
Stephen Fry hits out at ‘infantile’ culture of trigger words and safe spaces - metafunctor
http://attitude.co.uk/stephen-fry-hits-out-at-infantile-culture-of-trigger-words-and-safe-spaces/
======
golemotron
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."

~~~
maehwasu
It's not a result of coddling (or only a bit).

Certain groups realized they could gain power by being offended. Once you
create that incentive, unchecked, it's game over.

~~~
dalke
"Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" certainly seems to offend a
lot of people. So does saying "I'm an atheist" in many part of the US. Or,
outrage for saying "we need the same types of gun ownership restrictions that
then-Governor Reagan pushed for California."

The most recent outrage seems to concern transsexuals using something other
than the cisnormative bathroom.

You did mean to include those forms of outrage, right? Because to me those
still look like "game on".

~~~
maehwasu
I know you're being sarcastic, but I _DID_ mean to include those.

The right is just as guilty of this outrage game as the left; in some areas
the coalitions are such that they gain power from it. In more left-leaning
situations, the outrage power swings left.

I detest both. I want people to be able to say things without constantly being
threatened with firings, no-platformings, and blacklists.

~~~
gizmo
In 32 states it is legal to fire a person for being transgender. In practice
people get fired illegally for attempting to unionize the workforce. Or for
complaining about violations of labor laws. Or for being gay. Or for having
the wrong political views. People get fired for expressing themselves all the
time. And since business leans conservative right people on the left face the
brunt of this discrimination. Free expression has never been without
consequence in the United States or anywhere else.

Any serious talk about free speech should focus on the core issue: people in
power abuse their power to punish the powerless when they express themselves
in the wrong way. Students have practically no power or influence in society.
So even if these "SJWs" are entirely unjustified in their actions the impact
on society is utterly negligible. This is why the panicky reaction in the
linked article about student activists repressing free speech is so comical.
If anything, the student activists increase free speech by giving a platform
to those people who would otherwise go unheard.

~~~
elect083839
Ironically, by pivoting the discussion to systemic power differences as
justification for large groups of students to disallow smaller groups of their
ability to voice their opinions by passive-aggressive force, you are
supporting the conceptional framework that in large part allows the abuses of
power, which can be aggressive force, you oppose. If it is wrong for the
powerful to prevent the less powerful from speech, then it is wrong for the
large to prevent the smaller from speech even the majority against the
minority. The 'core issue' of free speech has never been the opposition of
those in power with the speech of a majority, even a localized majority, but
the empowerment of every individual to speech regardless of their opinions
popularity or any of its other attributes, except for those who cause
tremendous harm. If it is wrong for the government because it is more powerful
to abuse their power, it is wrong for the group because it is larger to abuse
their size to limit others. I think the cause of this whole situation is due
to the conflation of speech meant to harm other persons (i.e yelling fire,
inciting a riot) and speech that causes subjective discomfort or intellectual
disagreement. One is a crime, and the other is the heart of every civil
discussion.

~~~
gizmo
I'm pivoting the discussion so that we can look at the actual consequences of
(putting limits on) speech, instead of categorizing "free speech" as a silly
absolute. I showed how true unlimited libertarian free speech doesn't exist
and cannot possibly exist in an unequal society. This is separate from Free
Speech as a legal concept. The government should never silence dissenting
voices, no matter how abhorrent. In this sense I'm a free speech absolutist.

It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on
majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis
and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise
go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better off banishing them from
the campus instead.

I completely disagree with your characterization of hate speech as speech that
causes "subjective discomfort". Specific types of speech can do a lot of harm
to e.g. individuals who suffer from mental illnesses or PTSD. So organizations
have to choose. Either you ban the speech that will predictably harm
individuals or minority groups, or you allow all speech (including hate
speech) and the more vulnerable people will be forced to leave to protect
their mental health. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think this
is a difficult choice.

In practice free speech restrictions on college campuses don't restrict
scientific work or scientific debate (in the broadest sense), so I don't think
there is any cause for concern.

~~~
golemotron
> It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on
> majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis
> and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would
> otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better of banishing
> them from the campus instead.

There would be some hope of that if university students and admin had the
slightest awareness of the 'Streisand effect.' They don't and they end up
raising awareness of speakers and ideas they are scared of. It's comical. Free
speech wins eventually, and that's net positive.

~~~
gizmo
Hold on, isn't it true that for every type of protest the protesters have to
explain what they're protesting against? If you're correct then every protest
should backfire because of the Streisand Effect.

In reality, people protest because it works, even though they have to draw
attention to the behavior they want to put an end to. The hope is to persuade
the majority that they are righteous and the other side is in the wrong.
That's how you get change. Sometimes the protesters mess up and end up looking
bad. Then they lose credibility. That's OK, because then a different group of
activists will stand up and continue pushing forward.

Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are
quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

~~~
golemotron
> Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are
> quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

Until the next generation rebels against them. It's already happening.

------
matthewmacleod
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-o...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-
violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/)) 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?

