Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

TomTomTim

seamus wrote: »

The fact that anti-trans discussions online outnumber pro-trans ones 100:1, proves that this is just a false oppression narrative.

How exactly did you measure this?

TomTomTim

seamus wrote: »

The fact that anti-trans discussions online outnumber pro-trans ones 100:1, proves that this is just a false oppression narrative.

And Reddit have just banned one of the main subs that was critical of trans ideology, so I'm not sure how strong your point is.

hetuzozaho

bloodless_coup wrote: »

You can't say simple logical things or you'll be banned from here or any other platform.

Ah you can though

Gruffalux

seamus wrote: »

this creates a selection bias. If the users of the platform tend to lean in one direction, or if a group conspires to attack another individual (which happens a lot), then you will see the overall bias of the platform lean in that direction. The same happens on other platforms; boards has leaned decidely more conservative than the general public over the last decade as conservative users have bullied dissenting viewpoints off the site.

But that doesn't mean the controlling company itself has a bias or actively acts to keep its PC credentials intact. Like you say, it's merely an amoral reed that leans whatever way the wind is blowing.

I partially agree and partially disagree with the points you made in the bulk of the post.

Just on this point re so called conservative upsurge I feel inclined to make an observation. It is related to the topic in that some imagine people arguing against gender theory can be lumped in with the alt right or nasty bigots etc etc and abused at will by being called phobic or TERFS etc. This is rather foolish. It under estimates the intelligence of the other.

I do not think it is conservatism that you call out. I think it is a reactionary response to hyper leftism. Leftism is even the wrong word as it sits so tightly in the claw of global corporatism that it cannot possibly be left leaning. So we are floundering with vague words like progressivism etc.

The conservative thing you identify is a response among many independent thinkers to logical incoherencies in - again - the so called left. On many topics which aught to be validly challenged. It will increase. There may even come a line in the sand for someone like you. Because the hyper leftist ideas are rooted in emotionalism and ideology and eventually contradict themselves. The way say a global corporation puts BLM front and centre and yet bleeds dry brown and black men and women in invisible places to feed its bank balance. It is emotive, dishonest, anti intellectual, censorious etc. It is not authentic.

This conservative backlash as you call it does attract racists, petty people, sexists, but these are not the people worth considering. Such horrid people have always existed - merely the thugs led and used by psychopaths from left or right through history. More importantly there is a growing swell of intelligent moderate rational thinkers who argue civilly and coherently against mindless hyper leftism. I wish there was a different word because these people are not leftist nor are they social justice warriors. They are usually simply the spoiled post modern middle class. As I said the reaction to this ideologues will grow. Thank goodness.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Pure strawman there.

You are welcome to care about anything and everything.

It is the inconsistency of the passionate search across the globe for trans issues to get excited while ignoring the very real dangers to women and girls from men today that bothers me a little.

Hi Andrew, did you know that people can care about more than one thing at the same time?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And the answer is still 'none' - no issues arising.

A male sex offender has been housed in a women’s prison and needs extra guarding. That’s not nothing. And I helpfully supplied you with a non-Sun source.

Wibbs

seamus wrote: »

The same happens on other platforms; boards has leaned decidely more conservative than the general public over the last decade as conservative users have bullied dissenting viewpoints off the site.

I've heard this time and time again and going way back with it and don't quite understand how a viewpoint can be "bullied" away from a site. Are non "conservatives" more easily upset and bullied and run away or prefer echo chambers? Never mind that the moderators overwhelmingly tend to not be conservatives. Surely non conservatives would find it easier to stick around?

keano_afc

bloodless_coup wrote: »

Why is the "trans movement" so powerful, and in control of the narrative? Where does this power and control come from, from such a tiny minority of people?

You can't say simple logical things or you'll be banned from here or any other platform.

This is a question I've been asking for a long time.

Never before has such a tiny, bullying minority had such support.

Gruffalox

Gruffalox wrote: »

I partially agree and partially disagree with the points you made in the bulk of the post.

