Although it is obviously nauseating to see victimhood being claimed by two privileged people in there bid to execute a cynical exit strategy. I have tried to limit the amount of my time I give them.

Instead the spat between Piers Morgan and the guy who used to speak about weather but is now a self appointed moral/political commentator was even more revealing.

It speaks to the deeper truth that we no longer live in a world where its only WHAT people think that is very different. That has always been the case, and always will be.

No it is the fact we now have at least two large groups of people that disagree on HOW to think.

I have always believed that the so called woke movement has been based on an anti-evidence, anti-rational obsession with subjective experience. What I call subjectivist authoritarianism.

Where the self and their "lived experience" is all encompassing and can be aggressively coerced on others.

If you listen to the adherents of this way of thinking for long enough they betray themselves, as did this Alex guy on GMB.

When Morgan quite rightly showed how one of the many ambiguous claims made by Megan was demonstrably false, ie the child didn't get a title because of the colour of his skin, you would think on that point there is no further discussion.

Either there are consistent rules about this, or they made a special racist case for him. And we should then be able to objectively look at past precedents and see, as Morgan did, that megans claim was objectively false.

But Alex's response was the interesting part. He had no desire to argue the fact on the objective truth or falseness of the claim, instead he instantly pivoted to assert that what was actually important was what Megan felt was true.

If Megan felt that this was the reason for the title snub then that somehow makes it so. This completely different take on reality is what really separates people these days.

If you can't even agree what your actually looking at, how can you hope to even be able to agree on what is reality or truth. And then even further down the line how are you supposed to amicably discuss your interpretations of it.

I would suggest that all you will get is polarised people shouting at each other. I would suggest this deduction has been objectively proven, but some may say their lived experience makes me incorrect