I had been planning to blog on Owen Jones' description yesterday of the "bigots and xenophobes in the unhinged tabloid press" when I woke up to this front page.

There will be people who agree and disagree with each of the 'bigots' and 'mutineers' descriptions, and I'm not going to get involved in that.

The part that I'm interested in is that the people to whom the descriptions bigot, xenophobe, and mutineer have just been applied would not agree with the description (in its original sentiment, although some of them may co-opt the label ironically).

I grew up in the 70s and 80s in apartheid South Africa where racism wasn't just tolerated, it was a legal requirement. To be frank, most of us white South Africans in those times either actively supported apartheid, or to some inadequate degree opposed it while enjoying its benefits. (Most of us eventually came to realise that apartheid was wrong and are much happier living in a democratic country.)

But the interesting thing for me is that at the time, none of us saw ourselves as 'bigots' or 'racists' - even though we were part of a political system that had rules bizarre enough to outlaw people sitting on a park bench together, queuing in the Post Office together, or swimming together at the same beach. Because also, bear in mind that in the 70s and 80s, the average white South African had many more close, caring (if power-skewed) personal relationships with black people than the average Briton did.

So if a white apartheid South African who believes in segregated park benches, Post Office queues, and beaches does not see themselves as a 'bigot', what is the chance that a British journalist who writes for a right-leaning publication in 2017 would?

Likewise, how many of the 15 Tory MP's featured on the Telegraph's front page this morning would have seen themselves as dictionary definition 'mutineers'?

So why does it matter if we call people names or give them labels that they don't agree with?

Rule 1 is 'Agree what you are talking for'. If Owen Jones and the Telegraph are content with preaching to the choir, there is no problem with labels and insults. But if you want a dialogue that reaches further than those people who already agree with you, you need Rule 5, 'Keep the conversation safe'. Safe conversations require mutual respect and calling someone a name that they do not agree with is not respectful.

Additionally, Rule 3 says, 'Remember most people are good, competent, and worthy of respect' (this is statistically true). Just as most apartheid-supporting white South Africans were actually 'good' people (political stance formation is not an exclusively moral process), so, probably are most right-leaning British journalists and soft-Brexit leaning Tory MP's.

Finally, part of Rule 8 is 'Use complexity'.

Imagine if a student writing a history exam in 2025 answered the question, 'Why did the apartheid system enjoy the political support of white South Africans for 50 years?' with, 'Because they were racist bigots.' While in some ways satisfying to believe, and certainly easy to understand, this answer lacks complexity and is not as accurate or as interesting as one that referenced indoctrination, ignorance, pseudoscience, National Christian Education, censorship, paternalism, sympathetic but condescending attitudes, hopelessness and fear, as well as racism, greed, and stupidity.

But this much more complex and demanding understanding was necessary for black South Africans to forgive and negotiate in good faith with white South Africans to dismantle apartheid in the late 80s and early 90s.

My challenge to Owen Jones and the Daily Telegraph is, can you match this complexity and depth of understanding? Can you talk about (even if not to) right-leaning journalists and soft-Brexit supporting Tory MP's while respecting Rules 3 and 8?