Stephen Fry Attacks Victims of Child Sex Abuse

[Svartalf]

Unusual co-alignment of Rum-Seth sentiments which could be argued is interesting.

I feel triggered.

but are you shot?

[Animavore]

I don't see 'trigger.warnings' as any different to when we hear before a movie on TV, "Contains strong laguage and scenes of a sexual nature" or "Contains images some viewers may find disturbing". They've always been around.

I think the problem with trigger warnings is the fuss and hysteria made over them, and the demanding nature of its adherents, when simply, calmly suggesting they put content advisory on books, like movies and music already have, would've been more effective and less alarmist sounding.

[Brian Peacock]

"Yeah, that's right, even Stephen Fry hates you, you pathetic, self-pitying victim - that's what you are, a victim."

:nono;

[NineBerry]

It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that some people want to avoid being confronted with things triggering memories of abuse. You get some of my sympathy, but your stupid ranting gets none of my sympathy because ranting is the ugliest form of speech in humanity.

[pErvinalia]

[rachelbean]

I don't see 'trigger.warnings' as any different to when we hear before a movie on TV, "Contains strong laguage and scenes of a sexual nature" or "Contains images some viewers may find disturbing". They've always been around.

I think the problem with trigger warnings is the fuss and hysteria made over them, and the demanding nature of its adherents, when simply, calmly suggesting they put content advisory on books, like movies and music already have, would've been more effective and less alarmist sounding.

But I do think the part that Rum quoted being left out does lose a lot of the important context of what he said. I mean he wasn't just being a dick to abuse victims.

“In terms of how they think, they can’t bear complexity. The idea that things aren’t easy to understand,” said Fry, who has spoken openly in the past of his own mental illness. “They want to be told, or they want to be able to decide and say, ‘This is good and this is bad,’ and anything that conflicts with that is not to be borne.”
...
“There are many great plays which contain rapes, and the word rape now is even considered a rape,” he said. “If you say: ‘you can’t watch this play, you can’t watch Titus Andronicus, or you can’t read it in a Shakespeare class, or you can’t read Macbeth because it’s got children being killed in it, it might trigger something when you were young that upset you once, because uncle touched you in a nasty place’"

[Forty Two]

I think the idea is that society ought not have to function around eggshell personalities.

It's also a misuse of the term "triggering." A "trigger" is something that set's off a PTSD episode. It is not accurate to say that a rape victim is "triggered" by rape scene. He or she may be, but very often triggers are smells, sounds, and arbitrary objects.

These labels are back-door censors. First, a work is included in a class because it's a great work of Shakespeare. Next, it gets a fat label stuck on it. Then some students don't want to read it, so the professor, whose time is already limited, has to figure out fair alternatives those claiming to be triggered. Next semester, maybe I'll pick a different book for the curriculum, says the professor.....

And, to put trigger warnings on flippin' Shakespeare works? I mean, you see commercials for movies where women are being assaulted in the commercials. You see violence on the evening news every day. So, a warning over a classic text is going to do, what?

And, labeling has been around for a while, but not forever. Remember the conservative movement in the 1980s, the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), which spearheaded music labeling? Various artists testified before Congress against such labeling. Unfortunately, they lost.

[Animavore]

Well yes, that's another problem, they often want an exhaustive list of trigger warnings rather than just, "Contains graphic scenes." I wouldn't want such a list because they're bound to contain spoilers.

If I were a prof at the start of semester I'd ask who was an SJW and offer one of them the books to sift through as an assignment. I'd then put, "Trigger warning: contains spoilers" at the top as I hand it out.

[Forty Two]

Well yes, that's another problem, they often want an exhaustive list of trigger warnings rather than just, "Contains graphic scenes." I wouldn't want such a list because they're bound to contain spoilers.

If I were a prof at the start of semester I'd ask who was an SJW and offer one of them the books to sift through as an assignment. I'd then put, "Trigger warning: contains spoilers" at the top as I hand it out.

How about, if a person has a psychiatric condition, they can report that to the professor who can discreetly accommodate the disability?

Triggering ought not mean "discomforting" or "upsetting." And, that's the shell game with with words and meanings that is played time and time again. They start out suggesting that some (very small number) of people have PTSD and can be "triggered" by things. They should be warned about potential triggers. Forget, however, that ANYTHING is a potential trigger -- a trigger is personal to the affected person.

However, they expand from there and declare that scenes of sex and violence are all considered "triggering" things, and so we need to warn about that. The reality is that for most people it's not "triggering" at all. It's just offensive or upsetting. And, now that we have sex and violence foot in the door, let's add racism and sexism.

