Talk:Graham Linehan

Latest
I can't be bothered writing this up because it's just too depressing, but the latest is: --Annanoon (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) glinner is campaigning against drag queens being in contact with children
 * 2) JAM Media, which is producing a kids show, Tiara Jones, based on a character that Graham and his wife Helen created, is distancing itself from Glinner
 * 3) James Serafinowicz, the brother of Graham's wife Helen, is retweeting a lot of stuff critical of Graham, and has also stated that Helen's views are not the same as Graham's
 * 4) His followers are tweeting misogynistic abuse at trans-supportive SNP politician Mhairi Black
 * Gasp! Posh white middle class straight women, being misogynistic towards a working class Scottish lesbian??? Who'd have thought. Scribbinus (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankie Boyle
I don't like Frankie Boyle being quoted as a reasonable voice against Linehan. Frankie Boyle used to hurl misogynistic abused at vulnerable women back in the 2000s when it was trendy. Kerry Katona, Amy Winehouse, Katie Price etc, when it was trendy he was happy to jump on that bandwagon, but now it's trendy to be an SJW he gets to jump on that bandwagon? If you are going to quote him, at least mention his disgusting behaviour in brackets around it.
 * if you feel that strongly, feel free to include it. The point is that even ‘edgy’ comedians like Boyle are now criticising Glinner Scribbinus (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Topic
I don't have a strong prior opinion on the topic, but I came to RationalWiki in a search when reading up on Graham Linehan and found the tone of this article really not conducive to understanding the topic because it's so heavily editorialized and coming from a position of assuming the reader already agrees with its editorial slant instead of making a clear argument. The article compares him blocking someone on Twitter to megalomania, when his response was clearly tongue-in-cheek. Why is there speculation about his mental health? Why does the article ask if he "identifies as [a mum]"? Hardly any of this feels like a rationalist take on the topic. 2A00:23C6:3E85:FF00:D945:EB9D:4C72:9450 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you do have a strong opinion tbh. For one, apart from the snark, which is encouraged on this site, I’m not seeing much editorialising. If you think it’s good to harass women and bully people, you’re entitled to your opinion, but most rational people would disagree with you. I’d be happy to remove the megalomania bit, especially because it’s uncited. In terms of his mental health, it is entirely ‘rationalist’ to question whether a man who throws his life and marriage away in order to harass strangers on the internet might be unwell. Additionally, the article is not speculating on his mental health; it is highlighting that many acquaintances and relatives have speculated about Linehan’s mental health - that is neutral reporting and entirely valid. The article jokes about whether he ‘identifies as a mum’ because he regularly mocks trans people, bisexual people and other minorities, and tends to pull the ‘identifies as an attack helicopter’ trope. RationalWiki is not a scientific journal or neutral tome. We employ and enjoy snark. If that’s not for you, fine, but humour is not in itself ‘not rationalist’. Scribbinus (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we have...
the 'insufferable arseholes' category back for this twat, please? (And this one, also.) --Scherben (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"handmaiden"
I am 90% sure that "handmaiden" is not via The Handmaid's Tale - it predates the renewed popularity caused by the show, for one thing. It's just a particularly nasty way of suggesting that pro-trans feminists have no minds of their own. 212.159.106.1 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is nothing but one long smear by somebody who certainly doesn't understand what 'rational' means
There's not the slightest bit of a balance in this article, with the use of several smears, such as 'terf', and some very misleading descriptions of events. Some criticism of Graham Lineham is fair to state, but the article as it stands is nothing other than a hit job.
 * Try a different strategy, please; we get the whole "there's no balance" on various topics including some one-sided issues like holocaust existence, Earth's real shape, vaccine efficacy, climate change existence, Mushroom Kingdom's existence, and the benefits of world peace. We also get "this reads like a hit job" on documenting the likes of Pol Pot and Stalin. TERF is not a smear, it accurately describes a branch of feminists. Trans-exclusionary. Radical for being a small minorty. Feminists. Unless you take issue with excluding trans women from feminism's ideal goals. Don't whitewash the page, though, because changing words to vaguer "critic of" rather than "transphobe" just obfuscates his actual viewpoints which are hateful, disparaging, damaging, and demeaning. 22:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * His substack archive speaks for itself, I think. (And to think this phase of life started with one controversial episode of The IT Crowd!) At any rate, given how "unbalanced" Mr. Lineham has become on this subject, I don't see a problem with the "unbalanced" nature of the article. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Linehan ought to be balanced on his opinion of trans people so we can make a balanced article to appease this bunch of numbers drive by. Hope he takes that advice to heart. The smiles he'll bring to BoN will be all worth that effort. 01:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)