19 ms·

Stephen Fry hits out at ‘infantile’ culture of trigger words and safe spaces

282 points by metafunctor 11y ago

neurobuddha 11y ago
If there are words that "trigger" someone, it's a clear indication that inner work must be done (i.e. meditation, therapy). Unfortunately, it seems many people are unwilling to do that. Instead, they want the world to accommodate their pain, which only makes it worse. That said, I believe trigger warnings are essential because even when the inner work is being done, healing takes time. Even a lifetime. We need to be cognizant and empathetic of this.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  A lot of people that are triggered (aka have PTSD) already have had it; for truly traumatized people, e.g. war veterans andsoforth, no amount of therapy will cure PTSD. It's more of a thing someone has to learn to live with.
- yoodenvranx 11y ago
  > I believe trigger warnings are essential I kind of agree but there is a practical problem... I know several persons who were killed in motorcycle accidents. Their relatives still grieve years and decades after the events. Should every article or TV show contain a trigger warning "This movie contains action involving motorcycles"? I know a couple whose young daughter drowned in a swimming pool. They haven't recovered from this a decade later and they are quite sensitive when it comes to swimming and swimming pools. Should every movie and book have a trigger warning in front "Warning, somebody drowns in this movie"? I know a couple who divorced and she is still crushed by this and she hates when somebody talks about mariage and get anxiety attacks. Should every movie contain a message "Warning, this movie contains at least one wedding"? The house of a close friend of mine burned down and because of this she has severe anxiety about big and open fires. Should every movie contain a warning about fires? Is it save to talk about pregnancy? There are tons of people who had several miscarriages or they are physically unable to even get pregnant. Can I talk about my (almost) perfect childhood? There are more than enough kids who grew up in toxic and abusive environments. The point is that people get scared and scarred by literally everything. It's not just rape, violence and war but also dogs, alcohol, shouting, snakes, loud music, ... Almost everything justifies a trigger warning for some people so the question is: What is worthy of a trigger warning and what is not?
Starsgen 11y ago
Ayn Rand reminds me of this. It's everything I learned in kindergarten. What it means to be selfish, why its good, etc. It's infantile. Most go on to First Grade, where they learn to share and the benefits of sharing with others. You learn, you grow. If you hide or act like this, it just seems like a lack of education to me.
rodgerd 11y ago
Pretty funny coming from a guy who flounced off twitter because he didn't like what people were saying to him. I guess for Fry, who has devoted whole books worth of self-pitying screeds to how tough his life is due to his problems with mental illness, offense is something he should be allowed to give without limit, but something he should never be expected to accept.
- NietTim 11y ago
  There's a distinct difference between receiving multiple hundreds of nasty comments each day vs being 'triggered' by something random you read on the internet, in my opinion.
- golergka 11y ago
  No, it's completely reasonable — he didn't like what he was told and he left Twitter himself, instead of trying to turn it into a "safe space".
  - anon1385 11y ago
    Many of the situations Fry is complaining about were actually people doing the exact same thing. e.g. just not showing up to a debate or lecture by a person that they don't want to engage with. When a random student decides not to attend a debate with a national celebrity it's labeled as "no platforming" (in the words of Peter Tatchell) and condemned in the national media. When Fry chooses not to engage with people (which he is perfectly free to do) his critics have no such platform to publicly moan about him. So there very much seems to be a double standard here. If you are an older feminist or gay rights campaigner or celebrity you can take advantage of a platform in the national newspapers to complain about the activities of students. If you are a student all you can do is not attend, but even doing that can get your name dragged through the mud in newspapers because people like Julie Bindel, Germain Greer and Peter Tatchell are given a huge platform by newspapers.
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      Are you mis-attributing the use of 'no platforming; to Peter Tatchell? I don't believe he actually said that, and it was rather a media invention. Generally it's been quite clear that this was not an official policy, so it can't really count as no-platforming. (It may be unrelated, but I'd point out that refusing to share a stage with one of the world's foremost gay rights activists is a preposterous decision in this case, and I'm glad it was roundly ridiculed. Even if it's not 'no-platforming' as such, it's still a bad position to take, and stinks of the general idea that debate is too much work.)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wturner 11y ago
Every generation takes what the previous generation set in motion and expounds on it. This is obvious when looking at things like extreme sports and technology. The irony is that the "infantile" behavior he is complaining about is just the cultural neoteny of the last generation being adopted by the next and extended a bit. There is a trend on shows like Dave Rubins to blame liberals for this. I think it has nothing to do with political affiliation and is just a side effect of modernity. Just complaining about trigger warnings shows a lack of priority and is a bit infantile. There is global warming and nukes to worry about. :/ see....irony.
- ljk 11y ago
  imo it's basically kids starting at a young age getting told how special of a snowflake they are and always getting what they want.... and once they grow up they still want to have their ways
  - NietTim 11y ago
    And because of that, a serious lack of personal accountability and introspection and having the feeling that they are not the issue here
  - otaviokzuk 11y ago
    I believe the core of the problem is as you described. But then there's a lot of political gain being made on top of it. Universities are at risk of seeing their education throughput diminished.
    - ljk 11y ago
      funny you mentioned that - http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article71134462.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article7113446...
    - alex_hitchins 11y ago
      I wonder what the best way to tackle it is? At some point surely these folks will have to accept the real world around them that everyone else lives in.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
There's an interesting link in the story to something out of the university I attended (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-o...) that I think sums these issues up: According to the association’s rules, student council meetings should be held in a “safe space environment”…This includes “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement”, or “in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made”.* That's just utterly baffling to me. I don't understand how any form of real debate can be had when participants are subject to being excluded for actions like, say, shaking their head in disagreement. This entire issue seems to reek of a desire to stifle debate under the weight of bureaucracy, to save having to consider complex issues. Naturally, this will involve the kind of selective enforcement of rules that is such a hallmark of corrupt legal systems worldwide. I like to think that there will be enough rebellion against this from inside student bodies that we'll reach a more sensible compromise, but who knows?
- DanBC 11y ago
  It's taken a potentially useful mechanism ("be polite; be collaborative; be collegiate") and reduced it to an absurd characature. I'm pleased that 33 people voted in her favour, but it's scary that 18 people voted against her.
  - neerdowell 11y ago
    I wonder how many of the 18 also disagree with her views on Israel (and how many of the 33, in the interests of curiosity).
- vidarh 11y ago
  Imagine if these rules had been in place in Parliament. Everyone would end up being thrown out...
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Worth noting that parliament is quite strict about some language - Dennis Skinner got into trouble yesterday for referring to Cameron as "dodgy".
fsloth 11y ago
What. Universities stifling free speech? Please educate a person fairly clueless of daily issues in UK and USA - is this really happening at a scale?
- DanBC 11y ago
