Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

Aaaaaghgh! This is the one thing I hate about the "left wing" in UK politics. I've always been pretty left wing. I've been a union member all my life, I was a Labour Party member for many years (until the appalling Blair became leader), I was active in the anti-racism movement in the '70's, I even went to Paris in May '68. The problem for me is that I have a strong libertarian streak and for me, freedom of speech is not negotiable nor should it be restricted only to those who agree with me. All the current hoohah about "hate speech" and the associated legal moves to outlaw anything that offends anyone has more in common with fascism than it does with any kind of socialism that I would support. I was always brought up to believe that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!"
Which brings me back to Uncle Joe - I agree with much of what Uncle Joe says (although personally I don't distinguish between the "Labour" Tory Party, the "Conservative" Tory Party and the "Liberal Democrat" Tory Party), but I find it lazy and pointless to resort to childish name calling as opposed to addressing and answering someone's political arguments. The latter is much more effective (although it does take more effort than calling someone a racist or a fascist) - look at Nick Griffin - he lost more support for the BNP by appearing on Question Time than by any number of well-meaning people calling him a fascist. Since his appearance on Question Time, the BNP have fallen apart and are no longer (if they ever were) a force in UK politics.
Counter argument with argument - not insult!

...just sayin'


Mick

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

Mick matey (or should that be comrade???) I too was in Paris in Spring '68, and from there went to Prague - remember Dubcek???. Trying to argue with Lloyd (HU99) over his previous racist comments (see page 2 of this thread) is, I am sad to say, like 'banging your head against a brick wall, its nice when you leave off'. I have no time for bigots and racists, full stop!!!

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

Joe I do not think you are a racist but according to Merriam-Webster!!!

'An Activist who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance, ( Maggie springs to mind here )'.

This is the state of mind of a bigot as defined by Merriam-Webster.

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

I just wish to point out that you left a very important and relevant bit of the Merriam-Webster definition out Antibrown The correct definition is as below + the definitions of the other words you use.



Bigot
"a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (- as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.


Racist
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

racial prejudice or discrimination = Racist

Activisim
a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue. (NB the words controversial ISSUE AB - the words racist or bigot are not in this definition).

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

Rena, the main words are 'members of a group' the words 'as a racial or ethnic group' are there as examples.

What I did miss off were ' Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view ', simply to avoid having to type it, I only wanted to point out the relevent wording.

As to the Racism part of you comment, as I thought I had said, I do not think Joe is a racist but I missed out the 'not', so I did not need that part that was why I dd not state it.

Sorry if this confused you Rena.

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

Although it took you a while, AB, I notice you have now edited your post to include the word NOT which sows the seeds of doubt about what you actually meant to say in the first place. However, I am pleased that you have now changed it. I was not confused with your original post - what I read was what was written and you had also altered the part in brackets of the Merriam dictionary meaning to bring Maggie into it and leaving out "racial or ethnic group" to add to the confusion ????? I was not confused - and I understood what you wrote in your original post and posted my reply accordingly. One word left out can have a devastating effect on what is meant - so when talking about things like race, bigots and activists IMO is prudent to check what you write before posting, then everyone is clear.

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

The Archbishop of Canterbury shows that a bearded man can never look good in a bright, gaudy frock.

Re: Archishop of Canterbury.

And a funny hat and high heels don't help much either