Random Media v.4 (Comedy Optional, Interesting Optional)

[Adorno]

I haven't seen the interview, but from articles it sounds like they have an agenda of using the media to create strife and conflict.
With various allegations they are attacking not just the press, but the royal family as a whole, forcing them in the retreat.
I wonder what the endgame is. Maybe just to get as much sympathy and attention as possible to cater their image.

 

[Captured Joe]

My guess is they are planning to write a book or two about it; this controversy would help future sales.

 

[Mad Vader]

Why should we care about these people?? They just want their privacy and they'll keep telling us about their lives to achieve this.
The only interesting angle for me is to expose deep conservative bigotry in the royal family and their minions. Those Prince Phillip gaffes are not really gaffes.
Another interesting angle is how tabloids control the royals through implicit threat. And by interesting I mean worrying. They achieved Brexit and could do a lot more because of their Daily Mail Reader armies.

 

[Adorno]

I didn't care - until now. They're delivering some harsh criticism of royal family members and more generally the culture.
So they clearly have a strategy far beyond just their personal lives/privacy. If anything this is bringing them in the limelight.
They're also using the press as mediator - the same press I thought they were running from.

 

[Mad Vader]

That sounds a bit royalist from a Guardian reader. You are supposed to be on their side, the mixed race couple eloping from the bigoted in-laws. #teammeghan

 

[kurczak]

I'm about to watch it. Will report in full later.

 

[Mad Vader]

Thanks for the warning!

 

[kurczak]

You got it, buddy! I would live tweet it, but I don't have Twitter and am a day late.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Firstly, i like the couple's behavior.
Is it bad to read any news from any source? Sometimes i go to dailymail, yes. Should i shame? Dont think so.


Israelis create cancer drug without animal tests, by using human-simulating chip

Israelis create cancer drug without animal tests, by using human-simulating chip

Hebrew University professor says tech that mimics human body can now be used to develop other new treatments, saving time, animals' lives and money

www.timesofisrael.com

Alternatives to animal experimentation have been around for a while, they just don't work as well as using animals. Also, as a general rule, whenever you read a new article about groundbreaking scientific research, take the excitement from the journalist and multiply it by a 10^-4 factor, then you'll have a decent estimation of how groundbreaking the research is (which is, not very, nowadays research is not really done with one big step every so often but rather with a myriad of tiny, extremely boring and mostly inconsequential steps that add up over time).

 

[kurczak]

I'm about to watch it. Will report in full later.

Eh, the hype was better than the experience. Oprah claims in the beginning that it was not rehearsed and they didn't know the questions in advance, which I seriously doubt.

The biggest clickbait that "there were questions (within the palace) about what skin color their kid would be", went nowhere because Harry refused to elaborate.

One interesting thing was when Oprah "wondered" why the royal family cares about the tabloids at all and Harry said that the royal family and the palace machine coddles the (tabloid) press (and therefore didn't publicly back up Meghan against some of the accusations) because without the tabloid support, monarchy might have been a thing of the past. Funny if true.

Harry then kind of dunked on his father and brother, hesitating to answer what his realtionship with his father is now and saying that he and William are on different paths now. She trew Kate under the bus a bit too when she said that it was Kate who made her cry, not the other way around as the press suggested. She could have said nobody made anyone cried.

 

[Mad Vader]

That's weak, Kurczak, and didn't make me cry.
Maybe, just maybe, you have a soft spot for royal celebrities and do care for their feelings. Which is super weak **** and you need to give up your fascist rank.

 

[Captured Joe]

Kurczak's a Monarchist ?

ONE OF US
ONE OF US

 

[Adorno]

... She trew Kate under the bus a bit too when she said that it was Kate who made her cry, not the other way around as the press suggested. She could have said nobody made anyone cried.

What's the story here? Why did she cry?

 

[Mad Vader]

What's the story here? Why did she cry?

It was about bridesmaid dresses at a wedding, an important issue in contemporary society. I'm ashamed I know this.

 

[dijiTurk]

 

[kurczak]

That's weak, Kurczak, and didn't make me cry.
Maybe, just maybe, you have a soft spot for royal celebrities and do care for their feelings. Which is super weak **** and you need to give up your fascist rank.

Okay, I see, I can do meaner.

She seems like a typical, soulless SoCal automaton. I call mega bs on her claims that no one taught her any protocol, that she had to google the words of the British anthem by herself the night before some event (oh no, the horror!) (and btw why? are the royals expected to sing along to the anthem like it's a football chant?), that she didn't know she would have to curtsy to the ****ing Queen and that she thought she and the Queen would just hang out as fams and sis it out. Like are you dumb, stupid, or dumb?

Or that she abandoned her career to be with Harry. She was in her mid 30s and had one tv role to speak of. She was a has-peaked B-lister, at the very best and upgraded massively by marrying him, even now that he is a semi-outcast.

As for him, he seems to genuinely love her and willing to crash with no survivors for her, which is very sweet and what every woman wants. But it's a little to sad to watch, when you're not the woman.

Kurczak's a Monarchist ?

ONE OF US
ONE OF US

Tanto monta, monta tanto

 

[Mad Vader]

Destroyed by facts and science as they say on your transphobic sites. Great summary.

 

[kurczak]

Youtube?

 

[Mad Vader]

Youtube?

Wut? I was talking about meme sites where alt-right boys keep claiming that their school biology textbook says that sex is gender, therefore science>trans people. (While actual science doesn't conflate sex with gender, but this is hard to grasp for boys still insecure about their sexuality.)
I don't know what Youtube does to you because I look away from its comment sections.

 

[kurczak]

Where's the trans theme coming from? Is one of the Sussexes trans or what?

Anyway, destroyed by facts and science sounds like an "epic Sargon/ Ben Shapiro youtube compilation (now with even more jump cuts and zoom ins, look everyone, i'm editing) aesthetic, not a far-right rhetoric.