Anonymous wrote:The oversight committee for British reporting has fired this guy

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think it is all of the above - misogyny, xenophobia, racism - but the onus was on BRF to set a tone and none of them supported her. They were complicit and I think Kate and William encouraged the anger against her because they did not like Harry and Meghan overshadowing them. Will is a real POS and Kate is basically a Karen.

OMG. Talk about delusional.

Nope. It was true. Their South Pacific tour was the turning point - mid-tour Kensington Palace announced that the Royal Foundation would be splitting. This was done while the Sussexs were half a world away and could have only come from William. They also released the tiara story right as the tour ended. Jealousy plain and simple.

- DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think it is all of the above - misogyny, xenophobia, racism - but the onus was on BRF to set a tone and none of them supported her. They were complicit and I think Kate and William encouraged the anger against her because they did not like Harry and Meghan overshadowing them. Will is a real POS and Kate is basically a Karen.

OMG. Talk about delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think it is all of the above - misogyny, xenophobia, racism - but the onus was on BRF to set a tone and none of them supported her. They were complicit and I think Kate and William encouraged the anger against her because they did not like Harry and Meghan overshadowing them. Will is a real POS and Kate is basically a Karen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As someone who has often had to deal with racism first hand, I decided to take advantage of the anonymity of this board to ask someone what exactly they personally meant by “racist “ rather than assume that anyone who blithely benefits from racism is also racist. Clearly a bad move on my part. Although one person quoted a dictionary and more than one said it was “obvious “, I persisted. Because I really want to understand the kinds of things that people often find very difficult to address honestly and openly. If that’s “weird” so be it.

I will say again though, that what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to people who don’t share your worldview or your ability to intellectualize racism, so, respectfully, I tried to ask instead of assume. You don’t have to get that or understand that. Whatever. Done.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is acting like Weinstein before he was brought down! Mad that a woman rejected him and trying to ruin her life.

And that too a colored woman who rejected him. He thinks he had dibs on her because he knew her before Harry? OMG, does has he even seen how he looks? A nasty, out of shape, middle aged man.

Yep. Perhaps he too is delusional like many pps on dcum, they think they just dislike her cause she is not.... demure, doesn't know her place, is airing dirty laundry, is rich, is not understanding a joke about the skin color. But, it is nothing racist! Nope!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is acting like Weinstein before he was brought down! Mad that a woman rejected him and trying to ruin her life.

And that too a colored woman who rejected him. He thinks he had dibs on her because he knew her before Harry? OMG, does has he even seen how he looks? A nasty, out of shape, middle aged man.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is acting like Weinstein before he was brought down! Mad that a woman rejected him and trying to ruin her life.

And that too a colored woman who rejected him. He thinks he had dibs on her because he knew her before Harry? OMG, does has he even seen how he looks? A nasty, out of shape, middle aged man.

Anonymous wrote:He is acting like Weinstein before he was brought down! Mad that a woman rejected him and trying to ruin her life.