Interesting analysis on social media about Meghan

[Why2why]

Interesting analysis but who could be paying for this concerted effort? It’s suggested that not only is it coordinated but the people doing it are paid to do so.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/ellievhall/bot-sentinel-meghan-markle-prince-harry-twitter

You’re accusing me of bullying a poster whom I’ve had one discussion with previous to this? I find your post and attack saying untrue things and accusing me of being racist because of it ‘bullying’ actually.

There are posters that I’m sure have had repeated discussions with posters about the same thing, why have you singled me out?

Because of your post here @Labloverrr
I can’t on this thread to see if the two relentless Meghan defenders would be ‘on it’ and sure enough they’re on it, ready and waiting…

I understood from your post that you were singling out two posters. And then soon after posted something to the effect of "you can't say anything against M as you will be called a racist". That is the old, tried and tested back door route to try and counteract and shut down genuine concerns on the subject, which is frequently used at posters who try and support M.
Sorry if you think I am bullying you - that was not my Intention but please report my posts as I'm sure MN will delete them if they think I have broken the rules.

@PreparationPreparationPrep

Oh, the irony. The old tried and tested “if you don’t like Meghan you’re racist” is what’s being called out. Accusing people of racism if they have an opinion contrary to certain posters is what’s tiring and just wrong.

As I’ve said previously, I don’t agree with the press attacking her. I do think certain attackers of her are perhaps racially motivated. But please stop using that against people who genuinely aren’t racist.

@Labloverrr It has been evidenced that the mountains of verbiage about Meghan was baseless and malevolent in motive, so what is your reason for continuing to denigrate the woman? You yourelf have pointed out that some people who attack Meghan are racially motivated, so that is the group you are aligning yourself with. Personally I prefer to keep better company - as my wee granny used to say 'lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.'

Labloverr said some of the press had been racially motivated and she is in NO way supporting that. Head north. Stop twisting words

@SallyLockheart

Glad to see there are still some sane rational people who can understand the very simple notion that I find her disingenuous, having nothing to do with racism or aligning yourself with the press.

[quote Labloverrr]@SallyLockheart

Glad to see there are still some sane rational people who can understand the very simple notion that I find her disingenuous, having nothing to do with racism or aligning yourself with the press.[/quote]
Well said, it's all very tiresome now, hence why I hardly come on here now.

@SallyLockheart

Labloverr said some of the press had been racially motivated and she is in NO way supporting that. Head north. Stop twisting words

How is it twisting words to point out that people who continue to denigrate Meghan in the face of the evidence that there is no real basis for it are aligning themselves with people who hate Meghan for racist reasons? It is a fact. As they say, not everyone who hates Meghan is a racist, but all racists hate Meghan. Is that the company you want to keep?

Head north.it is quite possible to dislike Meghan Markle without being a racist - Labloverr is clearly one of those people. How dare you label people you don’t don’t know, including myself, with such offensive terms as racist just because we don’t agree with your view of Meghan. Free speech does exist in the UK, despite it being challenged here, and it’s really sad that it’s nigh on impossible to have reasonable discussions on these threads now.

Maybe this is of interest.

twitter.com/Bbmorg/status/1453957598579855366

A twitter thread that asks the question "What did Meghan Markle do that was so bad again?"

It tells everyone what they need to know, and I don't want to spoil the outcome for anyone

Do have a read, it sums up everything I think but won't be popular with everyone, and I doubt some will get past the first few responses.

It's spot on.

been reading this thread with interest.
do find it very funny how upset certain people get if they think people are being mean to them.....yet think nothing of trashing Meghan.
"reasonable discussions" do you mean an echo chamber? full of people trashing her and no one calling them out on it?

@SallyLockheart

Head north.it is quite possible to dislike Meghan Markle without being a racist - Labloverr is clearly one of those people. How dare you label people you don’t don’t know, including myself, with such offensive terms as racist just because we don’t agree with your view of Meghan. Free speech does exist in the UK, despite it being challenged here, and it’s really sad that it’s nigh on impossible to have reasonable discussions on these threads now.

I didn't call anyone a racist, I simply pointed out that those who dislike Meghan despite there being no credible evidence of anything she has done wrong, share the same view of Meghan as those who dislike Meghan because they are racist. Which is surely just stating a fact?