  Yes, it's becoming pretty common in UK universities. Luckily there's some push back to prevent it, and that push back is coming from both sides. There are people who want to protect freedom of speech[1], and there are people who want to explain what "trigger" actually means - it's not a means to avoid anything, it's a tool to help the very small number of people who need it to be prepared to confront challenging situations. Most university situations would never need trigger warnings. It's frustrating that this stigmatising disempowering bit of ignorance has taken such a strong hold over some communities. [1] and it's useful to have people like Fry (who is gay and has a severe and enduring mental illness) and Tatchell (also gay and has campaigned for years for LGBT rights) on that side of the argument
- kristofferR 11y ago
  Yes, unfortunately. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12022041/How-political-correctness-rules-in-Americas-student-safe-spaces.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...
  - fsloth 11y ago
    "...student had asked a colleague not to use the word 'violate’ – as in ''does this conduct violate the law'' – because the term might trigger distress”. Oh lordy. For a moment there I thought I was reading an issue of The Onion.
    - JorgeGT 11y ago
      "It is thus demonstrated that the perpetual motion machine of the first kind [redacted] the First Law of Thermodynamics..."
beaker52 11y ago
This problem of 'triggering' and 'safe places' has been something I've recently become acutely aware of. It seems to have strong ties with the 'Social Justice Warrior' and I can't help but feel it is detrimental to a liberal and free, loving and open society, despite trying to champion it. I call it oversensitivity, Fry calls it infantile. I don't disagree with him. It's a childlike lack of acceptance of the world, followed by an attempt to shape the world into something they are content with, displaying childlike reactions when the world doesn't heed to their demands. Unfortunately this behaviour supported by a community of people who also behave the same way, or at least, feeling a moral sentiment behind the actions of the other, support them believing their actions are noble. If you pretend rape, race, homosexuality, transgenderism etc don't exist by not allowing these words to be spoken, or acts and circumstances to be portrayed, you create the environment for these facts of life to rot in the mind of society. It's healthy for us to talk in society, just as it's healthy for individuals to talk about their issues - it's unhealthy to pretend they don't exist.
- makomk 11y ago
  Quite. For example, recently a student's union refused to let Julie Bindel speak there because of her successful campaign to deny trans women access to rape and domestic violence services. How childish! Instead, they should have let the proposed debate about whether her evil opponents who just wanted to censor her for no reason were representative of feminism as a whole or not go ahead. Of course, the press didn't bother to mention these details, just like they never covered the very special exemption added to UK anti-discrimination law to allow this and how exactly it got there, but obviously it's the students who are pretending these issues don't exist. (This was, incidentally, one of the highest profile instances of UK students' supposed infantalisation and refusal to accept the real world exists.)
  - lucozade 11y ago
    Disagreeing with her isn't infantile. Opposing her isn't infantile. It may even not be infantile to prevent her from speaking. YMMV. But, as you point out, the effect is that those who would have heard her are now relying on mainstream media for an interpretation of her views. All of a sudden she is a victim and a champion of the repressed. So maybe not infantile but, at the very least, naive.
yason 11y ago
A very spot-on claim. Your exposure to this largely depends on the circles you (have to) socialize with but you can observe little bits of it everywhere. I would guess individuals would tend to avoid this kind of behavioural control and thus see less of it if they have a choice, so it's not necessarily regarded as a problem in the general public. There's a loud crowd of proponents for this kind of behaviour and that is working its way into the fabric of the society behind the curtains. Moreover, the example linked to in the article¹ is sickening and feels outright revulsive. That is the very slippery slope of all slippery slopes: you are left to wonder what indeed could possibly come next? ¹) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-o...
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  But the only difference between this kind of thing and the manipulation and framing of debate by the press - including the Telegraph - is the level of journalistic sophistication used to shape the argument. It's interesting the debate was about "anti-semitism", because so far as I can tell that has become a code the UK press uses for anyone who thinks that Israel may not necessarily have the moral high ground in its dealings with the Palestinians. The nonsense about safe spaces and whatever is reprehensible, but it's actually less reprehensible than one-sided public debates where right-wing politicians are given space to attack anyone who thinks politicians should make their tax returns public for "immature populism", but attacking a left-leaning leader for the way he eats a bacon sandwich is mature and responsible journalism. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband-labour-mail-telegraph-election http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband... The point being that politics always seems to be a nasty business full of nasty people being nasty to each other, and everyone else they can get away with being nasty to. Maybe student politics is a symptom of that, not a cause.
  - 7952 11y ago
    > attacking a left-leaning leader for the way he eats a bacon sandwich is mature and responsible journalism. I have always wondered if that line of attack was actually anti-semetic (Milliband's dad was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish). The UK is a place where people are mostly too insensitive to notice actual prejudice. Bad behaviour is so competely pathalogical and institutional that no one really believes it exists beyond fringe weirdos.
simula67 11y ago
> [ American Civil War was the ] most bloody Civil War in human history From Wikipedia : American Civil War : Total 705,000–900,000 + dead Chinese Civil War : 1.5 million + 250,000
- Grue3 11y ago
  There was even a worse one in this very century: Second Congo War (1998-2003). Estimated 5.4 million deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
- metafunctor 11y ago
  Yes, I raised an eyebrow as well when I heard this. The Russian Civil War also had millions of casualties.
  - m82labs 11y ago
    Maybe as a percentage of total population it would be true?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Not even close. The An Lushan rebellion killed several percent of the entire world's population.
      - JBReefer 11y ago
        To be clear, it may have killed as many as 1/6 of the human population [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll
  - jimcsharp 11y ago
    Maybe they just smothered each other.
    - 11y ago
askyourmother 11y ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is forested with flowering gardens from people who purposely stifle and opress others, to present a single biased viewpoint, in the name of "safe space". I think personally tatchell and fry have been too generous and provide too much benefit of the doubt against the people who stifle open and full dialogue in the sinister name of trigger word or safe space.
th667223 11y ago
Safe spaces should be handled the same way as religion. If you provide safe space, you should provide it for EVERY trigger. That would practically eliminate it. A few examples: Many of my relatives died because of marxism. My grandfather was in jail, because he was capitalist and employed 5 people. I can not be around people who approve any form of class warfare or class privilege. And I find cultural marxism triggering! My ancestors were slaves. In fact even word "slavery" is named after "slavic" people. By using that word, you are condoning slavic people to be slaves and that is TRIGGERING ME!
- imaginenore 11y ago
  Except they won't care about your triggers. SJWs / feminists have very specific agendas, and anything that gets in their way is immediately labeled as racist / misogynist, and they accuse you of hating women, they try to get yoi fired, etc. I went through that.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  But they're not triggers because you're not actually triggered by them, as opposed to a person who was raped not appreciating rape jokes because it makes their PTSD real bad. As much as I disapprove of the caricatureizing of the concept of not being a rude person and the extreme positions that are being taken by the students, I feel it's still important to recognize they are young adults navigating these heavy concepts of balancing censorship and unacceptable behavior that deserves derision such as shouting slurs at people. Being condescending and dismissive of the entire concept just comes off as a rather extreme reaction to young people being what they've always been and exploring the society's boundaries that they live in and seeing what negatives they can change in their own circles. Once they actually get out of university I'm sure it'll be fine, as every generation has been one way or another.
