J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

BarnardsLoop

His opinion hasn't been silenced, he's been banned for hurling abuse at people. That's a very common rule on any website that allows people to comment, including this one.

Amazingly, normal adults are capable of not screeching abuse at anyone different from them. Graham has no one to blame for himself for not even being capable of that incredibly basic standard of behaviour.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

Graham has over 580,000 followers on Twitter, many if not most of them women, who are very glad he has taken a stand against the PC stream on the issue of sex based spaces, sports and protections etc. I'd say that is about half a million more people than give a damn what you or I think.

I’d say so too, I’m not on twitter myself, but the reason I said what you posted reminded me of Graham getting rejected by mammies is because for all his virtue signalling, he was put back in his place by the enforcing class (on mumsnet at least) who appear out of nowhere. That 580,000 followers who mindlessly cheer on authoritarian “liberal” revolutions which rely on suppression of contrary voices are nowhere to be seen when Graham comes looking for support, is more telling of the sincerity of their support -


Someone wise recently warned that it is never the progressive middle class who rise to power after revolutions. History shows it has always been an enforcing class of violent thugs led by intelligent psychopaths who appear out of nowhere. This is worth keeping in mind as people mindlessly cheer on authoritarian "liberal" revolutions that rely on suppression of contrary voices.


JK’s “revolution” relies just as much on the suppression of contrary voices.

Bonniedog

"Hate speech" now includes stating the FACT that men cannot biologically be women.

Fortunately biology cannot be altered by fanatics screaming like Violet Elizabeth that it isn't so.

Sittingpretty

The article itself is unclear, was he banned for saying “men aren’t women” or for using the word groomer?

suicide_circus

did all the people who told jk rowling to go die and choke on a dick get banned too?

Sittingpretty

suicide_circus wrote: »

did all the people who told jk rowling to go die and choke on a dick get banned too?

No. Because, well ....... reasons......

I’m completely confounded that a statement “men are not women” can be considered hate speech.

RabbleRouser2k

Sittingpretty wrote: »

There is something deeply unsettling about silencing someone’s opinion on a platform like Twitter.

Same goes for the likes of Katie Hopkins, I may not agree with what she says but I would defend her right to express her opinion.

The thing is, twitter, facebook, instagram etc etc are not a paid service-they're free. But if you sign up for them, you're the product now.

They can freely put you back on the shelf if they don't like you.

Twitch is another example where they kicked individuals off of their platform-but in that instance, people were making their living thru the platform.
One such individual, Dr Disrespect, was making so much money, he owned a lambourghini. (Estimated earnings at 3.5 million per year).

A company has to protect their brand. If they feel you're threatening that, you're gone.

Sittingpretty

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The thing is, twitter, facebook, instagram etc etc are not a paid service-they're free. But if you sign up for them, you're the product now.

They can freely put you back on the shelf if they don't like you.

Twitch is another example where they kicked individuals off of their platform-but in that instance, people were making their living thru the platform.
One such individual, Dr Disrespect, was making so much money, he owned a lambourghini. (Estimated earnings at 3.5 million per year).

A company has to protect their brand. If they feel you're threatening that, you're gone.

Yes but what part of their brand does “men aren’t women” contradict?

Edited to add: And what part of their brand does telling Rowling to “choke on a dick” confirm?

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Reminds me of Graham Linehan getting rejected when he ran to mammies following being booted off twitter -


Linehan: Im really sorry to barge in on you Mumsnetters with my problems, but I’ve finally been suspended from Twitter and I have a feeling they’re either going to ban me or just take my verified tick...

A. Nonymous: Sorry who are you and why should I care that you have been banned from Twitter?

You seem to be a man by the looks of it so why are you posting in a feminism forum?

This is a female space.


Father Ted creator Graham Linehan is banned from Twitter after stating 'men aren't women' in row with trans activists and using the word 'groomer' in years-old post

Heres the actual thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950804-Twitter-has-suspended-me

About half of the posts are removed, most would be TRA posts given what is left there, and what is left are mostly supportive of Glinner. In fact its clear from older threads that mumsnet likes Glinner.

