nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

Kermit.de.frog

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

Isn't this just censorship rather than protecting anyone?

That's what it looks like to me.

It's perfectly fine for someone like Trump to spew his hatred on the platform every day of the week but when it comes to debate on social issues action is taken.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/AGildedEye/status/1276865265305882625

Better Than Christ

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's not even because of that. He has 40 million followers, it's a business decision.

Which is fine and to be fair they are up front about the moral bankruptcy in that regard.

No one with that reach is getting banned for commercial reasons.

The owners of Boards.ie should be similarly upfront about their morally bankrupt tolerance of racism. A commercial decision, based on the fact that it generates traffic.

Danzy

We live in a very conformist era.

Your modern progressive is worse than Archbishop Mcquaid

suicide_circus

If Glinner was banned for breaking the rules fair enough but there is a glaring lack of consistency on the implementation of that policy. To pretend this decision was in no way influenced by politics is laughable - no one believes that.

ExMachina1000

Better Than Christ wrote: »

The owners of Boards.ie should be similarly upfront about their morally bankrupt tolerance of racism. A commercial decision, based on the fact that it generates traffic.

Also allowing people to make fun of others regarding their religious beliefs. Goes unchecked

Mad_maxx

so the ayatollahs of WOKE banished an otherwise rock solid member of the PC fraternity ?

our new clerical overlords grow more authoritarian by the day

Silentcorner

Twitter are on their way to extinction, they'll be gone in next few years...not before time.

Rodin

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?

He certainly has a right to... the fact he has never given birth is irrelevant. He can identify as a mother in the modern world.

BarnardsLoop

No he can't. Obviously he's mentally ill if he does that and he needs to be mocked and ridiculed at every turnabout. Told that he's a paedophile and rapist and all that comes with it. (Am I doing this right?)

Tired Gardener

He has broken the Twitter agreement, so it is only fair to suspend his account. What is odd is that Trump does this daily, and is still there, also all the rape and death threats that JK Rowling received.

Twitter is a platform and can enforce its rulings however it wants, and as it isn't an arm of the government it doesn't have to entertain people saying things that go against its rules and code of conduct.

I have no qualms with that part... what I find odd is the lack of consistency shown by Twitter.

As for Graham Linehan, I do think he can go a bit too far at times, some of his points I agree with, some I do not.

Smegging hell

He was also banned for 'platform manipulation' and using sockpuppet accounts, according to the Twitter statement in this article. https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/27/graham-linehan-suspended-twitter-12909978/

joeguevara

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.

Better Than Christ

Smegging hell wrote: »

He was also banned for 'platform manipulation' and using sockpuppet accounts, according to the Twitter statement in this article. https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/27/graham-linehan-suspended-twitter-12909978/

In Linehan's case, 'platform manipulation' probably refers not to sockpuppet accounts, but to his tendency to encourage his followers to 'pile on' anyone who disagrees with him. Classic bullying behaviour. He did it to an actress from Derry Girls this week.

joseywhales

I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

Gruffalux

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't understand the heat that twitter sometimes gets. If I launch a website and allow people to post on it, I can delete what I like, I leave up what I like, I am not responsible for the content, nor am I forced to leave everything up. I am not producing a publication. If you don't like my website, don't use it. Those who publish material on my website are responsible for what they publish.

You are unlikely, though, to become a major global corporation with far reaching media influence and attracting preferential tax rates (aka subsidies) from countries like Ireland, are you?

This free enterprise lark is a bit of a fetch for these corps.

CtevenSrowder

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

With the account suspended, I can't see the tweets but from what I've read, he's been accusing people of grooming minors. Including an associate professor at a university.

After a quick search, the only link I can find is to the professor in question: https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1276697869504872454

So... if that is indeed the case, it's not hard to see why Twitter might ban him for such libellous accusations.

Fair enough, though I would like to see the context. Tbh he's better off off twitter. Whole platform should be nuked. It offers humanity nothing. At least on fb there are housing groups and you can buy and sell stuff.

polesheep

They'll probably tear down his statue.

The White Wolf

igCorcaigh wrote: »

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

Pretty sure he was sending unwanted DMs to people as well. He really lost the run of himself on this subject.

Smegging hell

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Fair enough, though I would like to see the context. Tbh he's better off off twitter. Whole platform should be nuked. It offers humanity nothing. At least on fb there are housing groups and you can buy and sell stuff.

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

leggo

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.

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.

jam_mac_jam

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

The word groom is fairly loaded as well, so even if he didn't mean it as in a sexual abuses sense it's fairly nasty.

You can make your point without resorting to that.

CtevenSrowder

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

Queer and trans-studies Jesus. I'd say that's a blast. It annoys me that tax-payers money goes towards such 'subjects'.

Fair enough though, calling someone a groomer in that they are a paedo is slander I guess.

Gruffalux

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

This post by Lavery seems to echo a persistent trend among certain activists in getting children and young people away from their parents. As if bringing vulnerable people in under their own wing is a healthier thing. Have these people been vetted and trained to intervene so influentially in young people's lives in this manner? I find this whole reach out to your real tribe line to be really sinister. Most parents love their children more than themselves and want to mind them. This creeping acceptance that the family is a dangerous place for children is disturbing.

Rodin

Gruffalox wrote: »

This post by Lavery seems to echo a persistent trend among certain activists in getting children and young people away from their parents. As if bringing vulnerable people in under their own wing is a healthier thing. Have these people been vetted and trained to intervene so influentially in young people's lives in this manner? I find this whole reach out to your real tribe line to be really sinister. Most parents love their children more than themselves and want to mind them. This creeping acceptance that the family is a dangerous place for children is disturbing.

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

BarnardsLoop

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.

whisky_galore

polesheep wrote: »

They'll probably tear down his statue.

Stop watching Fr Ted?

joseywhales

Gruffalox wrote: »

You are unlikely, though, to become a major global corporation with far reaching media influence and attracting preferential tax rates (aka subsidies) from countries like Ireland, are you?

This free enterprise lark is a bit of a fetch for these corps.

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.

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.

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.

woejus

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Also allowing people to make fun of others regarding their religious beliefs. Goes unchecked

muh religious beliefs... you don't have a right to be protected from mockery of what do or don't believe. that way lies religious tyranny.

Slim Charles

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Whether you agree with him or not he made the biggest mistake of posting his opinion on social media.

We live in a world today where if your opinion 'goes against the social grain' you will be outed and targeted. So... Don't go posting things on social media.

Also in his case it looks like he was prodding. But hey, you don't even have to prod to get reactions.

Came off twitter and Facebook in recent weeks as I saw a guy complaining about the rioting in America and this white lad who has a black great grandfather or something tagged his workplace several times "are you happy to employ a racist", trying to get the guy fired. Pathetic. Its just not worth the hassle of pandering to the left by having a different opinion.