Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

259 replies

Brokenme · 07/09/2017 21:13

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?

OP posts:
Kaija · 08/09/2017 10:10

Annie, of course Sadiq Khan hasn't expressed those views. The point is that the kind of extreme misogynist and homophobic views JRM has publicly aired would result in very much higher levels of outrage if heard from a Muslim politician as opposed to a Christian one.

LairyMcClary · 08/09/2017 10:14

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

OP, you have a major problem with your premise. You can be both genuine in your beliefs AND bigoted, so why pretend it is one or the other?

Anniegetyourgun · 08/09/2017 10:23

You could be right about that, Kaija (see my example above - admittedly extreme). It just seems the poor man (who I don't know and don't pay very much attention to, not living or working in London these days) gets dragged into this debate on a regular basis. He's not the one currently spouting offensive views. Let JRM stand or fall by what he has said himself, not by what some other bugger may or may not have said.

vdbfamily · 08/09/2017 10:25

bigot
ˈbɪɡət/Submit
noun
a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms: dogmatist, partisan, sectarian, prejudiced person;

He has been forced by repeated questioning to be honest about his personal belief. He has also clearly stated that despite those beliefs, he does not expect others to believe what he does and he does not judge them in any way for believing differently. I do not know why people find this so hard to understand. I agree with most of what he believes but that would not stop me supporting a friend through an abortion if that was her choice, or attending a gay friends wedding etc. Can people not understand that you can strongly believe something without judging others who believe differently. That is called tolerance. I see extreme intolerance all around me for people with different political views and religious views, to the point that people now feel unable to say what they actually think in public and then we get all these 'surprise' results in refererendums/elections. The people who think they are most liberal are actually the most intolerant and bigotted against anyone with an alternative view. It is a weird situation.

TheNaze73 · 08/09/2017 10:33

Great post vdb

Kaija · 08/09/2017 10:34

"The only reason that some of us who strongly disagree with JRM's views also admire him for having the balls to hold them, is because when you compare him to many other MPs who will say whatever they are pushed into saying, actually it is a virtue which needs to be recognised in 2017."

Not at all sure about this virtue thing. The great con trick perpetrated by Trump/Farage et al was to say things so outrageous and repellent that nobody could believe they were doing it for political gain. They were. And it wasn't virtuous. JRM may or may not be following the same playbook.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 08/09/2017 10:36

I think its weird that people 'admire' racists or sexists and then pretend they are uber-tolerant.

I don't respect him for "his honesty". He's always been a twat.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 08/09/2017 10:38

He's very very popular with the Brexitteers though. You have to admire him I suppose for getting a whole load of people to vote to screw over the country. I mean, that's tenacious.

MrsJayy · 08/09/2017 10:45

His views are not genuine because they are opinions his opinions just because he thinks he is right doesn't make him genuine he is a odious little man who has no compassion for women or anybody not like him

NataliaOsipova · 08/09/2017 10:48

The people who think they are most liberal are actually the most intolerant and bigotted against anyone with an alternative view. It is a weird situation.

I was having this argument with my DH the other day - there is an inherent illiberalism within liberalism. As - to some extent - there has to be. If you believe a set of views x, then you must reject a set of views not-x. Otherwise your position is absurd.

babybarrister · 08/09/2017 10:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

formerbabe · 08/09/2017 10:51

The people who think they are most liberal are actually the most intolerant and bigotted against anyone with an alternative view. It is a weird situation

Oh this is so true. In a similar vein, I've noticed left wing people are often some of the most unpleasant people I've known on an individual level.

histinyhandsarefrozen · 08/09/2017 11:06

At the heart of liberalism is, of course, the question of what to do about intolerance.

It's an age-old struggle with no neat answer.

I haven't seen people demanding JRM be muzzled though...just expressing incredulity that so many people find his stance 'admirable'.

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 11:08

Since when has being liberal meant that you can't disagree with anyone about anything? Ridiculous.

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 11:14

So if I started a thread on AIBU like this:

Me: "I think that everyone who owns a car is morally repugnant and they are all akin to murderers. I respect the law as it stands, so don't worry I wont set your car on fire or anything, honest!"

Other mumsnetter: "That's a ridiculous viewpoint to hold, I think you're an idiot for thinking that etc etc etc...."

Me: "BIGOT! How dare you suggest my opinion is stupid! So called liberals are so intolerant of alternative viewpoints! Disagreeing with my poorly informed, judgemental views is an attack on my free speech! etc etc"

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 11:18

Or is this "freedom of speech" lark only for the very rich, influential and powerful? The rest of us should stfu lest we come across as "intolerant"?

tiggytape · 08/09/2017 11:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Kaija · 08/09/2017 11:23

"The people who think they are most liberal are actually the most intolerant and bigotted against anyone with an alternative view. It is a weird situation"

Any chance of a concrete example of this?

babybarrister · 08/09/2017 11:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NataliaOsipova · 08/09/2017 11:25

squishy That's a bit of a straw man, though, isn't it.

Take these two statements:

Person A: I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that life is sacred so that abortion is never justified.

Person B: I am an atheist and believe that marriage should be open to all regardless of sexuality and a woman's right to choose is paramount.

Why is one more bigoted than the other? They are opposite views.

Toadinthehole · 08/09/2017 11:29

Society has always criminalised viewpoints it considers sufficiently beyond the pale. In the past, this was done via the blasphemy laws. However, they've hardly been used in a hundred years, despite the UK being overwhelmingly a Christian country until the last few decades.

Now we use hate speech laws instead, and use them very frequently.

This is not the mark of an increasingly tolerant country, and the remarks made by some on this thread suggest they think tolerance is an overrated virtue.

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 12:01

What none of us should do is call them "arseholes"
But it is those people's opinion that JRM is an arsehole. Who are you to say that their opinion should not be allowed?

squishysquirmy · 08/09/2017 12:07

Toad it is possible to be tolerant, and to respect the right of others to hold a particular viewpoint and still judge them for holding that viewpoint. Forming judgements about people (especially those in power) based on what they say and do is not intolerant. I have not seen any posts calling for JRM to be forcibly silenced, imprisoned or burned at the stake for his views. I have seen posters call him an arsehole-which is not quite the same thing as the Spanish Inquisition.

scatterolight · 08/09/2017 12:09

So much confusion and poorly thought out arguments in this thread. It's so depressing and makes me wonder at the education people are receiving today.

In order to live in a civilised society we have to agree on the following principles...

  • People have the right to an opinion
  • People have the right to express that opinion freely
  • People have the right to disagree with other people's opinions

I think we're all on the same page here. However this is where we now deviate....

Abuse of people for their opinions should not be acceptable. But sadly, "in 2017", those who consider themselves most progressive and right-on think this is the way you deal with your "enemies". Most of the disagreement on threads like this arises between people who would prefer a civil discourse and people who want to shout "turbocunt".

Lastly on the principle of free speech, the OP said: "whilst we do have freedom of speech we also have laws that protect individuals. You can't just say what you think, especially if you have a position of power - that isn't how it works."

Actually this is EXACTLY how it works. Few people seem to understand that free speech lives and dies on defending the most unpopular forms of speech in any given time or society. If you cannot allow unpopular opinions to be expressed you do not have free speech. And if you do not have free speech you are leaving yourself wide open to authoritarian and tyrannical oppression which threatens ALL your freedoms.

BoysofMelody · 08/09/2017 12:10

Why is one more bigoted than the other? They are opposite views.

Because one view advocates limiting or removing the opportunities and freedoms of another group of people and the other stance doesn't.

There is a very real difference

Swipe left for the next trending thread