  - th667223 11y ago
    But you dont see into my head and can not say if I have a PTSD or not. It is like saying what form of suffering is worse, or what religion is right. Anyway I believe that it is already covered well. There is anti harassment law. And treating rape victim badly is fast way to loose friends. We are not talking about tiny fraction of people, but majority of population has some skeleton in the closet. Stats says that up to 25% women are rape victims, should all of them get a safe space? Also does this cover men? Prison rape jokes are quite popular on mainstream TV. And it is still socially acceptable to say that 12 year old boy "got lucky" with older lady. And how about war veterans with PTSD?
golemotron 11y ago
There's a lot to unpack in this phenomenon. The most interesting question is - why now? I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. I don't want to appeal to gender stereotypes but I remember seeing some research that indicated that while boys in a playground situation were more physically aggressive and directly confrontational during disagreements with each other, girls tended to have higher incidence of shunning and social exclusion - emotional/relational aggression. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see safe spaces / micro-aggressions as a strategy to shut down unpleasant situations (ideas) rather than confronting them as ideas. These strategies are essentially forms of shunning and avoidance. Regardless of how one feels about the veracity of these gender stereotypes and how they apply to the sexes, the strategies are real and they are a significant difference from what we've historically had as cultural values in the US and UK: "we're all strong enough for dissent, it's about more than our feelings."
- tgb 11y ago
  > The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. Citation? World Bank disagrees with you but has only data going back to 1996 (then: 86% female, now: 87% female). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS/countries/1W-US?display=default http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS/countr... You know who has the highest percentages of teachers being female? Eastern Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and that region. Just for a point of comparison.
  - golemotron 11y ago
    You have to go back further: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mor...
    - 11y ago
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
There are a few interesting statistics that may or may not be relevant. I'll try to make a case that they are. First, we live in one of the safest times in human history. The number of wars is at an all-time low. Second, over the last couple of decades, a couple of billion people have seen their standard of living rise due to trade and commerce. Third, the internet and social media is isolating people much more than they ever have been. Growing up in the upper-middle-class in the U.S., if your people don't like what some other people are saying? They're basically invisible. Finally, colleges have lost their way. What used to be about preparing folks for a career is now a club for making friends of the right type. They used to be responsible to parents and society. Now in many cases they are direct service organizations for kids seeking a "college experience" You put all of this together and you create a bunch of 18-year-olds that can be as closed-minded as many 80-year-olds. After all, they've never really had their beliefs challenged. And why should they start now? There's a re-factoring of higher education that has to happen regardless of this particular issue, and it can happen none-too-soon. But parents of teenage kids should feel responsible too. It's your job as a parent not only to teach values, but to let your child explore new ideas and learn to defend their opinions using logic and civility. If you're 10 and refuse to talk because your feelings are hurt, that's one thing. But if you're 18? You missed something really important somewhere in your upbringing. ADD: I am reminded that of one of the last big pushes for civic education and critical thinking was in the 1950s. This is when the famous "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S. (If you don't know why this is important, consider yourself lucky.) During the Korean War, when the communists captured soldiers, many times they didn't torture them. Instead, they "educated" them. It suddenly occurred to a lot of people that if you're 18 and can't articulate why your opinions are important -- and defend them -- then you're vulnerable to just about any new idea that comes along. That's the real travesty here. When I hear about kids not wanting to hear ugly or challenging ideas, my first thought is how totally vulnerable these folks are to just a little bit of indoctrination. To be that way and attending a major university? It's a travesty. If this is the quality of their experience, they shouldn't worry about repaying their loan. The colleges should be refunding the money back to the lenders.
rmc 11y ago
A lot of instances of "no platforming" is just someone refusing to participate in an event if someone else is present (usually because the person doesn't like the other, or their politics). Everyone has a right to not take part in an event if they don't want to. It's not a threat to free speech if someone has conditions on their attendence. I'll bet Stephen Fry has conditions on whether he attends events (perhaps around money or expenses). If he won't turn up to my house in another country on his own expenses, is he trying to shut down debates? No. Get over it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  A lot of instances of "no platforming" is just someone refusing to participate in an event if someone else is present This implies that some other instances are not, but then you dismiss them all as if they all were just refusals, which makes your post seem self-contradictory.
rmc 11y ago
"NSFW" is a trigger word. Should we ban that?
- iofj 11y ago
  There's plenty of votes to do exactly that. On the right, well we all know why On the left, because it overwhelmingly victimizes women (some truth to that, of course, there's some truth to the rightist argument as well)
dimitar 11y ago
Does this culture of trigger words and safe spaces really exist out of the Internet? Is it an US/UK thing? I've never encountered it in my life.
- ebbv 11y ago
  No, not really. This is a case of right wing white males finding some phony thing to get upset about and battle against. Exactly what they accuse "SJWs" of doing.
  - Grue3 11y ago
    Stephen Fry is right wing now? Things sure have changed.
    - ebbv 11y ago
      On this issue he is. People outside of TV pundits usually aren't just one place on the spectrum on all issues. On some issues someone might be progressive while being totally regressive on another.
      - bpchaps 11y ago
        It's almost as if opinions are complicated things! :D Stephen Fry and I share similar mental health issues (bipolar), and one of the things that comes with this awful disease is that "triggers" exist for us in unexpected and uncontrollable situations. It's often easy to say "just get over it" and "deal with it", but it's not that simple. It's entirely possible, and trust me, it happens, that a disagreement can cause a week long depressive state. That said, we deal with it because we have no other choice. If we required others to censor themselves, we'd eventually turn into little imps who never see sun light.
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    More like extreme left. But, someone described the political left and right as a horseshoe-shape instead of linear opposites; that is, extreme-left goes #KillAllMen, extreme-right goes #BuildThatWall.
nihonde 11y ago
To characterize this as "the regressive left" is really dead-on. My view is that this is inevitable in a culture where no real progress is made on big problems—attention naturally turns to ever-smaller slights, and those begin to carry the weight of the big, unsolved problems. The next step is nihilism and reactionary tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised if the counterparts of today's "regressive left" in 20 years are brown-shirt fascists. As Eric Hoffer has said, these kind of people don't hold real convictions beyond an unquenchable lust for redemption for what they perceive as the injustice of the empty, ruined landscape of themselves.
