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

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    I don't know, that's not how I interpreted it. It seemed pretty clear to me what he was saying.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I don't know, that's not how I interpreted it. It seemed pretty clear to me what he was saying.
    It's clear if you listen to him but not when people who are outraged haven't actually watched the video.

    Content is king, but context is god
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I don't know, that's not how I interpreted it. It seemed pretty clear to me what he was saying.
    This is what I mean though, it can be interpreted by different people to mean different things (most things can, but the offense caused by some of his comments could of been avoided if he phrased what he was trying to say better). I get the basis of what he's trying to say, that people shouldn't ban everything in case it might offend someone. But his comments seem to belittle the traumatic effect of the things that abuse victims go through and the idea of him telling us to 'grow-up' because we're trying to avoid having panic attacks and flashbacks (through the use of trigger warning, appears that he is mocking the movement) is extremely problematic.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    This is what I mean though, it can be interpreted by different people to mean different things (most things can, but the offense caused by some of his comments could of been avoided if he phrased what he was trying to say better). I get the basis of what he's trying to say, that people shouldn't ban everything in case it might offend someone. But his comments seem to belittle the traumatic effect of the things that abuse victims go through and the idea of him telling us to 'grow-up' because we're trying to avoid having panic attacks and flashbacks (through the use of trigger warning, appears that he is mocking the movement) is extremely problematic.
    I didn't see it as him trying to belittle the actual trauma at all.

    More telling people that expect ridiculous catering to them to be met to grow up.

    But really you saying that he could have worded it better so as not to "offend" basically makes one if his points for him. We live in an infantilized world were being offended is a massive issue and should trump free speech and his right to have and voice and opinion. People seem to think now that they have a "right" to not be offended, why do you think this is?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I didn't see it as him trying to belittle the actual trauma at all.

    More telling people that expect ridiculous catering to them to be met to grow up.

    But really you saying that he could have worded it better so as not to "offend" basically makes one if his points for him. We live in an infantilized world were being offended is a massive issue and should trump free speech and his right to have and voice and opinion. People seem to think now that they have a "right" to not be offended, why do you think this is?
    I understand that it wasn't his attention, but that's how his view came across.

    That ideal is problematic, yes everyone is entitled to free speech but if you abuse it and that results in the offending of a group of people then as humans we should have the decency to try to not do that (I understand that you will never be able to appease everyone and no matter what someone will be offended but this isn't about him offending a small minority but instead it appears that he's attacking people suffering from mental issues as a result of abuse - problematic in itself considering he's Minds president). Maybe I'm being too idealistic or unreasonable but that's my view.

    Also it doesn't seem like he's attempting to understand the reasons behind why someone would want/need a trigger warning (nor does the host) which is really my main issue with the interview.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    As somebody who has been through difficulty, I think that a lot is to be gained for abuse victims who become stoic. It is certainly a lot easier to deal with problems when you realise you have no mandate to respond emotionally to what happens around you.

    I think Fry is 100% right, and I also think that feelings are regarded way too strongly in today's society.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    I understand that it wasn't his attention, but that's how his view came across.

    That ideal is problematic, yes everyone is entitled to free speech but if you abuse it and that results in the offending of a group of people then as humans we should have the decency to try to not do that (I understand that you will never be able to appease everyone and no matter what someone will be offended but this isn't about him offending a small minority but instead it appears that he's attacking people suffering from mental issues as a result of abuse - problematic in itself considering he's Minds president). Maybe I'm being too idealistic or unreasonable but that's my view.

    Also it doesn't seem like he's attempting to understand the reasons behind why someone would want/need a trigger warning (nor does the host) which is really my main issue with the interview.


    I just didn't see it that way at all. And I don't understand at all how you think it came across as an attack.

    I think he was too vague in regards to the trigger warnings and what he thought of them. But I think he was spot on with censorship and banning of certain things to appease people from being offended.

