ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st July 2020, 08:33 AM   #281
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,564
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If we are talking Twitter, then it seems like it's kind of hard to say when all we appear to have is a few screen caps of a couple of Tweets taken by people who don't like him, or a summary of his Tweets as told by the person he was arguing with.
Just how exactly can one be justified in disliking trans women so much that they are triggered by a post wishing trans women a happy pride day? Please, I'd like to know how he's justified in his vitriolic inflammatory remarks directed against trans women?
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 08:41 AM   #282
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Just how exactly can one be justified in disliking trans women so much that they are triggered by a post wishing trans women a happy pride day? Please, I'd like to know how he's justified in his vitriolic inflammatory remarks directed against trans women?
Linehan would walk barefoot through a blizzard if it meant he could jab at a trans person at the end of it. Totally normal dude, very healthy attitude.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 02:19 PM   #283
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 10,945
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's wrong in the sense that non-conforming people are making it very clear that this kind of definition is marginalizing.
And calling human beings "females" is also marginalizing!
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 03:40 PM   #284
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,130
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I was so curious about that, thanks for sharing.
Note for Tapatalk users. Go to the base screen, click the little person icon at the top and click "Settings". Then you can click signature and switch the "Sent from" message off.

I say so because it does appear to irritate a few people around here and it is better to have them irritated by our comments than by random messages inserted by the app
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 03:41 PM   #285
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,564
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Bit of a side-note, but related nonetheless...
There are circumstances where it's perfectly reasonable and justified to discriminate against people for one or more reasons.

I have still not seen any justification for him making spiteful and inflammatory statements directed against trans women just because someone wished them a happy pride day.

There's nothing innocent about making that kind of statement given the context. Unless he's really stupid he would have realized exactly how it would be received and the likely consequences of his actions, given that this is not the first time he has made transphobic statements on twitter and been sanctioned for it. That makes the victim playing even more pathetic.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

Last edited by Arcade22; 1st July 2020 at 03:43 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 03:43 PM   #286
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,235
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I was so curious about that, thanks for sharing.
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I say so because it does appear to irritate a few people around here and it is better to have them irritated by our comments than by random messages inserted by the app...
This sounds like a social expectation to me.

Going to assume you folks are being silly, per post #317.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin

Last edited by d4m10n; 1st July 2020 at 03:46 PM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 05:42 PM   #287
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,483
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
There are circumstances where it's perfectly reasonable and justified to discriminate against people for one or more reasons.

I have still not seen any justification for him making spiteful and inflammatory statements directed against trans women just because someone wished them a happy pride day.

There's nothing innocent about making that kind of statement given the context. Unless he's really stupid he would have realized exactly how it would be received and the likely consequences of his actions, given that this is not the first time he has made transphobic statements on twitter and been sanctioned for it. That makes the victim playing even more pathetic.
While agree that the actual situation he made the comment in makes him just look like a prick, I don't see how saying trans women/men aren't women is transphobic.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 1st July 2020 at 05:43 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 01:55 AM   #288
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 45,892
Mod WarningSeveral more posts have been moved to the general thread on trans women.

To repeat, this thread is specifically on the topic of Graham Linehan being banned from Twitter. To help ensure this, the thread has been put on moderated status.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 07:00 AM   #289
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,189
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
In the interest of getting this back on topic, here's from Twitter's policy page:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...conduct-policy



Is there any doubt that Glinner wasn't a routine offender? "Men aren't women" in this context is misgendering of trans people per any reasonable understanding of this policy.
I have a lot of doubt that Glinner was a routine offender.

"This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals."