return0 11y ago
I think safe spaces are good. They keep people in their cages.
pigpaws 11y ago
To me, its all about 'control'. Despite what the article says, the UK does NOT have 'free speech' (see 'hate speech' laws). In fact, the only place it does exist is the US - aside from the 'yelling fire' example. So in the US, I am free to call anyone any name I so choose. the control aspect comes where a group of people are looking to be offended, if not by language, then by something else more innocuous (i.e. dreadlocks, etc...). It is a butt-hurt-culture that feeds on itself. If one of their own says something not in-line with the party, they turn on that person - and this in turn keeps people in line. the EXACT opposite of liberty. The ONE group where its okay to willfully attack is the "straight, white male". (lets see how that statement is received). People don't want equality, they want to feel like a special snowflake who is above everyone else. Just don't dare to say or think anything that's outside the 'party line'. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it..." ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall "... unless you say something i don't agree with, then you're a racist, bigoted monster and must be destroyed." ~ every SJW ever.
- JoachimS 11y ago
  "Despite what the article says, the UK does NOT have 'free speech' (see 'hate speech' laws). In fact, the only place it does exist is the US" You mean like how the FCC bans some words on Telly?
  - pigpaws 11y ago
    I mean the fact that if you call someone on the street an ethnic slur, you will be arrested (in the UK/EU).
- petercooper 11y ago
  In fact, the only place it does exist is the US - aside from the 'yelling fire' example. Or threats, obscenity, defamation, government employees during official duties, or on matters of national security.
  - pigpaws 11y ago
    Nope. threats are one thing, national security is classified, and covered under other laws. the "Obscenity" you cite is more art/visual, and not verbal. verbal obscenity is covered as part of free speech/freedom of expression. Defamation has be brought against you by the 'offended' - NOT the gov't. What does gov't employees during official business have to do with anything? feel free to scream at cops all you want, just stay out of their way... screaming in a session of congress warrants a trespassing charge, not a knock on the 1st.
return0 11y ago
I wouldn't care about the mainstream's willingness to self-censor if it hadn't spilled over to the academia. There is now a range of studies that are verbotten. Also seems to be an american issue. Please don't export that one :)
retube 11y ago
What I want to know is where are the University leaders in all this? the board of guverners or exec committee or whoever who should speak up and tell these pathetic, entitled little shits to grow the fuck up and learn to deal with people with different opinions.
Kenji 11y ago
Oh, by the way, I can highly recommend the channel RubinReport on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport ) He has lots of good stuff and that interview with Fry there seemed to be a bit rushed, normally Rubin is calmer and more prepared.
gopz 11y ago
The internet greatly magnifies the perceived prevelance of this "infantile culture". I think most people do not see this effect hardly at all in day to day life, but love to get enraged about it online. It's a fad that's going to blow over when enough people get tired of being upset/vindicated by it, not some crazy Orwellian scenario.
Avshalom 11y ago
I'mma just leave what eevee said the first time Fry got all offended about people being offended >I love Stephen Fry, really I do, but this oft-repeated quote is bullshit and he is perfectly demonstrating why that is. What he’s really saying is this: everyone else’s feelings don’t matter, but his do, because he frames them as universal rules of discourse rather than feelings. https://eev.ee/blog/2016/02/15/everyones-offended-these-days/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/02/15/everyones-offended-these-days...
arca_vorago 11y ago
I remember a speech Christopher Hitchens gave a few times about this, and I generally agree with him. Suggested reading for all: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-... The real point is that saying "I'm offended" doesn't give anyone the right to shut up anyone else. We have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. The recent move in the US to push hate speech laws is an egregious attack on our foundational principles of free speech in my opinion.
michaelbuddy 11y ago
A recent discussion about this between Sam Harris and Johnathan Haipt is a good piece about this. Haipt is a professor and he talks about why now. I'm seeing the perfect storm of coddling and often enabling leftist faculty and administration, expensive universities, helicopter parents all comes into play.
- dalke 11y ago
  There is no perfect storm. Those complaining about the helicopter parenting of today forgot that their grandparents complained about how "kids these days" expect things given to them on a silver platter. The phrase changed, which makes it seem like the concept is new. But it isn't. When this came up before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404752 ) I found quotes like a 1960 PTA magazine: > 'I've known a lot of kids who were treated like little heroes. Afterward, they expected everything to be handed them on a silver platter— and it wasn't. They couldn't adjust.' "Beyond any doubt, the boys in Williamsport last week were treated as ... A Boys' Life article from July 1937: > We want to teach them not just to sit back and expect things to be handed to them on a silver platter but with confidence, based on their training, to go out and get what they want. We need to stiffen a moral flabbiness that has been affecting our youth. Life Magazine, March 29, 1949: > We have reared a bunch of weaklings in our young marrieds of today. Too much has been handed to them on a silver platter without their having had to work for it, and they lack the intestinal fortitude to meet life as a challenge. Nor is there some recent spurt of left-wing faculty. I think faculty is more centrist than, say, the 1960s. I'll cherry pick https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics as the first page which agreed with me ("Professors lean left, but major new study of faculty views finds more centrism and less radicalism than critics of academe see -- with growing moderation among young academics.") YMMV.
Overtonwindow 11y ago
Forgive me if this has already been said, but I think the entire issue of safe spaces, micro aggressions, trigger words, privilege, and so worth, is about one thing: POWER. I believe those involved believe they have been historically, and continually, victimized, by the system, citing whatever majority they wish to define as their oppressors. All of the political correctness, and hostility towards free speech and expression, is a way for those groups to exert power over their "oppressors", and give them a feeling that they are in control. It's all about power. This is not to say that their concerns are unjustified, but the method in which they seek justice lies more in power and retribution than healing and cooperation towards a better society.
dosgonlogs 11y ago
Stephen Fry is a childish buffoon. How are we taking anything he says seriously? Most public discourse happens online, and I see the opposite of Political Correctness taking the forefront, and Racism and Nationalism on the rise. The people who cry "stupid SJW!" or "go to your Safe Space you liberal cuck" are the same people who cannot handle a shred of criticism about Institutionalized racism, or the rise of fascism in modern society. I am pro free speech, people should police themselves before they use profanity or insults, I rather they identify themselves than hide in the shadows. I am a white male, since that bit of information may matter to someone (considering the context of the conversation), and when I speak out about institutionalized racism people say "You're pathetic, you're such a cuck wallowing in your white guilt, kindly stfu". Or if I defend Muslim war refugees or Muslim Migrants, I'm told "You stupid cuck, you just want your girl to get raped by those terrorists, they are going to take over, and impose Shakira(sic) law" (not to mention the rape mob thing ended up being incorrect, still parroted daily on reddit as fact).
DanBC 11y ago
Stephen Fry is president of a UK mental health charity - Mind. They've released a statement about some of his comments. http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/statement-on-stephen-frys-comments/#.Vw011tQrK03 http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/statement-on-step...
joesmo 11y ago
Yet another case of mistaking language for reality. When you think about it, hasn't that been the culprit in humanity's folly for so many thousands of years? Derrida is probably upset somewhere ...

