Sigh. Ok, I’ll walk you through my point, step by step.
You criticised posters for forming opinions on Meghan and Harry, whom they didn’t know personally, based on what they’d read in papers, seen online or on tv. From what I recall (and I’m not going back to check, so this may be paraphrasing) you called them sad and pathetic, or similar.
I found it hard to believe that you think people shouldn’t be forming opinions on people they don’t know personally. So I chose someone who is a fairly devisive character leading to polarising opinions, and asked if you had an opinion on him, as the vast vast majority do, despite not knowing him personally. You claim not to have an opinion on him per se, merely his politics, and to generally dislike sex pests.
So, next, I asked how you came to be of the opinion he is a sex pest. And your response was that this was fact as proven in court. Which it is. But you only know that because of what you’ve seen on tv, newspapers or online. So your dislike of Trump based on him being a sex pest, is based on what you’ve seen online and in media.
Now, obviously, the quality of what is reported and published can vary greatly with some being objective fact (nothing ‘so called’ about them) and some being individual surmising and opinion. Court findings are facts. In the case of Meghan and Harry, there are lots of court cases on which to base opinion and draw conclusions. There are also the various interviews they’ve given and the documentaries they’ve made, as well as ‘Spare’. They are pretty reliable sources of info on the couple. Unless you think they’re lying. (Though, wasn’t Meghan found to have lied, or ehh, misled the court?) So nobody needs to be forming an opinion based on the nonsensical ramblings of various TikTokers when there is plenty from the horses mouths, as it were.
But it all comes back to all of this and all our opinions being based on what we’ve seen online and in media, seeing as we don’t know M&H or Trump personally. All opinions on them are based on those sources. Some sources are more objective and thus more valid than others. And we have plenty valid sources relating to M&H, so opinions based on those are quite valid. So to criticise someone for using those sources while doing so yourself is hypocritical and disingenuous.