Tweet
Re: Why is it with the Tories we have
Absolutely my philosophy too
Originally posted by jon1959
View Post
James throws 'bigot' around all the time.
But his own definition says it is about someone 'unreasonably antagonistic' towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
James (and pipster) clearly have their own definition of unreasonable (one the High Court wouldn't accept). Mine is closer to yours Sludge. It is absolutely reasonable to be antagonistic to a group of people who enable actions that harm others - through their political choices, the values they promote and the actions they support.
I never liked the Tories (wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of the alternative parties either) but my antagonism towards them was baked in during the Miners Strike. They sometimes throw up some more sympathetic faces, they sometimes make sensible policy decisions, but their default is to wrap themselves in the union flag, wave the King James bible and reduce the state so that those in need are dependent on charity. I am antagonistic toward people who think and behave like that (and for now that includes Starmer and his mates if not the whole Labour Party which still hangs on to some different values).
And when it comes to groups it matters if those are groups you are born into or ones you freely choose to join or support. Anyone who is antagonistic toward people because of their race, ethnicity, gender/sex, religion/culture, disability etc is despicable and sick. We can and should debate the way those inherited characteristics play out - especially the cultural aspects - but where there is no choice the question of reasonableness doesn't arise.
But there is a clear choice about which party programme to support. People are not born Tory, Labour or Plaid. They aren't born to enjoy killing wild animals. They aren't born to exploit or be part of criminal gangs fleecing pensioners of their savings. It is completely right and reasonable to be antagonistic to people who become members of groups that cause harm. I include the Tories in that. James and his friend clearly don't but that is because they like what the Tories do and say - not because they are on the right side of something called bigotry.
But his own definition says it is about someone 'unreasonably antagonistic' towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
James (and pipster) clearly have their own definition of unreasonable (one the High Court wouldn't accept). Mine is closer to yours Sludge. It is absolutely reasonable to be antagonistic to a group of people who enable actions that harm others - through their political choices, the values they promote and the actions they support.
I never liked the Tories (wasn't an enthusiastic supporter of the alternative parties either) but my antagonism towards them was baked in during the Miners Strike. They sometimes throw up some more sympathetic faces, they sometimes make sensible policy decisions, but their default is to wrap themselves in the union flag, wave the King James bible and reduce the state so that those in need are dependent on charity. I am antagonistic toward people who think and behave like that (and for now that includes Starmer and his mates if not the whole Labour Party which still hangs on to some different values).
And when it comes to groups it matters if those are groups you are born into or ones you freely choose to join or support. Anyone who is antagonistic toward people because of their race, ethnicity, gender/sex, religion/culture, disability etc is despicable and sick. We can and should debate the way those inherited characteristics play out - especially the cultural aspects - but where there is no choice the question of reasonableness doesn't arise.
But there is a clear choice about which party programme to support. People are not born Tory, Labour or Plaid. They aren't born to enjoy killing wild animals. They aren't born to exploit or be part of criminal gangs fleecing pensioners of their savings. It is completely right and reasonable to be antagonistic to people who become members of groups that cause harm. I include the Tories in that. James and his friend clearly don't but that is because they like what the Tories do and say - not because they are on the right side of something called bigotry.
Comment