(The remaining posts indicate that the removed posters are mostly new posters as well. And most were early morning, hence yanks.)

RabbleRouser2k

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Yes but what part of their brand does “men aren’t women” contradict?

Edited to add: And what part of their brand does telling Rowling to “choke on a dick” confirm?

It wasn't just the 'men aren't women'-he was coming after people for every slight. I imagine the transphobia claim was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

There were well documented claims of him telling professors they were 'grooming their students' over discussion of certain topics.
Those are very serious (and libellous) claims to make. Twitter probably looked at that and thought 'well, either we get sued, or we shut him down'.


And as far as the insults to Rowling... she can report them, and get those accounts suspended. It's a two way street.

Linehan's free to post on mumsnet, or blog (as he used to do)... Twitter has dodgy rules, but the site's free. They don't want him tainting their brand, so they cut him out.

jackboy

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I’m completely confounded that a statement “men are not women” can be considered hate speech.

That’s the idea of hate speech. Those in power at the time can just make up what ‘hate speech’ is. It’s a terrible concept. Those pushing it don’t seem to realise that a future government could deem their opinions to be hate speech.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

Heres the actual thread.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3950804-Twitter-has-suspended-me

About half of the posts are removed, most would be TRA posts given what is left there, and those are mostly supportive of Glinner. The remaining posts indicate that the removed posters are mostly new posters as well. And most were early morning, hence yanks.

Appreciate the link FVP but I ain’t going anywhere near mumsnet, I still feel grotty after going on twitter to have a look at the context of JK’s musings. Mumsnet is nothing more than an echo chamber of middle class feminist nonsense. It’s absolutely not a reflection of the many mothers I know who don’t care for that nonsense.

Bonniedog

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The thing is, twitter, facebook, instagram etc etc are not a paid service-they're free. But if you sign up for them, you're the product now.


A company has to protect their brand. If they feel you're threatening that, you're gone.

They have no interest in making money from punters. They earn something like $90 billion a year from ads.

Which is why the boycott I referred to earlier is so effective.

Anyway, that is neither here nor there. Sinister aspect is that they are clearly part of massive corporate operation to influence opinion including the outcomes of elections.

Research has shown that Google and FB manipulate searches to hide sites and information that contradicts the liberal agenda, and likewise boosts liberal sites.

Google admitted they did this during the abortion referendum here by "blacklisting" search criteria that would bring someone to a source that was anti abortion.

Try it as an experiment by googling something negative about BLM or Biden.

When all of that doesn't work they just ban people!

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Appreciate the link FVP but I ain’t going anywhere near mumsnet, .

I didn't think you would like a contrary view by women, that's evident enough here. Bit odd though that you refuse to link to a thread you originally mentioned. Why mention it, if you cant defend it?

Bonniedog

jackboy wrote: »

That’s the idea of hate speech. Those in power at the time can just make up what ‘hate speech’ is. It’s a terrible concept. Those pushing it don’t seem to realise that a future government could deem their opinions to be hate speech.

Indeed. Just look at China - where Google basically was for a time an adjunct of the secret police. Robber baron capitalism + Stalinist terror. Happy days.

FVP3

I have a feeling that Father Ted may also disappear from the streaming services and on repeat. Then we will all pretend we never liked it.

BarnardsLoop

Oh my, is it time to post that xkcd comic again?



Most relevant to the US due to its mention of the 'First Amendment' but the basic principle still applies here. If you have the right to not allow someone into your house to start screaming abuse at you, then the likes of Twitter have the right to ban people who scream abuse at their users.

Don't like it? There's always places like Gab. But... people like Graham aren't interested in that because they can't hurl abuse at the people they dislike on the likes of Gab. Because the only people who use it are bigots and mass murderers, not ordinary, decent people.

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

I didn't think you would like a contrary view by women, that's evident enough here. Bit odd though that you refuse to link to a thread you originally mentioned. Why mention it, if you cant defend it?

You appear to have switched the word women in there, where I said an echo chamber of middle class feminist nonsense. It should be clear from what I posted that I do not imagine all women are feminists, nor are all feminists women.