Just on this point re so called conservative upsurge I feel inclined to make an observation. It is related to the topic in that some imagine people arguing against gender theory can be lumped in with the alt right or nasty bigots etc etc and abused at will by being called phobic or TERFS etc. This is rather foolish. It under estimates the intelligence of the other.

I do not think it is conservatism that you call out. I think it is a reactionary response to hyper leftism. Leftism is even the wrong word as it sits so tightly in the claw of global corporatism that it cannot possibly be left leaning. So we are floundering with vague words like progressivism etc.

The conservative thing you identify is a response among many independent thinkers to logical incoherencies in - again - the so called left. On many topics which aught to be validly challenged. It will increase. There may even come a line in the sand for someone like you. Because the hyper leftist ideas are rooted in emotionalism and ideology and eventually contradict themselves. The way say a global corporation puts BLM front and centre and yet bleeds dry brown and black men and women in invisible places to feed its bank balance. It is emotive, dishonest, anti intellectual, censorious etc. It is not authentic.

This conservative backlash as you call it does attract racists, petty people, sexists, but these are not the people worth considering. Such horrid people have always existed - merely the thugs led and used by psychopaths from left or right through history. More importantly there is a growing swell of intelligent moderate rational thinkers who argue civilly and coherently against mindless hyper leftism. I wish there was a different word because these people are not leftist nor are they social justice warriors. They are usually simply the spoiled post modern middle class. As I said the reaction to this ideologues will grow. Thank goodness.

This is much more coherent than what I could have cobbled together..

But also, there is a danger of the reaction overcoming the moderate rational thinkers and ending up much more right wing than anyone would like..

Rockbeast2

bloodless_coup wrote: »

Why is the "trans movement" so powerful, and in control of the narrative? Where does this power and control come from, from such a tiny minority of people?

You can't say simple logical things or you'll be banned from here or any other platform.

I'm gonna blame San Francisco where a lot of the Tech/Social Media companies are HQ'd! San Franciscans are a strange bunch. Ultra-ultra-liberal. I've had moderately liberal friends that moved over there to work and returned 12 months later as ultra-liberal, sandal wearing vegans!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

keano_afc wrote: »

This is a question I've been asking for a long time.

Never before has such a tiny, bullying minority had such support.

Andrew Doyle, the guy behind Titania McGrath (and he’s left wing - I really want to point that out) made the point that activists are overrepresented in media, the arts and politics. In other words, areas of huge influence. That’s his analysis of the UK, I don’t know if it would hold for Ireland.

And it was actually Linehan who drew attention to the fact that self-ID was snuck in in Ireland on the back of a much more popular reform, marriage equality. Lobbyists for self-ID were advised to draw as little media attention to it as possible. Which is strange. Most activists want media attention.

Apparently there was a public consultation about self-ID at the time but did any of y’all hear about it? I didn’t.

keano_afc wrote: »

This is a question I've been asking for a long time.

Never before has such a tiny, bullying minority had such support.

Meghan Murphy was banned from Twitter for saying “that’s him” about that Yaniv... article even though Yaniv was going by Jonathan at the time she said it. Permanently banned.

Incidentally, the Titania McGrath account has been suspended a few times. Can’t even take a joke, they can’t.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

just seen they've banned The_Donald subreddit aswell, the main one for Trump supporters, had been hidden from the main page for a while

That’s mad. I hate Trump but why should his supporters be denied a platform to discuss him? He was elected. He is the Prezzie. People will want to discuss him and a good chunk of them will be supporters or else he wouldn’t be in office right now.

Tony EH

Gruffalox wrote: »

I partially agree and partially disagree with the points you made in the bulk of the post.

Just on this point re so called conservative upsurge I feel inclined to make an observation. It is related to the topic in that some imagine people arguing against gender theory can be lumped in with the alt right or nasty bigots etc etc and abused at will by being called phobic or TERFS etc. This is rather foolish. It under estimates the intelligence of the other.

