Sali Hughes #22 pretty narcissistic

[SqualorVictoria]

Growing up as a working class girl in the Welsh valleys and being a teenage runaway, I have come to appreciate the finer things in life. There are certain things I will not compromise on- my peleton, my Hush coatigan, Grensons, vintage clothing.

However, I'm a working class girl at heart and I'll never not love a cheap crisp. A spendy crisp is too try hard, too Tory, too Abigail's Party. Walkers Prawn Cocktail is 70s middle class dinner party- I was the girl at the Bowie concert eating every last bite of beef monster munch with a licked finger while brushing the crumbs off my Levi's vintage cut offs. Cheese and onion just clashes too much with a red lip and Chanel no. 5. A monster munch girl is spicy, fun, uncompromising, she'll leave your eyes watering and you'll be hungry for more. One packet just won't do. And like all the best people, beef monster munch is vegetarian.

 

[Dillydally]

Becky exists for sure. I think it's totally understandable that someone would do such a 180 and concede to Sali's narrative. Something we imply but don't always state, is just what a power imbalance there is between an individual viewer and a popular influencer like Sali. This is exacerbated further still by the fact that Sali's accusations - which she levies at individual participants, including Becky - are incredibly strong and hyperbolic: "you caused me depression", "you destroyed my life", "you attacked my family and put us in danger" (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting). Imagine if someone you once liked and admired, followed and looked up to, singled you out and told you these things personally. Contrary to Sali's portrayal, we are human beings with feelings of empathy, not soulless "sewer rats". Coming face to face with Sali must be very daunting and overwhelming (like talking to a boss or meeting your idol for the first time). This is why statements gathered in this way aren't reliable and why they would not readily stand up in court or in academic research.

Also, Becky is in no danger from Tattler users - we have no army of followers and loyal defenders to descend on her. (Also, why would we want to? She's done nothing wrong by talking to Sali and expressing her opinions/experiences, and I have yet to see a single comment here stating otherwise). However, she is very much in danger of Sali's followers and the narrative that Sali is building. I have no doubt that Sali's followers would report Becky to her employers, harrass her loved ones and drive her off the internet if they knew her real identity. The fact that people are calling her "a piece of shit" and that Sali is encouraging such comments, especially when it's unclear what posts Becky even made, are horrible testament to such a prediction.

Also, isn't it funny how Sali observation about Becky being "affluent looking" does not prompt any conversation around misconceptions about gossip site users? A good journalist would have looked into different threads and their demographics. Given that a bulk of Sali's audience is from The Guardian and not a low rent right wing tabloid like The Mail, and that she discusses high-end beauty, it's safe to assume many of those discussing her are left-leaning liberals, many of whom are well educated and have decent incomes. That's reflected in many of the comments and discussions here. The same is also true of the influencer Grace Beverley (fantastic discussion on class structures over there by the way). In contrast, the Prince Harry and Meghan Tattle thread is markedly more right wing, is anti BLM and quotes a heck of a lot of Mail and Express articles without much critical discussion of said articles.

As for me and my demographics, l work for a human rights charity that works to protect those who have their human rights violated. (Sally wouldn't fall within our mandate - someone snarking about your alleged botox does not count as a human rights violation.)

 

[Too Much]

I haven't caught up but wanted to post the following:

I just read Sali's Guardian article (I normally don't read first hand as I'm just not interested enough), and saw that she said 'I spent most of last year in depression'. I have sympathy for anyone dealing with mental health issues, and I know that many of us, me included, have dealt or still deal with a range of mental health issues.

Sali should definitely be in therapy (I say this as someone currently in therapy). It strikes me that a good therapist would be focussing on helping her deal with people making negative comments about her. I think that would include focussing on what makes her happy, which would not include monitoring or having other people monitor Tattle for her. It would also include considering Sali's feelings about things that are out of her control, and working towards her defining her sense of self separately to other people's opinions. It seems clear to me that one of the rational answers to this problem is not that Tattle, or any other site that hosts people's negative opinions, needs to be shut down.