A general statement that men aren't women is not a targeted misgendering of an individual. Telling an individual transwoman that she is not a woman would be a clear violation of the policy. Did Glinner routinely do that? I don't know.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 04:25 PM   #290
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,235
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Telling an individual transwoman that she is not a woman would be a clear violation of the policy. Did Glinner routinely do that? I don't know.
And you'll never know, unless his old tweets have been reliably archived by a trustworthy source.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2020, 05:37 PM   #291
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,281
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Would you consider it "deadnaming" to look into the background of an individual to see if they happen to have a long history of "offences of dishonesty" or disorderly behaviour? That sort of thing seems relevant enough to me, when dealing with a public-facing moral entrepreneurWP, but personal history is henceforth that which cannot be named?
Were you ever going to get to supporting the argument you were making here, or if you want to go with 'just asking questions', were you going to make an argument about it? Do you still feel Linehan was just using her deadname, and pictures, to make people aware of her past offenses? Did you have evidence for that interpretation? after all...

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Surely you wouldn't make a strong claim about immoral behavior without knowing you could back it up.
Would Hayden's past offense preclude the possibility of Linehan maliciously deadnaming and misgendering her? Do you subscribe to Linehan's justification that it's ok to misgender people 'if they're not friends and are misogynists'?

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I do not have a preferred conclusion here.

I would like to know whether Linehan is indeed the monster that you say he is, based on some sort of credible evidence of what he's been up to lately. Last time I checked on him, he was standing up to gamergate misogynists in defense of women.

Thanks for the other screencaps, BTW.
Oh well that's good for three punches on the Woke CardTM. And because he has the Beloved Artist upgrade, he's nearly to his next perk! He can choose between violating Twitter's tos, or save up till he can say the n-word.

Without the joke, I'm not sure that posting his work fighting actual misogynists and sexists means much to his other bad behavior. Further, it kind of appears that you're using that as a justification for why you wouldn't have engage in the bad behavior he did, which actually argues against your statement that you didn't have a preferred conclusion. It was someone whose work you admired and whose character you thought was incompatible with what he did.

We can tell ourselves we don't have a preferred conclusion, but if it isn't true, it's still a bias. And if we don't think we have that bias, we cannot correct for it.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have a lot of doubt that Glinner was a routine offender.

"This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals."

A general statement that men aren't women is not a targeted misgendering of an individual. Telling an individual transwoman that she is not a woman would be a clear violation of the policy. Did Glinner routinely do that? I don't know.
Is his justification for why he misgenders specific individuals not enough of an admission? Why not?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 01:32 PM   #292
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,235
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Were you ever going to get to supporting the argument you were making here, or if you want to go with 'just asking questions', were you going to make an argument about it?
I was not planning to make an argument, at least not that I now recall. Come to think of it, though, there is an argument to be had that without knowing someone's actual identity (including previous legal names) we cannot assess whether they are unusually aggressive or litigious (or what-have-you) compared to the norm.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Do you still feel Linehan was just using her deadname, and pictures, to make people aware of her past offenses?
Hard for me to say, without seeing the original posts. That is why he said he did it, though, according to The Times.

Originally Posted by Lucy Bannerman
This week [Hayden] reported Mr Linehan to Norfolk constabulary for “transphobic harassment”, after he shared a post with his 672,000 followers that included details of Ms Hayden’s various aliases, examples of her conduct online and financial history. The scriptwriter said he shared the details because he believed Ms Hayden to be “a dangerous troll. I believe it’s important to shine a light on people like that because they are harming women and transwomen”.
Again, I'd have to actually see the post to make sense of it.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Would Hayden's past offense preclude the possibility of Linehan maliciously deadnaming and misgendering her?
Obviously not, but it's difficult to even mention past offenses if prior legal names are considered taboo.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Do you subscribe to Linehan's justification that it's ok to misgender people 'if they're not friends and are misogynists'?
I think it is polite to use the pronouns people prefer. I'm not sure if we can expect people to be polite when they are in a high-profile public spat, though.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Without the joke, I'm not sure that posting his work fighting actual misogynists and sexists means much to his other bad behavior.
Just tryna tell you where my priors came from.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
It was someone whose work you admired and whose character you thought was incompatible with what he did.
At this point, I'm still trying to get that highlighted bit right.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Is his justification for why he misgenders specific individuals not enough of an admission?
It helps along the inference, but if it's all the same I don't see any problem with seeking out direct evidence of exactly what he said/did on a skeptic discussion board.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 01:38 PM   #293
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,189
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Is his justification for why he misgenders specific individuals not enough of an admission? Why not?
Because that's not a violation of Twitter's TOS, as I understand it. Saying, "I have good reasons to misgender people" is not the same as targeting specific individuals for misgendering via the Twitter platform.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 04:40 PM   #294
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,281
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
It helps along the inference, but if it's all the same I don't see any problem with seeking out direct evidence of exactly what he said/did on a skeptic discussion board.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Because that's not a violation of Twitter's TOS, as I understand it. Saying, "I have good reasons to misgender people" is not the same as targeting specific individuals for misgendering via the Twitter platform.
*sigh* You both missed the post where I linked to the BBC interview showing that his justification for misgendering people in general was in response to a question on why he was deliberately misgendering Hayden on Twitter.