    I just don't like this "it offends me so it much go away culture". It's childish and it is regressive. Are there things I don't like to hear about and views I don't like? Yes. But I don't whine about it and cry about being offended. I talk about it like an adult and try to make sense of the whole thing, explain what I don't like and explain my point of view. It's the people (some of which have been present on this thread and on this site) who (regardless of topic, not just abuse) cannot handle hearing or seeing things they don't like or are offended by and so go on a tirade against it I cannot respect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I just didn't see it that way at all. And I don't understand at all how you think it came across as an attack.

    I think he was too vague in regards to the trigger warnings and what he thought of them. But I think he was spot on with censorship and banning of certain things to appease people from being offended.

    I just don't like this "it offends me so it much go away culture". It's childish and it is regressive. Are there things I don't like to hear about and views I don't like? Yes. But I don't whine about it and cry about being offended. I talk about it like an adult and try to make sense of the whole thing, explain what I don't like and explain my point of view. It's the people (some of which have been present on this thread and on this site) who (regardless of topic, not just abuse) cannot handle hearing or seeing things they don't like or are offended by and so go on a tirade against it I cannot respect.
    The reason for it appearing to be an attack is because his argument for us getting over it is too simplistic. It isn't something that we're simply 'offended' by it's something that dictates a lot of the aspects of our lives.

    I am 100% for debates, I live for them. But there are aspects that shouldn't really be up for debates. If something offends someone, no-one on earth can be in the position to say that it hasn't. But like I said before, banning shouldn't even be an option, I get that, that's totally regressive and unfair to others because as Fry said, a lot of great literature does have rape in it or sexual violence or other kinds of violence (I'm sorry if my points seem jumbled, it's late ahaha)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    The reason for it appearing to be an attack is because his argument for us getting over it is too simplistic. It isn't something that we're simply 'offended' by it's something that dictates a lot of the aspects of our lives.

    I am 100% for debates, I live for them. But there are aspects that shouldn't really be up for debates. If something offends someone, no-one on earth can be in the position to say that it hasn't. But like I said before, banning shouldn't even be an option, I get that, that's totally regressive and unfair to others because as Fry said, a lot of great literature does have rape in it or sexual violence or other kinds of violence (I'm sorry if my points seem jumbled, it's late ahaha)
    I think that really depends on what is being talked about and what exactly is being argued against on the abused side. Which this interview didn't go into specific in, the only specific things mentioned in this interview was trigger warnings and censorships.

    I never said something can't or shouldn't offend people. People can be offended all they like, but their offence like I have said numerous times should never come to the point of censorship.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hadn't heard about this, but I disagree with him entirely and this is quite the disgusting statement. I'm a little ashamed really, considering his own experience with mental health issues you'd of thought he'd be more sympathetic towards people who also need emotional help.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    I think that really depends on what is being talked about and what exactly is being argued against on the abused side. Which this interview didn't go into specific in, the only specific things mentioned in this interview was trigger warnings and censorships.

    I never said something can't or shouldn't offend people. People can be offended all they like, but their offence like I have said numerous times should never come to the point of censorship.
    This is what I'm trying to get at, trigger warnings (the way that the interviewer said it & Fry's response made it seem like it was a joke and something entirely unreasonable) help with lessening the effect that our past has on our lives. It diminishes unnecessary panic attacks/flashbacks and doesn't set us back on our road to recovery.

    Okay I agree, censorship and banning isn't something I condone, as I have also said a number of times.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    This is what I'm trying to get at, trigger warnings (the way that the interviewer said it & Fry's response made it seem like it was a joke and something entirely unreasonable) help with lessening the effect that our past has on our lives. It diminishes unnecessary panic attacks/flashbacks and doesn't set us back on our road to recovery.

    Okay I agree, censorship and banning isn't something I condone, as I have also said a number of times.
    Yeah which is why I said he was too vague talking about trigger warnings.

