Graham Linehan on the chapter about him in Jon Ronson's new book

[impossibletoday]

Graham Linehan on Jon Ronson's new book

My ex-friend Jon Ronson may be a case study in the corrupting toxicity of trans ideology. An interesting read.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/29278d258cf0921b

Indeed.

The 5th amendment to the US constitution is the only other likely to be known by a Brit. At least the part about not being forced to answer questions that could incriminate you in a criminal case i.e. that is the right to remain silent commonly known as "taking the Fifth"

Wait, is the 1st something to do with freedom of speech?

Right to bear arms is one.of them but not sure which.

It’s the second amendment, which I can remember because you have two arms. The first I remember because you have one mouth (free speech, though there are other freedoms too).

Okay, well done, you’ve condemned him. Do you require the rest of us to do so too?

Yes I’d say the first, second or fifth in my Family Fortunes round!

As I said, the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote in the US. In terms of women’s rights, it is an important landmark - as are similar dates in other countries around the world.

That you seem to believe is it more important to defend Glinner and pretend you don’t know about the above - that is really sad.

I didn’t know what the 19th amendment was. I doubt many people in the uk do, feminist or not. Desperate stuff 😂

And if you encounter something controversial that appears to imply taking away the rights of women, it’s so easy to type ‘What is the 19th Amendment’ in a search browser and there you are.

Voting rights for women.

Because of Renee Good, Glinner supports the abolition of this amendment - ie. the removal of the right to vote for all women in the US, not just liberal women.

Because of Renee Good, Glinner supports the abolition of this amendment - ie. the removal of the right to vote for all women in the US, not just liberal women.

So tweeting something once in jest is strong enough to infer he wants to abolish women’s right to vote?

If you say so 🙄

You actually think he tweeted that in jest? In what context would a post like that be humorous?

The part about actually undoing the 19th amendment was as likely not serious as you think he meant it literally.

It’s a common trope isn’t it. Whenever someone does something perceived as dumb the fact they have a say in society through voting is questioned.

Do you realise how ridiculous and silly you look inferring a person’s committed, entire and final view on voting rights for a section of the population based on one line in one tweet?

And how ridiculous and silly you look because somehow because of that inference you have jumped to, the rest of us are apologists for not jumping to the same inference?

And how ridiculous and silly others look because somehow because of that inference, people who oppose the idea of men being women are now wrong?

Condemn him away on your own inferences, but consider why you think you’ve nailed his view on voting rights for women so vehemently, and consider, just for a moment, that it’s a little bit batshit that you think he genuinely wants to remove them? Seriously?!

@NotBadConsidering

The part about actually undoing the 19th amendment was as likely not serious as you think he meant it literally.
So when he tweeted it, everyone was to understand he didn’t mean it? I’m not buying that.

It’s a common trope isn’t it. Whenever someone does something perceived as dumb the fact they have a say in society through voting is questioned.
This is somewhat different as it was posted at a time when there is a push to repeal the 19th Amendment.

Do you realise how ridiculous and silly you look inferring a person’s committed, entire and final view on voting rights for a section of the population based on one line in one tweet?
Well, he did post it, so it’s not so silly of me to infer anything.

And how ridiculous and silly you look because somehow because of that inference you have jumped to, the rest of us are apologists for not jumping to the same inference?
I do think, for whatever reason, that it’s baffling you’ve rushed to defend someone who is a supporter of ending voting rights for women.

And how ridiculous and silly others look because somehow because of that inference, people who oppose the idea of men being women are now wrong?
This is overreach of the argument here.

Condemn him away on your own inferences, but consider why you think you’ve nailed his view on voting rights for women so vehemently, and consider, just for a moment, that it’s a little bit batshit that you think he genuinely wants to remove them? Seriously?!
The reason I think so is because he tweeted it. He also tweeted a number of questionable things about liberal women about the time Renee Good was murdered (and since). There’s nothing “batshit” about that, thanks. Perhaps you should consider why you are “vehemently” defending such a person.

Graham Linehan is not advocating for the vote to be taken away from women and no amount of nonsense from you will change that. BTW the 19th didn’t give trans women the right to vote, because being men they already had that right.

There have been plenty of of people who have said 'they should never have been given the vote ' , insert any number of they's, because it's a common expression, said out of frustration when a group don't do what you want them to.
Plenty of Lefties have been saying it about the working class for ages. Maybe doing away the 19th is the USA's version, hard to say for sure because the USA is a foreign country and they do things differently over there, and we're not the 51st State.
You've made a mountain out of a molehill, your just flapping your gums now.

