I completely agree when it’s an instance of those who are here to blatantly troll. I guess my question is more in regard to those who would rush to Meghan’s defense at the first mention of even the most warranted criticism. I mean, I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that if she said the grass was red and the sky was brown and someone here said she was incorrect, others would be quick to try to come up with reasons why that poster is wrong and Meghan is right no matter how wrong she was.
By the same token, it’s okay for posters to have their own opinions and to state them without being beat over the head with reasons why their opinion is wrong, they must be haters, etc. The instance that comes to mind is the NYC baby shower but that’s certainly not the only instance. Some posters commented that the optics of that were bad. It didn’t matter who paid for it, it mattered that it looked bad because most members of the public aren’t royal watchers who would know or care who paid for what and it looked even worse that just days later there was a speech from the Sussex camp about reducing one’s carbon footprint, etc. However, when some posters pointed all that out in what I think was very warranted criticism, they were attacked and beat over the head by the superfans. It wasn’t unfair or unwarranted criticism and would have been exactly the same had it been any other royal but because it was Meghan we were all wrong, racist, haters, or worse.
That’s what’s so frustrating. We hear that criticism is fine as long as it’s fair but when it’s fair we’re attached for it by the Meghan Can Do No Wrong camp.
I certainly think your comments are a bit extreme here in the last couple of post. Just because someone said they mute people, it doesn't mean they reject all criticism. Just because someone likes Meghan, doesn't mean they will agree the grass is red.
As for the second part, everyone has a differing opinion based on different logic. As long as someone is using that, I'm not seeing how it's "attacking" just because they disagree. It's a discussion. And certainly, both sides held their own and said their piece on that, and many other, topics.
Fact of matter is I've been seeing a lot more posts where it's acceptable to make accusations towards the fans than calling anyone a hater. Part of it is calling someone a hater will definitely the post deleted, but not the other way around when people want to criticize fans. Nevermind if the comments are true or not. And that's another thing that's off balance. If it's against forum rules to say haters are blah blah blah, then it should be against forum rule to say fans are blah blah blah.
Until Meghan says the grass is red and someone agrees with it, that's nothing more than hyperbole, which isn't helpful if the goal is trying to find a solution. Just like the claim that posters are attacking each other. Unless there are personal attacks, let's stop using the work "attack" or a form of. That makes the situation worse. Using facts and rationale to have a discussion is not an attack. To me, using those words are a bit inflammatory, especially when tensions are already high and posters are already a bit on edge.