~~~
robinjfisher
My concern is how little this prepares people for life in the real world. How
well prepared will those students be when they enter a workplace for the first
time and have to handle disagreements?

EDIT: deleted "bigger". It's a concern, not a bigger concern.

~~~
sooheon
Sadly, too many workplaces (Github being the most famous recent example) are
succumbing to the same institutionalisation of coddling.

------
beaker52
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.

~~~
dalke
A lot of people think it's important that people warn about potential
spoilers. (SPOILERS: Vader is Luke's father, and Bruce Willis' character in
"The Sixth Sense" is actually dead.) Aren't spoiler free zones a form of safe
space, and the word "SPOILER" itself a trigger warning?

A friend in the Army told me about one of the training exercises which
simulates a car roll. Some people who have been in a car roll get a panic
attack if they go through the simulation. The instructor said that if anyone
had been in a roll and felt that way then they would be excused from the
exercise.

I suffer from acrophobia. I would like some warning that the hotel I'm going
to stay in (Hyatt Regency San Francisco, I'm looking at you) has a large open
atrium and glass elevator for my room on the 8th floor.

Do you think these are childish and oversensitive reactions? Perhaps. But if
so, why call out "Social Justice Warriors" as being unique? If not, what's the
difference?

The point isn't that plot twists, car rollovers, and glass elevators don't
exist, nor that rape, race, homosexuality, etc. don't exist. It's that some
people have been raped, and talking about rape unexpected may lead to
unexpected emotional reactions.

Now that I think about it, a few years after 9/11 I was in Sweden taking a
Swedish course. It was a 9/11, so the teacher thought it would be an
interesting topic for the class. Completely out of the blue, I started
thinking about what happened again, and broke out crying. And it's not like I
had a close connection to NYC or any of the people involved. I figure if a
reaction like that can happen to me, then I can well see how others would be
more strongly affected by more personally directed trauma.

Nor was it something I wanted to talk about more at that point. The teacher
quickly switched to a different topic, since the goal wasn't to talk about
9/11 but to learn Swedish. It certainly doesn't mean that I want to pretend
that 9/11 didn't exist, so I don't think you can make the conclusion you did.

Again, you might say that I'm oversensitive or childish. _Shrug_ At some point
how do you know you aren't sensitive enough?

Don't take that to mean that I require warning before anyone talks about 9/11,
or that there be some sort of "safe space" for me. I am neither proposing that
nor defending it, only arguing against the validity of your proposition that
people want safe spaces and trigger warnings as a way to "pretend rape, race,
homosexuality, transgenderism etc don't exist by not allowing these words to
be spoken, or acts and circumstances to be portrayed, [and thereby] create the
environment for these facts of life to rot in the mind of society."

~~~
chippy
Your examples are good, but to be accurate to the argument at hand you would
expect it to be okay for all car roll simulations to be banned, or optional
for anyone and for all glass walled elevators to be covered up everywhere.
It's not the fear or the offence that's being debated, it's the change in
society to accommodate the fear or the offence that's the point.

~~~
dalke
There are multiple arguments "at hand". The one I refer to is beaker52's
argument that a call for trigger warnings and safe spaces is due to a childish
rejection of the real world. I disagree with that conclusion, for reasons I
gave.

I think you are talking about a different argument?

Personally, I see direct parallels to the current call for "safe spaces" to
older calls for non-gendered job titles, prohibitions on the casual use of
racist slurs, the student protests against Kissinger appointment to Columbia
which lead to the university cancelling his appointment, and more. I can't
point to a time when there wasn't a debate about a "change in society to
accommodate the fear or the offence".

It all seems more of outrage about "kids these days" and "things were more
meaningful when I was your age" than anything else.

Is that the argument at hand that you refer to?

~~~
cholantesh
>It all seems more of outrage about "kids these days" and "things were more
meaningful when I was your age" than anything else.

In most cases, that's exactly what it is.

------
yason
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-o...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-
violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
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...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/06/sun-ed-miliband-
labour-mail-telegraph-election)

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.

~~~
marrs

        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.
    

Which is ironic considering that the word simite applies equally to both.

------
nihonde
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.

------
askyourmother
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
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!

~~~
SolaceQuantum
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.

~~~
barry-cotter
He's condescending and dismissive of the entire concept because actual PTSD
triggers are not the point of trigger warnings. They're barely even marginal
examples of trigger warnings. Trigger warnings are about suppression of
speech.

Religious students don't get trigger warnings for courses that treat their
views as anywhere between foolish and evil. Classical liberals don't get
trigger warnings for their sociology, cultural anthropology or social
psychology courses, despite the fact that all those disciplines have faculty
that are overwhelmingly leftist. There's a great deal of diversity of opinion
in those departments but it's diversity of leftist opinion.