I do not think it is conservatism that you call out. I think it is a reactionary response to hyper leftism. Leftism is even the wrong word as it sits so tightly in the claw of global corporatism that it cannot possibly be left leaning. So we are floundering with vague words like progressivism etc.

The conservative thing you identify is a response among many independent thinkers to logical incoherencies in - again - the so called left. On many topics which aught to be validly challenged. It will increase. There may even come a line in the sand for someone like you. Because the hyper leftist ideas are rooted in emotionalism and ideology and eventually contradict themselves. The way say a global corporation puts BLM front and centre and yet bleeds dry brown and black men and women in invisible places to feed its bank balance. It is emotive, dishonest, anti intellectual, censorious etc. It is not authentic.

This conservative backlash as you call it does attract racists, petty people, sexists, but these are not the people worth considering. Such horrid people have always existed - merely the thugs led and used by psychopaths from left or right through history. More importantly there is a growing swell of intelligent moderate rational thinkers who argue civilly and coherently against mindless hyper leftism. I wish there was a different word because these people are not leftist nor are they social justice warriors. They are usually simply the spoiled post modern middle class. As I said the reaction to this ideologues will grow. Thank goodness.

Very well put and mirrors much of my own thoughts on the matter.

It's always a source of great amusement when I hear these clowns referred to as "the left", when they represent nothing of the sort. Doubly so, when a large bulk of their number appear to be from a middle class sphere, especially in America, where a lot of this reactionary nonsense comes from.

This penchant for labelling everything these days is also curious. Everything has to be put into a box of some sort, either to be lauded or kicked about. There doesn't appear to be much of a middle ground any more. Despite the fact that in the real world that's where the majority of people will be found.

In real life, I don't think I have ever met anyone who's needle is completely buried either way, as appears to be with some folk online.

mohawk

suicide_circus wrote: »

Glinner was both obsessive on this subject and also hoisted by his own petard to some extent as he rejoiced in trying to get others cancelled so i dont have much sympathy.

None of that changes what is and isnt true, what is and isnt real.

Way too obsessed by the topic and I don’t have any sympathy either to be honest.

I don’t think his approach was appropriate because this is a sensitive topic and real peoples lives that are being discussed. Gender Dysmorphia is a real condition not a made up fad.

I personally think it’s okay about questioning the ethics of children and teenagers transitioning and taking puberty blockers and the hormones given they don’t know if it’s safe. I think it’s okay to question the future of women’s sports, talk about the effects of changing language around men and women to be gender neutral. I would have no time for someone who says that transgender is just playing dress up because it belittles people. At the same time a discussion around gender and gender roles in society could be a good thing. Who cares who wears what or has their hair in a particular way. Given history of discussions around gay marriage etc I can see why some may think their is an ulterior motive in asking questions.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But also, there is a danger of the reaction overcoming the moderate rational thinkers and ending up much more right wing than anyone would like..

Yes. Everyone must check themselves before they wreck themselves.

Quantum Erasure

Wibbs wrote: »

I've heard this time and time again and going way back with it and don't quite understand how a viewpoint can be "bullied" away from a site. Are non "conservatives" more easily upset and bullied and run away or prefer echo chambers? Never mind that the moderators overwhelmingly tend to not be conservatives. Surely non conservatives would find it easier to stick around?

Also, discussions on the last two big referendums here, weren't exactly over run with conservatives. Or the gay cake controversy thing

suicide_circus

Gruffalox wrote: »

I partially agree and partially disagree with the points you made in the bulk of the post.

Just on this point re so called conservative upsurge I feel inclined to make an observation. It is related to the topic in that some imagine people arguing against gender theory can be lumped in with the alt right or nasty bigots etc etc and abused at will by being called phobic or TERFS etc. This is rather foolish. It under estimates the intelligence of the other.