What this is is the morality police in new clothes. It's Tipper Gore and the PMRC reincarnated. They want to clean up what everyone else watches. That's what they want. Conservatives suck, especially when they're leftists.

[Seth]

Unusual co-alignment of Rum-Seth sentiments which could be argued is interesting.

I feel triggered.

What caliber?

[Seth]

Having trigger warnings does not ban anything.

The purpose of the "trigger warning" demand is not to provide warnings to anyone, it's specific intent is to suppress the dissemination of information that cultural Marxists, Progressives and liberal fascists deem undesirable. "Trigger warning" is simply Orwellian newspeak for "reactionary rhetoric that must not be heard or spoken."

If one has "triggers" it is in one's interest to avoid all circumstances where one might be "triggered" if such psychosis would produce negative emotions. Therefore, in such situations the "triggerable" individual must under no circumstances go out in public, read anything, watch anything, listen to anything or think about anything. Two options come to mind to achieve this goal: lock oneself in a padded room while wearing a straitjacket or commit suicide.

Either is acceptable.

Suppressing, attempting to suppress, or even arguing in favor of suppressing the free speech or otherwise peaceable actions or expressions of others is not.

[Forty Two]

Trigger warnings do not "ban," but in the academic context they make it much harder for professors to teach about controversial topics. How could a professor show and analyze Birth of a Nation in a film class? It's a ridiculously racist film, but it's one landmarks of film history, and the Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry.

[Seth]

I don't see 'trigger.warnings' as any different to when we hear before a movie on TV, "Contains strong laguage and scenes of a sexual nature" or "Contains images some viewers may find disturbing". They've always been around.

No, they most certainly have NOT "always been around." The MPAA Production Code of 1930 was voluntarily instituted by Hollywood to deal with state and local censorship problems with movie distribution in the early years of moviemaking, but that was merely a set of production standards that attempted to walk the razor's edge of "acceptable" content over a morass of conflicting and usually local or state morality codes that had criminal sanctions for violations that made "I am curious (Yellow) criminal obscenity in Mississippi but not in California, which was eventually seen as an interstate commerce problem resulting in Congressional intervention. The "warnings" you mention are of quite recent vintage in radio=frequency transmitted media. They were formulated as warnings to parents so that they could judge whether particular media presentations were suitable for THEIR children. Those MPAA ratings, which were originally merely advisory, became semi-mandatory by government action for R and X (now NC-17) presentations.

All other such "warnings," including the ones commonly seen on satellite network programming, were put in place by the producers as a way to avoid both litigation by "triggered" individuals (of every stripe, including religious zealots) and government intervention and regulation...and as service to their customers.

I think the problem with trigger warnings is the fuss and hysteria made over them, and the demanding nature of its adherents, when simply, calmly suggesting they put content advisory on books, like movies and music already have, would've been more effective and less alarmist sounding.

How about fussbudgets, moralists and weak-minded people simply shut the fuck up and insulate THEMSELVES against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and let the rest of humanity behave like rational adults who are capable of making their own decisions?

If something in music or movies or public rhetoric might "trigger" you, then join a fucking convent or monastery or hide in your closet.

[Rum]

There's no amount of trigger warnings that can keep shit from happening. And it happens to us all one way and another.

[Seth]

Well yes, that's another problem, they often want an exhaustive list of trigger warnings rather than just, "Contains graphic scenes." I wouldn't want such a list because they're bound to contain spoilers.

If I were a prof at the start of semester I'd ask who was an SJW and offer one of them the books to sift through as an assignment. I'd then put, "Trigger warning: contains spoilers" at the top as I hand it out.

If I were in charge of a college I'd put a "trigger warning" on the application saying, "WARNING: by attending this university you will, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever, be exposed to information, materials, rhetoric and situations that you may find alarming, disturbing, offensive and unpleasant. This is entirely intentional and is a mandatory aspect of a university education. Therefore, by applying to this university you are explicitly waiving and forfeiting any right, authority or permission to complain about anything you see, hear, smell, feel or experience here that might in any way be unpleasant to you. Further, any complaints whatsoever, of any kind or nature regarding such unpleasantness or offensiveness is grounds for immediate expulsion and cancellation of any credits or degrees awarded. We are not your mommy, this is a university. If you are incapable of acting like an adult and learning in spite of unpleasantness or offensiveness you don't belong here, so kindly do not bother to apply."