slippery Slope Fallacy. "In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen." It's also based on the Non Seqitur Fallacy which means It Does Not Follow. These fallacious arguments are routinely used by what is usually called the "woke" crowd. As the leading expert in memory, Elizabeth Loftus warned "There is scientific evidence that we distort our own memories in a positive or prestige-enhancing direction without anybody else intervening." The so-called "woke" crowd do NOT want to tolerate this kind of evidence at all as they use the slippery slope fallacy. "If you don't believe THIS person, other people will not speak up." There's no evidence to prove that kind of argument. Meghan and Harry saying x, y and z in an interview does NOT automatically mean everything is true. We already know some things aren't true or were exaggerated for effect given the times we're living in.
|
|
|
Post by butterflies on Mar 11, 2021 22:39:56 GMT
I think it would be harmful to those who are suicida if people voice they do not believe Meghan, it’ll just make one look like a horrible person who no one will ever reach out to if they need help I actually have to agree and have been thinking about this. It’s a pretty big thing someone as famous as Meghan is voluntarily and openly talking about how she faced suicide thoughts and how she went to get help. It helps remove the stigma suicide and suicidal thoughts have in society which IS a huge issue. It normalises people speaking out and getting help for it - people just don’t talk about this shit enough until it’s too late. Believing sexual abuse allegations off the bat may be one thing because they involve serious allegations towards another person, but suicide is about that one person alone. Your thoughts on Meghan Markle might be one thing, but it is very discouraging for volatile people facing such dangerous ideas to go on social media and see this woman be widely criticised or pulled apart for the very thing they should be doing - speaking out about her thoughts and trying to get help. There are valid criticisms about Meghan’s interview when it comes to other things (such as Archie’s title), but I think some people should be careful how they approach something as stigmatised and serious as suicide. I fully agree with this, so glad you get it. Suicide and abuse allegations are two different ball games. I think because it’s opreh (and I can’t stand her either) fans may be more sensitive to this. As a woman of colour, Meghan may have opened doors for those who are listening to be able to seek help which they may have not been able to do before. I think the narrative around mental health is changing for the better and stigma is being addressed.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 12, 2021 5:01:16 GMT
Believing sexual abuse allegations off the bat may be one thing because they involve serious allegations towards another person, but suicide is about that one person alone. In her case, no it wasn't just about her. It was told in the context of her making allegations against other people, ie. the royal family when she claimed they refused to help her. All of the interview, including this part served the purpose of making the family look bad (and make Maghan and Harry look like they are the good guys).
And BTW, Piers Morgan expressed his doubt exactly in THIS context.
Just like they claimed it is very discouraging for all sexual abuse victims "to go social media and see Wade and James be widely criticised or pulled apart for the very thing they should be doing - speaking out about their thoughts and bringing awarness of sexual abuse. Some people should be careful how they approach something as stigmatised and serious as child sexual abuse."
And BTW, some victims fo CSA are also suicidal. So if one wants to play that card about why it is dangerous to not believe Wade and James, they could play that card too.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 12, 2021 5:09:31 GMT
pg13:
And let's not forget that Wade and James used this same fallacy (manipualtion tactic) as well: "not believing us means disrespect to all victims of sexual abuse, not just us". Hiding behind real victims is a common tactic of false victims/narcissists. It's a manipulative tactic to make people be afraid to express doubt about your claims or to make them feel uncritically believing them is "the right thing to do".
For example:
"They are doing it to me, they are doing it to James, but more importantly they're doing it to all survivors by these actions that they're taking."
BS, of course.
Saying Wade and James lie doesn't equal saying all sex abuse accusers lie. Doubting Meghan about her claims doesn't equal saying all people claiming to be suicidal lie.
|
|
|
Post by butterflies on Mar 12, 2021 5:58:49 GMT
If anything, wade and james are offensive to those who have really been through it. They thrive off the attention and sympathy. Again, I don’t know enough about Meghan to know if she meant it, but have encountered many who have dealt with being at a low point during pregnancy and after, so it’s refreshing that the narrative is being spoken about and people are becoming more understanding about suicidal ideation. I’m a survivor of abuse as well, and have had mental health struggles, so here’s where we’ll have to agree to disagree. Just cause michael had false accusations doesn’t mean others haven’t actually been through things, and to ignore that is gaslighting
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 12, 2021 6:06:40 GMT
If anything, wade and james are offensive to those who have really been through it. They thrive off the attention and sympathy. Those who believe Wade and James (including real child sex abuse victims), obviously don't think so.