I do not think it is conservatism that you call out. I think it is a reactionary response to hyper leftism. Leftism is even the wrong word as it sits so tightly in the claw of global corporatism that it cannot possibly be left leaning. So we are floundering with vague words like progressivism etc.

The conservative thing you identify is a response among many independent thinkers to logical incoherencies in - again - the so called left. On many topics which aught to be validly challenged. It will increase. There may even come a line in the sand for someone like you. Because the hyper leftist ideas are rooted in emotionalism and ideology and eventually contradict themselves. The way say a global corporation puts BLM front and centre and yet bleeds dry brown and black men and women in invisible places to feed its bank balance. It is emotive, dishonest, anti intellectual, censorious etc. It is not authentic.

This conservative backlash as you call it does attract racists, petty people, sexists, but these are not the people worth considering. Such horrid people have always existed - merely the thugs led and used by psychopaths from left or right through history. More importantly there is a growing swell of intelligent moderate rational thinkers who argue civilly and coherently against mindless hyper leftism. I wish there was a different word because these people are not leftist nor are they social justice warriors. They are usually simply the spoiled post modern middle class. As I said the reaction to this ideologues will grow. Thank goodness.

a "thank you" from me for laying out my stall better than i can.

Earthhorse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s mad. I hate Trump but why should his supporters be denied a platform to discuss him? He was elected. He is the Prezzie. People will want to discuss him and a good chunk of them will be supporters or else he wouldn’t be in office right now.

For these reasons:

All communities on Reddit must abide by our content policy in good faith. We banned r/The_Donald because it has not done so, despite every opportunity. The community has consistently hosted and upvoted more rule-breaking content than average (Rule 1), antagonized us and other communities (Rules 2 and 8), and its mods have refused to meet our most basic expectations. Until now, we’ve worked in good faith to help them preserve the community as a space for its users—through warnings, mod changes, quarantining, and more.

Though smaller, r/ChapoTrapHouse was banned for similar reasons: They consistently host rule-breaking content and their mods have demonstrated no intention of reining in their community.

To be clear, views across the political spectrum are allowed on Reddit—but all communities must work within our policies and do so in good faith, without exception.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And it was actually Linehan who drew attention to the fact that self-ID was snuck in in Ireland on the back of a much more popular reform, marriage equality. Lobbyists for self-ID were advised to draw as little media attention to it as possible. Which is strange. Most activists want media attention.

Apparently there was a public consultation about self-ID at the time but did any of y’all hear about it? I didn’t.

It didn’t occur to you at all that Linehan was lying through his teeth? Of course not.

There was no “sneaking self-ID through the back door”, it had been on the cards since 1997 when Lydia Foy lost their first legal challenge, but the Judge in the case called on the Irish Government to urgently review the matter. Lydia Foy made a second legal challenge, and in 2007 Ireland were found to be in breach of Human Rights Law, a Convention Ireland had signed up to in 2003. Government challenged the ruling and only dropped their case in 2010, announcing in 2011 that they would introduce gender recognition legislation.

Still no sign of any movement in 2013 so Foy took a THIRD legal challenge to force Government to fulfil its obligations under European Human Rights Law and the judgement in the 2007 case. It was only two years later that Government finally fulfilled their obligations under International Human Rights Law.

There was a public consultation, but you can’t claim you didn’t hear about it because you weren’t paying any attention to it in the first place. There was no sneaking anything in the back door, nor was it tied to the marriage equality referendum or any of that other nonsense about drawing as little media attention to it as possible. In reality, the media weren’t interested either and hadn’t been interested in the previous eight years it took to have the Irish Government get the finger out and fulfill their international Human Rights obligations. They sure as hell didn’t do it willingly, which is why you didn’t hear much fanfare about it.

suicide_circus

Earthhorse wrote: »

For these reasons:

Reddit scruples, lol, have you seen the sh1t they allow on there? It's a political move, which is fair enough but at least have the courage of your convictions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Earthhorse wrote: »

For these reasons:

Well, a subreddit I followed has been deleted and the mods were exemplary. They predicted that they would be part of the purge, due to being an unfashionable cause, and lo and behold. And I bet their modding was similarly criticised. So forgive me for being dubious about reddit’s reasons for its deletions. And some of the subreddits that remain are shocking.