It isn't a question that he was targeting her with misgendering at the time and that he said he was, and would be, justified doing it in the future. He said he did. Twitter says he did. Hayden says he did. It really isn't reasonable to be so skeptical that he did what he said he was justified in doing again and is in line with what Twitter said he did to finally get booted.

Sure it's possible he violated other related rules. We have at least some screenshots showing him being a massive knob in exactly the same ways, and a couple of other ways. But so? Hey, this guy says he's morally justified in being a dickhead to people in violation of the TOS, but what if he violated the TOS in a different way?

I'm actually asking. What would that change?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2020, 05:10 PM   #295
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,189
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I was not planning to make an argument, at least not that I now recall. Come to think of it, though, there is an argument to be had that without knowing someone's actual identity (including previous legal names) we cannot assess whether they are unusually aggressive or litigious (or what-have-you) compared to the norm.

<snip>

Obviously not, but it's difficult to even mention past offenses if prior legal names are considered taboo.
Just wait until someone transitions themselves out of debt.

This might be the legal loophole FOTLs have been looking for. "Your honor, this fine applies to John Doe, who is dead, not me, Jane Doe And also because this is not an Admiralty Court."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2020, 08:50 AM   #296
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,189
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
*sigh* You both missed the post where I linked to the BBC interview showing that his justification for misgendering people in general was in response to a question on why he was deliberately misgendering Hayden on Twitter.

It isn't a question that he was targeting her with misgendering at the time and that he said he was, and would be, justified doing it in the future. He said he did. Twitter says he did. Hayden says he did. It really isn't reasonable to be so skeptical that he did what he said he was justified in doing again and is in line with what Twitter said he did to finally get booted.

Sure it's possible he violated other related rules. We have at least some screenshots showing him being a massive knob in exactly the same ways, and a couple of other ways. But so? Hey, this guy says he's morally justified in being a dickhead to people in violation of the TOS, but what if he violated the TOS in a different way?

I'm actually asking. What would that change?
I did not miss the link. Linehan claims that he was not targeting Hayden for misgendering as such, but that he was targeting her for exposure of her actions in the past - a past where she was a man and went by a different name.

Regardless of whether Twitter interprets its anti-deanaming policy broadly enough to also erase history from public discourse, I'd still like to actually see the tweets in question, before deciding for myself if they violate the policy as I understand it.

Also, the question I was answering was SuburbanTurkey's "routine offender?" question:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
IIs there any doubt that Glinner wasn't a routine offender?
ST cited a policy about specific targeting, but gave an example of a general argument. And yeah, I do have doubts that a general argument is evidence of routine offenses of a much more specific nature. I'd need to see the tweets in question. I doubt that there *are* any tweets in question, when it comes to ST's argument. It looks to me like he's leaping to a conclusion on the thin evidence of the general argument, without ever having seen any tweets that demonstrate even occasional offenses. Let alone routine offenses.

