When did any view expressed make you 'genuine' and not bigoted

[Brokenme]

I'm really struggling to get my head around people saying Jacob Rees-Moggs views are ok because he is being 'genuine' and expressing himself. Where do we draw the line? Is it ok for politicians to be racist as long as they are 'genuinely' expressing their views. AIBU to be completely appalled by this stand point?

Yes, whether an opinion is bigoted or not - is clearly not dependant on whether a large number of people hold the same view or not.

Online and in certain circles however there is an expectation that certain liberal values are simply not up fir debate and to state an alternative view is worthy of being g labelled a bigot and even 'no platforming' such as what happened to Germaine Greer.

Yeah, thanks to the transgenderist bigots (hah!) I don't particularly like the word "bigot", as it seems to be used as a random insult for "people who don't agree with meeee!"
I'll look up the definition, as if it really means "intolerant of people with different opinions" that is hilarious. [big grin]

JRM seems to be a misogynist. I can agree that, if he does not fit the objective criteria for the word "bigot", he is not one.
(Though there's the question of how tolerant a man who thinks his opinion on abortion is even relevant truly is when it comes to women who do not share his opinions and act on this.)

I don't think anyone who is really intolerant of other views would survive in a large political party with a wide range of views like the main UK parties. He may be opposed to abortion but he is used to working in a party where most members think it should be allowed. A real bigot would not do that and would form his own Peoples Front Of Judea party.

People are sick of fake politicians like Blair, Clegg and Cameron who are basically manipulative egotists who say whatever they think will make people vote for them and then do the exact opposite. People aren't falling for these charmers anymore.

The era of the "charismatic" politician is over as people are so disillusioned with these sociopaths who sold themselves as "men/women of the people" yet are about as far removed as you can get. Just look at god-complex Blair's decades too late interjection about immigration and Brexit over the last few days. He doesn't even recognise that his policies as Prime Minister were a major factor in causing Brexit to happen. These people are all completely out of touch with the prevailing mood and live in their own little wealthy, pampered bubble.

And Jacob Rees Moss is basically just the Tory version of Corbyn. Most of his politics are extreme, narrow-minded and old fashioned but many people like him because he seems genuine and goes against the prevailing attitude. He seems to have his own mind and character rather than being a product of a savvy media obsessed image consultant dictating how to move and how to speak to appear more likeable and has more character in his little finger than May has in her whole robotic body.

I don't like any of his views but I think both he and Corbyn are a much needed change to the politics of the last few decades -
we need politicians who are real people with flaws, who are prepared to say unpopular things, encourage debate, critical and free thinking, not sycophantic robots who will change their values in a split second and say whatever they think the public want to hear if they think it will keep them in a job a moment longer.

He's not actually genuine in his beliefs at all though, is he? He picks and chooses which ones to support and which ones not to. If he truly followed Catholic teaching he wouldn't have voted to cap benefits, or against raising the minimum wage, or for a hundred other ways.
His politics are consistently at odds with the teaching of his church, so how is he in anyway genuine?