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

[Celista]

What do you want me to imply (sure you meant infer, but i'll let it slide)? You're trying to establish some link between him dating someone 30 years younger and wallowing in self-pity maybe stemming from abuse. You literally don't have a point, because that isn't the case. Continue to flail spastically to try and find something about his personal life to attack instead of his argument if you want, but I'm not gonna read it or reply to you again. You were wrong, you need to learn to read, the end.

I have no idea as to the personal history of Stephen Fry. But based on his penchant for younger men and his apathetic attitude towards sexual abuse, I can make some inferences. Sure they could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, have a nice day.

[Underverse]

Free Speech is the right to be able to offend
Anti Free Speech is wanting the right not to be offended

This doesn't really make sense. People already have the right not to be offended.

I think what you mean is that anti free speech is the desire to enforce change in others instead of change in yourself.

[Felya]

Looks more like 40. 30 years is super crazy, what the hell? Were you banging 50 year olds when you were 20?

They are not banging, but are in a committed relationship. The only issue I'd have with dating someone 30 years older than me, is that they are going to leave me 30 years before my time to go. That's tragic, not crazy...

[Celista]

Severe trauma is used as a literary tool to, usually, incite some sort of antipathic emotion in the beholder. If it triggers someone, it's doing its job. Arguably, it can sometimes do its job too well to the point where a beholder might be reduced to tears. But I do agree that this hypersensitivity, present in so few individuals, is not something that all of society should cater to - simply because there are other ways around it. Namely, and as mentioned in the OP, that hypersensitive individuals can desensitize themselves to the triggering event.

Psychological theory and practice indicates that avoidance of anxiety triggers tends to perpetuate anxiety rather than alleviate it, it's one of the reasons why exposure therapy is so successful.

[Underverse]

I have no idea as to the personal history of Stephen Fry. But based on his penchant for younger men and his apathetic attitude towards sexual abuse, I can make some inferences. Sure they could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, have a nice day.

You can make all of the inferences you want, but that doesn't mean any of them are valid/true/reasonable. All I see you doing here is making baseless, biased claims while in a position of low information.

To comment on your inferences, it's plausible that Fry's apathy here is in large part a result of judgements coming from people like you.

[Celista]

They are not banging, but are in a committed relationship. The only issue I'd have with dating someone 30 years older than me, is that they are going to leave me 30 years before my time to go. That's tragic, not crazy...

It doesn't matter, the age difference is the same. I used to be more understanding of large age differences but now as I am a bit older, I can see how exploitative those relationships can be on the part of the older individual. Even if the younger individual doesn't realize it or feels that way.

[Steve French]

Sure. The most relevant part of my post had really nothing to do with who he is married to at all.

- - - Updated - - -


No, not sure why you would imply that from my post.

OP wasn't clear with the way he snipped the article as to the latter half of his quoted post.

You seem to be the only one confused.

[Celista]

You can make all of the inferences you want, but that doesn't mean any of them are valid/true/reasonable. All I see you doing here is making baseless, biased claims while in a position of low information.

To comment on your inferences, it's plausible that Fry's apathy here is in large part a result of judgements coming from people like you.

You have no evidence to the contrary, either. What are you trying to do, defend his honor? He's a public figure.

[Vyxn]

This doesn't really make sense. People already have the right not to be offended.

I think what you mean is that anti free speech is the desire to enforce change in others instead of change in yourself.

no you don't not in a country that has true freedom of speech. you don't have the right not to be offended, but I have the right to offend you

[Celista]

To comment on your inferences, it's plausible that Fry's apathy here is in large part a result of judgements coming from people like you.

Lol. Explain to me how he would be apathetic towards abuse because people were judging him due to his 30 year age gap with his husband.

[zealo]

Free Speech is the right to be able to offend
Anti Free Speech is wanting the right not to be offended

Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking your mind, that in itself isn't about shielding you from other consequences that may come from doing so.

If you want to offend people, be prepared for them responding to you.

[Steve French]

I have no idea as to the personal history of Stephen Fry. But based on his penchant for younger men and his apathetic attitude towards sexual abuse, I can make some inferences. Sure they could be wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, have a nice day.