I also have questions about what's "routine" in this context. Did Linehan routinely misgender Hayden? Or did he recount Hayden's history which includes references to Hayden's past name(s) and gender(s)? Did he routinely misgender other transsexuals, targeting them on Twitter in violation of the platform's policies? These are questions that can be answered by looking at the tweets. They are not answered by Linehan's "admission". Nor are they answered by ST's spurious reasoning.

So no, I didn't miss your link. And no, Linehan's "admission" is not sufficient to remove my doubts that he does it routinely. I wouldn't be surprised if he does. I also wouldn't be surprised if Twitter has sanctioned him for tweets that do not or should not violate the policy.

I also think that Twitter should not extend their policy to include erasing history. People should not be able to escape discussion of their past words and deeds by changing their name, or their gender.

Is it routine misgendering or deadnaming to discuss the 1976 Olympic Decathlon in terms of Bruce Jenner? Should that discussion be considered a violation of Twitter's policy?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2020, 04:39 AM   #297
SuburbanTurkey
Illuminator
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 4,827
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post


ST cited a policy about specific targeting, but gave an example of a general argument. And yeah, I do have doubts that a general argument is evidence of routine offenses of a much more specific nature. I'd need to see the tweets in question. I doubt that there *are* any tweets in question, when it comes to ST's argument. It looks to me like he's leaping to a conclusion on the thin evidence of the general argument, without ever having seen any tweets that demonstrate even occasional offenses. Let alone routine offenses.

I also have questions about what's "routine" in this context. Did Linehan routinely misgender Hayden? Or did he recount Hayden's history which includes references to Hayden's past name(s) and gender(s)? Did he routinely misgender other transsexuals, targeting them on Twitter in violation of the platform's policies? These are questions that can be answered by looking at the tweets. They are not answered by Linehan's "admission". Nor are they answered by ST's spurious reasoning.

So no, I didn't miss your link. And no, Linehan's "admission" is not sufficient to remove my doubts that he does it routinely. I wouldn't be surprised if he does. I also wouldn't be surprised if Twitter has sanctioned him for tweets that do not or should not violate the policy.
Not sure what you're looking for here. By Linehan's own Mumsnet (lol) post after the fact, he states:

Quote:
Recently, I keep being locked out of my account and forced to delete tweets to get back in. The latest tactic by trans rights activists is to run a search for any time I've used the word 'groomer', a phrase Twitter recently decided was Not Allowed.
Who he was accusing of being a "groomer" is unclear to me, but I imagine that's the type of insult that might be a real problem with Twitter if targeted towards trans people wantonly.

Again, as has been stated here by myself and others, Twitter is quite opaque about their moderating decisions, and offending tweets disappear down the memory hole, only preserved by screenshots and internet archives. I've taken it as granted that Linehan has faced multiple occasions of lesser suspensions or lockouts because of his behavior, given that Linehan himself admits as much and this fact does not seem in dispute. I have no interest in chasing down the screenshots and other such things to try to prove this. If this means I lose my skeptic card, so be it.

We have no idea exactly what conduct or pattern of conduct lead to Linehan's ban, and we're unlikely to ever know. We can only infer based on archived screenshots, Linehan's own comments on the matter, and patterns of previous Twitter TOS enforcement. That's not much for making specific claims.

I am curious what Twitter means by "platform manipulation" in their ban message. Much has been said about Linehan's anti-trans animus, but not much is available about this element. Does this mean he was using bots, sockpuppets, or leading brigades of trolls? Only Twitter knows for sure.

Debating whether something does or does not violate Twitter's TOS is a waste of effort. Linehan was banned. The ban itself is plain evidence that he did. Twitter's TOS are written such that Twitter is the final judge of what it's TOS say. If Twitter decides that conduct is a violation, no matter how unjust or absurd, then it's a violation.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 7th July 2020 at 05:59 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2020, 04:19 PM   #298
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,189
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Not sure what you're looking for here. By Linehan's own Mumsnet (lol) post after the fact, he states:



Who he was accusing of being a "groomer" is unclear to me, but I imagine that's the type of insult that might be a real problem with Twitter if targeted towards trans people wantonly.
I'd still need to see the tweets in question, to not have doubts about whether he was a "routine" offender.