As we have said again and again, people who live some of their life in the public sphere, whether they intend to or not, need to either adapt to deal with criticism or retire into the private sphere. To make a comparison, it would seem ludicrous for Ellen DeGeneres to attempt to shut down any criticism of her online, and indeed this would be censorship that is not something that we recognise as consistent with a modern democracy.

I've never personally really felt as though reading and posting here causes me any moral quandary. I know who I am, and I am happy for this site to be part of that. I only ever write and 'like' things that I feel comfortable with, and any plea for me to consider that I am damaging others with what I write here doesn't change my feelings about what I should or should not be doing on this website. Many people and circumstances can cause us pain in adult life, and it is difficult to learn that people don't always do what we want them to and don't always consider us or have us as a priority in their decision-making. This is something that as adults we must deal with and resolve for ourselves to achieve a sense of peace in our own circumstances, and it is often not easy.

This may seem callous, but it's not my responsibility to protect Sali Hughes's wellbeing. Likewise, I would not expect her to consider mine. She needs to look after herself; I need to look after myself, and we should both be able to express our opinions, unless they enter hate speech territory.


Secondly, 'Emily in Paris'. I was interested when I saw it advertised because Darren Star is at the helm, and I love(d) Sex and The City. I believe that Patricia Field, the costume designer, is also on board. When I watched the trailer on Netflix I was disappointed and thought 'this is trash'. Yesterday, I was looking for some filler, and watched it. It's not great, and there are lots of things about it I don't like, including the costumes, but it was ok. 5/10.

 

[Too Much]

I also want to add that as women we are taught by society that we must care for others: our partners, children, family, friends and even others who we do not know well or have never met.

This burden is laid at our door and caring traits are prized in 'good' women in a way that is not true of the male experience.

I think that women internalise this with the effect that we feel 'bad' for 'not being nice' to other people, especially other women, even when we have no real obligation to 'look after' these people's welfare.

I think that Sali looks at this site through this lens - that we have an obligation to 'be nice' to her - and that, likewise, past guilty commenters feel bad for 'talking badly' about Sali and 'upsetting' her [for the record, I do believe that Becky is real].

Part of empowering women so that we can live lives with equal chances is allowing us to have more control over those we choose to care for. This may involve not automatically being the allotted carer to an old parent, or not assuming the majority of household chores when both partners work the same hours; it might also involve not always being the go to parent for parental 'admin' or emotional support (Ruth Bader Ginsberg's remark on her son's school only calling her when they needed to consult a parent springs to mind).

Lastly, and most pertinently, this may involve not being responsible for all of the internet's feelings, including those of people you don't necessarily like or who have not been good for your own wellbeing.

Women are allowed to unshackle themselves from this obligation to care for and 'be nice' to everyone disproportionately, which may have no healthy boundaries, and can have the effect of depleting and exhausting us so that we have nothing left to give to the people in our own lives who are most important to us, as well as ourselves.

Attempting to guilt women into having feelings that they have 'let people down' by ever expressing negative or critical comments is policing our inner lives in a way that is not conducive to progress.

 

[ThisIsMyDragName]

Let me get this straight. It’s ok to go on radio and refer to people here as sewer rats. That’s not trolling, it’s not directly landing in our inboxes, it’s a general announcement.

So, by the same token, why is it not ok to be on here, questioning what someone else does,(whilst having never, to the best of my knowledge, stooped so low as to hurl insults like sewer rat)? Which are not landing in her inbox or directed to her on social media. I’m genuinely baffled.

Yesterday someone responded to her on twitter stating that Tattle ‘deletes evidence’. Which I thought was pretty ironic given the deleting sprees that have occurred on twitter...

 

[Corbyn'sCat]

I've had a lunchtime couple of glasses of wine with a friend who also follows these threads and we chatted about it. And she said "it's a bit much being called sewer rats by one who keeps company with a convicted paedophile."

Bang on the money, I'd say.

 

[Jade Mitzi]

Simply strike the match to create a flame to light your favourite candle.

