Entry 2112, on 2021-03-12 at 17:43:21 (Rating 5, News)
I'm no great fan of the British royal family; not because I dislike them as people, although some of them are pretty pathetic, but more because I disagree with the idea of unearned privilege and power, and it seems that royalty is the ultimate manifestation of that.
If there is one other group in society which I dislike even more, it is Hollywood celebrities. Actually, I really don't like managers much either, and terrorists and other extremist, and probably a few other groups as well, but let's just stick with celebrities at this stage.
I will agree that celebrities in many cases did get to their positions of prominence through some form of merit, even if the system conferring the benefits of this alleged merit is somewhat questionable, so maybe they are less offensive than royalty by that standard, but they become more despicable because of their predisposition to making their brainless opinions known. And the mainstream media (another group I despise) of course like to make a big deal of this, despite the celebrities having no qualities which might make their opinions even remotely worthy of attention.
If this all sounds very negative, let me emphasise one point here. I generally don't disapprove of people as people, it is more because of their actions and the roles they play. For example, I know some managers who are unpleasant, incompetent, and pitiful in their roles as managers, yet they are great people in other contexts, and I'm sure the same applies to at least some royals and celebrities. I really try to criticise actions rather than individuals, although this might not be that apparent from my wording of the beginning of this post!
Given the current news, you probably have already guessed where this is going. That's right, it is Meghan Markle's recent "whine-athon" with her miserable husband, Prince Harry, and the odious Oprah Winfrey.
So, given that I don't like either royalty or celebrity, which side am I on? Well, here's a guide I often use: have a look at which side the mainstream media are on, and then do the opposite of them! OK, sure, that doesn't always work, but they almost always get everything totally wrong, so it is a good guide.
Also, taking sides is usually a bad idea. In the case of every controversy there are good and bad points on every side, although generally one side can be seen as more deserving of criticism that the others.
So, long story short, I am more on the side of the royal family here. I think there are many good reasons to think that Markle is simply a disingenuous, narcissistic manipulator; that Prince Harry is a poor, naive character caught in the middle; that the rest of the royal family are an antiquated group of increasingly irrelevant individuals, who have been victimised in this case; that Oprah Winfrey is a despicable misinformer who will do anything for ratings; and that the mainstream media are either incompetent or corrupt, and incapable of a fair, balanced, and rational portrayal of anything.
So this whole sorry affair is really a rather sad and unfortunate indictment of our modern society in multiple ways. I have been advocating for New Zealand becoming a republic for years now, but even I feel sorry for the royal family after they have been betrayed in such a cold and calculating way by the revolting Meghan and the gullible Harry.
But what about the racism, the lack of encouragement, and the failure to support Meghan when she contemplated suicide? I'm highly doubtful of all of these claims. They are most likely outright lies, and a very obvious attempt at avoiding scrutiny of her claims. After all, we aren't allowed to question anyone who thought of suicide, are we? Any any claims of racism can never be questioned. It's all just a vey obvious ruse to allow Markle to criticise her in-laws without the possibility of being criticised back again.
Let's look at the claims of racism, for example. Given what a trendy subject it is today, it is just too convenient that this accusation was made. Who said it? We don't know. In what context? We don't know. Was it even real, and if so, was it meant in a negative way? Again, we don't know.
It's rather difficult to see why anyone would be too concerned about the exact shade of her child's skin. I mean, Markle is barely any darker than me if I've spent a bit of time in the sun. Surely, even for anyone who disapproved of darker skin tones (which we hope no one does any more) this would hardly be an issue.
Given all of this, why mention it at all? Well, everyone knows that the media will jump on anything where the word "racism" is involved, just to get a good headline, and without being too concerned about whether it is true or not, so I think it is far more likely to be a complete fabrication or a misrepresentation, than anything genuinely concerning.
So, getting back to the title of this rant... I mean post: "royalty versus celebrity". Which of these is the more disgusting? Well, it has to be celebrity - in conjunction with the mainstream media, of course. The royals represent an outdated institution, but at least they perform that role with a certain amount of dignity. Markle on the other hand, is a useless actor and an even more useless human being!
Comment 1 (6391) by Anonymous on 2021-03-13 at 15:40:42:
totally agree
Comment 2 (6393) by OJB on 2021-03-13 at 17:49:40:
I think most people do, although many younger people are on Meghan’s side. Young people are silly naďve kids in many cases of course, so who cares? Oh, and the mainstream media also often get it wrong, as per usual.
Comment 3 (6399) by Anonymous on 2021-03-14 at 12:26:44:
Ha ha. Another rant from old grumpy pants horribly over simplifying a complex social situation. Couldn’t help but put in another dig at the ‘mainstream’ media could you. So funny.