People aren't stupid. Trigger warnings aren't used in a way that has any
correspondence to PTSD triggers. They're used as a stick to beat political
opinions of the losing faction with, currently the right.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Wow, this is completely different than my understanding and viewing trigger
warnings being used. They were used to simply say "hey I'm going to talk about
this, if you don't like it you might wanna leave, I'll let you know when I'm
done".

Could you explain further some examples of trigger warnings IRL that you've
dealt with, because I assume there aren't widespread studies about this sort
of thing and you seem to have a vastly different experience than mine. I'd
like to understand it.

~~~
ihavedna
A lot of these conversations about these concepts seems to me to be made by
people who have 1) never been triggered emotionally in a situation, public or
private, 2) have never actually participated in safe space discussions.
Outsider perception/view.

The discussion is primarily about how people perceive the idea of a safe space
over the actual experience of it. I don't think it's very useful, it just
reinforces peoples' perceptions of others without actually engaging with those
peoples and concepts/experiences directly.

~~~
marrs
Everyone has been triggered emotionally in a situation. I can't believe that
anyone can even get through childhood without experiencing an emotional
trigger of some sort. I think we can all relate to this.

As for safe spaces, this is fine if we're talking about a room at university,
but if we're talking about making a university itself a "safe space" then
forget about it. It's a public place where people have to live their lives.

------
neurobuddha
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.

~~~
yoodenvranx
> 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?

------
fsloth
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?

~~~
kristofferR
Yes, unfortunately.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12022041/How-
political-correctness-rules-in-Americas-student-safe-spaces.html)

[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-
camp...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-
activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/)

~~~
fsloth
"...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
"It is thus demonstrated that the perpetual motion machine of the first kind
[redacted] the First Law of Thermodynamics..."

~~~
Ygg2
"We [redacted] the first barrier of the organism".

------
simula67
> [ 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

~~~
metafunctor
Yes, I raised an eyebrow as well when I heard this. The Russian Civil War also
had millions of casualties.

~~~
m82labs
Maybe as a percentage of total population it would be true?

~~~
mikeash
Not even close. The An Lushan rebellion killed several percent of the entire
world's population.

~~~
JBReefer
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)

------
Overtonwindow
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.

------
dimitar
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
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.

~~~
xaduha
You know, singling out "white male" as a group that has some kind of agenda is
already "US/UK thing".

~~~
ebbv
Give me a break. The people complaining about SJWs, safe spaces, etc. are 99%
white males. I am a white male myself.

~~~
xaduha
That's because in other places that's not even a thing. Nothing to complain
about. Therefore it is an US thing (and less so UK).

~~~
ebbv
Ugh, give it up already. If you're a white male like me you've almost
certainly never been victimized for your gender or skin color.

I face only positive employer, police, etc. biases. Being a minority is
actually hard in this country. I have no patience for playing the victim card
when you were born on third base.

~~~
xaduha
You don't get it. German, French men are white males too, but I don't think
any of them would describe themselves as 'white males' the way you do.
Russian, Bulgarian, Finnish, whatever. The idea of adding your race or skin
color to your gender in day to day speech is weird pretty much anywhere apart
from US.

> Being a minority is actually hard in this country.

What country would that be? /s

De facto patriarchies exist all over the world, but that doesn't mean that
they consist of 'white males'.

------
arca_vorago
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-...](http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2014/09/30/christopher-
hitchens-freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-hate/)

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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

------
retube
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.

------
return0
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 :)

------
Avshalom
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/)

------
gopz
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.

------
DanBC
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-
step...](http://www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/news/statement-on-stephen-frys-
comments/#.Vw011tQrK03)

------
Kenji
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.

------
dosgonlogs
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).

------
michaelbuddy
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
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.

------
joesmo
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 ...

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

~~~
iofj
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)

------
return0
I think safe spaces are good. They keep people in their cages.

------
Starsgen
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.

------
wturner
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
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

~~~
otaviokzuk
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.

~~~
alex_hitchins
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.

------
pigpaws
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
"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
I mean the fact that if you call someone on the street an ethnic slur, you
will be arrested (in the UK/EU).

------
rodgerd
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.

~~~
onion2k
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
> 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.)

~~~
belorn
Free speech law operates on a complete different level than safe spaces. Law
has careful designed constraints, while the definition of safe spaces is what
ever anyone feel should be restricted in _their_ social environment.

Commonly, free speech is limited where someone is encouraging violence against
a person or group (hate speech), or when there is measurable harm done to a
person (defamation). Being triggered because someone voice a different view
about a political subject is neither hate speech or defamation, but it is
something which "safe spaces" has recently been made to restrict.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Being triggered because someone voice a different view about a political
> subject is neither hate speech or defamation

I haven't been following this very closely which is possibly why I haven't
seen an example of this "political triggering" claim. Do you have some
examples?

> Commonly, free speech is limited

I think you're talking about the governmental limits on free speech there -
private individuals and institutions have no such constraints and can limit
whatever speech they want (within the bounds of legally-mandated
discrimination, obviously) because (as I understand it, I'm not a US lawyer)
they're not bound by the First Amendment.