Whether Wade/James and Meghan are offensive to those who have been through it (sex abuse victims or suicidal people) depends on whether their claims are true. That's not only true of Wade and James, but the same way it is true about Meghan as well. Because if her claims are false then she too would be offensive to people with real suicidal thoughts. Then she too would be just someone who made it up for attention and sympathy and who takes advantage of the goodwill of people who want to be kind to suicidal people. Don't you think it would be offensive to people with real suicidal thought if she just made it up to manipulate the public against the royal family?
I am not saying her claims are definitely false. I am saying that EVERYTHING depends on whether the claims are true or not - including whether she is offensive to people with suicidal thoughts or not. If her claims are true then she is not offensive, she is brave for speaking out etc. If her claims are false, however, then she is not better than Wade and James - a manipulator.
But this is again sounds like those sex abuse victims who insist Wade and James telling "their truth" is important because "it’s refreshing that the narrative is being spoken about and people are becoming more understanding about child sexual abuse". Just because these people tell a story that other people can emotionally relate to, it doesn't mean that story is true. (See also Tanya Head.) And if their stories are not true then there is nothing refreshing about it - whether it is Wade/James or Meghan.
Even if they generate discussion about a generally important topic (child sexual abuse or suicide) if that discussion is based on a false premise then it is not good for the cause IMO. It reminds me of blue ticks after LN that said even if Wade and James's story is not true it is still an important film because it brings attention to CSA and grooming etc. I was like WTF? If it is not true, the whole premise your build your conclusions on is false, then how right your conclusions about "grooming" and CSA abuse can be? SMH.
If it is not true then the conclusions are actually the opposite, and those consequences are anything but good for the cause. If Wade/James are liars then LN is not a cautionary tale about the dangers of grooming, but a cautionary tale about the dangers of letting the wrong people into your life if you are rich and vulnerable and naive, like MJ was. Then it is a cautionary tale about how low people will sink for money. How some people will turn around and stab people they claimed to be their friends in the back if they can benefit from it. Also a cautionary tale about false allegations, sociopathy, narcissism.
The same way if Meghan's claims aren't true then it is not a cautionary tale about how people who battle with suicidal thoughts always have to be believed, on the contrary, it is then a cautionary tale about how some people can use such tropes to manipulate.
Again, let me be clear, I am not saying that Meghan's claims of suicidal thoughts and how she was treated by the RF are definitely false. My point is that everything said here about why we should "just believe" her was said about Wade and James as well (including the emotional manipulation that we have to just believe them because not believing them endangers/offends other people - those who really were CSA victims or really had suicidal thoughts).
Defending the royal family is not a hill to die on for me. I don't even like them and before this interview I had no thoughts about their relationship with Meghan (I didn't follow them at all). If it turns out every single thing that Meghan and Harry claimed in this interview is THE Truth (as opposed to it being just "their truth") and nothing but the truth then more power to them. But we won't know that from this interview. Once again, we have just seen a bunch of allegations made one-sidedly on a global platform. People shouldn't mistake it for proven facts. And I see a lot of people, including media - esp. US media - do. I see a clip of William yesterday with journalists shouting over to him if his family is racist, for example. And he answered "My family is not racist" but then people making mocking memes of it on social media. Once again, people take everything someone (Meghan) one-sidedly claimed as the gospel truth and condemning people based on those things and I don't think it is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Mar 12, 2021 9:42:44 GMT
If anything, wade and james are offensive to those who have really been through it. They thrive off the attention and sympathy. Again, I don’t know enough about Meghan to know if she meant it, but have encountered many who have dealt with being at a low point during pregnancy and after, so it’s refreshing that the narrative is being spoken about and people are becoming more understanding about suicidal ideation. I’m a survivor of abuse as well, and have had mental health struggles, so here’s where we’ll have to agree to disagree. Just cause michael had false accusations doesn’t mean others haven’t actually been through things, and to ignore that is gaslighting Who is actually saying that here? If we base positions based on our own personal experience of x, y and z, that's a logical fallacy called Anecdotal Fallacy. It's where people use personal experience of, say, abuse or mental health struggles to justify believing someone's claims without a sound argument or compelling evidence. While the allegations of racism levelled at the Royal Family is different to the allegations of child abuse levelled at Michael Jackson, the point is ultimately that the logic underpinning the rhetoric of believe what someone claims is the same. When we know that we cannot necessarily believe what someone says and that our own personal experience tells us nothing about the validity of claims that ultimately has nothing to do with our own experience.....well, we have a moral, ethical and legal duty to look for corroborating evidence. Otherwise, we run the risk of pursuing a modern day witch hunt. That's why I'm very interested in the work of the world's leading memory scientific expert, Elizabeth Loftus and her colleagues. It demonstrates why it's not good enough to simply believe someone just because they said so and we feel and emotional pull to believe.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on May 23, 2021 11:46:07 GMT
Since the Oprah interview with Meghan and Harry has cropped up again, here is several questionable claims they made to Oprah that clearly aren't true. Claim: "I guess the highlight for me is sticking him on the back of a bicycle in his little baby seat and taking him on bike rides which is something I was never able to do when I was young. I can sit him on the back and he’s got his arms out and he’s like ‘whoah’.” - Prince Harry Truth: Harry did go on bike rides with his father at various ages. Photos available online.Claim: Meghan: “[But] you know, three days before our wedding, we got married. No-one knows that. “We called the Archbishop and we just said, ‘Look, this thing, this spectacle is for the world but we want our union between us.’ So, the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury.” Harry added: “Just the three of us.” Truth: Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby: “The legal wedding was on the Saturday. I signed the wedding certificate, which is a legal document, and I would have committed a serious criminal offence if I signed it knowing it was false.”Claim: Oprah: "After their move, Harry and Meghan say security normally provided by the royal family was cut off.” Harry: “I never thought that I would have my security removed, because I was born into this position. I inherited the risk. So that was a shock to me. That was what completely changed the whole plan.” Truth: Only a strict few members of the Royal Family were entitled to 24/7 protection at the time of the Oprah interview. These are:
the Queen and Prince Philip Charles and wife Camilla Duchess of Cornwall William and Kate and their kids
Working Royals are entitled to protection ONLY when undertaking official Royal duties. Princess Anne and Prince Edward are two examples.
Non-working members of the Royal Family are NOT entitled to official protection. Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice as well as the Queen's eldest grandchild, Zara Tindal are examples.
"Once Harry and Meghan step down as working royals, they become high net worth individuals/A-list celebrities but that doesn’t entitle them to taxpayer-funded security. Elton John has to pay for his own security and so do Harry and Meghan.” - Simon Morgan, a former royal protection officer.
Royal Protection officers are funded by the British Taxpayer.
Both Harry and Oprah clearly pointed the finger at the Royal Family regarding the loss of Royal Protection officers for Harry and Meghan.
In truth, London Metropolitan Police’s Royal and VIP Executive Committee make the decisions over who is entitled to Protection.
And who isn't.
Harry knew very well that ceasing to be a working Royal would absolutely mean losing the elite protection. After all, it was never a secret that various non-working Royals do NOT get armed protection.
So, why would he and his wife?
The truth was clearly distorted by Oprah, Meghan and Harry.Claim: Meghan: "You couldn’t just go. You couldn’t. I mean, you have to understand, as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time, until we came here, that I saw my passport, my driver’s licence, my keys. All that gets turned over. I didn’t see any of that any more." Truth: For security reasons, the passports of each member of the Royal Family is looked after until they require them for international travel. That's just commonsense.
To Oprah, Meghan claimed she never saw her passport again until "we came here" which would be California. However, this is clearly a lie as she required her passport for travelling to Canada upon leaving the UK.
And, in 2019, required her passport for travel to the USA for a rather extravagant baby shower which was attended by many of her friends.
All members of the Royal Family require a passport for ALL travel where its required.
Except for the Queen since it's issued in her name.
As proven here: www.royal.uk/passportsAnd that isn't all either....
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on May 23, 2021 11:55:10 GMT
And a reminder of the following WHOPPER from Meghan Markle: This is the problem with them not naming names. People make all kind of assumptions, which is unfair to all of those members of the family who did not make that comment. Call me jaded, but I think Meghan knew what she was doing with that one.