Comment 4 (6400) by OJB on 2021-03-14 at 13:10:36:
Yeah, I see your point. Well no, actually you don't have a point. Do you have any specific reasons to disagree with my analysis? And yes, I stand by my criticism of the MSM. I genuinely believe they are a massive barrier to rationality and fairness.
Comment 5 (6401) by OJB on 2021-03-14 at 14:23:31:
I do agree though, that this post is a bit "ranty". That was by design. In the WordPress version of this post, it is even labelled "rant" and in this one it is labelled "red" for its controversy level. Some of my blog posts are more reasonable, some more ranty. This one is at the ranty end of the scale, deliberately.
Comment 6 (6403) by Anonymous on 2021-03-15 at 14:00:13:
I think a big problem with your concept of the MSM (as you name it) is that you, presumably, lump together a wide range of agencies and organisations into MSM. Life is not that black and white you know. And for all your criticism, I don't see your proposed solution. It's sooo easy to criticise isn't it, but what would replace your MSM? This blog????
Comment 7 (6404) by OJB on 2021-03-16 at 09:26:35:
I know that different media organisations perform differently, and aren't all deserving of the same criticism, but I think most people know who I mean: RNZ and TVNZ in New Zealand, the BBC in the UK, CNN, NY Times in the USA, etc. They all have the same bias. I think there is a place for the MSM, they just need to present all sides of the stories they cover.
Comment 8 (6405) by Anonymous on 2021-03-16 at 13:21:35:
Right, so all media outlets should present all sides of all stories and give them all equal air time? So, anti vaxers get the same airtime as pro vaxers under your solution?
Comment 9 (6406) by OJB on 2021-03-16 at 19:16:22:
I think the anti-vax view should be presented. Of course, most anti-vax views are nonsense, which should quickly become apparent. There are more nuanced views, regarding vaccination and other subjects which are more worthy of examination. The real problem is this: if we decide some views don’t deserve to be given fair treatment, who decides which they are?
Comment 10 (6407) by OJB on 2021-03-17 at 08:45:25:
In fact, your question is a very good one. Don't worry, I'm not giving you too much credit, because it a question many people have been asking! :) I think I need to write a post on this issue: how much media time should different groups get, and should some be locked out of the conventional news system completely.
Comment 11 (6408) by Anonymous on 2021-03-18 at 13:41:16:
I eagerly await your answer, and a solution to this most pressing issue.
Comment 12 (6410) by OJB on 2021-03-18 at 19:03:27:
I will try not to disappoint! :)
Comment 13 (6417) by OJB on 2021-03-20 at 12:44:44:
OK, my "solution" is presented in my latest blog post (2021-03-20). Have a look and give me some feedback!
Comment 14 (6443) by Anonymous on 2021-03-24 at 17:34:52:
I agree almost verbatim with everything you say – couldn’t have put it better myself. Call it pedantic, but just two slight additions. You may be right that the alleged racist incident – the query about the baby’s skin – may be bluntly invented but that someone wondered about that despite the fact that Markle is so light, is plausible. (Whether this was innocent or malicious is another matter.) Parents may have a very light skin tone, but in case of African derived genes (allegedly not with Australian Aboriginal ones ) that produce dark skin colour, there is this phenomenon of “throw-back” where suddenly light-skinned parents have a dark-skinned baby. The reason is that multiple genes are working together to produce different shades and the outcome is unpredictable; some may randomly be switched on or not. This has at times led to “embarrassing” situations. And unfortunately, for some people skin tone is still of exorbitant importance. Alas, racism is alive and well.
Comment 15 (6444) by OJB on 2021-03-24 at 18:03:24:
Sure, it is possible, but is it probable? I don't think so. But even if it happened, was it meant in a malicious way? Probably not. Even if it was meant in a malicious way, who cares? Someone had a stupid opinion. So what? It's just so pathetic that people get all hysterical as soon as the slightest possibility of anything even vaguely racist occurs. Get over it!
Yeah, sure. I know that most phenotypes have a complex relationship to the underlying genetics, but I doubt whether that is a factor in this case. I mean, you're hardly likely to have a lot of experts on genetics making "racist" comments in the royal family, are you?
Racism exists. So does a lot of other defective human behaviour, like narcissism, lack of commitment to your job, egocentrism, and lack of tolerance of your family. Ask Meghan about these. Seriously though, I think most racism is trivial and harmless. In fact most of it isn't even racism, by the official definition. I don't think there is significant systemic racism. But there sure is a lot of BS!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE