Graham Linehan banned from twitter for questioning "trans ideology"

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.

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 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.

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

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

What do you think of the voice clip there.

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.

RonanG86

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Actually he got banned from twitter for accusing a teacher publicly of 'grooming ' their students and being a pedophile.

It wasn't a teacher, iirc, it was a college professor. So he doesn't even have the excuse that her students were minors. And I don't think she was the only one he levelled that accusation at. He actually wasn't banned for calling people groomers at the time, either. He lost his posting rights until he took those posts down, which he eventually did because he spent 10 hours a day on Twitter and couldn't live without it. But I believe he re-posted them during the week.

As for his 'questioning trans ideology' that the Irish Times think he was banned for, this is questioning trans ideology:

Glinner: "I don't think trans identity is valid. Gender is a physical construct and that's it."
Transperson: "Well I disagree with you, and I'm very angry that you're basically accusing me of being a fake or not existing."
Glinner: "That's how I feel, tough. And the studies I've read support it."
Transperson: "Well here are studies saying the opposite."
Glinner: "Don't agree with them, do agree with the ones that say it's physical only. kthnxbi."

This is what Glinner's been doing:

Glinner: "I don't think trans identity is valid. Gender is a physical construct and that's it."
Transperson: "Well I disagree with you, and I'm very angry that you're basically accusing me of being a fake or not existing."
Glinner: "You disgusting piece of scum! You just want to get your penis into women's bathrooms!"
Transperson: "Wait, what?"
Glinner: *Digs up as much as he can on the person, hopefully including pre-op or pre-hormone treatment pics*. Look upon this hideous visage my 500k followers. Is this a woman? No, it's a filthy man! Now I will tag this filthy penis monster in all my posts for the next week to make sure we all dump on him as much as possible.

That's a bit beyond questioning trans ideology. That's bullying. And Glinner's done a lot of it. He has no interest in actual facts or debate, as demonstrated when someone asked him had there been any increase in sexual assaults since self ID came in and was told to "shut UP!" and "f*ck OFF!" and the time he posted pictures of Mack Beggs in the belief that he was born male and transitioned to female to beat up on women's wrestling in high school, when 10 seconds on Google would've told him that Mack is F2M and wasn't allowed wrestle men because he lives in Texas and is as such legally deemed female. All he's interested in is dumping on people, and Twitter aren't obliged to facilitate him.

You don't get banned from Twitter just for having anti-woke political opinions. Ask the likes of Gemma Doherty and Richard Spencer.

Finally, Glinner is absolutely free to continue posting whatever he likes about trans people on his own website, on YouTube and on his favoured haunt of Mumsnet. But by all means, those of right wing persuasion will continue to see this as some sort of violent assault on free speech because they don't understand what free speech is and isn't.

And yes, I'm well aware that a sizeable portion of boardsies will automatically assume Glinner to be in the right because he's has an "anti-woke" standpoint, so this is probably wasted, but I'll make the point anyway.

Tony EH wrote: »

No. That's what it grew into.

Twitter was first envisaged as a platform for "microinteractions", such as

'Hey John, are you going to the cinema tonight?'

'No.'

It quickly grew beyond that into a glorified shoutbox and PR advertising platform.

What it ABSOLUTELY isn't, is a viable discussion platform for any kind of serious topic, as its char limitation doesn't allow anyone to engage in a discussion with any nuance.

Everyone eventually ends up sound like a jerk.

I didn't know this, thanks.

Makes me wonder what could happen to slack. From dev tool to just another platform.

biko

thebaz wrote: »

I asked what was it created for ??

Same as boards, allows people to voice ther opinions on issues

Boards was created as a Quake community server.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Boards.ie

johnb25

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.

This is the same principle.

Not really the same.
Twitter is set up as a platform for people to post views, comments, thoughts etc. As such there should be a fair tolerance of diverse views. I didn't follow Linehan, mainly because of what I saw of his tweets in the past. But if his account should be taken down, then so should a lot of others.
Twitter has a scale, reach and influence that puts it into the realm of being a public space, like Facebook etc., regardless of who owns the company.
Standing up ranting in a pub would get you barred for disturbing other patrons peace, not because of the views you expressed.

thebaz wrote: »

Twitter started out as a voice for all - but now you can only tweet one way - freedom of speach is gone, people should be allowed to hold opinions , but the social media Corporate world only want you to think and speak one way , no room for differing opinion, regardless of how people actually think - it really is turning into another form of McCarthyism when it set out to actually give all people a voice - Hate speach should be banned but dont think linehan did that.
Twitter really is becoming an insufferable place.

