If you have opinions that are out of step with society's mores you stand the risk of being called a bigot. It's difficult to be counter-cultural and not be regarded as either a bigot or insane. (And, to be fair, both or either state is often the case.)
I've been watching the change in peoples' attitudes to immigration in the UK for some time. Around 10 years ago multiculturalism was the belief system we were supposed to have - people who disagreed were called racists and bigots. (And many of them actually were.) Any discussion was closed down very quickly by that kind of intervention.
Then a combination of high immigration, unemployment and a declining economy caused a shift towards protectionism and people began to question the sense of an open door immigration policy.
Gradually, the climate changed until today it's perfectly acceptable to discuss immigration policy openly and indeed, only today the political climate has changed so much that a new party UKIP (UK Independence Party) whose main, and maybe only, policy is to get us out of Europe and stop immigration, has made sweeping gains in local elections.
Where the charge of bigot is used to close down a conversation or debate, it's an assault on a right to hold an unpopular opinion and it's intellectually dishonest to use it in argument - generally people are only expressing their opinion of what they like and dislike. I think that's a perfectly fair thing to be able to say, with being verbally assaulted.
Having said all that, Phat is obviously wrong headed in his opinion, but has a perfect right to give it without being accused of bigotry off-hand - it's too strong a word to be chucked around like that.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
™ Version 4.2
(1)