Simply strike the match and set fire to your self respect

 

[lalalanded]

Her BBC article was hysterical. Apparently the troll who was happy to meet with her (yeah ok hun) was so apologetic and contrite because she was just projecting her own happiness onto saintly Sal.

Ironically, Sali has directed a lot of traffic this way (myself included) than anyone else. Welcome to all the new rats!

 

[Too Much]

Omg, this seems to be the story of her life.

She says something. We repeat it, or comment on it. She says, 'how dare they say this/comment on this - it should be off limits'.

Repeat, with rage.

I'm feeling fed up - with us feeling like we have to defend ourselves.

I've been thinking about what I wrote above, and this is literally what has happened with information/opinions that are publicly issued since time immemorial.

It used to be newspapers and radio, which people would discuss in their drawing rooms, salons and clubs (very upper class examples there).

Lest we forget, Sali still comes into our houses through the mediums of newspapers and radio, and now there is social media as well, reaching people via their computer or phone, which they may read and discuss with those they live with, with their friends in whats app groups, or online - reaching people they either know in person or do not.

This is such a normal thing to do!!!!! It is not fair to be stigmatised for this and called low lives!!

We would have nothing to discuss if she didn't release things publicly. And yes, posting on social media is public when your account isn't limited.

The only advance here (apart from the technological medium) is that we have found each other - on this 'dragging site' - without knowing each other in 'real life' or other people's full identities. This wouldn't have been possible before recent times - a commenter remarked that the equivalent would have been to post a notice in the local newsagent e.g. 'anyone want to discuss Sali Hughes - possible nefarious practices - 07890 123456', and the likelihood is that there wouldn't be enough people in that small geographical area to form a discussion group on the topic like we have here.

That is what I think of us as, by the way, a 'critical discussion group with a particular interest'. 'Critical' could be misinterpreted, of course, and it does have two relevant meanings, but I chose it for its meaning 'expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a work of literature, music, or art'. The second meaning - 'expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements' - follows as a result of our analysis of the faults of a 'pretty honest' journalist.

We are a discussion group so far as we respond to the issues of the day - any recent press output, social media offerings, but also we discuss related topics, such as skincare, makeup, fashion and 'tweakments', as well as feminism, ageing, books and tv. People also sometimes talk about things in their personal lives like illness, children and family estrangement.

Again, this is a totally normal dynamic to be involved in, and even a wholesome place to spend time. As people have said, they don't know anyone in the course of their lives otherwise who are sufficiently interested to discuss Sali, so they have found this site, and that doesn't make us weird. It could be compared to a hobbyist who breeds finches and goes onto a particular website to discuss this - their friends and family would not want to talk about finches any more than necessary and have no expertise, so they seek out a group of like-minded individuals to discuss developments in finch keeping and the evil agrochemical catalogue companies who keep raising the cost of finch food and medicine. They form a small community and get to know each other well enough that they send congratulations to each other on life events, and 'thinking of you' when one of them is suffering.

By the way, I do consider this site and the people here part of my 'real life'.

Perhaps an abrupt ending to my post, but I think that is all I wanted to say for now.

 

[Million Copy]

I’m so new here I don’t even know how to quote someone but in reference to the post above about sharing the recording.

If she had just had that conversation about sharing the recording with her friend via text then yes it’s still morally questionable using your (quite vulnerable imo) source as entertainment but who would know? She could be a shitty human being in that aspect but no one would know.

She wants to have these private friendships and interactions in public because they signal status (look at me and my famous friends) and reinforce the narrative she paining for her life. Big important investigative reporter, so clever playing this woman along. So brave.
Then she doesn’t like it when people form their own opinions of the little show she is putting on.

Keep your private life private. If you are truly a good journalist you don’t need to be living your personal or many parts of your professional life online to have career.

I have a friend who is a TV journalist. She has a public instagram etc but she posts work related stuff and maybe her in a nice dress at an awards show or her dog. She never shows or mentions her husband, family etc.

