Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LittleMissMay)
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    13
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    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 ********
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (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".
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2016
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.