Piers Morgan got canned from his morning show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think race had anything to do with Piers. He clearly adored Meghan to the point of developing an obsession. A racist wouldn’t do that.

Based on his own words in various videos, the man had an obvious sexual attraction to her that became a fixation. A racist wouldn’t be attracted to a biracial person. He clearly was attracted to her. I mean, those videos are stalkerish.

His hateful rants were driven by being scorned/ghosted. That’s obvious. Not racism. This is crazy ex-girlfriend behavior.

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But that this non-white woman was not immediately attracted to Piers, who apparently regards himself as a model of white manhood, quite likely added at least some fuel to Piers’s rage at feeling rejected. It’s possible, but it’s really hard to imagine that he would have so publicly treated, say, Chelsy or Cressida this way — or that he would not have received very public, very negative consequences for displaying similar behavior with one of these women.

I’m still startled at the extent of this public ranting from a married man. Maybe he’s just unhinged. But it’s possible to be misogynistic AND unhinged AND racist, and I see nothing, so far, that suggests that Piers was not multi-tasking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

[Anonymous]

Sorry - perhaps Distinctions — would be a better word than “separations”.

[Anonymous]

Why do so many attribute this to racism rather than misogyny or even prejudice against Americans? Have you not seen how the British tabloids have treated many women over the years and most were not black? Are you not aware of the eye rolling and disapproving looks that any can-do tradition-defying American invites? I don’t think most Americans understand that there is a big culture gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many attribute this to racism rather than misogyny or even prejudice against Americans? Have you not seen how the British tabloids have treated many women over the years and most were not black? Are you not aware of the eye rolling and disapproving looks that any can-do tradition-defying American invites? I don’t think most Americans understand that there is a big culture gap.

Which Royals did they do that to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many attribute this to racism rather than misogyny or even prejudice against Americans? Have you not seen how the British tabloids have treated many women over the years and most were not black? Are you not aware of the eye rolling and disapproving looks that any can-do tradition-defying American invites? I don’t think most Americans understand that there is a big culture gap.

Maybe the British should get on national television and clarify a few things - say you hate Americans. All Americans. See how that goes over with your desperate whining for a trade deal.

You hate us but you want our money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

NP here, but do you really not see PP's point? Do you think every single person that went to a single race or single sex school if that was all or the best available at the time was definitely racist or sexist? I think that's a step too far and undermines the meaning racist and sexist, at least for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do so many attribute this to racism rather than misogyny or even prejudice against Americans? Have you not seen how the British tabloids have treated many women over the years and most were not black? Are you not aware of the eye rolling and disapproving looks that any can-do tradition-defying American invites? I don’t think most Americans understand that there is a big culture gap.

In my case, it’s things like the blackamoor brooch, the comments about Archie, the pointed comments that are easy to connect with racial stereotypes. I think Fergie was horribly mistreated. I think Megan was — and is — mistreated AND that there are racist overtones to the mistreatment. I’m aware of all that you have pointed out. I wonder how much you, and those who share your point of view, are actually aware of racism and how embedded it is in “normal” Western cultures.

As long as we’re talking big cultural gaps, your “most Americans” includes quite a lot of diversity. One of the issues coming out might well be that those of us who see the racism in a lot of this are people who have seen and experienced it ourselves, in America as well as in other countries. There are others who may never see racism anywhere at all. Maybe watch and listen to the bit where Piers walks off his show. Listen to Alex Beresford and think about what he’s saying — and why he’s finally speaking up in that moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

NP here, but do you really not see PP's point? Do you think every single person that went to a single race or single sex school if that was all or the best available at the time was definitely racist or sexist? I think that's a step too far and undermines the meaning racist and sexist, at least for me.

No, I don’t see PPs point — which is why I am respectfully asking how PP defines “racist”. I am trying to understand PP’s point of view. I haven’t made any statements yet about what is or isn’t racist, in my view. For me, there’s little point in doing that without at least having some understanding of the distinction that PP is making. You, also, are saying what is NOT racist in your view, while still failing to say what you think IS racist or sexist. I’m happy to engage in the conversation— but I really don’t see much point in doing so without being somewhat clear on what we’re each talking about, we don’t need to agree upon the definitions — but it would help to be as clear as we can on what definitions we’re using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

NP here, but do you really not see PP's point? Do you think every single person that went to a single race or single sex school if that was all or the best available at the time was definitely racist or sexist? I think that's a step too far and undermines the meaning racist and sexist, at least for me.

No, I don’t see PPs point — which is why I am respectfully asking how PP defines “racist”. I am trying to understand PP’s point of view. I haven’t made any statements yet about what is or isn’t racist, in my view. For me, there’s little point in doing that without at least having some understanding of the distinction that PP is making. You, also, are saying what is NOT racist in your view, while still failing to say what you think IS racist or sexist. I’m happy to engage in the conversation— but I really don’t see much point in doing so without being somewhat clear on what we’re each talking about, we don’t need to agree upon the definitions — but it would help to be as clear as we can on what definitions we’re using.

Let's go with the dictionary definition: "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Not sure why you're being such a prat about this. The point PPs were making was pretty obvious. You questioned whether there was a distinction between being racist and knowingly benefiting from society's racism. I think there is. You do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

NP here, but do you really not see PP's point? Do you think every single person that went to a single race or single sex school if that was all or the best available at the time was definitely racist or sexist? I think that's a step too far and undermines the meaning racist and sexist, at least for me.