Reddit has no scruples. Don’t kid yourself. The purges were a limp dick move on reddit’s part

Earthhorse

So you think The_Donald shouldn't have been banned then?

Apparently, t_d migrated away from Reddit in February so it was a bit of an empty gesture. What's more interesting is the new rule and its exception.

"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate."

The majority of Reddit is white and male. It's the new original sin.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

Apparently, t_d migrated away from Reddit in February so it was a bit of an empty gesture. What's more interesting is the new rule and its exception.

"While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate."

well at least they're putting that part in black and white, pardon the pun.

Earthhorse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, we only have reddit’s word for it that the mods violated terms. Do YOU know if that’s true or not? Reddit has earned people’s distrust, I’m afraid. A mod from the subreddit I used said that last time she had a run in with the people who run the site was more than two years ago and it was one of very few instances. Overall, the mod team had very little encounter with the people who run the site. Why then was it deleted?

Do YOU know what that mod said was true? T_D was well known for it's manipulation of rules and abuse of mod powers for quite some time. I trust the admins of reddit a million times more than the mods of T_D.

As for why your subreddit was deleted; how the hell would I know? You haven’t even named it FFS.

It was deleted because there has been a concerted effort for years to infiltrate it, post hate, doxx people, and then blame it on them. That isn't a conspiracy theory. I was told about it by someone who took part it in some of it. Set up a Discord or whatever, post something abhorrent, a hundred or a thousand people upvote it, and then the screenshot is posted in the other subs meant to bring that sub down, and it reaches the top of /r/all.

Rather basic but easy, obvious, and effective. I didn't realise they had left but it could be a reason they did. It was extremely obvious when it happened because it would be totally out of line with what else was being posted. And people just gobble up the screenshots and imagine the whole sub was like that.

Earthhorse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Alright, Earthhorse, reddit is great. Or something.

I’ve deleted my reddit account and will be avoiding the site as much as possible. Who knows how many people feel similarly. Time will tell.

But hey, at least r/strugglefucking is still there, amiright? Phew!

Your mature approach to debate and sarcastic remarks will be a big loss to them, I'm sure.

hetuzozaho

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That’s mad. I hate Trump but why should his supporters be denied a platform to discuss him? He was elected. He is the Prezzie. People will want to discuss him and a good chunk of them will be supporters or else he wouldn’t be in office right now.

That sounds reasonable. Unfortunately the subreddit was the opposite it was an experience!

Earthhorse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t insult you in the post you quoted. Or any of my posts to you on the topic.

You have directly insulted me here though.

And you’re saying that I’m immature? And you worded it sarcastically (“your mature approach to debate”). Oh, the irony.

The brass neck on you. Your hypocrisy is there for all to see though. Which is nice.

Yeah, I started posting in the thread answering what I thought was a sincere question posed by you.

Pretty much every response I’ve gotten from you has been sarcastic and disingenuous. I’m very much aware my last post was immature and sarcastic; I’m giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Your disingenuous is here for all to see though; which is sadly predictable.

Earthhorse

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Remember, only one of us has directly attacked the other. And that one of us wasn’t me. That would be you, Earthhorse. Climb down off the horsey.

I’m not on a high horse. Report the post if you’re so upset about it.

Oh, and this is my first response to you on topic. Could you highlight the sarcastic and/or immature bits? You made the claim.

I said "pretty much" every post; more disingenuousness on your part.

Earthhorse

You see, you ask all these questions but I don't think you're interested in answers. As soon as you receive them it turns out you don't really want to know or get sarcastic because you don't really have reasonable counterpoints to make.

As for the so called "personal attack"; we don't need reminding but I'm sure you'll continue reminding us anyway.