sigmaduck
1yr ago
Firstly, it wasn't in public, it was in a private hotel room; I'm not sure if you realised that as it might explain your reaction here. Secondly, the culture war angle here is nothing to do with sexual degeneracy; it was team sexual degeneracy that cancelled him, after all. Assuming you are OK with consenting adults doing whatever nasty sex stuff they like in private (which the executors of the #MeToo movement are), the question is whether #MeToo is a form of aggressive abuse, and in at least this case, it clearly is.
sigmaduck
1yr ago
As a Brit, the level of hate Markle is getting seems appropriate and actually reassuring. I'm slightly disappointed (if not surprised) that Americans of the relevant political stripe aren't on board (although I suppose they are Republicans after all). I'll do my best at explaining this although you'll need to start with the understanding that the symbolic is Important (I expect a materialist will not understand this, or anything else outside the material).
The Crown is to symbolism in the UK as the constitution is to law in the USA. More important, in fact; in the UK, the Crown is (almost literally) the constitution, and literally the head of state, and literally the head of the church. What's more, Markle was invited to join the royal family as a princess. This is a formal position of very high rank which has responsibilities. In America, the gravity of that office would be somewhere below President but above Ambassador. Another point of reference is that the armed services swear their allegiance to the crown. Joining the royal family at that level is much like joining the military - you swear an oath, and you have strict codes of conduct you have to follow.
The closest analogue I can think of to attacking the royal family in public as a princess would be a newly sworn general publicly handing military secrets to an enemy. The enemies of the crown will use what Markle said against it politically just as sure as the enemies of the state would use troop deployments (or whatever) against the state militarily.
Historically, the political substructure of the English especially is based around the lessons learned from the civil war. Although the reasons were numerous, at least one cause of the war was Puritans drumming religious animosity against the crown for minor aesthetic heresies. Although few would be thinking of the connection consciously, the cultural memory that this must never happen again is bedded deep. So it's not surprising that Markle, through her words and deeds, is perceived not merely as an irritant but an enemy.
sigmaduck
1yr ago
I'm not sure that Markle gets more spite than anyone else. "I hate her. Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level" casually implies that being a Scottish Nationalist is about as bad as being a child murdering paedophile, although I suppose it does suggest Markle is worse. It's later suggested that Argentina winning the world cup would be grounds for declaring war. The level of spite here seems appropriately calibrated and well on-brand for Clarkson. Complaints here fall in the same category as complaining about South Park being too offensive - it's a feature, not a bug - and Clarkson's audience will take such complaints as being a sign that he's doing something right.
It also seems you've missed that the apology is as unserious as the original article. Responding to "the way you're bullying this woman is offensive" with "I understand how making a reference to a TV show whose final season wasn't as good as we all hoped could be offensive" communicates that his critics' points are less important than Reddit comments about a fictional problem.
Your information is out of date, I'm afraid; the masons are accepting women nowadays.
More options
Context Copy link