Can’t link but just read a very interesting article by Afua Hirsh in the Guardian that resonates and I think it’s relevant to discussions about Meghan & race on this thread plus elsewhere. I don’t think that everyone who dislikes Meghan on Mumsnet is racist & have said this many times. I just do not understand why some of those who dislike her intensely follow her around & keep on hammering how unlikable she is but I understand that this is nature of the social media, people will discuss what they want to discuss & fair enough. I just find it disturbing that she gets the brunt of the trolling & harassment like what this report found. No one person deserves this, except for maybe truly despicable individuals who commit the most heinous crimes (my humble opinion). I think freedom of speech is alive & well and anybody can say whatever they wanna to say.

Head north. When you say no evidence of doing anything wrong are we talking about criminal proceedings? Then if so she hasn’t. But I believe she is a liar and a hypocrite- the marriage three days before being a prime example- and for those qualities alone I feel she and Harry are false and shallow. And before anyone else piles in about cultural norms elsewhere, she had the “service” both times with the Archbishop of Canterbury and that would have been an ideal time to discuss cultural norms with him.

@SallyLockheart

Head north. When you say no evidence of doing anything wrong are we talking about criminal proceedings? Then if so she hasn’t. But I believe she is a liar and a hypocrite- the marriage three days before being a prime example- and for those qualities alone I feel she and Harry are false and shallow. And before anyone else piles in about cultural norms elsewhere, she had the “service” both times with the Archbishop of Canterbury and that would have been an ideal time to discuss cultural norms with him.

But she was right, they did marry the day before. It’s all semantics. They clearly exchanged vows and the archbishop was present. The difference is semantics and technicalities. A marriage is only thought by law to be recognised once some document is signed and that signature is witness. Not everyone considers this technicality important in determining the commitment made.

I have not seen any of the claims of Meghan and Harry telling lies stand up to scrutiny. Not one!

They didn't marry the day before. Three days before they had the usual practice of speaking their vows, which umpteen people have, and I expect that was all arranged in their and the archbishop's timetables well before that. They may well have been very moved by the words. No doubt the archbishop blessed them. (If he'd come to visit me with a broken arm he'd have pronounced a blessing on me.) That was not their marriage. It was not their wedding. It was the practice run of the service.

Oh God, not the wedding again.
As had been stated on here, are black Americans liars now for celebrating Kwanza? is the queen a liar for having 2 birthdays every year?
The DM gave you a weak stick to beat her, and sorry but to the rest of the world they sound stupid for this wedding thing. Everyone knew exactly what she meant.

Anyway, were you you here before the interview disliking MM anyway?

• they sound stupid is the DM (to be clear)

@upinaballoon

They didn't marry the day before. Three days before they had the usual practice of speaking their vows, which umpteen people have, and I expect that was all arranged in their and the archbishop's timetables well before that. They may well have been very moved by the words. No doubt the archbishop blessed them. (If he'd come to visit me with a broken arm he'd have pronounced a blessing on me.) That was not their marriage. It was not their wedding. It was the practice run of the service.

That is not what Meghan said though. She said she was married 3 days before the wedding. She didn't say she had a rehersal 3 days before the wedding. She said she was married, her own words, nobody put words into her mouth.

God not the 3 days before thing, some are literally obsessed with it. So peculiar.

And on the original subject matter... this...

www.newsweek.com/meghan-markle-youtube-trolls-hate-accounts-amnesty-1643008

'YouTube Profits from Meghan Markle Troll Accounts' Network of Hate'

Another news piece to be dismissed no doubt.

@SallyLockheart

Labloverr said some of the press had been racially motivated and she is in NO way supporting that. Head north. Stop twisting words

Also @SallyLockheart

But I believe she is a liar and a hypocrite

Do you hate William quite as much for lying about his Covid status and being a hypocrite who takes private jets while preaching about the environment ?

@Roussette

I noticed this development is flying under the radar in British news.

Yes rubic of course it is. What a surprise. Not.
I would've thought the press would be all over it, given Zuckerberg is renaming Facebook and he's under the cosh at the moment what with the whistleblower talking of FB and online abuse and stoking division.

But no.

William is being totally hypocritical. But fair is fair, the same is true of H&M and was noted in their recent trips.

Why is it ‘hatred’ always used to describe anyone to pointing things like that out?

So do you really dislike William and think he is a liar and a hypocrite?