    I know you've said that numerous times, but that was the main point of pretty much all my statements and I think the interview as well. Which is why I am continuing to clarify why I agree with the interview and what he said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Yeah which is why I said he was too vague talking about trigger warnings.

    I know you've said that numerous times, but that was the main point of pretty much all my statements and I think the interview as well. Which is why I am continuing to clarify why I agree with the interview and what he said.
    Yeah and because he was too vague it appears that he's attacking, it was too complex of an issue for him to merely mention in a few minutes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    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.
    It was clear to most logical people what he was talking about so I don't see why he should be responsible for those who have trouble understanding.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    Yeah and because he was too vague it appears that he's attacking, it was too complex of an issue for him to merely mention in a few minutes.
    Agreed, the topic can't be given justice in just those few minutes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jebedee)
    It was clear to most logical people what he was talking about so I don't see why he should be responsible for those who have trouble understanding.
    Except it's obviously not or this thread wouldn't exist, nor would there be a backlash nor would Mind feel the need to talk to Fry about what he said.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    I think his comment in the context he made them are quite valid

    'he had no sympathy for child abuse victims’ “self-pity” if it meant restricting free speech.'

    He's specifically talking about the context of using abuse as a method to close down free speech


    Fry said people who wanted warnings on disturbing texts needed to grow up.

    “There are many great plays which contain rapes, and the word rape now is even considered a rape,” he said. “If you say: ‘you can’t watch this play, you can’t watch Titus Andronicus, or you can’t read it in a Shakespeare class, or you can’t read Macbeth because it’s got children being killed in it, it might trigger something when you were young that upset you once, because uncle touched you in a nasty place’, well I’m sorry.

    It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that your uncle touched you in that nasty place, you get some of my sympathy, but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity.'

    he went on to add

    “Get rid of it, because no one’s going to like you if you feel sorry for yourself. The irony is we’ll feel sorry for you, if you stop feeling sorry for yourself. Just grow up.”

    The irony is that Steven Fry is the most self-pitiying, pseudo-intellectual to disgrace our presence. He is so hypocritical, with the amount of self-pity he harbours over his depression, and bi-polar.

    I imagine he's that type of person who feels that his mental illness is so much worse (and therefore better) than everyone else's. And post- traumatic stress and suffering after childhood abuse is somehow unwarranted, and attention seeking. Who is he to tell people how to cope with severe life trauma? What does he know? Clearly very little. As a president of one of our largest mental health charities, he should most definitely know better.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jkakr)
    This is what I'm trying to get at, trigger warnings (the way that the interviewer said it & Fry's response made it seem like it was a joke and something entirely unreasonable) help with lessening the effect that our past has on our lives. It diminishes unnecessary panic attacks/flashbacks and doesn't set us back on our road to recovery.

    Okay I agree, censorship and banning isn't something I condone, as I have also said a number of times.
    That's exactly it! What people such as jebedee (despite his clearly superior sense of logic) don't seem to grasp, is that child abuse constitutes a severe trauma, with many survivors suffering from post-traumatic stress. And if you suffer from PTS, then a simple trigger may lead your mind to vividly relive the experience, as if it just happened, without you having an ounce of control over the matter. If that doesn't constitute as worthy of mental health attention, then what does? Yet the president of Mind brushed it off in one sweeping comment, diminishing the pro-longed suffering as "self-pity".

    It makes me so sad. People such as Fry, who have had direct experience with mental illness should be the ones to help raise awareness, understanding, and empathy. But unfortunately (and I've experienced people such as this) it leads some to have a sense of superiority over their illness, compared to others.

    And people think he's allowed to get away with such behaviour because he's an "intellectual", therefore anything he says is automatically ascribed respect and value. Not always the case, he can be just as wrong as Joey Essex.
    Online

    21
    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.
    First of all you are being more reasonable than what many activists on this subject are wanting. There are two demands that are frequently made by activists on this subject. The first is the exclusion of anything likely to be a trigger from from any any not wholly voluntary cultural activity. Examples of this are attempts to regulate the contents of university courses in history, literature and law. The second is the right to pre-empt the undertaking of any activity that is in fact a trigger even if it is not likely to be a trigger. What "brings it all back" may be something that is entirely innocent, but for the fact that the place, objects or dialogue are associated with an abuser.