282 points by metafunctor 11y ago

If there are words that "trigger" someone, it's a clear indication that inner work must be done (i.e. meditation, therapy). Unfortunately, it seems many people are unwilling to do that. Instead, they want the world to accommodate their pain, which only makes it worse. That said, I believe trigger warnings are essential because even when the inner work is being done, healing takes time. Even a lifetime. We need to be cognizant and empathetic of this.

Cthulhu_ 11y ago
A lot of people that are triggered (aka have PTSD) already have had it; for truly traumatized people, e.g. war veterans andsoforth, no amount of therapy will cure PTSD. It's more of a thing someone has to learn to live with.
yoodenvranx 11y ago
> I believe trigger warnings are essential I kind of agree but there is a practical problem... I know several persons who were killed in motorcycle accidents. Their relatives still grieve years and decades after the events. Should every article or TV show contain a trigger warning "This movie contains action involving motorcycles"? I know a couple whose young daughter drowned in a swimming pool. They haven't recovered from this a decade later and they are quite sensitive when it comes to swimming and swimming pools. Should every movie and book have a trigger warning in front "Warning, somebody drowns in this movie"? I know a couple who divorced and she is still crushed by this and she hates when somebody talks about mariage and get anxiety attacks. Should every movie contain a message "Warning, this movie contains at least one wedding"? The house of a close friend of mine burned down and because of this she has severe anxiety about big and open fires. Should every movie contain a warning about fires? Is it save to talk about pregnancy? There are tons of people who had several miscarriages or they are physically unable to even get pregnant. Can I talk about my (almost) perfect childhood? There are more than enough kids who grew up in toxic and abusive environments. The point is that people get scared and scarred by literally everything. It's not just rape, violence and war but also dogs, alcohol, shouting, snakes, loud music, ... Almost everything justifies a trigger warning for some people so the question is: What is worthy of a trigger warning and what is not?

Starsgen 11y ago

Ayn Rand reminds me of this. It's everything I learned in kindergarten. What it means to be selfish, why its good, etc. It's infantile. Most go on to First Grade, where they learn to share and the benefits of sharing with others. You learn, you grow. If you hide or act like this, it just seems like a lack of education to me.

rodgerd 11y ago

Pretty funny coming from a guy who flounced off twitter because he didn't like what people were saying to him. I guess for Fry, who has devoted whole books worth of self-pitying screeds to how tough his life is due to his problems with mental illness, offense is something he should be allowed to give without limit, but something he should never be expected to accept.

NietTim 11y ago
There's a distinct difference between receiving multiple hundreds of nasty comments each day vs being 'triggered' by something random you read on the internet, in my opinion.
golergka 11y ago
No, it's completely reasonable — he didn't like what he was told and he left Twitter himself, instead of trying to turn it into a "safe space".
- anon1385 11y ago
  Many of the situations Fry is complaining about were actually people doing the exact same thing. e.g. just not showing up to a debate or lecture by a person that they don't want to engage with. When a random student decides not to attend a debate with a national celebrity it's labeled as "no platforming" (in the words of Peter Tatchell) and condemned in the national media. When Fry chooses not to engage with people (which he is perfectly free to do) his critics have no such platform to publicly moan about him. So there very much seems to be a double standard here. If you are an older feminist or gay rights campaigner or celebrity you can take advantage of a platform in the national newspapers to complain about the activities of students. If you are a student all you can do is not attend, but even doing that can get your name dragged through the mud in newspapers because people like Julie Bindel, Germain Greer and Peter Tatchell are given a huge platform by newspapers.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    Are you mis-attributing the use of 'no platforming; to Peter Tatchell? I don't believe he actually said that, and it was rather a media invention. Generally it's been quite clear that this was not an official policy, so it can't really count as no-platforming. (It may be unrelated, but I'd point out that refusing to share a stage with one of the world's foremost gay rights activists is a preposterous decision in this case, and I'm glad it was roundly ridiculed. Even if it's not 'no-platforming' as such, it's still a bad position to take, and stinks of the general idea that debate is too much work.)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

wturner 11y ago

Every generation takes what the previous generation set in motion and expounds on it. This is obvious when looking at things like extreme sports and technology. The irony is that the "infantile" behavior he is complaining about is just the cultural neoteny of the last generation being adopted by the next and extended a bit. There is a trend on shows like Dave Rubins to blame liberals for this. I think it has nothing to do with political affiliation and is just a side effect of modernity. Just complaining about trigger warnings shows a lack of priority and is a bit infantile. There is global warming and nukes to worry about. :/ see....irony.

ljk 11y ago
imo it's basically kids starting at a young age getting told how special of a snowflake they are and always getting what they want.... and once they grow up they still want to have their ways
- NietTim 11y ago
  And because of that, a serious lack of personal accountability and introspection and having the feeling that they are not the issue here
- otaviokzuk 11y ago
  I believe the core of the problem is as you described. But then there's a lot of political gain being made on top of it. Universities are at risk of seeing their education throughput diminished.
  - ljk 11y ago
    funny you mentioned that - http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article71134462.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article7113446...
  - alex_hitchins 11y ago
    I wonder what the best way to tackle it is? At some point surely these folks will have to accept the real world around them that everyone else lives in.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

There's an interesting link in the story to something out of the university I attended (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-o...) that I think sums these issues up: According to the association’s rules, student council meetings should be held in a “safe space environment”…This includes “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement”, or “in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made”.* That's just utterly baffling to me. I don't understand how any form of real debate can be had when participants are subject to being excluded for actions like, say, shaking their head in disagreement. This entire issue seems to reek of a desire to stifle debate under the weight of bureaucracy, to save having to consider complex issues. Naturally, this will involve the kind of selective enforcement of rules that is such a hallmark of corrupt legal systems worldwide. I like to think that there will be enough rebellion against this from inside student bodies that we'll reach a more sensible compromise, but who knows?

DanBC 11y ago
It's taken a potentially useful mechanism ("be polite; be collaborative; be collegiate") and reduced it to an absurd characature. I'm pleased that 33 people voted in her favour, but it's scary that 18 people voted against her.
- neerdowell 11y ago
  I wonder how many of the 18 also disagree with her views on Israel (and how many of the 33, in the interests of curiosity).
vidarh 11y ago
Imagine if these rules had been in place in Parliament. Everyone would end up being thrown out...
- arethuza 11y ago
  Worth noting that parliament is quite strict about some language - Dennis Skinner got into trouble yesterday for referring to Cameron as "dodgy".

fsloth 11y ago

What. Universities stifling free speech? Please educate a person fairly clueless of daily issues in UK and USA - is this really happening at a scale?