To be clear: What I'm looking for here is actual evidence of routine offenses. Not vague inferences from other things said elsewhere.

Quote:
Again, as has been stated here by myself and others, Twitter is quite opaque about their moderating decisions, and offending tweets disappear down the memory hole, only preserved by screenshots and internet archives. I've taken it as granted that Linehan has faced multiple occasions of lesser suspensions or lockouts because of his behavior, given that Linehan himself admits as much and this fact does not seem in dispute. I have no interest in chasing down the screenshots and other such things to try to prove this. If this means I lose my skeptic card, so be it.
I'm not going to pull your skeptic card. But as you say, Twitter's own policy makes it very difficult to remove doubts about claims of routine offenses.

Linehan admits to being sanctioned by Twitter more than once. However, without seeing the tweets and comparing them to the policy, we can have doubts that all those sanctions were justified.

It's not your fault that we can't see the tweets. But I would say that it is your fault you tried to say that we shouldn't have any doubts, without being able to see the tweets.

Quote:
We have no idea exactly what conduct or pattern of conduct lead to Linehan's ban, and we're unlikely to ever know. We can only infer based on archived screenshots, Linehan's own comments on the matter, and patterns of previous Twitter TOS enforcement. That's not much for making specific claims.
Which is why I reject your rhetorical question, "Is there any doubt that Glinner wasn't a routine offender?"

Because yes, I do have some doubts, for exactly the reasons you suggest here.

Quote:
I am curious what Twitter means by "platform manipulation" in their ban message. Much has been said about Linehan's anti-trans animus, but not much is available about this element. Does this mean he was using bots, sockpuppets, or leading brigades of trolls? Only Twitter knows for sure.
Exactly. Are they righteous judges or no-talent ass clowns? Who can tell?

Quote:
Debating whether something does or does not violate Twitter's TOS is a waste of effort. Linehan was banned. The ban itself is plain evidence that he did. Twitter's TOS are written such that Twitter is the final judge of what it's TOS say. If Twitter decides that conduct is a violation, no matter how unjust or absurd, then it's a violation.
"Is there any doubt that Linehan was banned by Twitter?" is a truism.

"Is there any doubt that the ban was just and rational?" is a question that can be reasonably answered "yes, I have some doubt".
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2020, 03:24 PM   #299
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 5,235
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
I'm actually asking. What would that change?
I might well change my opinion of whether Twitter was justified in banning him.

The obvious solution here would've been to deny Linehan access to his account (which Twitter did) but not delete his old tweets. That way we'd know how just how awful he was, or not. They could even hide the worst Tweets behind the [click for sensitive info] tag which they use elsewhere on the platform for disturbing images.
__________________
"Well, a statement like that is all the better for proof, but go on, anyway." - Salvor Hardin
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2020, 05:26 PM   #300
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 16,281
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I did not miss the link. Linehan claims that he was not targeting Hayden for misgendering as such, but that he was targeting her for exposure of her actions in the past - a past where she was a man and went by a different name.

Regardless of whether Twitter interprets its anti-deanaming policy broadly enough to also erase history from public discourse, I'd still like to actually see the tweets in question, before deciding for myself if they violate the policy as I understand it.

Also, the question I was answering was SuburbanTurkey's "routine offender?" question:
Linehan didn't have to misgender Hayden to expose her past actions. That he offers a justification for his specific action of intentionally misgendering her is an admission he was doing just that. He thinks it was justified because she's a 'misogynist' to him and that exposing her past was justified because of her past bad behavior. Further his justification for misgendering isn't limited to Hayden. It would be any transwoman he finds 'disrespectful' or 'a misogynist'. If one wanted to be uncharitable, Linehan only promises to call his trans friends 'she'. I guess he has no trans men as friends?

He targeted her for both according to his separate justifications for each action (exposing her past, deadnaming and misgendering).
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.