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.

joseywhales wrote: »

Lads, it was created to make as much money as possible obviously

No. That's what it grew into.

Twitter was first envisaged as a platform for "microinteractions", such as

'Hey John, are you going to the cinema tonight?'

'No.'

It quickly grew beyond that into a glorified shoutbox and PR advertising platform.

What it ABSOLUTELY isn't, is a viable discussion platform for any kind of serious topic, as its char limitation doesn't allow anyone to engage in a discussion with any nuance.

Everyone eventually ends up sound like a jerk.

Danzy

Tony EH wrote: »

It certainly wasn't created for anyone to saying anything they damn well pleased about anybody.

Lol.

It's become a vehicle for sin, :rolleyes:

Tony EH wrote: »

It certainly wasn't created for anyone to saying anything they damn well pleased about anybody.

I asked what was it created for ??

Same as boards, allows people to voice ther opinions on issues

Danzy

Gruffalox wrote: »

Haha yes, agree totally. This is why the very idea that these kind of people are left wing is bizarre to me.

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

Lads, it was created to make as much money as possible obviously

thebaz wrote: »

Well what is it created for so ???

It certainly wasn't created for anyone to saying anything they damn well pleased about anybody.

Believe or not, I have never had a twitter account, I still don't get it, how does it help me?

Though I still believe they are right to be classed as a platform, so not responsible for their content. It's importance is dictated by its engagement, if you don't like it don't engage, if that is a popular opinion then it will no longer exist.

Tony EH wrote: »

Twitter was never about that.

Well what is it created for so ???

thebaz wrote: »

Twitter started out as a voice for all

Twitter was never about that.

BarnardsLoop

Deagol wrote: »

Since you only joined boards in Feb 2020 how would you know? Or have you perhaps been banned and rejoined with a new persona

Nothing so exciting, I'm afraid. My first account was lost after one of the first database hacks the site suffered and I didn't have access to the email address I registered with.

Over the years I've closed others when I needed to take a break from... Well, the site's seen better days. Days when it was small and friendly enough that AH had a "know your nerds" thread with photos of users. We're a far cry from that now, unfortunately.

Twitter started out as a voice for all - but now you can only tweet one way - freedom of speach is gone, people should be allowed to hold opinions , but the social media Corporate world only want you to think and speak one way , no room for differing opinion, regardless of how people actually think - it really is turning into another form of McCarthyism when it set out to actually give all people a voice - Hate speach should be banned but dont think linehan did that.
Twitter really is becoming an insufferable place.

Gruffalux

Danzy wrote: »

There is no one as libertarian or radically free market as a "progressive" defending the rights of big businesses when it is on the same page.

It's increasingly on the same page due to the class commonality and that so many activists work in multinationals, academia etc.

Haha yes, agree totally. This is why the very idea that these kind of people are left wing is bizarre to me.

Boulevardier wrote: »

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.

Accusing people of grooming kids is enough for a ban.

That's just a really dumb thing to do. Doubly so after the warnings he has repeatedly been given.

He seems to have a real bugbear about this issue. Unreasonably so too and there are ways that he can discuss it without trying to be an arse.

He's a writer, for fuck sake. He has the ability to choose words more wisely.

Danzy wrote: »

There is no one as libertarian or radically free market as a "progressive" defending the rights of big businesses when it is on the same page.

It's increasingly on the same page due to the class commonality and that so many activists work in multinationals, academia etc.

I'll fix that for you:

There is no one as libertarian or radically free market as a <insert any label here> defending the rights of big businesses when it is on the same page.

Deagol

BarnardsLoop wrote: »

Nah. Even sites like Boards have rules against insulting and abusing other people. Time was when someone was banned because they were being an arsehole like that, we didn't have hordes of hand-wringers screeching about 'free speech'. Well, we didn't have quite so many of them.

You know the rules when you sign up to a site like that. Can't stick to them? You should be banned. Thinking the people that person is abusing are fair targets doesn't really change that.

Since you only joined boards in Feb 2020 how would you know? Or have you perhaps been banned and rejoined with a new persona