Trans women?? How bizarre

Classic whataboutism. This is getting absurd. What tactics will be used next to persuade me Glinner didn’t actually mean it? Such feminists you all are. You are allowed to say he’s wrong, you know. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong all the time, but in this circumstance, he was.

So when he tweeted it, everyone was to understand he didn’t mean it? I’m not buying that.

Well of course you aren’t, you’re in the “Glinner is evil camp because he thinks trans women are men” camp.

This is somewhat different as it was posted at a time when there is a push to repeal the 19th Amendment.

There is no push to repeal the 19th Amendment, this is conspiracy theory nonsense.

Well, he did post it, so it’s not so silly of me to infer anything.

It’s silly of you to infer a ludicrous extrapolation.

I do think, for whatever reason, that it’s baffling you’ve rushed to defend someone who is a supporter of ending voting rights for women.

Because I don’t think he is, silly!

This is overreach of the argument here

It’s really not. That’s the whole point of bringing up that tweet, to tar the opposition to men being women with the same brush. Plus ça change.

The reason I think so is because he tweeted it.

He didn’t even say “I think the 19th amendment should be appealed”!

Perhaps you should consider why you are “vehemently” defending such a person.

I defend the notion that anyone’s one off tweet cannot be taken as evidence of someone’s definitive position on anything, and I defend the notion that anyone who doesn’t immediately condemn him supports whatever his position might actually be and I defend the notion that whatever his definitive position might be it in no way undermines his correct belief that men can’t be women. HTH.

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, your mind is clearly made, I just saying you're talking bollocks.

@NotBadConsidering

I defend the notion that anyone’s one off tweet cannot be taken as evidence of someone’s definitive position on anything, and I defend the notion that anyone who doesn’t immediately condemn him supports whatever his position might actually be and I defend the notion that whatever his definitive position might be it in no way undermines his correct belief that men can’t be women. HTH.

This doesn’t have anything to do with ‘men can’t be women’. That’s an entirely separate issue and one I’m completely supportive of. Does that help you?

Now, the way X works is a retweet is a default endorsement, or ‘like’, of a post whatever views or opinions are contained in that post unless stated otherwise.

After a day or so, Glinner tweeted this:
”Oh I see now what the fuss yesterday was about. Sorry, I missed the bit about repealing the right to vote for women. I better make it clear that I am against such a move!”

So it was NOT in jest, he was serious about all of when it was sent - he just didn’t read it properly. He’s happy with the rest of the vile misogynistic content, but thought he should walk back that part.

And that is who you’re defending.

Someone who apologised and clarified a point?

What a complete bastard, get him to the stocks immediately!

Another one to add to that looooong list of words which don't mean what so many people seem to think they mean.

Like Nazi, ally, safe space, unsafe, genocide, literal violence, literal, transphobia, progressive... It's hard to keep up.

This doesn’t have anything to do with ‘men can’t be women’. That’s an entirely separate issue and one I’m completely supportive of. Does that help you?

Well done. That’s you. But the entire reason anything negative about Linehan exists on this forum is to play the guilt-by-association card. It’s repetitive and tiresome.

After a day or so, Glinner tweeted this:
”Oh I see now what the fuss yesterday was about. Sorry, I missed the bit about repealing the right to vote for women. I better make it clear that I am against such a move!”

So you’ve known all along that he didn’t mean it and it wasn’t what he intended at all? And you’ve been here wanting everyone to condemn him for wanting to remove voting rights for women?!

And you’re making it clear that people, especially Linehan, don’t think things through properly, and their actual position can’t be inferred from one tweet?!

😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

@NotBadConsidering

So you’ve known all along that he didn’t mean it and it wasn’t what he intended at all? And you’ve been here wanting everyone to condemn him for wanting to remove voting rights for women?!
And you’re making it clear that people, especially Linehan, don’t think things through properly, and their actual position can’t be inferred from one tweet?!

Given he’d spent a number of days prior to that moaning about left liberal women like Renee Good - using that unlovely ‘retarded’ word frequently - I think he only sent out that statement because of the backlash he received.

So the point still stands. He meant it, it wasn’t in jest, but he didn’t read it as thoroughly as he should have before it was sent.