No, I don’t see PPs point — which is why I am respectfully asking how PP defines “racist”. I am trying to understand PP’s point of view. I haven’t made any statements yet about what is or isn’t racist, in my view. For me, there’s little point in doing that without at least having some understanding of the distinction that PP is making. You, also, are saying what is NOT racist in your view, while still failing to say what you think IS racist or sexist. I’m happy to engage in the conversation— but I really don’t see much point in doing so without being somewhat clear on what we’re each talking about, we don’t need to agree upon the definitions — but it would help to be as clear as we can on what definitions we’re using.

Let's go with the dictionary definition: "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Not sure why you're being such a prat about this. The point PPs were making was pretty obvious. You questioned whether there was a distinction between being racist and knowingly benefiting from society's racism. I think there is. You do you.

“Prat”? I guess name calling is the predicable result of trying to have a rational conversation in a thread from the entertainment forum. As to the rest of it, I guess there’s little point in trying to engage even superficially with someone who believes that only their own perspectives are “obvious”. Prat indeed.
Peace out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn't get how this sounds, but it's bad.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6460443/PIERS-MORGAN-Ex-friend-Meghan-Markle-ruthless-social-climbing-actress-used-getting-way.html

And he continues to be angry that people call him out for his obsession instead of "siding" with him.

I'm so embarrassed for him after reading that. Well, half of it; I had to quit.

You really should read it all. He made some predictions in there that she was now on a mission to take down the royal family and to get her way about that. And he boldly stated that it wouldn't go well for her.
I think he has woefully underestimated her.
But, that doesn't mean he was wrong about the motive.

That's some British Qanon shit. I'm good without intentionally climbing into poisoned rabbit holes.

Right??
I would equate all of that to the psychotic, irrational and nonsensical ramblings of the QAnon cult.

People truly are weak-minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I’m not a fan of the BRF or Megan, Piers is a tool! He clearly had some sort of ax to grind with Megan. I don’t know but he was obsessed with her. The other anchor called him out on it too.

Piers was an old windbag. Good riddance! Yay!

Yes, they used to be gossipy chums and she'd come into town and they'd meet up for a pint and dish about the who's who of Britain and the ins and outs of Hollywood. It doesn't appear that they dated at all. It wasn't that. It was that he enjoyed the flattery of her wanting to be in his company and he was a big shot. At the time, HE was a big deal. And suddenly, she got her in with Harry and ghosted Piers like yesterday's news. He got his feelings hurt, but in a monstrous way. His attitude wasn't sadness, it was "how dare you treat me like YOU aren't good enough for ME you big fraud!" So instead of moving on, he made it his mission to "expose" her, but it only made him look more and more petty.

He met her ONE TIME and she never returned his phone calls. He’s been a bitter, jealous, obsessed a-hole ever since. The amount of time he spends talking and tweeting about her borders on stalkerish psycho insanity. He seems to think about her every waking minute while she probably barely remembers the dinner.

It wasn't dinner -- it was a 90 minute lunch.
He didn't even rank high enough on her list to elicit a dinner from her, lol.

He's so incredibly scuzzy and I'm thrilled to see him knocked down a few pegs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strom PP. I should add I agree I don't think Piers obsession with Meghan had a racial component. I think he was mad, hurt that he didn't get a wedding invite, and still in love with her after one visit (especially with her photo in the paper every day) that he used the racism permeating British society to hit backa t her and cost along on his haterfest for 3 years.

You don't have to be racist to use racism to your advantage. Its been done for centuries.

Please explain to me how you can use racism to your advantage — without actually being racist?
Are you saying that the people taking advantage of — and actively benefitting from — racism don’t define themselves as “racist “? Or something else?

I'm saying if you got into Harvard any time before segregation was shut down and individuals of all races (the same applies to gender) were allowed to apply - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if you moved into a neighborhood in the 'better' parts of Los Angeles in the 1950s, housing identical to the worst parts, but a highway devalued the Mexican side and kept the white side appreciating - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your forefathers were passed down a house and land from the 1800s when the American government was literally giving away plots for free and selling that land allowed you to benefit from generational wealth - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

I'm saying if your grandparents had cleaners and nannies that they were legally paying a 1/10th of the wage they'd pay for a non-POC aide - you took advantage of the benefits of racism.

Okay. So how would you define “Racist”? You’re making some separations that I would not — that I’m struggling to understand, here.

NP here, but do you really not see PP's point? Do you think every single person that went to a single race or single sex school if that was all or the best available at the time was definitely racist or sexist? I think that's a step too far and undermines the meaning racist and sexist, at least for me.

No, I don’t see PPs point — which is why I am respectfully asking how PP defines “racist”. I am trying to understand PP’s point of view. I haven’t made any statements yet about what is or isn’t racist, in my view. For me, there’s little point in doing that without at least having some understanding of the distinction that PP is making. You, also, are saying what is NOT racist in your view, while still failing to say what you think IS racist or sexist. I’m happy to engage in the conversation— but I really don’t see much point in doing so without being somewhat clear on what we’re each talking about, we don’t need to agree upon the definitions — but it would help to be as clear as we can on what definitions we’re using.

Let's go with the dictionary definition: "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." Not sure why you're being such a prat about this. The point PPs were making was pretty obvious. You questioned whether there was a distinction between being racist and knowingly benefiting from society's racism. I think there is. You do you.

“Prat”? I guess name calling is the predicable result of trying to have a rational conversation in a thread from the entertainment forum. As to the rest of it, I guess there’s little point in trying to engage even superficially with someone who believes that only their own perspectives are “obvious”. Prat indeed.
Peace out.

It was very obvious over and over what the PPs meant and you were all "I'm not telling you my opinion at all or engaging in this discussion until you offer me a definition of racist"... It was a bit weird, to put it mildly.