Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

suicide_circus

joeguevara wrote: »

Twitter started out as an easy way for a small group of people to communicate with each other. It was actually the exact opposite of a voice for all. Freedom of speech is not gone. If he had put his opinion without targeting individual people, harassing them and shaming them, then he could tweet away to his hearts content. Did you ever hear Stephen Fry or Russel Brand (2 examples of great speakers and have controversial views) ever say Free Speech. It’s usually the stock phrase of people with abhorrent views. In what way did his behaviour not fall squarely into the definition of hate speech. It is defined as threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. Putting up photos of how a transgender person looked before surgery is hardly free speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31qioyxM21E

joeguevara

suicide_circus wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31qioyxM21E

What do you think of the voice clip there.

thebaz

joeguevara wrote: »

Twitter started out as an easy way for a small group of people to communicate with each other. It was actually the exact opposite of a voice for all. Freedom of speech is not gone. If he had put his opinion without targeting individual people, harassing them and shaming them, then he could tweet away to his hearts content. Did you ever hear Stephen Fry or Russel Brand (2 examples of great speakers and have controversial views) ever say Free Speech. It’s usually the stock phrase of people with abhorrent views. In what way did his behaviour not fall squarely into the definition of hate speech. It is defined as threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, another person harassment, alarm or distress. Putting up photos of how a transgender person looked before surgery is hardly free speech.

but are people not allowed to have ther own opinion on Trans issues?? - for what its worth I havnt being following Linehan, so dont know exactly what he said, just what the mainstream media reported - I like the idea of Freedom of speach (excpet hate speach) - and people should be allowed hold different opiinons , ther is a lot of hyprocray of people jumping on what ever cause seams woke today, for example I was a long time capaigner for racial equality, back in the 80s and 90s when we got a lot of heat and violence for flagging really horrible racial stuff.

Tony EH

Danzy wrote: »

The Left today, across all hues is very different from even 10 years ago.

The people you are railing against aren't "the left".

joeguevara

thebaz wrote: »

but are people not allowed to have ther own opinion on Trans issues?? - for what its worth I havnt being following Linehan, so dont know exactly what he said, just what the mainstream media reported - I like the idea of Freedom of speach (excpet hate speach) - and people should be allowed hold different opiinons , ther is a lot of hyprocray of people jumping on what ever cause seams woke today, for example I was a long time capaigner for racial equality, back in the 80s and 90s when we got a lot of heat and violence for flagging really horrible racial stuff.

Firstly I have no skin in the game here and more interested in the concept of free speech and the conditions around it than what is being discussed. Of course you can have an opinion on any issue, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to use that opinion to publicly cause someone distress or harm. Do you see a difference between abusing someone because of their colour or race and someone who is transgender.

TheRepentent

Any onegot a link ti him moaning on mumsnet ? What a weird site to go of on a mad one......

joeguevara

TheRepentent wrote: »

Any onegot a link ti him moaning on mumsnet ? What a weird site to go of on a mad one......

Especially at 3am.

StupidLikeAFox

He was insufferable on Twitter. How the man who was responsible for light hearted, clever comedies like Father Ted and the IT Crowd became so obsessed and went into such a rabbit hole I don't know. Obsession was the only word to describe it.

thebaz

joeguevara wrote: »

Do you see a difference between abusing someone because of their colour or race and someone who is transgender.

I dont think anyone should be abused - Believe it I suffered abuse for being dysexeic growing up -

Clarence Boddiker

This kind of thing is fine on twitter....no problems attacking certain groups.

BarnardsLoop

God, the more I hear about this the more I'm glad that I only use Twitter to follow artists. Can't imagine what it must be like to come under the gaze of one man's insane crusade against people he (really, really) doesn't like.

How do people even end up like that? What possesses someone to vomit that kind of bile into the public? I don't think I'll ever understand it.

Tony EH wrote: »

The people you are railing against aren't "the left".

Nah, we are. It's the right that's drifted further to the right, as evinced by the extremely angry objections when you dare point out that neo-Nazis do, in fact, exist and maybe shouldn't be excused.

RWCNT

I think this will be good for him. He seems to have became absolutely obsessed with the subject, looking at his twitter page it looked as though he spendt his every waking hour warring with people over it. Can't be healthy.

joeguevara

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

This kind of thing is fine on twitter....no problems attacking certain groups.

How do you know that they didn’t receive warnings and subsequent bans for continuous breaches. Also, one doesn’t make the other correct.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

Firstly I have no skin in the game here and more interested in the concept of free speech and the conditions around it than what is being discussed. Of course you can have an opinion on any issue, but that doesn’t mean you have the right to use that opinion to publicly cause someone distress or harm. Do you see a difference between abusing someone because of their colour or race and someone who is transgender.

all on the same page so far joe

when a statement of belief such as "i dont think you can be born the wrong gender" is held to be the latter, we're in trouble

when identity politics means that disagreement on a topic or concept or belief becomes an "attack" because one party is so closely aligned to their beliefs, we're in trouble

anyone abusing or attacking anyone because of their race, gender, sexuality, all that is a dick

but people have to learn to live with others not sharing their beliefs, regardless of how central those beliefs may be to their own personal sense of self.

TheValeyard

Has Twitter made a profit or what's the story.

Also think they stared loosing lots of followers in 2019 so they decided to stop publishing those details, unless that's changed.