    Secondly there is no rational basis for singling out abuse victims from other sufferers of post-traumatic shock; people connected with wars, other violence, traumatic accidents. Their triggers are likely to have much wider cultural impact. One of the classic triggers for ex-military personnel is sudden and unexpected load noises. Are we going to ban fireworks and shoots because of the risk that someone with shell shock happens to be in their vicinity without warning?

    Thirdly, in the real world most people get over post-traumatic shock if it is not indulged. I don't mean, treated with hot and cold running psychologists, I mean having to get on with life. Literally millions of people in the UK will have suffered post traumatic shock in WWII from personal experience in battle, by being subjected to aid raids or by learning of the death, injury or capture of loved ones. British culture ever since the war has involved literally thousands of films and television programmes about WWII; dramas, comedies and documentaries. For very many years most of the participants in the war were alive. They had to put up with this unrelenting diet. Indeed since they achieved high audience figures, they watched these programmes regardless of what bad memories resulted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    First of all you are being more reasonable than what many activists on this subject are wanting. There are two demands that are frequently made by activists on this subject. The first is the exclusion of anything likely to be a trigger from from any any not wholly voluntary cultural activity. Examples of this are attempts to regulate the contents of university courses in history, literature and law. The second is the right to pre-empt the undertaking of any activity that is in fact a trigger even if it is not likely to be a trigger. What "brings it all back" may be something that is entirely innocent, but for the fact that the place, objects or dialogue are associated with an abuser.

    Secondly there is no rational basis for singling out abuse victims from other sufferers of post-traumatic shock; people connected with wars, other violence, traumatic accidents. Their triggers are likely to have much wider cultural impact. One of the classic triggers for ex-military personnel is sudden and unexpected load noises. Are we going to ban fireworks and shoots because of the risk that someone with shell shock happens to be in their vicinity without warning?

    Thirdly, in the real world most people get over post-traumatic shock if it is not indulged. I don't mean, treated with hot and cold running psychologists, I mean having to get on with life. Literally millions of people in the UK will have suffered post traumatic shock in WWII from personal experience in battle, by being subjected to aid raids or by learning of the death, injury or capture of loved ones. British culture ever since the war has involved literally thousands of films and television programmes about WWII; dramas, comedies and documentaries. For very many years most of the participants in the war were alive. They had to put up with this unrelenting diet. Indeed since they achieved high audience figures, they watched these programmes regardless of what bad memories resulted.
    They aren't the many, they're a few who get the most air time because the demands are ridiculous. I still feel that there should be two options with anything, therefore individuals can chose whether they subject themselves to it or not (Although at degree level I really feel that if people can't handle rape law or violent history they shouldn't be studying it - In England Barristers have to take whatever case comes to them, they can't just ignore a rape case & it's difficult to find time periods where there wasn't any violence going on at all).
    I agree that triggers can be anything, but as a society we should be doing the least we can do to lesson traumatic experiences for people. It should be the person's decision whether to endure it or not, if someone says something could be a trigger no-one should tell them that it won't be.

    I haven't singled them out, I've spoken about them with the trigger warnings but if loud noises cause a number of people distress then maybe there should be warnings - I've never spoken out banning things, I think that's wholly ridiculous, the most simple and decent thing you can do is allow the individual the choice whether they endure through something or not. At the end of the day, they will know what's best for them.

    If individuals after WWII watched something to do with war afterwards, that's because they knew they could handle it (You wouldn't ever go to watch a film or a TV show and unexpectedly ww2 would break out, there would be some indication beforehand). Just limit the damaging exposure an individual could have in the places you can (movies/tv shows/books) and it's all good.
 
 
 
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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.