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

Again this is irrelevant to the point he was making.

I guess it technically is. But he shouldn't be climbing any high horse over the issue.

He should stop making big dramatic shows of quiting twitter and just ignore them.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 61

toronto353

19

Original post by Howard

Pompous, arrogant, self-absorbed, ass of a man.

Glad I'm not the only one who sees him this way. He's smug, arrogant, and thoroughly odious and completely ill-equipped to deal with criticism, hence his twitter storm-outs when people criticise him.

Reply 62

Howard

5

Original post by apronedsamurai

I don't feel superior at all.

You are aware, Steven Fry has subsequently redacted his comments?

Then stop using silly words like redacted. It's not even the right word.

Reply 63

Howard

5

Original post by toronto353

Glad I'm not the only one who sees him this way. He's smug, arrogant, and thoroughly odious and completely ill-equipped to deal with criticism, hence his twitter storm-outs when people criticise him.

I think more and more people now see him this way. I think his glory days are well over - he's got nothing new to say.

Reply 64

HyggeMinimalist

3

Original post by Howard

In other words, just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should.

Yes, that's what I meant, but someone pointed out my logical contradiction, saying that free speech means I can say virtually anything because I can, including lies.

I suppose I should rephrase it to mean that free speech, while good in most cases, shouldn't always be practiced.

Reply 65

LittleMissMay

2

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

I guess it technically is. But he shouldn't be climbing any high horse over the issue.

He should stop making big dramatic shows of quiting twitter and just ignore them.

Ok...?
Again his personality is not applicable to the reasoning behind tough love.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 66

Howard

5

Original post by Heartweaver

Yes, that's what I meant, but someone pointed out my logical contradiction, saying that free speech means I can say virtually anything because I can, including lies.

I suppose I should rephrase it to mean that free speech, while good in most cases, shouldn't always be practiced.

Indeed. Remember never to shout "bomb" on a US flight. It's not covered by First Amendment rights.

Reply 67

acupofgreentea

14

I think some of you could be a little more sensitive considering the subject matter, to be honest. :erm:

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

x

Yeah, I disregarded the fact it was Stephen Fry who had made the point and the manner in which he put it forward. It was for the best.

Reply 68

BWV1007

14

He REALLY should've phrased the whole thing better. Out of context it just sounds like he's telling abuse victims to just get over it.

Reply 69

HyggeMinimalist

3

Original post by Howard

Indeed. Remember never to shout "bomb" on a US flight. It's not covered by First Amendment rights.

Indeed. Also, you shouldn't shout "fleg" in Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons.

Reply 70

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by acupofgreentea

Yeah, I disregarded the fact it was Stephen Fry who had made the point and the manner in which he put it forward. It was for the best.

Well is he wants to belittle people having self pity he shouldn't expect to be exempt from it himself.

Reply 71

LostInPanda

3

He raised some good arguments in the interview, but I can't take them seriously because I couldn't get over what he said about abuse survivors. Making light of abuse isn't okay, and reducing it to "uncle touched you in a nasty place" is demeaning and unfair to those who have suffered it.
Yes, he may be allowed to say that because Free-Speech and so on, but that doesn't mean he should have said in his position of authority and power. Free speech means you can't be prosecuted, it doesn't mean you should be a **** to people.

Trigger warnings are different to censoring, too, I think they're more like allergy labels - if you see a peanut allergy sign, and your allergic to labels, you won't eat it. If you see a trigger warning about abuse and that triggers you, you won't watch that show or read that book and won't get offended/upset.

Reply 72

username944192

21

He is disgusting. Who the hell is he to tell abuse victims how they should or shouldn't react to things? It's none of his business? Pompous ********

Reply 73

QE2

20

Original post by BWV1007

REALLY, abuse victims, get over it.

I know. People REALLY should be responsible for the way 3rd parties misrepresent their words.
Don't you think?

Reply 74

BWV1007

14

Original post by QE2

I know. People REALLY should be responsible for the way 3rd parties misrepresent their words.
Don't you think?

Have you watched the interview? The way he phrased it sounded wrong, especially at the end when he said "grow up".

Reply 75

QE2

20

Original post by BWV1007

Have you watched the interview? The way he phrased it sounded wrong, especially at the end when he said "grow up".

Only if you didn't really pay attention to the stuff before that.

Reply 76

BeastOfSyracuse

1

Frankly, Fry gives off something of a paedo vibe. The contempt for abuse victims, the fact his boyfriend looks about 12. It's not a good look

You don't need to call abuse victims "self pitying" to make a point about defending free speech. I think his comments spoke to his underlying mentality towards these people

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 77

Jkakr

Original post by LittleMissMay

Ok...?
Again his personality is not applicable to the reasoning behind tough love.

Okay but the principle of 'tough love' in regards to abuse is problematic and detrimental. You can't force someone to endure something that is going to be traumatic because that's what you believe to be best for them. They know whats best and if that's having a trigger warning then people should just accept it.

Reply 78

Jebedee

17

Original post by Jkakr

Okay but the principle of 'tough love' in regards to abuse is problematic and detrimental. You can't force someone to endure something that is going to be traumatic because that's what you believe to be best for them. They know whats best and if that's having a trigger warning then people should just accept it.

Ok, I have a relative who suffered a beating and commit suicide. So can I now demand that all media bearing any reference to assault or suicide no matter how vague be wiped out from the public domain? After all, unless you have experienced the same you can't comment on my level of outrage and the justification of these actions are dependent on my level of outrage.

Refusing to remove all of these forms of media would be "problematic" after all. No?

Reply 79

Jkakr

Original post by Jebedee

Ok, I have a relative who suffered a beating and commit suicide. So can I now demand that all media bearing any reference to assault or suicide no matter how vague be wiped out from the public domain? After all, unless you have experienced the same you can't comment on my level of outrage and the justification of these actions are dependent on my level of outrage.

Refusing to remove all of these forms of media would be "problematic" after all. No?

If you had read the entire thread you would realise that I have been a victim of abuse for many years. You've twisted my words and not understood what I was saying at all. I'm not asking for a ban or for it to be wiped out from media but instead asking for a trigger warning, which isn't that much effort at all considering they put a warning in front of anything that may trigger an epileptic - it's the same idea.
Also, to point out, even if i had experienced the same, I still wouldn't be able to comment on your level of outrage as things effect different people in different ways. Just because something has effected someone one way doesn't mean it'll effect others the same. A trigger warning should fit for all, as it'll be the individuals choice whether they endure it or not.