Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Gruffalux

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

James Lindsay nicely goes through this deconstructionist stuff here with Joe. Only listened to the first hour so not sure how on it stays on this topic. The story around the ~45 mins about his fake research paper that won an award is quite funny.

I will give it a shot, haven't listened to Joe in a while. He is my birthday brother When my kids think I am un-groovy I say lookit me and Joe Rogan came to this planet at the same time so shag off.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not exactly what I would call providing proof they are not supported by Neo-Nazis. Surely knowing the accusation LG Alliance have issued a statement to say they have no interest in support from Neo-Nazis? Or sought to distance themselves?

As for me, what I said was those who ally themselves should examine who also supports them and then decide for themselves.
I, personally, have always said I will stand on the side of inclusion so their possible links with anyone are immaterial to me. I do not support them.

And it is beyond dispute that LGB Alliance had taken an anti-trans stance. It is the very reason for their existence so yes, they will be criticised for that just as they, in turn, criticise those who are inclusive. Hardly a lightbulb moment to realise that.

This is nothing more than guilt by association and typical of the anti-intellectualism that predominates this whole discussion. Some supposed Neo-nazi (which can be anyone these days who doesn't follow a particular narrative) supports the organisation. So now ofcourse not only do they have to fend of accusation of being transphobes, but also accusations that they are Neo-nazi's themselves.

Pathetic.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Once again, Bannasidhe, the onus is on the people making the claims to back them up. So far they have produced tenuous links. Of course people are going to question that and there is no obligation on anyone to disprove somebody else’s claims.

I linked to an accusation, Obvious Desperate Breakfasts.
I did not make the accusation.

Awaiting link to denial of accusation.
If someone accused any LBGTQ+ organisation I am involved with of being supported by neo-Nazis you would be damned sure we would come out all guns blazing to utterly distance ourselves and block any such people as their views are abhorrent. Furthermore we would be demanding a written retraction by the publishers.
Surly some has found a link to where LG Alliance has done this?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Am still awaiting the statement where LG Alliance distanced themselves from any hint of support by neo-Nazis. Surely someone has found something of that kind of google by now?

For the love of sufferin’ jaysus.

“That of kind of google”? Breathe, Bannasidhe, breathe.

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

This is nothing more than guilt by association and typical of the anti-intellectualism that predominates this whole discussion. Some supposed Neo-nazi (which can be anyone these days who doesn't follow a particular narrative) supports the organisation. So now ofcourse not only do they have to fend of accusation of being transphobes, but also accusations that they are Neo-nazi's themselves.

Pathetic.

Yup. It’s so transparent.

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I linked to an accusation, Obvious Desperate Breakfasts.
I did not make the accusation.

Awaiting link to denial of accusation.
If someone accused any LBGTQ+ organisation I am involved with of being supported by neo-Nazis you would be damned sure we would come out all guns blazing to utterly distance ourselves and block any such people as their views are abhorrent. Furthermore we would be demanding a written retraction by the publishers.
Surly some has found a link to where LG Alliance has done this?

Why? Any sensible peros would assume you are not neo-nazi's or support neo-nazis. Do you think the LGB Aliinace supports Nazism?

Bannasidhe

@Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
*quote function not working*

I have recently had complicated hand surgery and am suffering from debilitating post op complications so yes, I make many typos and I don't always see them before posting.

Sir Oxman

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not exactly what I would call providing proof they are not supported by Neo-Nazis. Surely knowing the accusation LG Alliance have issued a statement to say they have no interest in support from Neo-Nazis? Or sought to distance themselves?

As for me, what I said was those who ally themselves should examine who also supports them and then decide for themselves.
I, personally, have always said I will stand on the side of inclusion so their possible links with anyone are immaterial to me. I do not support them.

And it is beyond dispute that LGB Alliance had taken an anti-trans stance. It is the very reason for their existence so yes, they will be criticised for that just as they, in turn, criticise those who are inclusive. Hardly a lightbulb moment to realise that.

