Quote Originally Posted by DryCleaning View Post
What I'm getting at is that hate speech is hate speech, irrespective of who the target of that hate is. Suggesting that it is ok to post "Kill All Tories" just because you personally dislike the Tories is ironic, given your stance on just about every other type of hate.

Irrespective of my families life choices, they are still my family and I wouldn't disown them if they chose to follow a certain path. Jon1959's approach is sickening, and his hatred of the right is pretty obvious. This hatred shown by the far left is no different to the loose cannons on the right and the bile they spout.

Cyril Evans Awaydays, as always, is the voice of reason so as he suggests, there's no point dwelling further. We clearly define hate differently and nothing each of us adds is likely to convince the other to think differently.

My approach 'is sickening'? Really. Wow.

I haven't described an approach. I have never said I would 'disown' family or friends who cuddled up with right wing Tories. I even said I respected some Tories! I did say I dislike the values that underpin Toryism and their policies - and in many instances I think they are selfish and destructive. But this was in response to a story that 30% of Labour voters (approx 4 million UK citizens) would be upset if a close family member embraced the Tories (can't remember now if that was marrying a Tory or becoming one). 'Upset' is a personal emotion that I said I understood and that I shared that view. It is about how someone feels - not how they act. After decades pounding the streets canvassing or campaigning, I would be very pissed off (aka upset) if a close friend or relative that I thought shared my views jumped ship to the other side.

Yes I hate right wing politics (imperialism, racism, sexism, small state individualism, privatisation, 'no such thing as society', ethnic cleansing in Palestine, brutal land grabs in Ukraine... and the rest) and I am intolerant of it. You and James make a virtue out of tolerance. From what I can make out James draws the line at what is illegal but is happy to tolerate everything short of that. Not sure where your line is?

James also quickly moved from denouncing intolerance to redefining it as bigotry with a definition that rests on someone being 'obstinately or unreasonably' antagonistic to people who are members of a particular group. As usual James is the arbiter of what is reasonable.

Tolerance of views and actions that may be legal but morally wrong (and we all have our own morality I know) is what sickens me. Most of us would not tolerate fascist and white supremacist views (although a few outliers on this board would) but my tolerance does not extend to much of the Tory and some of the Blairite Labour agenda and the people and values that enabled that - from the Gulf War to the Windrush scandal to honours for donors.

Tolerance should have its limits.