Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Junkyard Tom

joeguevara wrote: »

Why is Graham Linehan obsessed with this particular issue?

It really is weird how much attention the whole trans thing gets; what ever happened to not being bothered by things that don't have any impact on your life?

I think perhaps the trans thing has become a lightning-rod for the energy of assorted assholes.

Gruffalux

joseywhales wrote: »

There was no obligations in how they moderate attached to the corp tax rate. It is not their fault they are successful, again if people don't like them, don't use them. They don't create content. The only argument might be that curating content could itself be a form of content.

Yes. Curating content is creating content.

And I did not imply that their special tax subsidies attach moderation requirements, but rather that this whole private enterprise notion has to be qualified. They receive subsidies from the Irish public in the form off special tax rates.

Galwayguy35

Received a warning from UK cops for dead naming, well thats a new one on me.

BarnardsLoop

Gruffalox wrote: »

I am quoting this because you have been throwing around the word transphobe in the Rowling thread and people should know what you mean when you use the word.
In your use transphobe = often very violent person who enjoys murdering and beating those they dislike.

Oooh, sorry! That's not the gotcha you seem to think it is. I did say they "often are" not "always" or just "are".

Oh and I'd hardly call three instances, "throwing around" but I suppose that's just what I get for being reasonable.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Oooh, sorry! That's not the gotcha you seem to think it is. I did say they "often are" not "always" or just "are".

Oh and I'd hardly call three instances, "throwing around" but I suppose that's just what I get for being reasonable.

So the people who hold contrary opinions to you on the Rowling thread where you have called them transphobes 3 times OFTEN are very violent people who enjoy beating and murdering those they dislike.

Okay. Reasonable.

Quantum Erasure

polesheep wrote: »

They'll probably tear down his statue.

Would that still be a class two relic?

BarnardsLoop

Gruffalox wrote: »

So the people who hold contrary opinions to you on the Rowling thread where you have called them transphobes 3 times OFTEN are very violent people who enjoy beating and murdering those they dislike.

Okay. Reasonable.

Okay, I can see you're just blithely twisting semantics to fit your agenda so I think there's little point in further trying to correct you.

Dyr

Smegging hell wrote: »

This is the original tweet he quote-tweeted calling Lavery a 'groomer'. It was a libellous and nasty smear and Twitter was well within its rights to remove it. https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1258176411346579465

I think what shes trying to say is "I'm afraid of entirely online lectures in case they're recorded and the absolute bull**** I'm peddling will be exposed"

This is why most college campuses should stay closed, daylight is a great disinfectant.:D

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Okay, I can see you're just blithely twisting semantics to fit your agenda so I think there's little point in further trying to correct you.

You said what you said.

BarnardsLoop

Exactly. I said what I said, not what you think I said.

The White Wolf

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

It really is weird how much attention the whole trans thing gets; what ever happened to not being bothered by things that don't have any impact on your life?

I think perhaps the trans thing has become a lightning-rod for the energy of assorted assholes.

Well....trans people have always been looked at with a view of suspicion, even within LGBT culture.

The problem that Lenihan and JK Rowling have is that they view trans as an attack on their view of what a woman is and the rights that women have fought for.

To them, their life and the lives of people they know are being impacted by trans rights. They feel compelled for some reason to use their platforms to fight against this "attack" on womanhood.

I'm not in agreement with their view, but this is where I believe their issue is coming from.

Gruffalux

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Yeah, homophobes and transphobes are often very violent people who enjoy beating and murdering those they dislike. Goodness knows I was beaten enough in my childhood to know.

Just glad to see the tide turning against them now.

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Exactly. I said what I said, not what you think I said.

Just so you are clear I did not think you said something. You said it.

BarnardsLoop

Nah, you've constructed your own warped interpretation of what I've said and now, like a dog with a bone, you can't admit you were wrong.

donaghs

KiKi III wrote: »

No, censorship would be the government attempting to deny Linehan freedom of speech.

Private companies have no obligation to offer any individual a platform. Particularly if you break their rules. We agree to this when we hit “accept” on terms and conditions without reading them.

No, censorship is not unique to governments. You can even self-censor yourself.
As the internet giants continue to monopolise what we read and post, their politics/biases will continue to become more controversial.

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Deadnaming is a pretty sh1tty thing to do.
He's a bully.

He wasn't banned for that. In this instance, he reportedly tweeted “men aren’t women tho” in response to a post by the Women’s Institute wishing their transgender members a happy Pride.
What if he is offended by the idea that a man can become a woman? Should his hurt feelings translate into actions? etc.

Better Than Christ wrote: »

I'm glad Twitter has finally done something about him. There was something unedifying about watching a man's protracted, public nervous breakdown being played out on social media. He has paid an enormous personal and professional price for his behaviour.

He's certainly seems far too old to be getting into petty internet arguments. But are you saying he should be banned for having a "protracted, public nervous breakdown being played out on social media"???

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

There’s a certain irony in a guy running straight to post on Mumsnet to complain about being banned for the comment “men aren’t women tho”. Does he identify as a mum?

Why? According to the news he has lots of supporters on the site and was seeking their support? What's the issue here?

Again, apart from a grown adult getting into these petty arguments online.

joeguevara

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Received a warning from UK cops for dead naming, well thats a new one on me.

Got a police warning for continuous harassment. It’s not as if it was simply calling someone Jeff once when they are now Jane. But if a continuous attack, going so far as tweeting photos before gender reassignment for all his followers. It is doubtful the two would have had any interaction unless Linehan decided to start abusing sites and individuals. It is unclear what his crusade is.

