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

Gruffalux

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nice twisting there.

What is actually happening is people telling vulnerable children that it is OK if they're not the gender they were born in and they can go on puberty blockers, under usual medical supervision.

Not according to Tavistock medical personnel. Some have written of overhearing people in corridors prompting and preparing children as to what language they must use in order to secure hormones. Official reports have said children have received same after only one appointment. And you are one of the people who has adopted a very laissez faire approach to this area which will scandalise future people - just for the record.

[Deleted User]

saw him take a lot more and a lot worse abuse than he ever gave out

hes on the wrong side of the cancellation line here is all

ILoveYourVibes

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

Danzy

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 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.

JustAThought

The problem is the word grooming is now offensive to a very vocal militant minority group on social media , looking to have a sterile echo chamber where they cannot be challenged under any circumstances[/quote]

Had proper reporting been done on the disgraced and disgraceful activities of whatever s/he calls herself Adrianne Smith - not the Canadian one - it would have been discovered years ago that this CEO of a housing association had signed him/herself for up a free house intended for the homeless in London using her male name while abusing ‘ her position as CEO as a wiman and under the ‘legal’ name Adrianne Smith’ - also while drawing a CEO’s level salary and abusing expenses so much that noone could sign up to sit in the board without bringing a stain on their own name.

It might also have been discovered in advance that the burly hairy 50 y old male identifying as a female that turned up for little girls ballet class in Belfast wearing an adult tutu and consequently sueing for discrimination was in fact not well positioned either in mentality or age to slit in with ballet for 6 year old girls. The same man /woman who also was both a marching member of the Orange Order and then a hate filled born protesting against gay marriages - before he found his calling and ‘became a woman’. Now I believe he/she is autistic/whatever and attending poetry writing classes with the profoundly mentally ill and disabled and gathering sympathy and looking for sympathy and funds for surrGecy /AI for his male/female partner - its hard to keep
up. As they say - forewarned is forearmed and in some cases for some reasons L is onto something.

Wasn’t there a murder or serious assault here some while back about a guy who brought a woman home who he had been chatting up all night and it transpired under the skirt in the dark of the bedroom there was a man self identifying as a woman - all hell ensued.

However poorly put, or not, L may well have raised issues that are well worth raising for the common good - not just the singular individual. Don’t get me started on unisex toilets.

[Deleted User]

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It started out with people having a go at him about a trans character in the IT Crowd.

It ties into Point 2 above that his reaction to relatively mild criticism was to dig deep on the topic, and he's been digging ever since. It is a very big hole he has dug now.

True enough, but at least he's off twitter now so his opportunities for poisoning are much reduced.

didnt a group turn up at his wife's workplace at some stage?

snotboogie

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He has the right to free speech, not to use someone else's platform.

I wish people would stop abusing that word.

Twitter, Google and Facebook clearly have a responsibility that goes far beyond the interests of a private company. We have seen this with the investigations spanning from the 2016 election. Dorsey also admits as much.

Saying that, this is a great thing for Graham, he was not built for Twitter and is much better off away from the platform.

ILoveYourVibes

JustAThought wrote: »

The problem is the word grooming is now offensive to a very vocal militant minority group on social media , looking to have a sterile echo chamber where they cannot be challenged under any circumstances

Had proper reporting been done on the disgraced and disgraceful activities of whatever s/he calls herself Adrianne Smith it would have been discovered years ago that this CEO of a housing association had signed him/herself for up a free house intended for the homeless in London using her male name while abusing ‘ her position as CEO as a wiman and under the ‘legal’ name Adrianne Smith’ - also while drawing a CEO’s level salary and abusing expenses so much that noone could sign up to sit in the board without bringing a stain on their own name.

It might also have been discovered in advance that the burly hairy 50 y old male identifying as a female that turned up for little girls ballet class in Belfast wearing an adult tutu and consequently sueing for discrimination was in fact not well positioned either in mentality or age to slit in with ballet for 6 year old girls. The same man /woman who also was both a marching member of the Orange Order and then a hate filled born protesting against gay marriages - before he found his calling and ‘became a woman’. Now I believe he/she is autistic/whatever and attending poetry writing classes with the profoundly mentally ill and disabled and gathering sympathy and looking for sympathy and funds for surrGecy /AI for his male/female partner - its hard to keep
up. As they say - forewarned is forearmed and in some cases for some reasons L is onto something.

Wasn’t there a murder or serious assault here some while back about a guy who brought a woman home who he had been chatting up all night and it transpired under the skirt in the dark of the bedroom there was a man self identifying as a woman - all hell ensued.

However poorly put, or not, L may well have raised issues that are well worth raising for the common good - not just the singular individual. Don’t get me started on unisex toilets.[/QUOTE]

What has the above got to do with trans rights?

Its like saying one black person robbed me so we can't let black people live here.

Men are most often pedophiles or least more often than women ..... so do we ban men from being teachers?

What if we started speaking like that about everyone?

[Deleted User]

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.

Probably just got too much hassle for them to be dealing with

Like twitter being such a dumpster fire of comments etc it is at risk of being left behind for next generation internet as most platforms seems to be pushing for more positive engagement for their users,as choice is so large now,people will just leave and not be dragged in flame wars anymore

Now whether this is good or bad long term,is a whole other story i guess

joeguevara

Has anyone not called out the countless journalists who use ‘Permanently Suspended’ in their headlines about this. Suspension by its definition is temporary or for a fixed length of time. It is an oxymoron and instead of focusing on important issues such as racism or inequality, we should focus on the moronic journalists and their misunderstanding of the English language. Presumably they are the same ones who coined the phrase ‘Global Pandemic’.

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

joseywhales

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.

Tony EH

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.

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.

thebaz

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.

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.

Tony EH

thebaz wrote: »

Twitter started out as a voice for all

Twitter was never about that.

thebaz

Tony EH wrote: »

Twitter was never about that.

Well what is it created for so ???

joseywhales

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

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.

joseywhales

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

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.

thebaz

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

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

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.

joeguevara

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.

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.

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

joseywhales

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.

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.