 

[LimeGoss]

Hi, I've tried to put together peoples issues over her behavior in one article with receipts.

What do you think? Am I missing anything?

Sali Hughes Trolling – The Other Side Omitted by BBC Documentary? – Lime Goss

 

[SqualorVictoria]

Despite calling herself a digital specialist, Sali's digital info is very outdated and old fashioned. For instance, she suggests we set up a what's app group to discuss her. And how are we supposed to do that? Put a notice in our local newsagent "What's app group to discuss influencers, message xxxx if interested". None of my friends in real life are interested in influencer culture and I'd bet it's the same for many. The digital era makes it so easy to connect to people with the same interests so you're not boring people in real life. Regardless of time zone, etc, there's a wealth of like minded people out there. And you don't need to travel to talk to them or give out your number.

She obviously has an image of chat rooms back in the 90s- e.g a trucker called Eric from Alabama masquerading as someone else. Hence the passive aggressive "affluent looking" comment. Now I'm not saying that doesn't exist anymore, of course it does, but it's so common for everyday normal people to use forums etc. Sali thinks internet people= weirdos

But conversely, she still wants us to have no privacy whatsoever. She thinks anon accounts should be banned. Most people are good but there is of course going to be the occasional weirdo, hence why forums tend to have usernames and avatars. Equally, its not just about cyber security and wanting to "troll influencers" under the guise of anonymity- it's sometimes about wanting to have a vent about your partner or boss on a forum and them not knowing that Ilovecats2020 is you

She really hasn't a clue and her documentary was about as insightful as an episode of the Teletubbies

 

[Corbyn'sCat]

Just went for a little stroll down Memory Lane to revisit the SH/Esther Walker debacle and clocked this.

People on the internet are allowed to say that EW is talking shit but we can't say that SH is. Well, hot diggity dog. And it's fine bc Sali never sent her criticism directly to the person she was criticising. Much like we do here.

Would you like a side of hypocrisy with your cognitive dissonance?

 

[Yel]

Yeah 38 minute show has some psychologist talking about the “criminality/legal” aspects of what goes on here, but decides not to include, even a sound bite, from the very top barrister in the field

I imagine it never happened or she didn't get the answer she wanted. I think she was wanting a legal expert to say anyone posting here will get 10 years in jail, when of course people's opinions on public figures that are clearly below decency thresholds would only be repressed under a dictatorship.

Uploaded the 5 live interview to the first post as it's way more interesting than the documentary. I suspect the BBC stopped Sali from saying downright easily provable lies in the pre record, but she went for it on her own interview.

Sali says extraordinary things, like an online harassment expert says reading this site is some of the worst things she's ever read. Like really put of all of the internet?

She's desperate to paint this site as something very underhand and sinister when if you read it you soon see it's nothing of the sort.

Sali also said how she felt sorry for the reformed "troll" as they had to go to their family and admit what they did. As if. So someone had to go and admit to their family that they thought a social media influencer promoting beauty products lost their impartiality after accepting sponsorships and that they weren't upfront about their own cosmetic procedures.

Everything Sali claims people here are I can see her doing exactly that - exaggerating, gaslighting, defaming, lying and so on. The protectionism is really something to behold.

30 seems to be her go to number. Sali said she knows who 30 people are, their location and job then on 5 live said that about 30 people post here. So she has everyonesdetails?

How dare women start saying anything negative about the underhand way people are stealthily selling in the largely unregulated sector of social media. They should be put back in their box but if they must then they're only allowed to discuss in private with friends. So Instagram celebs have the benefit of being public but anything other than praise should be suppressed? That doesn't seem fair. Lots like tattle because it confirm their doubts that there's something wrong with this selling and highlights the tricks of influencers.