DanBC 11y ago
Yes, it's becoming pretty common in UK universities. Luckily there's some push back to prevent it, and that push back is coming from both sides. There are people who want to protect freedom of speech[1], and there are people who want to explain what "trigger" actually means - it's not a means to avoid anything, it's a tool to help the very small number of people who need it to be prepared to confront challenging situations. Most university situations would never need trigger warnings. It's frustrating that this stigmatising disempowering bit of ignorance has taken such a strong hold over some communities. [1] and it's useful to have people like Fry (who is gay and has a severe and enduring mental illness) and Tatchell (also gay and has campaigned for years for LGBT rights) on that side of the argument
kristofferR 11y ago
Yes, unfortunately. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12022041/How-political-correctness-rules-in-Americas-student-safe-spaces.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-camp...
- fsloth 11y ago
  "...student had asked a colleague not to use the word 'violate’ – as in ''does this conduct violate the law'' – because the term might trigger distress”. Oh lordy. For a moment there I thought I was reading an issue of The Onion.
  - JorgeGT 11y ago
    "It is thus demonstrated that the perpetual motion machine of the first kind [redacted] the First Law of Thermodynamics..."

beaker52 11y ago

This problem of 'triggering' and 'safe places' has been something I've recently become acutely aware of. It seems to have strong ties with the 'Social Justice Warrior' and I can't help but feel it is detrimental to a liberal and free, loving and open society, despite trying to champion it. I call it oversensitivity, Fry calls it infantile. I don't disagree with him. It's a childlike lack of acceptance of the world, followed by an attempt to shape the world into something they are content with, displaying childlike reactions when the world doesn't heed to their demands. Unfortunately this behaviour supported by a community of people who also behave the same way, or at least, feeling a moral sentiment behind the actions of the other, support them believing their actions are noble. If you pretend rape, race, homosexuality, transgenderism etc don't exist by not allowing these words to be spoken, or acts and circumstances to be portrayed, you create the environment for these facts of life to rot in the mind of society. It's healthy for us to talk in society, just as it's healthy for individuals to talk about their issues - it's unhealthy to pretend they don't exist.

makomk 11y ago
Quite. For example, recently a student's union refused to let Julie Bindel speak there because of her successful campaign to deny trans women access to rape and domestic violence services. How childish! Instead, they should have let the proposed debate about whether her evil opponents who just wanted to censor her for no reason were representative of feminism as a whole or not go ahead. Of course, the press didn't bother to mention these details, just like they never covered the very special exemption added to UK anti-discrimination law to allow this and how exactly it got there, but obviously it's the students who are pretending these issues don't exist. (This was, incidentally, one of the highest profile instances of UK students' supposed infantalisation and refusal to accept the real world exists.)
- lucozade 11y ago
  Disagreeing with her isn't infantile. Opposing her isn't infantile. It may even not be infantile to prevent her from speaking. YMMV. But, as you point out, the effect is that those who would have heard her are now relying on mainstream media for an interpretation of her views. All of a sudden she is a victim and a champion of the repressed. So maybe not infantile but, at the very least, naive.

yason 11y ago

A very spot-on claim. Your exposure to this largely depends on the circles you (have to) socialize with but you can observe little bits of it everywhere. I would guess individuals would tend to avoid this kind of behavioural control and thus see less of it if they have a choice, so it's not necessarily regarded as a problem in the general public. There's a loud crowd of proponents for this kind of behaviour and that is working its way into the fabric of the society behind the curtains. Moreover, the example linked to in the article¹ is sickening and feels outright revulsive. That is the very slippery slope of all slippery slopes: you are left to wonder what indeed could possibly come next? ¹) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-o...

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
But the only difference between this kind of thing and the manipulation and framing of debate by the press - including the Telegraph - is the level of journalistic sophistication used to shape the argument. It's interesting the debate was about "anti-semitism", because so far as I can tell that has become a code the UK press uses for anyone who thinks that Israel may not necessarily have the moral high ground in its dealings with the Palestinians. The nonsense about safe spaces and whatever is reprehensible, but it's actually less reprehensible than one-sided public debates where right-wing politicians are given space to attack anyone who thinks politicians should make their tax returns public for "immature populism", but attacking a left-leaning leader for the way he eats a bacon sandwich is mature and responsible journalism. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband-labour-mail-telegraph-election http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband... The point being that politics always seems to be a nasty business full of nasty people being nasty to each other, and everyone else they can get away with being nasty to. Maybe student politics is a symptom of that, not a cause.
- 7952 11y ago
  > attacking a left-leaning leader for the way he eats a bacon sandwich is mature and responsible journalism. I have always wondered if that line of attack was actually anti-semetic (Milliband's dad was a Belgian-born Polish Jewish). The UK is a place where people are mostly too insensitive to notice actual prejudice. Bad behaviour is so competely pathalogical and institutional that no one really believes it exists beyond fringe weirdos.

simula67 11y ago

> [ American Civil War was the ] most bloody Civil War in human history From Wikipedia : American Civil War : Total 705,000–900,000 + dead Chinese Civil War : 1.5 million + 250,000

Grue3 11y ago
There was even a worse one in this very century: Second Congo War (1998-2003). Estimated 5.4 million deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
metafunctor 11y ago
Yes, I raised an eyebrow as well when I heard this. The Russian Civil War also had millions of casualties.
- m82labs 11y ago
  Maybe as a percentage of total population it would be true?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Not even close. The An Lushan rebellion killed several percent of the entire world's population.
    - JBReefer 11y ago
      To be clear, it may have killed as many as 1/6 of the human population [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll
- jimcsharp 11y ago
  Maybe they just smothered each other.
  - 11y ago

askyourmother 11y ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but it is forested with flowering gardens from people who purposely stifle and opress others, to present a single biased viewpoint, in the name of "safe space". I think personally tatchell and fry have been too generous and provide too much benefit of the doubt against the people who stifle open and full dialogue in the sinister name of trigger word or safe space.

th667223 11y ago

Safe spaces should be handled the same way as religion. If you provide safe space, you should provide it for EVERY trigger. That would practically eliminate it. A few examples: Many of my relatives died because of marxism. My grandfather was in jail, because he was capitalist and employed 5 people. I can not be around people who approve any form of class warfare or class privilege. And I find cultural marxism triggering! My ancestors were slaves. In fact even word "slavery" is named after "slavic" people. By using that word, you are condoning slavic people to be slaves and that is TRIGGERING ME!