Also, how do we know it is true at all? Or that it was really a racist comment, not, say just someone speculating about how the baby would look, just like when all families speculate if a baby would take after the mother or the father, or if it will have blue or brown eyes etc - and this is what we being twisted here? We don't know that. Once again: we heard one party making an allegation, which might or might not be true.
This is all very true, I must say. Problem is that allegations of racism is so incendiary that a level of scepticism isn't being widely applied to their claims. Scepticism is important because it allows us to more properly assess validity of complaints, especially ones that are or can be criminal/legally problematic. Meghan Markle is effectively claiming that the Royal Family is racist in relation to her son and the titles/security issue. Shortly before this bit, Meghan claimed that during her pregnancy first time round "they wanted to change the convention for Archie". It's not too difficult to find the actual Letters Patent that deals with this convention. Here's what it says: In other words, the Monarch's children will carry Prince/Princess titles. It further states that the sons of the Monarch can also give their own children said titles. Finally, it states that the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales' children will also have these titles. This convention goes back to 1917 and the Queen's father. So, it was always going to be the case that Prince Harry's children would not have the Prince and Princess titles. One way they could get them was if Prince William wasn't living. Or if Prince Charles becomes King. Lastly it also states: Archie can inherit Harry's titles of Duke of Sussex (England), Earl of Dumbarton (Scotland) and Barony of Kilkeel (Northern Ireland). As Prince, Harry knows all of this very well which raises questions about why he didn't bother to correct this one. After all, Meghan is alleging Archie was denied the Royal title of Prince due to racism. And that's far from the case as the Letters Patent shows. As has already been stated, the allegations of racism is both vague and generalised towards the Royal Family itself. Since Harry and Meghan left out the crucial details around Royal titles, it makes you think what else are they hiding? This interview is very manipulative and I think the Politico article Respect linked is very on the money. But Prince Harry comes out of this looking pretty bad, even if Meghan Markle didn't intend him to. By the way, Meghan and Harry contradicted each other as to when this skin colour conversation occurred. The Monarch's first black Lord Lieutenant, Sir Kenneth Olisa, very firmly rejected Harry and Meghan's claims.
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on May 23, 2021 12:14:59 GMT
i feel people should leave them alone. i think it very cool to have another race in the family after centuries BUT she knew what she was getting in to. alot people was saying not to marry harry. she did it and now she has deal with the out come of this. i feel bad for their children. they gonna stuffer the most.
as someone who suffer with mental health, i feel her pain BUT didn't know what she was getting in to? this isn't some fairy tale this basically signing her whole life away.
by the way royal family shouldn't even exist anymore. there's no need for it anymore. i'm from America. i'll be praying for them. smh.
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Jun 10, 2021 9:20:24 GMT
I kind of cringed when they named their daughter after the Queens nickname. After spending months slagging off the family, it looks a bit fake and like they're trying to get back in her good graces again. I think people can see through that kind of narcissism.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jun 10, 2021 15:14:00 GMT
I kind of cringed when they named their daughter after the Queens nickname. After spending months slagging off the family, it looks a bit fake and like they're trying to get back in her good graces again. I think people can see through that kind of narcissism. To me it's double cringe because William and Catherine named their daughter Charlotte Elizabeth Diana already. Couldn't Harry and Meghan be more original?
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jun 10, 2021 17:10:11 GMT
I kind of cringed when they named their daughter after the Queens nickname. After spending months slagging off the family, it looks a bit fake and like they're trying to get back in her good graces again. I think people can see through that kind of narcissism. It's also PR damage limitation to try to get back in the good books of the UK public who has rejected them since their ill advised Oprah interview and that Dax podcast.
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jun 11, 2021 1:04:59 GMT
i find it kind of weird their named their child after someone they claim they can't stand.... i liked the name archie but i feel they could of gave the girl a better name....
|
|
|
Post by electriceyes on Jul 4, 2021 9:01:01 GMT
Good article about Meghan and Harry's victim-complex appealing to American audiences. I cannot accept that Americans like people that hit out at others that cannot defend themselves. M&H are the bullies, and like all bullies they are cowards!
|
|