"Paul Nuttall begins first day as UKIP leader by preparing resignation speech"

:joker:

No need
he is in for the long run.

:joker:

Its not funny, he is not funny, he has never been funny.

Would you like me to counter that with Bernard Manning?

Yeah alot of rubbish seems to get spouted about UKIP and indeed Paul Nuttall.I think he's the right man for the job.If you ever listen to him on Question Time he's often the one who makes the most sense and sometimes the ONLY one making any sense:laugh:
I did think that there was no need for UKIP after the referendum but with all these sour remainers who keep trying to throw a spanner in the works of BREXIT it's actually giving UKIP more reason to stay relevant.Infact if these remainers actually did manage to reverse BREXIT then UKIP would get massive support.So it's win win for them really.

If we learned anything from 2016 its that UKIP are relevant and are important and that the critics were wrong (and still are wrong) to dismiss them in such a nasty bigoted way.

You can try to discredit equal rights all you want, it's not going to work.

Define 'bigot'...

anyone who, by thinking that they are right and in the nmajority, feel able to personally abuse people who do not subscribe to their way of the world and thinking.


"yeah Farage is a moron and anyone who voted for him is a wanker and a racist"

"i hope he dies"



etc

etc

Bigot is a funny word. Like if all racists are bigots, and all those who oppose racism are bigots for not accepting their views.. Then who isnt a bigot?

(I'm not calling UKIP racists, but I think at this point its safe to acknowledge that they got the bad rep from some of the racist/homophobic party leaders).

I just think the word is a bit of a nothing statement, especially in the context that you've used.

I am glad, however, that you agreed with the main part

"that UKIP are relevant and are important and that the critics were wrong"

They were relevant in the years leading up to the election too. Joint 10th most relevant in the United Kingdom right now.., so less important than the press they get, but nothing to ignore.

Wonderful Caz Lucas

Here, here it does of course work both ways. None so blind as those that will not see.

That's not the correct definition, and I have never said anything like that please don't insinuate I have.

bigotry is intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.Happens alot on here:laugh:

i didnt :shrug:

if you can show me where I did that would be great

:0

It doesn't, people are confused about the definition though only slightly, although you're defining it correctly.

Bigotry is intolerance of a person overall because of the views they hold. It has nothing to do with tolerance of the viewpoint itself. You can tolerate, accept and even like a person who holds one or more views that you find abhorrent and you do NT simply have to accept those views and leave it at that... you can (and in some cases, should) try your damnedest to let that person know that you find their views unacceptable and to convince them to change their views. This is not personal intolerance. So long as you are not harming nor discriminating against someone because of the views they hold in situations where those views are irrelevant, then challenging and refusing to accept someone's opinions is not bigotry.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with "being in the majority" or "feeling in the majority".

The second part is correct but, again, attacking someone's views and opinions does not constitute "personally abusing" that person.