Its abit silly to ban people with different thoughts from the left of field, all they are going to do is sign up to another social forum like Parler or something

punisher5112

So he was permanently shut down for stating an actual fact.... Men aren't women....

I'm actually now seeing a trend where it seems free speech is no longer been allowed when it's against a certain minority that doesn't follow the normal ideology of life.

Men have a penis and women have a vagina so what's the issue?

joseywhales

These labels are pointless(speaking from us point of view), if you like individual freedoms, the environment, enforced vaccination, are against gun rights and pro the free market for example. Most people are a mix of both broad categories

Danzy

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

He was insufferable on Twitter. How the man who was responsible for light hearted, clever comedies like Father Ted and the IT Crowd became so obsessed and went into such a rabbit hole I don't know. Obsession was the only word to describe it.

The same sense of not bending the knee to dogmatic, righteous twats that drove his attitude to the Catholic Church, drove his attitude to this.

The abuse, threats and outright lunatic reaction to him from the start of this drove his contrarian nature to shove back against the priests, whether they be the Church or the priests of the Left.

joeguevara

punisher5112 wrote: »

So he was permanently shut down for stating an actual fact.... Men aren't women....

I'm actually now seeing a trend where it seems free speech is no longer been allowed when it's against a certain minority that doesn't follow the normal ideology of life.

Men have a penis and women have a vagina so what's the issue?

Where did you read he was banned simply for saying men aren’t women?

Silentcorner

TheValeyard wrote: »

Has Twitter made a profit or what's the story.

Also think they stared loosing lots of followers in 2019 so they decided to stop publishing those details, unless that's changed.

Its abit silly to ban people with different thoughts from the left of field, all they are going to do is sign up to another social forum like Parler or something

It took ages for them to make a profit, the did back in 2017 I think.

They turnover about €800 million and make about €34-40 million profit....that is precarious to say the least...share price is in decline....these guys are only a few decisions away from extinction.

BarnardsLoop

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

This kind of thing is fine on twitter....no problems attacking certain groups.

♫ Anything you can do I can do better
I can do anything better than you~ ♫

punisher5112 wrote: »

So he was permanently shut down for stating an actual fact.... Men aren't women....

Nope, the reasons he was banned have been posted in the thread but keep pushing that narrative!

ILoveYourVibes

Talking about the above.


Twitter can only deal with what is reported.

Danzy

RWCNT wrote: »

I think this will be good for him. He seems to have became absolutely obsessed with the subject, looking at his twitter page it looked as though he spendt his every waking hour warring with people over it. Can't be healthy.

It cost him his job from the first day, just not going along was enough to be a problem, disagreeing and pushing back made him a target for a lot of the holy activists.

You have to admire his refusal to bend the knee, to conform to others, stop his views, drop science.

His biggest transgression is non conformance.

Non conformance is the one thing that the Catholic Church and modern Left cannot tolerate.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

all on the same page so far joe

when a statement of belief such as "i dont think you can be born the wrong gender" is held to be the latter, we're in trouble

when identity politics means that disagreement on a topic or concept or belief becomes an "attack" because one party is so closely aligned to their beliefs, we're in trouble

anyone abusing or attacking anyone because of their race, gender, sexuality, all that is a dick

but people have to learn to live with others not sharing their beliefs, regardless of how central those beliefs may be to their own personal sense of self.

But what if something is a recognised medical condition ‘gender dysmorphia’ and protected by Equality Law. Saying people have to learn to live with others not sharing their beliefs, is ok when those beliefs are not protected. It’s not 1950s Mississippi.

BarnardsLoop

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Talking about the above.


Twitter can only deal with what is reported.

Absolutely! But that doesn't suit the point these people want to push. If you just cherrypick instances that fit your agenda, you can distort facts any way you like.

Which is why I went for the opposite examples - to demonstrate that Twitter doesn't have some kind of anti-white (or anti-right-wing, more likely) agenda or whatever Clarence is getting at.

Danzy

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

♫ Anything you can do I can do better
I can do anything better than you~ ♫



Nope, the reasons he was banned have been posted in the thread but keep pushing that narrative!

Pointing out that modern left activists are the same type of lunatic as the far right is ploughing old ground, it's not a revelation.

BarnardsLoop

Pointing out that you can selectively take screenshots to push an agenda shouldn't be a revelation but I'm sure it is to some here.

Danzy

Silentcorner wrote: »

It took ages for them to make a profit, the did back in 2017 I think.

They turnover about €800 million and make about €34-40 million profit....that is precarious to say the least...share price is in decline....these guys are only a few decisions away from extinction.

For its reach and scale, it's never been a monetary success.

ILoveYourVibes

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Absolutely! But that doesn't suit the point these people want to push. If you just cherrypick instances that fit your agenda, you can distort facts any way you like.

Which is why I went for the opposite examples - to demonstrate that Twitter doesn't have some kind of anti-white (or anti-right-wing, more likely) agenda or whatever Clarence is getting at.

I agree with you Twitter is not anti white etc.

But it really doesn't deal with things very well.

It might ban people for dumb reasons but you can spout hate speech for years!

Also in russia it bans people for satirizing politics.

Tony EH

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Nah, we are.

Who's "we"?

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

It's the right that's drifted further to the right, as evinced by the extremely angry objections when you dare point out that neo-Nazis do, in fact, exist and maybe shouldn't be excused.

This isn't the case.

The entirety of "the right" aren't doing anything of the sort.

There are SOME people who might white knight neo-nazis. But that isn't "the right".