Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    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?
    I've already made my point about this to someone else. But I'll elaborate, people who create the movies/tv shows/books will know what is going to happen better than anyone else, therefore they should put the warning in. Otherwise, there will always be a point where someone is going in without knowing what is going to happen - not because of lack of research but because there's no-one who has seen it before to ask them or to read about online detailing the plot for them (anything new that has just come out).
    Trigger warning on courses I get the controversy. Perhaps the easiest way to appease people is to have two options, one with the scenes in question and another without (it's not that hard considering most papers concerning books have two options when it comes to exams).
    Law isn't a part that should be censored as teaching rape law protects individuals and it's a necessary part of becoming a lawyer. Although, I think in America you can specialise in an aspect of law so maybe again they should be given the choice earlier on (don't quote me on this, I only know English law with the cab-rank rule and stuff).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    What if a rape is a major spoiler to the story due to the nature of the movie?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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 avoid that particular novel or book. Sounds like a cheaper and an efficient solution. That I can agree on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    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.

    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/films/play/topics ect being published, 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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    Those already exist... so what are you asking for exactly?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Some people are just desperate to be offended.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    You may not be. But some people definitely are.
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    Those already exist... so what are you asking for exactly?
    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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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?
    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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    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.

    Some people are protesting against it in films and TV shows. Like with Game of Thrones and the off screen rape scene people were furious. They knew long before that episode what kind of show that was and the horrible things that happen to the characters and yet they were still calling for the show to be cancelled because. Ridiculous.

    Yeah, I very rarely read articles in news papers and stuff like that any more. Very bias, I go straight to the source.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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?)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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?)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    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?
    That's why I wrote about the little information thing, if there's a trigger warning in the synopsis then I'll turn over and no problem. But I do feel that if you decide to watch something knowing that you won't be pre-warned because you missed it then it's your responsibility for what you see and what occurs because of it. The means for your protection were provided, if you didn't see it because it had already started then that's your prerogative. Am I making sense?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    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.
    They're just radicals and they make the rest of us look really bad. I get you, it does seem people enjoy making ridiculous requests because it brings them attention, they just kinda jump on the band wagon.

    Fry really should of phrased what he was saying better because it's not really clear what he's trying to say nor who he's directing it to. It can come across as both attacking regular abuse survivors who are asking for simple things (& discrediting what they went through) and/or individuals making ridiculous demands.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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