Your posting that link depends on
"There is nothing to suggest the LGB Alliance has sought or welcomed such supporters, but when asked by PinkNews to denounce neo-Nazis, the LGB Alliance refused."


I'd question if they even professionally acknowledge that clickbait site particularly when it has consistently set out to destroy their org and reputations.




I could do a 'Vic Parsons' and write about (with screenshots!) supporters of stonewalluk who routinely tweet, twat or splurt 'kill all terfs' 'suck my ladyd1ck' 'lesbians must include men with d1cks in their sex lives otherwise transphobic!' (that was the gist of his editor's tweet recently) etc etc and equal that org with being a nasty, homophobic lair of violence supporting sexism.


But I don't.



Maybe ask them yourself?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I linked to an accusation, Obvious Desperate Breakfasts.
I did not make the accusation.

Awaiting link to denial of accusation.
If someone accused any LBGTQ+ organisation I am involved with of being supported by neo-Nazis you would be damned sure we would come out all guns blazing to utterly distance ourselves and block any such people as their views are abhorrent. Furthermore we would be demanding a written retraction by the publishers.
Surly some has found a link to where LG Alliance has done this?

Oh, I don’t know, maybe the LGB Alliance is crediting the general public with a smidgen of intelligence that they won’t fall for such obvious smear tactics.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Why? Any sensible peros would assume you are not neo-nazi's or support neo-nazis. Do you think the LGB Aliinace supports Nazism?

No.
I think neo-Nazis are using LG Alliance and for whatever reason known only to themselves the latter have not distanced themselves.
Which raises questions any sensible person would ask.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

@Obvious Desperate Breakfasts
*quote function not working*

I have recently had complicated hand surgery and am suffering from debilitating post op complications so yes, I make many typos and I don't always see them before posting.

Sorry about that.

AndrewJRenko

Ekerot wrote: »

I think I liked it best when Men were men and women were women, none of this non-binary or gender flag waffle.

Well, once you liked it best, that's all that matters. I guess people who don't match your narrow, blinkered view of the world should just stay in their closets to avoid any challenges for your opinions?

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No.
I think neo-Nazis are using LG Alliance and for whatever reason known only to themselves the latter have not distanced themselves.
Which raises questions any sensible person would ask.

What questions does it raise?

LLMMLL

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What's your conceptualisation of a FART.

you really don't want to know

Gruffalux

Throwing out an accusation to have an ''opponent'' deny it is a well known political tactic. As long as the opponent is having to deny something they are losing.

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

What questions does it raise?

Why did they not distance themselves.
I would.
Would you?

I'd be on the phone to lawyers if it was an organisation I was involved in demanding a published retraction and apology. That is too serious an allegation for a refuse to comment type response.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gruffalox wrote: »

Throwing out an accusation to have an ''opponent'' deny it is a well known political tactic. As long as the opponent is having to deny something they are losing.

That means LGB Alliance are absolutely right in ignoring it.

Can we call it Neo-Godwinning, the neo-Nazi accusation?

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why did they not distance themselves.
I would.
Would you?

I'd be on the phone to lawyers if it was an organisation I was involved in demanding a published retraction and apology. That is too serious an allegation for a refuse to comment type response.

No. I wouldn't give any credibility to such a spurious claim that is intended as nothing more than character assassination, particularly if that accusation was levelled by someone I know already hates me.

Why do you think they haven't?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why did they not distance themselves.
I would.
Would you?

I'd be on the phone to lawyers if it was an organisation I was involved in demanding a published retraction and apology. That is too serious an allegation for a refuse to comment type response.

I may be missing something here (not for the first time) but are you saying you'd be onto the lawyers if people you didn't like were supporting your organisation?

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I may be missing something here (not for the first time) but are you saying you'd be onto the lawyers if people you didn't like were supporting your organisation?

No, I am saying if a newspaper printed a false allegation against an organisation I am involved with I would instruction a solicitor to demand a written retraction and issue an apology.

Homosexual people were murdered in Concentration Camps - to accuse an LB organisation of being supported by neo-Nazis is not an allegation to be ignored.

