Stephen Fry criticised for telling self-pitying abuse victims to 'grow up'

[Kronik85]

Deadly allergies != hurt feelings.

Not all peanut allergies are deadly much like not all PTSDs cause "hurt feelings". Nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -

Please, provide a completely comprehensive list of all (yes, redundant, I know) trigger warnings that may be applied to... anything.

Provide me a list of every known allergy? What's the point of this exercise?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Not all peanut allergies are deadly much like not all PTSDs cause "hurt feelings". Nice try though.

- - - Updated - - -



Provide me a list of every known allergy? What's the point of this exercise?

They were asking for every single trigger warning. Not allergies.

[Mistame]

still hott.

Not really. Dudes make pretty ugly women.

You don't understand mental illness, clearly. It's just as serious as any other illness or disability.

I understand enough to know that "mental illness" is a pretty wide and subjective umbrella; One that freaking out over hearing or seeing the word "rape", etc, doesn't even fall under. No one is obligated to coddle the oversensitivity of others.

[Deleted]

But they would be triggered!!!!!!!!! I guess no one should EVER be allowed to talk about something that might trigger someone. Not on the internet, in fiction, not in schools or during therapy sessions. Wouldn't want to annoy/offend someone!

So back to the strawmans then? This idea that SJW are trying to censor everything possibly offensive is just completely fabricated. Trigger warnings are nothing more than a heads up about what content will be in a post, so people can make the choice to avoid it if they choose. What a sad world we live in where taking five seconds to be considerate of others is considered a bad thing.

[Kronik85]

Peanut allergies can kill... reading about something that bothers/offends you will very likely just annoy/offend you.

I'm going to assume the warnings are there for people these issues seriously effect, not people who's get offended. Unless you want to trivialise mental illness down to "hurt feelings".

- - - Updated - - -

They were asking for every single trigger warning. Not allergies.

They asked me to waste ny time on a pointless exercise, I asked them to do the same.

[oplawlz]

You don't understand mental illness, clearly. It's just as serious as any other illness or disability.

And you're trying to take the moral high ground by lumping all mental illnesses in the same category. A mental illness can be just as serious as lung cancer or the common cold. Notice that one will kill you and the other will give you a runny nose. The people crying "triggered" are not the lung cancer crowd, in case you were wondering.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I'm going to assume the warnings are there for people these issues seriously effect, not people who's get offended. Unless you want to trivialise mental illness down to "hurt feelings".

I have a mental illness. And I have a past trauma. I'm just not a huge douche that thinks the world should coddle me for some reason. There is no room for improvement on those issues by demanding people to act different around me. Comparing ridiculous trigger warnings is a ridiculous comparison to a peanut allergy.

[josykay]

To be fair, we got plenty of warnings about graphic depiction of violence, fruity language, sexuality and other shit. Even on small 4 minute videogame clips about the newest HotS-champion. So what exactly is the big deal here about the warning, that some touchy topics are depictured and discussed?

As for Stephen Fry... I disagree to him. His claim, that "Self-pitying" of abuse victims is the worst, the ugliest emotion of man kind is quite exaggerated. True, self-pitying isn't helping properly. but the words he descripes that is imo disgusting, and "grow up" is not quite a viable advice for dealing with PTSD.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

So back to the strawmans then? This idea that SJW are trying to censor everything possibly offensive is just completely fabricated. Trigger warnings are nothing more than a heads up about what content will be in a post, so people can make the choice to avoid it if they choose. What a sad world we live in where taking five seconds to be considerate of others is considered a bad thing.

Not a strawman at all. Literally a few posts ago, you were demanding a 30 second trigger warning before every single GoT episode.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I don't see the problem.

My traumas and my bad experiences are my own, not something I should be imposing on everyone else or try to RESTRICT everyone else over. I don't want pity from anyone at that.

[medievalman1]

I'm going to assume the warnings are there for people these issues seriously effect, not people who's get offended. Unless you want to trivialise mental illness down to "hurt feelings".

- - - Updated - - -



They asked me to waste ny time on a pointless exercise, I asked them to do the same.

That's kinda the point though. Practically, there are limitless allergies. Practically, there are limitless things that "trigger" people. The most common ones are listed on items that are generally consumed. Similarly, with most things in media, there are general warning regarding content, and if one goes looking for specifics, they can generally find more detailed information about content on parental advisory listings.

The point is, if you have an obscure allergy (i.e. lavender oil makes you have an anaphylactic reaction), you don't expect the entire world to bend to your "needs" and always have warnings that "x" contains lavender oil. Just like if you happen to be "triggered" by pictures of clowns riding walruses you don't expect the entire world to bend to your "needs" and warn you about content that contains the aforementioned.

[Deleted]

When I heard this on the news, they told it as 'Stephen Fry tells child abuse victims to 'grow up and get over it'. I thought to myself that there's no way he would say something like that.

And I was right, they've twisted what he said. He isn't telling abuse victims to just 'get over it', he's targeting the ones that make a huge fuss out of everything when the subject comes into place. Like he said, you wouldn't read Shakespeare because of the rape and the murders? Someone call HBO and tell them to cancel Game of Thrones because it makes them sad.

Yes we all know it's a horrible thing to happen to any person, and yes if you watched something and something similar happens in a fictional tv show and it upsets you, we understand. But you can't go around telling people to get rid of things because it makes you upset. That's what he's saying they should get over, because it's happened since humans have existed and it won't ever stop probably, and in any stories used it's portrayed as something terrible and never justifies it happening.