He doesn't have an "apathetic attitude" towards sexual abuse, he simply stated that people who are so offended by talk about the subject that they tried to have it all censored need to grow up.

[Trassk]

The complaints, well perhaps understandable for some, it really just comes down to the fact he wasn't wrong.
Anyone going through an ordeal will have had some heavy emotional and psychological shit to deal with, and from what Fry was saying, he knows this and isn't downplaying what victims went through.
However, those who come on social media, and complain and rage about something they saw on tv or online being something that 'triggered' them (f**king hell that modern term is ridiculous), even those who were a victim of it, if they are 'triggered', then turn over, or click off.

I showed the story to my mum, and she agreed with Fry, saying it would be like if they had a program or article about mothers losing their children to cancer, which she went though, losing her son at 12 years old to cancer. Yet she strengthened herself and now lives a happy life, despite going though that misery. And, as she told me, she doesn't get 'triggered' if a news report, tv program or something online shows a story about parents losing their child, she feels remorse seeing it, because mum loves children, but she doesn't rage on social media about "YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS HERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO MY IDEAL WORLD".

This is what these people Fry was talking about were doing, and just because you go though a tragic event, doesn't mean the world has to suddenly conform to your ideology so you won't be 'triggered'.

[Vyxn]

Free speech is the right to not be arrested for speaking your mind, that in itself isn't about shielding you from other consequences that may come from doing so.

If you want to offend people, be prepared for them responding to you.

you are correct rights go both ways if my speech offends someone they have the right to offend back
but attempting to silence what offends you is anti free speech

[Underverse]

You have no evidence to the contrary, either. What are you trying to do, defend his honor? He's a public figure.

I think there's a saying, innocent until proven guilty? I mean, we can throw inferences and accusations around all we want, but until something substantial emerges it's really just rumormongering of the basest kind.

I don't care about his honor. And I don't particularly like him as a person either. I just think it's silly to make the inferences you're making, and contributes to a detrimental societal groupthink.

- - - Updated - - -

no you don't not in a country that has true freedom of speech. you don't have the right not to be offended, but I have the right to offend you

I can choose whether to be offended or not. So yeah, I do have that right.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol. Explain to me how he would be apathetic towards abuse because people were judging him due to his 30 year age gap with his husband.

People judge him without basis using preconceived notions of relationship dynamics. He responds by attacking the preconceived notions. Granted, he may have gone a step further than he should have, but he's not necessarily wrong.

[Kronik85]

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.

No you're a huge douche that thinks just because your coping everyone else should be coping too. Yet you call my comment ridiculous? Get over yourself.

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.

So why do trigger warnings have to be more specific? You don't have to put everything on the label, just what's relevant and common amongst those that are likely to be effected.

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.

Where does this narrative come from that mental health and sexual abuse is really niche? Is anyone advocating trigger warning for clowns riding walruses? If you slippery slope everything it's easy to make it all sound ridiculous.

[Lynneiah]

How about maybe we make mental healthcare affordable and available to everyone, and how about we get rid of the taboos so often associated with mental health first, and THEN we mock and ridicule the people who need it? Might be more productive that way. Just a thought.

Also, people who honestly believe content notices are censorship have no idea what they're talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Free Speech is the right to be able to offend

So let me get this straight. You honestly want the right to be a massive asshole? Because you're a massive asshole right now and you're not getting arrested for it, so go you I guess.

Infracted

[Wells]

Well it really was a rather shitty thing to say.

[zealo]

you are correct rights go both ways if my speech offends someone they have the right to offend back
but attempting to silence what offends you is anti free speech

I wasn't really talking about them "offending you back", though. Point was more in the line of that it isn't a breach of free speech if someone or a group of people self censors themselves, or if you get banned from an establishment because of behaviour, or removed from an internet website because of what you say.

It isn't a right to force others to provide you a soapbox if they don't like what's being said.

[Katie N]

its not no, the mental health service leaves a lot to be desired for.

I like to think of it as people go in sane with minor issues and come out crazy and popping whatever medication their doctor has a hard on for.

Are you more well today than then?