Bannasidhe

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That means LGB Alliance are absolutely right in ignoring it.

Can we call it Neo-Godwinning, the neo-Nazi accusation?

Sure.
If we can call dismissing concerns given what Nazis did to homosexuals as of little importance to score a point as crass.

Gruffalux

The tenuous attempts to discredit LGB Alliance as being, of all things, ''Nazis'' including emotive appeals to concentration camps, reminds me of something. Hmmm. Would that be the tenuous attempts to link our own brand new Minister for Children to Peter Tatchell, because of - guess what! - a photo in which he is honoured to be with a man who he called the'' legendary'' LGBT activist, the cofounder of well known homosexual rights organisation OutRage!, a man who actually wrote full chapters for pro paedophilia books (Betrayal of Youth and Dares to Speak), and also wrote the glowing obituary for PIE (Paedophile Information Exhchange) founder Ian campbell Dunn.
In that case however sensible people decided not to go there.

One eyed Jack

Gruffalox wrote: »

The tenuous attempts to discredit LGB Alliance as being, of all things, ''Nazis'' including emotive appeals to concentration camps, reminds me of something. Hmmm. Would that be the tenuous attempts to link...

It’s exactly the same as tenuous attempts to link violence against women with people who are transgender to try and claim there are “loopholes” in gender recognition legislation.

Some people have gone there. I’m not sure that grasping at such straws was ever sensible but they obviously thought it was a good strategy in spite of the fact that it’s an obviously desperate strategy.

Nobody even has to link to Nazis to see what that “LGB Alliance” are about.

Bannasidhe

Gruffalox wrote: »

The tenuous attempts to discredit LGB Alliance as being, of all things, ''Nazis'' including emotive appeals to concentration camps, reminds me of something. Hmmm. Would that be the tenuous attempts to link our own brand new Minister for Children to Peter Tatchell, because of - guess what! - a photo in which he is honoured to be with a man who he called the'' legendary'' LGBT activist, the cofounder of well known homosexual rights organisation OutRage!, a man who actually wrote full chapters for pro paedophilia books (Betrayal of Youth and Dares to Speak), and also wrote the glowing obituary for PIE (Paedophile Information Exhchange) founder Ian campbell Dunn.
In that case however sensible people decided not to go there.

And absolutely nobody here did that so your point is invalid.
What I said was an allegation was made that they were being supported by neo- Nazies and furthermore do not appear to have taken any steps to refute that.

I did not introduce LG Alliance to this conversation. I was asked what I would say to someone who supports them. My honest answer was given there are serious allegations and I would advise researching who supports them and decide for your self.
I never said they were nazis.
I never said do not join them.
You are being dishonest.

And now you seek to muddy that waters by introducing the Tatchell controversy.
You are being disingenuous and dishonest imo.

I have no further intention of debating with someone who uses such tactics.

Gruffalux

^^ You are the one who started talking about what Nazis did to homosexuals in concentration camps.

Gruffalux

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sure.
If we can call dismissing concerns given what Nazis did to homosexuals as of little importance to score a point as crass.

Why this allusion?

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And absolutely nobody here did that so your point is invalid.
What I said was an allegation was made that they were being supported by neo- Nazies and furthermore do not appear to have taken any steps to refute that.

I did not introduce LG Alliance to this conversation. I was asked what I would say to someone who supports them. My honest answer was given there are serious allegations and I would advise researching who supports them and decide for your self.
I never said they were nazis.
I never said do not join them.
You are being dishonest.

And now you seek to muddy that waters by introducing the Tatchell controversy.
You are being disingenuous and dishonest imo.

I have no further intention of debating with someone who uses such tactics.

Why would they? It is simply an attempt to slander them. They are dead right to not give any credence to such an absurd claim.

It won't be long before they are accused of being racists. It's transphobic first, Neo-nazi's now, racist next.