imaginenore 11y ago
Except they won't care about your triggers. SJWs / feminists have very specific agendas, and anything that gets in their way is immediately labeled as racist / misogynist, and they accuse you of hating women, they try to get yoi fired, etc. I went through that.
SolaceQuantum 11y ago
But they're not triggers because you're not actually triggered by them, as opposed to a person who was raped not appreciating rape jokes because it makes their PTSD real bad. As much as I disapprove of the caricatureizing of the concept of not being a rude person and the extreme positions that are being taken by the students, I feel it's still important to recognize they are young adults navigating these heavy concepts of balancing censorship and unacceptable behavior that deserves derision such as shouting slurs at people. Being condescending and dismissive of the entire concept just comes off as a rather extreme reaction to young people being what they've always been and exploring the society's boundaries that they live in and seeing what negatives they can change in their own circles. Once they actually get out of university I'm sure it'll be fine, as every generation has been one way or another.
- th667223 11y ago
  But you dont see into my head and can not say if I have a PTSD or not. It is like saying what form of suffering is worse, or what religion is right. Anyway I believe that it is already covered well. There is anti harassment law. And treating rape victim badly is fast way to loose friends. We are not talking about tiny fraction of people, but majority of population has some skeleton in the closet. Stats says that up to 25% women are rape victims, should all of them get a safe space? Also does this cover men? Prison rape jokes are quite popular on mainstream TV. And it is still socially acceptable to say that 12 year old boy "got lucky" with older lady. And how about war veterans with PTSD?

golemotron 11y ago

There's a lot to unpack in this phenomenon. The most interesting question is - why now? I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. I don't want to appeal to gender stereotypes but I remember seeing some research that indicated that while boys in a playground situation were more physically aggressive and directly confrontational during disagreements with each other, girls tended to have higher incidence of shunning and social exclusion - emotional/relational aggression. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see safe spaces / micro-aggressions as a strategy to shut down unpleasant situations (ideas) rather than confronting them as ideas. These strategies are essentially forms of shunning and avoidance. Regardless of how one feels about the veracity of these gender stereotypes and how they apply to the sexes, the strategies are real and they are a significant difference from what we've historically had as cultural values in the US and UK: "we're all strong enough for dissent, it's about more than our feelings."

tgb 11y ago
> The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades. Citation? World Bank disagrees with you but has only data going back to 1996 (then: 86% female, now: 87% female). http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS/countries/1W-US?display=default http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS/countr... You know who has the highest percentages of teachers being female? Eastern Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and that region. Just for a point of comparison.
- golemotron 11y ago
  You have to go back further: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mor...
  - 11y ago

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

There are a few interesting statistics that may or may not be relevant. I'll try to make a case that they are. First, we live in one of the safest times in human history. The number of wars is at an all-time low. Second, over the last couple of decades, a couple of billion people have seen their standard of living rise due to trade and commerce. Third, the internet and social media is isolating people much more than they ever have been. Growing up in the upper-middle-class in the U.S., if your people don't like what some other people are saying? They're basically invisible. Finally, colleges have lost their way. What used to be about preparing folks for a career is now a club for making friends of the right type. They used to be responsible to parents and society. Now in many cases they are direct service organizations for kids seeking a "college experience" You put all of this together and you create a bunch of 18-year-olds that can be as closed-minded as many 80-year-olds. After all, they've never really had their beliefs challenged. And why should they start now? There's a re-factoring of higher education that has to happen regardless of this particular issue, and it can happen none-too-soon. But parents of teenage kids should feel responsible too. It's your job as a parent not only to teach values, but to let your child explore new ideas and learn to defend their opinions using logic and civility. If you're 10 and refuse to talk because your feelings are hurt, that's one thing. But if you're 18? You missed something really important somewhere in your upbringing. ADD: I am reminded that of one of the last big pushes for civic education and critical thinking was in the 1950s. This is when the famous "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the U.S. (If you don't know why this is important, consider yourself lucky.) During the Korean War, when the communists captured soldiers, many times they didn't torture them. Instead, they "educated" them. It suddenly occurred to a lot of people that if you're 18 and can't articulate why your opinions are important -- and defend them -- then you're vulnerable to just about any new idea that comes along. That's the real travesty here. When I hear about kids not wanting to hear ugly or challenging ideas, my first thought is how totally vulnerable these folks are to just a little bit of indoctrination. To be that way and attending a major university? It's a travesty. If this is the quality of their experience, they shouldn't worry about repaying their loan. The colleges should be refunding the money back to the lenders.

rmc 11y ago

A lot of instances of "no platforming" is just someone refusing to participate in an event if someone else is present (usually because the person doesn't like the other, or their politics). Everyone has a right to not take part in an event if they don't want to. It's not a threat to free speech if someone has conditions on their attendence. I'll bet Stephen Fry has conditions on whether he attends events (perhaps around money or expenses). If he won't turn up to my house in another country on his own expenses, is he trying to shut down debates? No. Get over it.

icebraining 11y ago
A lot of instances of "no platforming" is just someone refusing to participate in an event if someone else is present This implies that some other instances are not, but then you dismiss them all as if they all were just refusals, which makes your post seem self-contradictory.

rmc 11y ago

"NSFW" is a trigger word. Should we ban that?

iofj 11y ago
There's plenty of votes to do exactly that. On the right, well we all know why On the left, because it overwhelmingly victimizes women (some truth to that, of course, there's some truth to the rightist argument as well)

dimitar 11y ago

Does this culture of trigger words and safe spaces really exist out of the Internet? Is it an US/UK thing? I've never encountered it in my life.

ebbv 11y ago
No, not really. This is a case of right wing white males finding some phony thing to get upset about and battle against. Exactly what they accuse "SJWs" of doing.
- Grue3 11y ago
  Stephen Fry is right wing now? Things sure have changed.
  - ebbv 11y ago
    On this issue he is. People outside of TV pundits usually aren't just one place on the spectrum on all issues. On some issues someone might be progressive while being totally regressive on another.
    - bpchaps 11y ago
      It's almost as if opinions are complicated things! :D Stephen Fry and I share similar mental health issues (bipolar), and one of the things that comes with this awful disease is that "triggers" exist for us in unexpected and uncontrollable situations. It's often easy to say "just get over it" and "deal with it", but it's not that simple. It's entirely possible, and trust me, it happens, that a disagreement can cause a week long depressive state. That said, we deal with it because we have no other choice. If we required others to censor themselves, we'd eventually turn into little imps who never see sun light.
- Cthulhu_ 11y ago
  More like extreme left. But, someone described the political left and right as a horseshoe-shape instead of linear opposites; that is, extreme-left goes #KillAllMen, extreme-right goes #BuildThatWall.

nihonde 11y ago

To characterize this as "the regressive left" is really dead-on. My view is that this is inevitable in a culture where no real progress is made on big problems—attention naturally turns to ever-smaller slights, and those begin to carry the weight of the big, unsolved problems. The next step is nihilism and reactionary tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised if the counterparts of today's "regressive left" in 20 years are brown-shirt fascists. As Eric Hoffer has said, these kind of people don't hold real convictions beyond an unquenchable lust for redemption for what they perceive as the injustice of the empty, ruined landscape of themselves.

return0 11y ago

I think safe spaces are good. They keep people in their cages.

pigpaws 11y ago

To me, its all about 'control'. Despite what the article says, the UK does NOT have 'free speech' (see 'hate speech' laws). In fact, the only place it does exist is the US - aside from the 'yelling fire' example. So in the US, I am free to call anyone any name I so choose. the control aspect comes where a group of people are looking to be offended, if not by language, then by something else more innocuous (i.e. dreadlocks, etc...). It is a butt-hurt-culture that feeds on itself. If one of their own says something not in-line with the party, they turn on that person - and this in turn keeps people in line. the EXACT opposite of liberty. The ONE group where its okay to willfully attack is the "straight, white male". (lets see how that statement is received). People don't want equality, they want to feel like a special snowflake who is above everyone else. Just don't dare to say or think anything that's outside the 'party line'. "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it..." ~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall "... unless you say something i don't agree with, then you're a racist, bigoted monster and must be destroyed." ~ every SJW ever.