It would be like getting rid of everything that's ever had a murder in it because you know someone who was murdered, it will make you sad when it's represented, but you can't logically expect anyone to ever stop making books or movies or television shows without murders, just avoid those things. Plus most things have warnings of violence or upsetting scenes, if you choose to watch after it's said that then it's up to your discretion to continue if you feel there might be something you won't like.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I don't see the problem.

My traumas and my bad experiences are my own, not something I should be imposing on everyone else or try to RESTRICT everyone else over. I don't want pity from anyone at that.

Amen to this.

[Detritivores]

I don't see the problem.

My traumas and my bad experiences are my own, not something I should be imposing on everyone else or try to RESTRICT everyone else over. I don't want pity from anyone at that.

It hurts my brain that I need to affirm this point of view as an important dissension from normalcy, but I whole-heartedly agree.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That's kinda the point though. Practically, there are limitless allergies. Practically, there are limitless things that "trigger" people. The most common ones are listed on items that are generally consumed. Similarly, with most things in media, there are general warning regarding content, and if one goes looking for specifics, they can generally find more detailed information about content on parental advisory listings.

The point is, if you have an obscure allergy (i.e. lavender oil makes you have an anaphylactic reaction), you don't expect the entire world to bend to your "needs" and always have warnings that "x" contains lavender oil. Just like if you happen to be "triggered" by pictures of clowns riding walruses you don't expect the entire world to bend to your "needs" and warn you about content that contains the aforementioned.

Someone with that allergy should just look up the ingredients to things! Likewise, if you think some movie/show might trigger you... look on IMDB. Shit, they have "parental synopsis" type comments and things so a parent will know if its appropriate. How isn't this good enough?

[medievalman1]

Warning: the following warning may contain unnecessary warnings.

Warning: the following post may contain content that includes: SJW's. Logical fallacies. Haunting references to bird-scaring grain men. Triggers. Sweeping generalizations.

So back to the strawmans then? This idea that SJW are trying to censor everything possibly offensive is just completely fabricated. Trigger warnings are nothing more than a heads up about what content will be in a post, so people can make the choice to avoid it if they choose. What a sad world we live in where taking five seconds to be considerate of others is considered a bad thing.

We apologize for any "triggers" that may have occurred by reading our warnings. The last thing we want anyone to do is be triggered by our attempts to prevent triggering certain triggers in those easily triggered by triggers.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone with that allergy should just look up the ingredients to things! Likewise, if you think some movie/show might trigger you... look on IMDB. Shit, they have "parental synopsis" type comments and things so a parent will know if its appropriate. How isn't this good enough?

Exactly my point. Take fucking responsibility for your own quirks, whatever they may be.

[Deleted]

Not a strawman at all. Literally a few posts ago, you were demanding a 30 second trigger warning before every single GoT episode.

Well firstly no I didn't. You said "so what do you want, trigger warnings before game of thrones episodes!" and in return I asked why that would be a problem? Which by the way you still haven't answered - I've yet to see anyone actually explain why including trigger warnings on controversial material is so inconvenient that people would rather risk giving someone a panic attack than include them.

And secondly, even had I said that..that isn't censorship. Forewarning people of controversial material isn't censorship and indeed it's already legally required all the time parental advisory guidelines. But call it a trigger warning and suddenly it's SJW outrage and censorship and the end of free speech!

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Well firstly no I didn't. You said "so what do you want, trigger warnings before game of thrones episodes!" and in return I asked why that would be a problem? Which by the way you still haven't answered - I've yet to see anyone actually explain why including trigger warnings on controversial material is so inconvenient that people would rather risk giving someone a panic attack than include them.

And secondly, even had I said that..that isn't censorship. Forewarning people of controversial material isn't censorship and indeed it's already legally required all the time parental advisory guidelines. But call it a trigger warning and suddenly it's SJW outrage and censorship and the end of free speech!

I don't think I mentioned "sjws" or "censorship" ...

And yeah, you mentioned the 30 seconds earlier. And yes I answered that already. You in turn called me selfish. And I rebutted with "No, people demanding that would be selfish" ... because they are. You can read up on any possible triggers online already. The warning is there.

[medievalman1]

Warning: post contains the word "bullet".

Well firstly no I didn't. You said "so what do you want, trigger warnings before game of thrones episodes!" and in return I asked why that would be a problem?

And secondly, even had I said that..that isn't censorship. Forewarning people of controversial material isn't censorship and indeed it's already legally required all the time parental advisory guidelines. But call it a trigger warning and suddenly it's SJW outrage and censorship and the end of free speech!

And I've yet to see anyone actually explain why including trigger warnings on controversial material is so inconvenient that people would rather risk giving someone a panic attack than include them.

*Because doing so is unfeasible given the nature of the types of forums you're requesting have trigger warnings.

*Because what's controversial to some may not be controversial to others.

*Because doing what you ask would necessitate a governing body of trigger warning placement.

*Because in many forms of media this is already being done by groups already in place-such as the MPAA.

*Because, again, as has been mentioned over and over and over again, people that are "triggered" need to take responsibility for themselves and a) avoid exposing themselves to their triggers and/or b) learn how to cope (and if learning how to cope isn't possible due to very legitimate mental health reasons, refer themselves to point a).

[A dot Ham]

Nothing wrong with a little tough love.

Especially since it is quite evident that this is really more advice than an insult.