Nothing odd whatsoever about not linking to mumsnet, I linked to an article from the Daily Mail about it, not much better I grant you, but the lesser of two evils as it were :pac:

CtevenSrowder

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh my, is it time to post that xkcd comic again?


Most relevant to the US due to its mention of the 'First Amendment' but the basic principle still applies here. If you have the right to not allow someone into your house to start screaming abuse at you, then the likes of Twitter have the right to ban people who scream abuse at their users.

Don't like it? There's always places like Gab. But... people like Graham aren't interested in that because they can't hurl abuse at the people they dislike on the likes of Gab. Because the only people who use it are bigots and mass murderers, not ordinary, decent people.

Wasn't the argument in America something to with whether the likes of YouTube were publishers or content providers or something. So banning people would've been unconstitutional. I don't think this applies to Twitter though.

EDIT: Oops, just did a quick google... Nothing to do with the constitution.

FVP3

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh my, is it time to post that xkcd comic again?

More Americanised nonsense. It is still, despite the American claim that only the Government can censor, censorship when a company does it.

as wiki says

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship

If Google, Twitter, or Facebook react to Chinese pressure to ban anti-Chinese government tweets then they are censoring those tweets. Laws do not have to passed, direct government interference in removing the tweets is not necessary.

This is particularly worrying in the situation we live in now where American corporations have a monopoly on how speech is actually transmitted worldwide.

Sure rules are rules, but there is a clear and obvious claim of bias when Linehan is removed for political opinions ( I have yet to see evidence of abuse) and the people suggesting that JK "choke on a dick" are maintained. I do agree that discourse should be polite however.

BarnardsLoop

You've yet to see evidence for his abuse yet without any evidence that he was removed for "political opinions", you believe that? I think you might just be seeing what you want to see.

The fact remains that no one has a right to an audience or a platform. You can scream and shout whatever you want in public (within reason, obviously) but you can't force someone to host your speech, especially at their expense. Nor can you force an audience to listen to you. That isn't "Americanised nonsense", that's precisely how freedom of speech works here, too.

As I said, he's as free as anyone else to go to somewhere like Gab if he wants to continue making libellous statements about people.

Dyr

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oh my, is it time to post that xkcd comic again?
.

Do you think anyone bar the most dull witted gives a **** about a web comic that ran out of juice years ago?

Rowling is being mobbed for stating a scientific fact, I seem to remember xkcd used to have a hard on for science.

BarnardsLoop

Well considering the most dull witted arguments are mooted here all day every day, I was just trying to appeal to the local custom.

And correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't medical science disagree with Rowling et al.? I'm pretty sure all that's said is transmen also menstruate. Which is true. Interesting to know why so many transphobes think they know better than medical experts.

FVP3

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

You've yet to see evidence for his abuse yet without any evidence that he was removed for "political opinions", you believe that? I think you might just be seeing what you want to see.

I'm not on twitter but it should be easy enough to produce the offending tweet.

The fact remains that no one has a right to an audience or a platform. You can scream and shout whatever you want in public (within reason, obviously) but you can't force someone to host your speech, especially at their expense. Nor can you force an audience to listen to you. That isn't "Americanised nonsense", that's precisely how freedom of speech works here, too.

I was calling Americanised nonsense the claim that the only form of censorship is Government censorship.

As I said, he's as free as anyone else to go to somewhere like Gab if he wants to continue making libellous statements about people.

Source for that?

One eyed Jack

FVP3 wrote: »

If Google, Twitter, or Facebook react to Chinese pressure to ban anti-Chinese government tweets then they are censoring those tweets. Laws do not have to passed, direct government interference in removing the tweets is not necessary.

This is particularly worrying in the situation we live in now where American corporations have a monopoly on how speech is actually transmitted worldwide.

Your comment makes no sense given that it’s clear from the previous paragraph that American corporations do not have a monopoly on how speech is transmitted worldwide. Weibo and Wechat are the dominant social networks in China for example, both Chinese.