JoachimS 11y ago
"Despite what the article says, the UK does NOT have 'free speech' (see 'hate speech' laws). In fact, the only place it does exist is the US" You mean like how the FCC bans some words on Telly?
- pigpaws 11y ago
  I mean the fact that if you call someone on the street an ethnic slur, you will be arrested (in the UK/EU).
petercooper 11y ago
In fact, the only place it does exist is the US - aside from the 'yelling fire' example. Or threats, obscenity, defamation, government employees during official duties, or on matters of national security.
- pigpaws 11y ago
  Nope. threats are one thing, national security is classified, and covered under other laws. the "Obscenity" you cite is more art/visual, and not verbal. verbal obscenity is covered as part of free speech/freedom of expression. Defamation has be brought against you by the 'offended' - NOT the gov't. What does gov't employees during official business have to do with anything? feel free to scream at cops all you want, just stay out of their way... screaming in a session of congress warrants a trespassing charge, not a knock on the 1st.

return0 11y ago

I wouldn't care about the mainstream's willingness to self-censor if it hadn't spilled over to the academia. There is now a range of studies that are verbotten. Also seems to be an american issue. Please don't export that one :)

retube 11y ago

What I want to know is where are the University leaders in all this? the board of guverners or exec committee or whoever who should speak up and tell these pathetic, entitled little shits to grow the fuck up and learn to deal with people with different opinions.

Kenji 11y ago

Oh, by the way, I can highly recommend the channel RubinReport on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport https://www.youtube.com/user/RubinReport ) He has lots of good stuff and that interview with Fry there seemed to be a bit rushed, normally Rubin is calmer and more prepared.

gopz 11y ago

The internet greatly magnifies the perceived prevelance of this "infantile culture". I think most people do not see this effect hardly at all in day to day life, but love to get enraged about it online. It's a fad that's going to blow over when enough people get tired of being upset/vindicated by it, not some crazy Orwellian scenario.

Avshalom 11y ago

I'mma just leave what eevee said the first time Fry got all offended about people being offended >I love Stephen Fry, really I do, but this oft-repeated quote is bullshit and he is perfectly demonstrating why that is. What he’s really saying is this: everyone else’s feelings don’t matter, but his do, because he frames them as universal rules of discourse rather than feelings. https://eev.ee/blog/2016/02/15/everyones-offended-these-days/ https://eev.ee/blog/2016/02/15/everyones-offended-these-days...

arca_vorago 11y ago

I remember a speech Christopher Hitchens gave a few times about this, and I generally agree with him. Suggested reading for all: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/ http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-... The real point is that saying "I'm offended" doesn't give anyone the right to shut up anyone else. We have freedom of speech, not freedom from speech. The recent move in the US to push hate speech laws is an egregious attack on our foundational principles of free speech in my opinion.

michaelbuddy 11y ago

A recent discussion about this between Sam Harris and Johnathan Haipt is a good piece about this. Haipt is a professor and he talks about why now. I'm seeing the perfect storm of coddling and often enabling leftist faculty and administration, expensive universities, helicopter parents all comes into play.

dalke 11y ago
There is no perfect storm. Those complaining about the helicopter parenting of today forgot that their grandparents complained about how "kids these days" expect things given to them on a silver platter. The phrase changed, which makes it seem like the concept is new. But it isn't. When this came up before (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10404752 ) I found quotes like a 1960 PTA magazine: > 'I've known a lot of kids who were treated like little heroes. Afterward, they expected everything to be handed them on a silver platter— and it wasn't. They couldn't adjust.' "Beyond any doubt, the boys in Williamsport last week were treated as ... A Boys' Life article from July 1937: > We want to teach them not just to sit back and expect things to be handed to them on a silver platter but with confidence, based on their training, to go out and get what they want. We need to stiffen a moral flabbiness that has been affecting our youth. Life Magazine, March 29, 1949: > We have reared a bunch of weaklings in our young marrieds of today. Too much has been handed to them on a silver platter without their having had to work for it, and they lack the intestinal fortitude to meet life as a challenge. Nor is there some recent spurt of left-wing faculty. I think faculty is more centrist than, say, the 1960s. I'll cherry pick https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/10/08/politics as the first page which agreed with me ("Professors lean left, but major new study of faculty views finds more centrism and less radicalism than critics of academe see -- with growing moderation among young academics.") YMMV.

Overtonwindow 11y ago

Forgive me if this has already been said, but I think the entire issue of safe spaces, micro aggressions, trigger words, privilege, and so worth, is about one thing: POWER. I believe those involved believe they have been historically, and continually, victimized, by the system, citing whatever majority they wish to define as their oppressors. All of the political correctness, and hostility towards free speech and expression, is a way for those groups to exert power over their "oppressors", and give them a feeling that they are in control. It's all about power. This is not to say that their concerns are unjustified, but the method in which they seek justice lies more in power and retribution than healing and cooperation towards a better society.

dosgonlogs 11y ago

Stephen Fry is a childish buffoon. How are we taking anything he says seriously? Most public discourse happens online, and I see the opposite of Political Correctness taking the forefront, and Racism and Nationalism on the rise. The people who cry "stupid SJW!" or "go to your Safe Space you liberal cuck" are the same people who cannot handle a shred of criticism about Institutionalized racism, or the rise of fascism in modern society. I am pro free speech, people should police themselves before they use profanity or insults, I rather they identify themselves than hide in the shadows. I am a white male, since that bit of information may matter to someone (considering the context of the conversation), and when I speak out about institutionalized racism people say "You're pathetic, you're such a cuck wallowing in your white guilt, kindly stfu". Or if I defend Muslim war refugees or Muslim Migrants, I'm told "You stupid cuck, you just want your girl to get raped by those terrorists, they are going to take over, and impose Shakira(sic) law" (not to mention the rape mob thing ended up being incorrect, still parroted daily on reddit as fact).

DanBC 11y ago

Stephen Fry is president of a UK mental health charity - Mind. They've released a statement about some of his comments. http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/statement-on-stephen-frys-comments/#.Vw011tQrK03 http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/statement-on-step...

joesmo 11y ago

Yet another case of mistaking language for reality. When you think about it, hasn't that been the culprit in humanity's folly for so many thousands of years? Derrida is probably upset somewhere ...