Graham Linehan on Twitter / Trans debate

[armaghniac]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Perhaps it is you who are full of it.
There is a big difference between having a different opinion and producing falsehoods.

One of the things that present debate confuses are opinions and facts.
People with a willy are not women, that is a fact. People with a willy should be allowed call themsevles women, that is an opinion.

[sid waddell]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

[sid waddell]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Perhaps it is you who are full of it.
There is a big difference between having a different opinion and producing falsehoods.

One of the things that present debate confuses are opinions and facts.
People with a willy are not women, that is a fact. People with a willy should be allowed call themsevles women, that is an opinion.

So if somebody has an opinion that child porn should be legalised, they'll publish, yes?

Why should we listen to you, who clearly has no expertise whatsoever, on the trans issue?

[Main Street]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

[seafoid]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Perhaps it is you who are full of it.
There is a big difference between having a different opinion and producing falsehoods.

One of the things that present debate confuses are opinions and facts.
People with a willy are not women, that is a fact. People with a willy should be allowed call themsevles women, that is an opinion.

So if somebody has an opinion that child porn should be legalised, they'll publish, yes?

Why should we listen to you, who clearly has no expertise whatsoever, on the trans issue?

They are trying to impose their gender belief instead of biological fact on non trans people and struggling.
They need to change something.

[sid waddell]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

[Main Street]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

[sid waddell]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

You and Blair House are telling us that all doesn't mean all.

There is no way around this.

The lesson is - don't unironically write something you don't actually mean.

[Main Street]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

You and Blair House are telling us that all doesn't mean all.

There is no way around this.

The lesson is - don't unironically write something you don't actually mean.

Now you are giving lessons 


All of our clients
All of our clients
All of our clients.
Obviously  Blair Partnership are referring to freedom to express for all of their clients, who they choose to represent.

It takes a coward to extrapolate that "ALL" to mean holocaust denial  and attempting to scuttle a proper debate by inducing Goodwin's law.

[seafoid]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

You and Blair House are telling us that all doesn't mean all.

There is no way around this.

The lesson is - don't unironically write something you don't actually mean.

It obviously means all writers in their stable including the fruitcake trans. crowd.
And they also mention not being reeducated in trans ideology.

[sid waddell]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

You and Blair House are telling us that all doesn't mean all.

There is no way around this.

The lesson is - don't unironically write something you don't actually mean.

Now you are giving lessons 


All of our clients
All of our clients
All of our clients.
Obviously  Blair Partnership are referring to freedom to express for all of their clients, who they choose to represent.

It takes a coward to extrapolate that "ALL" to mean holocaust denial  and attempting to scuttle a proper debate by inducing Goodwin's law.

Incorrect. They said they believed in freedom of speech for all, and linked it to what they were willing to publish.

All means all.

You don't seem to understand the English language - and neither do they - which is quite amusing for a publishing company.

Given this, maybe they shouldn't be in the publishing business.

I haven't a clue what you're on about as regards Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law applies to ludicrous comparisons of people to Nazis - which is all the rage now with insane right-wing culture warriors such as transphobes.

[seafoid]

Freedom of speech can only be upheld if the structural inequalities that hinder equal opportunities for underrepresented groups are challenged and changed. if people agree with us

That was pretty much how Rowling's publisher Blair House perceived the 'rebellion' by the 4 authors.

To reiterate, we (Blair House) believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view.

Presumably they'll be publishing David Irving's next tome of Holocaust denial, then.

Otherwise they're full of shit.

Reactionary Sid on a cherry picking excursion, reduced to using the strawman argument again.

I'm reactionary? 

What straw man? I'm literally quoting their own words back, in context. That's the opposite of a straw man.

They said they believe in "freedom of speech for all".

Now, unless they're open to publishing pro-Nazi propaganda including Holocaust denial or pro-ISIS propaganda or pro-child porn propaganda (maybe the pro-legalisation of child porn Claire Fox of the Brexit party could help them out there) or any number of other abhorrent things, they're full of shit.

Quoting their own word ('all'),  transfer it to another unrelated context, a most extreme context  which you therefore extrapolate that they must support the publishing of holocaust denial crap. You're riding the straw man Sid.

I quoted it completely in context.

There is no other context about "we believe in freedom of speech for all".

And crucially, they clearly linked this statement to what they are willing to publish.

"All" means all.

If all doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean anything, and thus, they are full of shit.

The cherry picking of  "ALL"  and riding the straw man in a straight line to the holocaust / Nazis and proving Goodwin's law inside 2 seconds.
A thoroughly dishonest and weak tactic.

Here is the full quote and do you understand the meaning of the word "reiterate"?

"We support the rights of all our clients to express their thoughts and beliefs, and we believe in freedom of speech. Publishing and the creative arts are dependent on these things.
"It is our duty, as an agency, to support all of our clients in this fundamental freedom and we do not comment on their individual views.

"We are disappointed by the decision that four clients have taken to part ways with the agency. To reiterate, we believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view. We respect their right to pursue what they feel is the correct course of action."

You and Blair House are telling us that all doesn't mean all.

There is no way around this.

The lesson is - don't unironically write something you don't actually mean.

Now you are giving lessons 


All of our clients
All of our clients
All of our clients.
Obviously  Blair Partnership are referring to freedom to express for all of their clients, who they choose to represent.

It takes a coward to extrapolate that "ALL" to mean holocaust denial  and attempting to scuttle a proper debate by inducing Goodwin's law.

Incorrect. They said they believed in freedom of speech for all, and linked it to what they were willing to publish.

All means all.

You don't seem to understand the English language - and neither do they - which is quite amusing for a publishing company.

Given this, maybe they shouldn't be in the publishing business.

I haven't a clue what you're on about as regards Godwin's Law.

Godwin's Law applies to ludicrous comparisons of people to Nazis - which is all the rage now with insane right-wing culture warriors such as transphobes.

Freedom of speech means the right to say what you want
It doesn't mean the right to force people to change how they people.

If trans rights depend on gender being more important than biological sex. trans right aren't going anywhere long term

[Maiden1]

All words are transient in the English language depending on the context.  e.g. 'a person who menstruates' + 'has a womb' + ...  = woman may be true from the perspective of someone who hopes to have a biological child with this person but someone who menstruates being primarily what makes a person a woman is not a relevant definition to someone who owns a woman's shoe shop when a customer comes in to try on a pair of shoes.

Linehan is hiding behind the semantics of what a woman is to hide a general dislike of transgender people.  If he just said transgender people are fruitcakes it would have saved him a lot of tweets and we could all move on.

[bennydorano]

A lot of it gets lost in the white noise and his annoying doggedness on the issue, but he does raise some pertinent points about predators, safe women's spaces and the safety of impressionable / susceptible/confused young people. (And I'm sure some other points).

[armaghniac]

All words are transient in the English language depending on the context.  e.g. 'a person who menstruates' + 'has a womb' + ...  = woman may be true from the perspective of someone who hopes to have a biological child with this person but someone who menstruates being primarily what makes a person a woman is not a relevant definition to someone who owns a woman's shoe shop when a customer comes in to try on a pair of shoes.

This is a useless example, a shop will sell "woman's" shoes to anyone, just as a sports shop will see a GAA jersey to someone that wants to play soccer in it. This only issue here is the customer's willingness to pay.