Western social media companies hoping to gain entry into Asian territories have to comply with the laws in those jurisdictions, same as they do here, so what you characterise as censorship is simply complying with the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Nobody is being silenced or censored, their accounts are being terminated because they violated the terms and conditions of an agreement which they signed up to when they created an account on the platform.

There is no interference with their right to freedom of expression when they are banned from a platform for violating the platforms policies which they agreed to abide by when they signed up.

Sittingpretty

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well considering the most dull witted arguments are mooted here all day every day, I was just trying to appeal to the local custom.

And correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't medical science disagree with Rowling et al.? I'm pretty sure all that's said is transmen also menstruate. Which is true. Interesting to know why so many transphobes think they know better than medical experts.

Trans men menstruate because they are women. They are not a phenomenon of men who menstruate.

FVP3

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Well considering the most dull witted arguments are mooted here all day every day, I was just trying to appeal to the local custom.

This particular thread runs well, lots of difference of opinion and very few ad hominems, until now.

And correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't medical science disagree with Rowling et al.? I'm pretty sure all that's said is transmen also menstruate. Which is true. Interesting to know why so many transphobes think they know better than medical experts.

There's a whole thread here on the difference between intersex, gender dysmorphia, the medical realities and biological realities. It woud be better to read it rather than shout "transphobe" all over the gaff.

BarnardsLoop

FVP3 wrote: »

I'm not on twitter but it should be easy enough to produce the offending tweet.

You first. You're the one claiming it was because of his "political opinion".

Source for that?

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547 wrote:

The Father Ted creator Graham Linehan has been permanently suspended from Twitter for breaching the site’s rules on banned words.

Twitter said the account, which uses the handle @glinner, had been suspended after “repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation”.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/graham-linehans-glinner-twitter-account-22261495 wrote:

"Recently, I keep being locked out of my account and forced to delete tweets to get back in. The latest tactic by trans rights activists is to run a search for any time I've used the word 'groomer', a phrase Twitter recently decided was Not Allowed.

"This was not a violation of Twitter's ToS [terms of service] at the time I used the phrase, and I have been careful to avoid it since. I still use the word 'grooming' in various permutations because I believe that gender ideology is a form of societal grooming. It is a very real threat to the wellbeing of women and children and if our ability to name a threat is removed, it is even more difficult to fight that threat."

https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1276697869504872454

I don't know about you but I'd say accusing people of grooming minors is a pretty libellous thing to do.

FVP3

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your comment makes no sense given that it’s clear from the previous paragraph that American corporations do not have a monopoly on how speech is transmitted worldwide. Weibo and Wechat are the dominant social networks in China for example, both Chinese.

Ok, so worldwide outside China,which has its own problems with censorship.

Western social media companies hoping to gain entry into Asian territories have to comply with the laws in those jurisdictions, same as they do here, so what you characterise as censorship is simply complying with the laws in the jurisdictions in which they operate. Nobody is being silenced or censored, their accounts are being terminated because they violated the terms and conditions of an agreement which they signed up to when they created an account on the platform.

Thats a strange strange argument. Of course anti-government voices are silenced in China on social media, US and domestic.

There is no interference with their [Chinese people's] right to freedom of expression when they are banned from a platform for violating the platforms policies which they agreed to abide by when they signed up.

If any statement shows the precariousness of free speech, this does.

BarnardsLoop

FVP3 wrote: »

This particular thread runs well, lots of difference of opinion and very few ad hominems, until now.

We must have very different ideas of "runs well", if that's the case. Oh and I'd be interested to see what ad hominems you think I'm engaging in.

There's a whole thread here on the difference between intersex, gender dysmorphia, the medical realities and biological realities. It woud be better to read it rather than shout "transphobe" all over the gaff.

Calm down, petal, no one's "shouting" anything, especially not "all over the gaff" considering I only said it once.

And no, I'm not reading through hundreds of pages of back and forth guff. Medical experts disagree with transphobes (oops! sorry! I hope the text isn't too large for you!), I've no real interest in trying to convince people otherwise when they've already made up their minds.