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

James Lindsay nicely goes through this deconstructionist stuff here with Joe. Only listened to the first hour so not sure how on it stays on this topic. The story around the ~45 mins about his fake research paper that won an award is quite funny.

You’re a braver man than I am tbh, I can’t hack 45 seconds of listening to Joe.


That paper though was a work of art in its own right -


The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies


It didn’t quite undermine feminism and gender studies to the degree is often attributed to it, but it contains a few memorable quotes, like this one to describe “manspreading” -


It is also observable in the hypermale-performative behavioral trope of “manspreading,” that is, inconsiderately spreading his legs too widely in public, for example on public transport such as planes, trains, and automobiles, especially subways and buses. The usual excuse given for manspreading is centered directly in the conceptual penis as a male social dis- course: the (anatomical) penis and testicles are attributed as needing space in order to facilitate the male individual’s “comfort.” This behavior, seen from the perspective of the (conceptual) penis as a (performative) social construct, is clearly a dominating occupation of physical space, akin to raping the empty space around him, that is best understood via the machismo braggadocio isomorphism to toxic hypermasculinity (Perkins, 2015).


Who says you can’t describe something if you don’t know what it is

Bannasidhe

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Why would they? It is simply an attempt to slander them. They are dead right to not give any credence to such an absurd claim.

It won't be long before they are accused of being racists. It's transphobic first, Neo-nazi's now, racist next.

They are anti-trans. They make no bones about it.
You can split hairs and say anti-trans does not mean being transphobic all you want but I am not going down that rabbit hole of quibbling and people posting what it says in some bloody dictionary.
Had enough of that crap about homophobia during Mar Ref.

If you think Gay people cannot be neo-Nazis you are very mistaken.

By refusing to refute it the allegation remains alive. There for all to see.
And until such time as it is refuted - if ever - questions will be asked.
And those questions distract from whatever message it is that LG Alliance are trying to get across so silence really is an own goal.
They are in the no smoke without fire zone.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re a braver man than I am tbh, I can’t hack 45 seconds of listening to Joe.


That paper though was a work of art in its own right -


The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies


It didn’t quite undermine feminism and gender studies to the degree is often attributed to it, but it contains a few memorable quotes, like this one to describe “manspreading” -


It is also observable in the hypermale-performative behavioral trope of “manspreading,” that is, inconsiderately spreading his legs too widely in public, for example on public transport such as planes, trains, and automobiles, especially subways and buses. The usual excuse given for manspreading is centered directly in the conceptual penis as a male social dis- course: the (anatomical) penis and testicles are attributed as needing space in order to facilitate the male individual’s “comfort.” This behavior, seen from the perspective of the (conceptual) penis as a (performative) social construct, is clearly a dominating occupation of physical space, akin to raping the empty space around him, that is best understood via the machismo braggadocio isomorphism to toxic hypermasculinity (Perkins, 2015).


Who says you can’t describe something if you don’t know what it is

Wow, that is something else.

I'm not going to read it all though (I'm spent) but does it happen to mention tables at all? I'd like to out that one to bed (but what is a bed?????)

CtevenSrowder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are anti-trans. They make no bones about it.
You can split hairs and say anti-trans does not mean being transphobic all you want but I am not going down that rabbit hole of quibbling and people posting what it says in some bloody dictionary.
Had enough of that crap about homophobia during Mar Ref.

If you think Gay people cannot be neo-Nazis you are very mistaken.

By refusing to refute it the allegation remains alive. There for all to see.
And until such time as it is refuted - if ever - questions will be asked.
And those questions distract from whatever message it is that LG Alliance are trying to get across so silence really is an own goal.
They are in the no smoke without fire zone.

It will remain alive regardless. That's why it was made in the first place. People such as yourself lap it up, and it is used as another stick to beat the organisation with. And I never said gay people couldn't be neo-nazis. I'm aware ones sexuality is in no way tied to their politics (though there are plenty who believe it is).

Does anyone believe they are Neo-nazi's? I don't. You don't. I don't think anyone does. So why would they come out and say they aren't when everyone knows they aren't already.