4 ms·

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 wor

by 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.)
onion2k 11y ago
There is a vast gaping chasm of difference between leaving a place that you don't like because there are things you don't want to hear (aka flouncing off Twitter), and wanting that place to be censored so you can go there without hearing those things (aka safe spaces). If you believe that people should be free to say things without fear of censorship, even if they're things that you don't like, then "safe spaces" are a really bad idea.
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  > If you believe that people should be free to say things without fear of censorship You can believe that but also still believe that people shouldn't be free to cause wilful offence under the protection of "free speech" (which, as we all know, isn't guaranteed anyway.)
  - vixen99 11y ago
    Yes but that's holding contradictory beliefs! And who's to estimate the extent or existence of the 'wilful offence'? As a rightwing, small 'c' atheist UK conservative I'm daily offended by what I consider an avalanche of vituperative 'free speech' by people who do not hold my views. I'm happy to live with that and argue my corner. Exclusive of violence, those with different ideas in their heads can insult me as much as they like; it's their arguments to which I'll be attentive. Maybe I'll even be persuaded on some issues. Ideologies whether political or religious must be subjected to strong criticism or we're all finished on this planet.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    In most situation where I see people complaining about "being triggered" there's no indication of wilful offence on the other end. I don't have a problem with avoiding certain subjects if I know someone has serious problems dealing with e.g. memories of something that's happened to them. Nor would I have a problem changing the subject or being more careful about working if someone points out that it is uncomfortable for them. But I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence at something that is not intended to offend. Personally, if someone started talking about wanting to censor on this kind of basis, I'll insist I'm being triggered and they're causing me distress - I'm sure that would lead to an interesting conversation.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
I think that's a little unfair. As far as I'm aware, Stephen Fry hasn't, say, demanded that Twitter take action to prevent people from being offensive on the platform, or that they kick people off for the same. There's a distinct difference between being offended by something and 'flouncing' away, versus demanded that people be prevented from doing things which offend you in the first place. Stephen Fry is the former; 'safe spaces' are the latter.
- otaviokzuk 11y ago
  Well put mate. Thanks.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > I think that's a little unfair. Have you read any of Fry's autobiographies? He is triggered, as the kids would call it, by the mere reference to warmed milk. He demands no-one speaks of, say, bread and milk in his presence. And then he complains rape victims are over-sensitive.
  - kiksy 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure I've read all his autobiographies and can't remember any reference to 'warmed milk' or bread, and Google is showing a blank too. Which book was this in and in what context?
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    There's only one result in google books for Stephen Fry warmed milk. "He ran a thumb between Clara's lips ... Of honey and sweet warm milk.” “Aniseed?” “If you like aniseed it will..." There's nothing else relevant except your comment on google or Bing.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      I found another one. Page 420 of "Making History" also includes a reference to "warm milk" (as opposed to "warmed") in a book written by Fry. I also found comments on Stephen Fry's site about QI XL from 07/03/09 [1] where bread and milk was apparently discussed, with no mention of Fry going off the handles over the subject he himself apparently introduced. And the comments themselves includes multiple mentions and have been left up. (EDIT: The episode in question is season 6, episode 11, Films and Fame. It doesn't mention "warm milk" but it does go on quite a bit about bread and milk which GP also claims he has an issue with. Stephen Fry asks what you should not feed a Porcupine; Emma Thompson, who is a close friend of his and certainly would know if this was a no-go area, answers "bread and milk" and Stephen Fry repeats her answer, and David Mitchell and Alan Davies then gets into an extended argument about bread and milk. Here is where it starts [2]. That episode also includes a fantastic segment with discussion about the late Alan Rickmann, btw., where John Sessions does some fantastic impressions of him) Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that if there's a mention of this in his autobiography, that it's meant as a dry joke or exaggeration for comedic effect, which would fit very much into how Fry writes and talks. [1] http://archive.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/qi-xl-070309-bread-and-milk.html http://archive.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/qi-xl-070309-bread... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBk-z3OmMj8&t=34m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBk-z3OmMj8&t=34m40s
Freak_NL 11y ago
To be fair, getting of Twitter because you find the interaction became toxic is in line with what he is propagating. If you are a staunch believer in the concept of safe-spaces and trigger-free environments, you would stay on Twitter and expect everyone to adhere to those principles. But the world doesn't work like that, and people become complete and utter twats behind the veil of anonymity afforded by the internet. If you don't like the way rude people act, and you can't reason with them or have a meaningful dialogue, you can simply ignore them. If a communication tool turns from a cheerful digital village square into a seedy back-alley, getting out of there is sensible. That seems to me opposite of insisting that people accommodate you at all costs, which is what he is criticizing.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Agreed. Taking offense or changing his own situation is far different than censoring others.

by rodgerd 11y ago

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.)