A common line they say is "people on tattle say you put yourself online so anything is fair game". When that's not said at all, tattlers and mods have standards and wouldn't let extreme or vile content be posted. They so often make up downright lies that people on tattle spend their days saying people should die, telling them to commit suicide and posting their addresses. Of course that never happens but doesn't stop sali defaming and saying it's totally lawless here. Although as a mod I'm sure there are some posts that cross a line, but these really need to be reported as this is a user generated site as some will slip through. People like Sali will use a handful of posts out of millions to misrepresent what's posted here to suit their agenda.

What really really bugs them is this site isn't sinister or underhand. Instead it's normal people expressing opinions on social media influencers who themselves probably know deep down it's not quite right. When these people start lying it's virtually impossible to come out well against the wisdom of the crowd. So they have to lie about this site in the hope they influence people to never read it and convince them that it's filled with the skid marks of society. Saying something more accurate like tattle is googlebox for people on social media wouldn't discourage people.

 

[GTL Old-Timer]

Becky,

if you’re lurking, please don’t think we hate you. We’re not baying for your blood, nor do we think you did anything wrong.

You’re welcome to come back and join us - under an alias of course, in case the deplorable Sali should try and doxx you (which is a criminal offence, by the way).

 

[HarderFaster]

I must say, even though I’m not a super regular poster to the Sali threads, I’m finding it really fucking weird being treated as some kind of lab rat for some fella who is apparently making a “documentary”. Like, have the courtesy to read every single thread with a fine tooth comb, maybe some of the other threads, and get a feel for everything before asking women to do all the work for you.

 

[Too Much]

Lindy West was the first example I saw of this, published 5 years ago in The Guardian:

What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll

I’m often deluged with hate online, but after one troll stole my dead dad’s identity to abuse me, I decided to ask him why

www.theguardian.com

We don't often talk about real trolling here, but from reading the precis of the article here, and from memory - I think I must've read it at the time - Lindy faced (probably still faces) what is so clearly categorisable as trolling.

I want to express that I have profound empathy for her and anyone - and it is normally women - that has to go through that kind of experience. Being told on a daily basis, straight to your twitter, that - for example - you're too fat to deserve to be alive, too fat to rape, too ugly to ever find a partner or deserve love, you should be slaughtered like a pig, is so so awful and can only be soul destroying.

I also remember reading about the feminist Caroline Criado Perez and the rape and death threats that she received for having the temerity to speak up and campaign for things that challenged the status quo. Female politicians have also been subject to a similar level of vitriol. Basically, any woman who raises their head above the parapet with an opinion that might offend middle England is at risk of 'being taken down a peg or two'.

These women are told by trolls that they are worthless, do not deserve to live, let alone have an opinion, let alone share this with others. It is an attempt by (from my understanding) predominantly male commenters to shut down a woman and her opinions by using unbridled hate, fear and intimidation.

I would hope that all of us here would agree without reservation that this behaviour is absolutely indefensible and condemn it in absolute terms.

I'm sure I don't need to detail the difference between this kind of violent hate and our experience on this forum.

 

[Sheeeet]

Slogans on a jumper scream "I've got no personality"

*Quietly puts away "Fuck You and Your Blusher" jumper*

 

[Disillusioned]

Swipe up Sali!

Now there’s a thread title contender!

Six photos of her in a coat!! Which interestingly is “the ideal transitional piece” given that only days ago she said “I CBA with transitional clothes”. That was the non-sponsored version, I guess.

Of course noone has to be entirely consistent, but when you claim to be #prettyhonest...

 

[Oh God Now What]

Just went for a little stroll down Memory Lane to revisit the SH/Esther Walker debacle and clocked this.

People on the internet are allowed to say that EW is talking shit but we can't say that SH is. Well, hot diggity dog. And it's fine bc Sali never sent her criticism directly to the person she was criticising. Much like we do here.

Would you like a side of hypocrisy with your cognitive dissonance?

There are women all over the internet pissed off that other women create an image of friendship and relatability to them in order to sell them products that they are paid to promote or given for free. Instagram used to be this great app and now I find more and more of the people I’ve followed for years suddenly trying to sell me things that I absolutely refuse to buy now on principal because there is no longer any trust at all towards their motivations. Hence this forum.