Stephen Fry - abuse victims should "grow up" - opinions?

It's not hard to find out what is going to happen in tv programmes before they actually come out and it is the same with movies and books if you are worried don't watch it and ask someone who has if it has occurred.

What after the trigger warnings on courses? Let people pass without knowing the information? People at Harvard wanted them to stop teaching rape law, what next don't teach student doctors how to deal with a heart attack?

Except I am being honest and you're making this into a bigger issue than it really needs to be. The type of warnings I'm looking for exist in most movies and shows. Just all of them that include disturbing scenes and it's all good.
I don't expect others to do 'the heavy lifting', someone who spent months making a movie or show is going to understand what's in it better than I am, so therefore, two seconds of their time to recall whether or not there are disturbing scenes (murder, rape, sexual assault or abuse) really isn't that much considering the time they have already put into the project - and it's not really selfish is it, considering movies/tv shows/books are made for people to enjoy, which we wouldn't if we were subjected to things that would result in a negative emotional reaction.

A guy like him?

Why should backlash matter?

Should celebrities not have opinions then? Why should they not be able to voice them?

Did you watch the actual interview? He didn't mean it in that way at all, those words were taken completely out of context in this thread. He wasn't talking about them needing to grow up in terms of getting over their abuse. He was saying people who want to have topics and books and movies ect that contain things such as rape and violence in them banned or censored need to grow up.

I see no problem in that statement. I think people who want that need to grow up as well.

The interview was specifically about free speech and he was using an example, hardly "blurting" out.

Wait... who said he wasn't allowed to have an opinion? Did I say that or infer that? If I did, I'm sorry you got the impression. This is news to me about "Stephen Fry shouldn't have an opinion". There is a difference between having an opinion and voicing your opinion. We on the same page on that, right?

To be honest, I never watched the interview. I was only responding to the question.

If people don't want to watch a movie or read a novel with rape or violence then they should read or watch that particular novel or book. Sounds like a cheaper and an efficient solution.

What if a rape is a major spoiler to the story due to the nature of the movie?

A warning that says 'scenes of sexual violence, viewer discretion is advised' would suffice, no telling of where it will occur, with whom or how important it is to the storyline. Therefore, the viewers have been adequately informed and as you have suggested, they can do their own research from there to decide whether or not they are comfortable with continuing.
We're really not demanding that the world must bend to our every need, just trying to make sure we're not subjected to disturbing things. We're not trying to be selfish or self-absorbed. What we're asking is pretty basic.

A warning that says 'scenes of sexual violence, viewer discretion is advised' would suffice, no telling of where it will occur, with whom or how important it is to the storyline. Therefore, the viewers have been adequately informed and as you have suggested, they can do their own research from there to decide whether or not they are comfortable with continuing.
We're really not demanding that the world must bend to our every need, just trying to make sure we're not subjected to disturbing things. We're not trying to be selfish or self-absorbed. What we're asking is pretty basic.

You may not be. But some people definitely are.

I meant more in them being able to voice their opinions, I thought that was clear by my follow up sentence. But apparently not.

Lol, never just respond to the thread title alone, they're almost always taken out of context and don't have enough information for you to make a real judgement. Makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about (and rightly in this case) because without context you don't have a clue.

I would agree with the OP if Fry had literally just said "people who have been abused need to grow up" but that was not at all what he said and that was not at all what the interview topic was about.

Yes I agree with that. And that is what he i pretty much arguing for. But there are people out there who are rallying for censorship,and protesting against certain books being publishes, made available or in the curriculum because they contain things that "offend" them, and some of these people are using abuse as a reason for censorship and their need to be shielded. That is who he saying needs to grow up, and I agree with him.

Those already exist... so what are you asking for exactly?

And those people aren't limited to this issue, they exist in every aspect of society. They undermine us just asking to be treated with respect, it's pretty easy to tell when a demand is completely unreasonable but I really don't feel that a trigger warning falls under that category.

Not in everything, when you go to the movies they're there, sure. But not with a lot of TV shows or books, or movies that you download at home (even just having a little tagline in the information part - the synopsis? I'm not sure what it's called, I hope you know what I mean). Having them in each of these isn't completely unreasonable, surely?

Sometimes I do do my "research" and sometimes I don't. In this situation, I did not do my "homework" so I just took whatever at face value. This is an perfect example.

I wonder why more people are not protesting the portrayal of murder, "violent sex", explosions and guns in tv shows, hmm. I guess that would make action/drama tv shows they like dull. But novels? Of course. I barely hear any parent or adult complain about censoring TV shows.

I did read his quotes and people did take what he said out of context and made it very bias.

I know, but this is pretty topic specific to this thread.

I think trigger warnings in general are okay. Though it's obviously something (like with all things) that can be abused and expected too much off. Like people expecting trigger warnings before they enter public conversations, or trigger warnings for songs before they come on the radio because they contain racial slurs or describe violence and so on. And then there is the issue of what should be a trigger warning? Who decides what is and isn't eligible for a trigger warning? Just how many trigger labels are we going to put onto things?

I see nothing wrong with the current way we do things such as saying "graphic science" or "sexual violence scenes" and to be advised. But people are "triggered" by a hell of a lot of things, and sometimes they don't fall into these broad categories. And some of these people are calling for ridiculous measures to be taken that just aren't feasible.

Yeah I totally get you in that respect, people are always going to abuse aspects and are going to demand more than reasonable. But I feel like censoring public conversations is a little far-fetched even for those people (there's no way of knowing where a conversation will go and therefore way too hard to warn about ya know?). I'm glad you brought up songs because I forgot about them, that's a wider issue because even singing about sex in a violence free way is controversial (people engaging in lots of consensual acts, way wider issue on the basis of morality in society). It sounds idealistic, but I feel like there should be a debate (with psychologists) on what the guidelines should be for a trigger warning and what is eligible for it and what is just ridiculous.
If there are general labels, 'sexual violence' 'physical violence' (maybe warning about eating disorders if it calls for it) I feel like that covers the majority of what people would be weary about - and then petitions for additional labels can be made. It's not a perfect solution but it's something idk.
Banning entire books and movies or subjects from a syllabus or society itself is definitely not something we should consider as it limits freedom of speech which is not what I'm aiming for (unless a book details how to get away with rape or something idk?)

What if you turn the channel on and a tv show started 5 minutes previously. I take it under these circumstances you would not watch anything if you couldn't see your trigger warning first?

Yeah those things are far fetched, and thankfully the people who want those things are in the minority. But the amount of people who come out and get offended and start demanding things seems to be rising for things like this. I don't know, I don't have any data at hand but it just seems to be a general shift in the public and from what I have seen.

But yeah, I think the main trouble with trigger warnings is you cannot satisfy everyone.

Personally, I feel like they're still the minority but because their demands are so outrageous they're heard more than the reasonable people because they make better news.
Yeah but so long as the majority are suited for and perhaps there's a panel for people to speak their grievances to then it should be okay? Idk

Yeah I know, I agree they're still the minority. But it seems they're growing in number. I don't know if that is actually true, but it certainly seems that way.

But I think the minority are also the people who are being talked about by Fry.