onion2k 11y ago

There is a vast gaping chasm of difference between leaving a place that you don't like because there are things you don't want to hear (aka flouncing off Twitter), and wanting that place to be censored so you can go there without hearing those things (aka safe spaces). If you believe that people should be free to say things without fear of censorship, even if they're things that you don't like, then "safe spaces" are a really bad idea.

zimpenfish 11y ago
> If you believe that people should be free to say things without fear of censorship You can believe that but also still believe that people shouldn't be free to cause wilful offence under the protection of "free speech" (which, as we all know, isn't guaranteed anyway.)
- vixen99 11y ago
  Yes but that's holding contradictory beliefs! And who's to estimate the extent or existence of the 'wilful offence'? As a rightwing, small 'c' atheist UK conservative I'm daily offended by what I consider an avalanche of vituperative 'free speech' by people who do not hold my views. I'm happy to live with that and argue my corner. Exclusive of violence, those with different ideas in their heads can insult me as much as they like; it's their arguments to which I'll be attentive. Maybe I'll even be persuaded on some issues. Ideologies whether political or religious must be subjected to strong criticism or we're all finished on this planet.
- vidarh 11y ago
  In most situation where I see people complaining about "being triggered" there's no indication of wilful offence on the other end. I don't have a problem with avoiding certain subjects if I know someone has serious problems dealing with e.g. memories of something that's happened to them. Nor would I have a problem changing the subject or being more careful about working if someone points out that it is uncomfortable for them. But I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence at something that is not intended to offend. Personally, if someone started talking about wanting to censor on this kind of basis, I'll insist I'm being triggered and they're causing me distress - I'm sure that would lead to an interesting conversation.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

I think that's a little unfair. As far as I'm aware, Stephen Fry hasn't, say, demanded that Twitter take action to prevent people from being offensive on the platform, or that they kick people off for the same. There's a distinct difference between being offended by something and 'flouncing' away, versus demanded that people be prevented from doing things which offend you in the first place. Stephen Fry is the former; 'safe spaces' are the latter.

otaviokzuk 11y ago
Well put mate. Thanks.
rodgerd 11y ago
> I think that's a little unfair. Have you read any of Fry's autobiographies? He is triggered, as the kids would call it, by the mere reference to warmed milk. He demands no-one speaks of, say, bread and milk in his presence. And then he complains rape victims are over-sensitive.
- kiksy 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure I've read all his autobiographies and can't remember any reference to 'warmed milk' or bread, and Google is showing a blank too. Which book was this in and in what context?
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  There's only one result in google books for Stephen Fry warmed milk. "He ran a thumb between Clara's lips ... Of honey and sweet warm milk.” “Aniseed?” “If you like aniseed it will..." There's nothing else relevant except your comment on google or Bing.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    I found another one. Page 420 of "Making History" also includes a reference to "warm milk" (as opposed to "warmed") in a book written by Fry. I also found comments on Stephen Fry's site about QI XL from 07/03/09 [1] where bread and milk was apparently discussed, with no mention of Fry going off the handles over the subject he himself apparently introduced. And the comments themselves includes multiple mentions and have been left up. (EDIT: The episode in question is season 6, episode 11, Films and Fame. It doesn't mention "warm milk" but it does go on quite a bit about bread and milk which GP also claims he has an issue with. Stephen Fry asks what you should not feed a Porcupine; Emma Thompson, who is a close friend of his and certainly would know if this was a no-go area, answers "bread and milk" and Stephen Fry repeats her answer, and David Mitchell and Alan Davies then gets into an extended argument about bread and milk. Here is where it starts [2]. That episode also includes a fantastic segment with discussion about the late Alan Rickmann, btw., where John Sessions does some fantastic impressions of him) Barring evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that if there's a mention of this in his autobiography, that it's meant as a dry joke or exaggeration for comedic effect, which would fit very much into how Fry writes and talks. [1] http://archive.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/qi-xl-070309-bread-and-milk.html http://archive.stephenfry.com/forum/topic/qi-xl-070309-bread... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBk-z3OmMj8&t=34m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBk-z3OmMj8&t=34m40s

Freak_NL 11y ago

To be fair, getting of Twitter because you find the interaction became toxic is in line with what he is propagating. If you are a staunch believer in the concept of safe-spaces and trigger-free environments, you would stay on Twitter and expect everyone to adhere to those principles. But the world doesn't work like that, and people become complete and utter twats behind the veil of anonymity afforded by the internet. If you don't like the way rude people act, and you can't reason with them or have a meaningful dialogue, you can simply ignore them. If a communication tool turns from a cheerful digital village square into a seedy back-alley, getting out of there is sensible. That seems to me opposite of insisting that people accommodate you at all costs, which is what he is criticizing.

themartorana 11y ago
Agreed. Taking offense or changing his own situation is far different than censoring others.