Galwayguy35

joeguevara wrote: »

Got a police warning for continuous harassment. It’s not as if it was simply calling someone Jeff once when they are now Jane. But if a continuous attack, going so far as tweeting photos before gender reassignment for all his followers. It is doubtful the two would have had any interaction unless Linehan decided to start abusing sites and individuals. It is unclear what his crusade is.

Its the phrase I was talking about rather than the harassment.

Never heard of it before.

Just read up on the row they had, Linehan didn't do anything much at all only saying he and the original name.

AndrewJRenko

joeguevara wrote: »

Why is Graham Linehan obsessed with this particular issue? It seems strange to continue his campaign, when on the face of it, doesn’t effect him. Accusing people of grooming their students is not free speech. I have never heard anyone who has anything to actually contribute to a subject ever have to use the defence of free speech. Quite often people are using it as A fancy way of being a Cnut.

leggo wrote: »

I’ve wondered this myself. Two things I think are to blame for it:

1) He’s getting old and at the stage of his life where he’s offended by the world evolving because he’s realising it’s no longer ‘his’ world. So his brain just won’t allow trans people to be because accepting them means accepting his own diminished capacity to understand the world.

2) He’s likely used to being the smartest person in the room, so it’s just a case of refusing to back down and hardening his stance because he got attacked when he first aired his views. The same thing we see dozens of times every day here on boards except this is a famous lad who devoted his entire life to it oddly.

I agree that he had to go, his page became a cesspit for hatred. But I also really hope this isn’t the start of a trend to get rid of ‘unwanted’ opinions. Although I abhor his views, banning them doesn’t make them go away and just makes a martyr of these people for the ignorant to rally around. We need to change how we do discourse and as a society need to learn to calmly lead people over to your side or at least respect difference/ignorance in a way that makes the world more tolerable for those who experience it.

It started out with people having a go at him about a trans character in the IT Crowd.

It ties into Point 2 above that his reaction to relatively mild criticism was to dig deep on the topic, and he's been digging ever since. It is a very big hole he has dug now.

Rodin wrote: »

Some very dangerous people out there with very sinister agendas, trying to poison the minds of vulnerable children.

True enough, but at least he's off twitter now so his opportunities for poisoning are much reduced.

tigger123

Not like he wasnt given fair warning.

Still love his work, even if I disagree with his views on trans.

joeguevara

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Its the phrase I was talking about rather than the harassment.

Never heard of it before.

I heard it on a Ricky Gervais stand up routine where he discusses this joke about Caitlin Jenner. Never heard it before or since.

I was thinking is there a difference between Ricky Gervais jokes and Linehans tweets. I suppose it’s all about context. Linehan explicitly targeted people and affected their life. But will the above be viewed in 20 years the same way we look back on Bernard Manning now.

Gatling

KiKi III wrote: »

If you stood up in a pub and started giving out about trans people every day, you’d probably get a few warnings from bar staff but soon enough you’d get barred.

Doubtful most anyone would notice unless your in somewhere like the George

Corholio

Part of the reason he was banned I suspect was because he accused a person there of 'grooming' kids. Most of what he comes out with is horrible vile stuff.

Btw after he was banned from Twitter, it seems he went over to Mumsnet to moan over there and was told **** off from there too :P

Look at the head on him..

A break from the Twitter machine might do him the world of good..

Tony EH

...sure, isn't he better off.

Boulevardier

I have followed Glinner's tweets, and I have seen nothing which would make me think he should be banned from Twitter.

His tweets did seem a bit obsessive on the trans question, but that is not what is at issue here.

There is a dangerous climate evolving in which dissenters from the liberal consensus are being driven from public debate. I am a leftist, and even I am disturbed by it.

Gatling

Corholio wrote: »

Part of the reason he was banned I suspect was because he accused a person there of 'grooming' kids. Most of what he comes out with is horrible vile stuff.

What else would use to describe people telling vulnerable children that there not the gender they were born and must go on puberty blockers ,
Grooming .


The problem is the word grooming is now offensive to a very vocal militant minority group on social media , looking to have a sterile echo chamber where they cannot be challenged under any circumstances

CageWager

CageWager wrote: »

Twitter is run by a bunch of ultra liberal nerds. It’s their toy and they can ban anyone who doesn’t conform ENTIRELY to their point of view. I’m amazed that people are shocked that users are shouted down or banned for daring to deviate from the agreed consensus, its woke strategy 101.

Where can I buy this multi billion dollar toy? Do they sell it in Dunnes? :pac:

joeguevara

I hear your transphobic now Father.

No regrets If it’s been said already.

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

What else would use to describe people telling vulnerable children that there not the gender they were born and must go on puberty blockers ,
Grooming .


The problem is the word grooming is now offensive to a very vocal militant minority group on social media , looking to have a sterile echo chamber where they cannot be challenged under any circumstances

Nice twisting there.

What is actually happening is people telling vulnerable children that it is OK if they're not the gender they were born in and they can go on puberty blockers, under usual medical supervision.

joeguevara

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It started out with people having a go at him about a trans character in the IT Crowd.

It ties into Point 2 above that his reaction to relatively mild criticism was to dig deep on the topic, and he's been digging ever since. It is a very big hole he has dug now.



True enough, but at least he's off twitter now so his opportunities for poisoning are much reduced.

I remember that episode. It’s where Douglas misheard ‘I’m a man’ as ‘I’m from Iran’.

Gatling

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nice twisting there.

What is actually happening is people telling vulnerable children

Nothing had being twisted - see exactly what I was saying

Vulnerable children need to be protected not medicated under some quakery experiments ,