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

[Budong]

As someone who was sexually abused as a child, I agree completely with Fry. Playing the victim is a choice. Being offended is a choice. I choose neither.

I refuse to take the easy way out and blame my problems on events in the past. I refuse to allow past trauma to dictate the actions of my life.

I refuse to be a victim. I am the master of my self.

[Bapestar]

Is this the same guy, that deleted his twitter because his feelings were hurt?

[Ahovv]

The title of this is a bit of click-bait as it doesn't paint an accurate picture. I completely agree with him on these matters, though.

[abel86silhouette]

This reminds me why people including celebrities spend too much time online

[Deleted]

Guardian comment section is often filled with utter shite. She most likely missed the point of what he was saying, though it is possible she got it, didn't like it, brings out the victim card. I think Fry could have made his point a little better, and probably gave more room than is needed to his critics to attack it.

I feel safe spaces have a place- I have been on courses where we would be covering some harrowing stuff and they were always prefaced with a small warning, and people were told that if they needed a time out if some of the content gets too upsetting then they can take one. And on one, I have to admit, I felt like I could use it, we were covering something that had personal significance to me, something I thought I could deal with, but I ended up really struggling, I didn't take the time out, but came close to it.

However, I would never demand content gets changed- I cannot move the world to accommodate my problems. To expect such is infantile. And if you feel that content on an academic course needs to be played with to fit your sensitivities, you probably shouldn't be on the course.

His skin colour or sex has nothing to do with anything. His status means more people will listen, so what? The author didn't actually tackle the point he was making, and goes straight for the privilege. Fair enough in disagreeing, but argue why. And if you disagree with a person because you don't like their skin colour, or class, then this isn't a strong platform. And to then shoot down the core of your argument, "no one would listen to him if he was poor", talking about platforms etc, whilst writing for a massive publication that will be seen by a significant number. What is boils down to is "he has a platform, so should use it to say things that I agree with".

I also loved this part
She doesn't seem to get how rights work.

guardian comments section is not as bad as dailymail and besides all newspapers tend to twist storys around and blow them way out of proportion