“just to make it clear that he was using the term “gay” in its modern, corrupted sense, he added “a bit ginger beer”‘

i.e. The ‘corrupted’ sense of the word is when it refers to homosexuality, which is clearly derogatory of homosexuality. Clarkson, in using the term to criticise the car and clarify that he meant the term as associated with homosexuality, is also being derogatory of homosexuality.

Helmer is disappointed that in reprimanding Clarkson, the BBC is showing “craven submission to political correctness”. I’m disappointed that the BBC allows language that denigrates a natural sexual persuasion to be broadcast to begin with.

I’m being pedantic, but there is a gulf of difference between perpetuating victimhood, and challenging the use of language that perpetuates the idea that homosexuals are lesser people, or that they are ‘corrupted’ people as Helmer would have it.

As Helmer adds,
“‘Gay’ changes meaning again! At Christmas, I was given a copy of John Humphrys’s book ‘Beyond Words’. It tells us that on the street, the word ‘gay’ has changed again. It now means sad (bizarrely!), weak, inadequate, unattractive”

It means these things precisely because this is how homosexuals are commonly regarded and spoken about. Sad that Helmer can’t understand the connection.

http://redrag1.blogspot.com/

I’m also guilty I suppose the alternative is to play the ball, not the man. The Tories right now are engaged in a massive campaign of hypocrisy and incoherence. Let me take this post as an example (Sunny, I’m not having a go, just that this is the nearest example to hand). What would make it resonate outside the left would be a reminder (in quotation form) of the mood music Tory HQ is pushing, the ‘modern conservative’ package that these off-message tweets and blogs undermine. To you and me, that’s kind of obvious, because we’ve been following the political narrative pretty closely … but there is a whole world of casual readers out there that won’t really get it, to whom the whole genre of “listen to what Rush Limbaugh / Danniel Hannan is saying now!” is kind of putting, I suspect.

Couldn’t agree more – but what are the alternatives. I am a hypocrite for saying I agree with your sentiment, as someone who constantly takes part in the type of tribalism you talk about. However, in the words of Jules from Pulp Fiction – “But I’m tryin’, Ringo. I’m tryin’ real hard…”

The danger as I see it is that, with Cameron at the helm, this narrative only plays to a certain kind of left tribalism; it’s not really engaging, it’s just kind of sniping, and I suspect it doesn’t come across well to people who don’t already agree. Don’t get me wrong, *I* agree with you. They are a bunch of hateful nutters. But I don’t think reflexive tribalism is the way forward.

Otherwise, artificial distinction with real purpose. And only Roger Helmer’s comments are difficult to agree with – or do you believe the following not to be true:

That it is healthier to drink less alchohol, smoke less and eat less rich food.
That democratically-elected MPs should not have an authority set above them.
That we need to tackle the defecit, and that this may be painful.
That it is acceptable to consider alternative ways of running the NHS (with free at the point of delivery care still available).

Even:

Some groups cry victim too easily.
and
Climate change has a political agenda behind it.
are hardly going to shock people, but are not likely to be popular hereabouts.

Seems you’ve gone to a lot of effort to prove very little, but at least it was done in a partisan way.

That would explain Roger “homophobia is a lie” Helmer and Daniel “NHS was a 60-year mistake” Hannan.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: Five reasons why CCHQ wants to control Tweets http://bit.ly/aNYMx5...

Eh?

Only a fool would argue this means that people don’t suffer in recessions or anything like that (note fact about suicides going up, in link above, for one).

Presumably Sunny your point partially is that CCHQ need to control tweets because politics being what it is, factually correct statements that will play badly in our stupid political climate need to be censored for political reasons. The same probably goes for Redwood – what he’s saying there does not differ terrible from what left wingers like, say, Larry Elliot, has been saying was wrong with the economy – he’s been banging on about excessive consumption and debt for years.

It’s not reasonable for elective purposes to tell people in pain that they need to decrease their living standards, especially when the person saying it is quite well off.

CCHQ is not in the business of speaking the truth. They’re in the business of fighting an election, which includes not telling people what they don’t want to hear.

Also, the John Redwood quote seems reasonable enough.