[_xhok]

There's a bit of nuance needed re: the paragraphs near the start. Offended people tend to expect others to cater to them. Stephen doesn't; he's simply explaining why people are wrong: for treating "I'm offended" as something that should be pandered to. That isn't the same.

The author seems to be suggesting that because everyone thinks their behavior is universal and objective, one cannot justifiably make this claim, and that every objective thrust must necessarily have emotional underpinnings. Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings. Those offended tend to.

[hyperpape]

"Maybe; but Fry never tries to invalidate others' feelings."

"“Will all you sanctimonious fuckers fuck the fuck off Jenny Beavan is a friend and joshing is legitimate."

Really?

[_xhok]

Some guy makes an inside joke to a female friend that in public might to some group be considered sexist. Someone nearby hears him and yells "this guy's sexist" and soon he's swarmed by an angry mob. "Oh for fuck's sake fuck off you sanctimonious fuckers," he says with exasperation. That's not quite "invalidating others' feelings" in the sense we're talking about, is it?

[hyperpape]

I don't know what sense you're talking about, so I can't tell you. It sounds like he's bothered by how they're treating him, and he wants them to shut up, because he thinks their opinion is dumb and their way of expressing it is awful. That's being offended in my book.

[mjblack]

"It sounds like he's bothered by how they're treating him, and he wants them to shut up, because he thinks their opinion is dumb and their way of expressing it is awful."

Yes, because I've seen first hand what people do to those on twitter that say something that can be misconstrued as punching down, racist, bigoted, etc. It's not pretty and not nice in any sense.

He is telling them to shut up in the sense that they're being offended means jack shit. The mentality of them being offended and people having to cater to them is why free speech on universities are pretty much non-existent.

I saw a core contributor on a project be attacked because he disagreed with italian schools teaching children about transgender subjects without permission from the parents. They literally attacked the project, going on about how the core contributor was "transphobic", that his code will translate into that too. It was literally shocking to see the comments going back and forth. And, that isnt the only instance I've seen in the last year or so.

We've seen people have their platform removed because others claimed that their mere presence would violate their "safe space", even though the person isnt violent and just has a different view.

He is offended, the only difference is he isnt using it to try and ruin people or change policies. He is venting his frustrations publicly because he can. He isnt looking for others to cater to him. This is contrast to the people he is complaining about who do everything they can to shame and silence people that have a difference of an opinion.

[hyperpape]

The vast majority of your comment is a non-sequitur.

But returning to Fry: I think he's offended by his critics, even if he doesn't use that word.

But here's what will blow your mind: as far as I understand what happened, I think he's right to be that way. They attacked him for doing nothing wrong.

People are acting like there's some magical thing "offense" that's only felt by people they disagree with. But we all feel offense on a regular basis, whether we call it that or not. It's just on us to do our best to only feel it for things that are actually bad, and to react in a measured way. Our offense doesn't mean anything per se--you can be equally offended by a good thing as a bad thing--it's the content of the thing that shows whether your offense shows that the problem is inside you or the thing you're made about.

Don't create some kind of dumb rule "being offended is bad". That makes no more sense than saying "because I'm offended, your opinion is wrong."

[mjblack]

No, my comments are exactly part of the problem that Fry is talking about. He isnt saying that you shouldnt be offended, he is saying that just because you are offended no one should cater to you. He is choosing to leave twitter instead of asking twitter or the community to attack the people bothering him, which is a stark contrast to the social "justice" crowd on twitter, which are the ones attacking him. He can make commentary about being offended but thats about all he is doing.

Fry isnt exactly offended by his critics but to the outrage culture that believes that being offensive means that the person is a racist, homophobe, etc. That is why if you disagree with them on topics, while not being an actual bigot at all, they'll still call you a name that is defined by bigotry. That is why if you disagree with feminists (depending on which one), you're instantly labeled a men's rights activists without ever giving indication you are one.

[tremon]

Really. Hurting someone's feelings (oh noes, he used directed cursewords!) is not the same as invalidating feelings.

[hyperpape]

So you're saying his response to those people is "your feelings are valid, I understand why you are offended by my comments" or is it closer to "your feelings are dumb--you're only mad because you didn't think about what I said?"

(Note also the other comment where I said I think he's right. I don't really talk about feelings being "valid" that much, but I don't think his critics' feelings are "valid" with regard to the Beavan joke).

[tremon]

Maybe it's just that our definitions don't match. When I think of "invalidating" someone's feelings, I think of downplaying them, refusing to acknowledge them, or even denying someone's right to have that feeling. Think of comments like "oh, you're just PMS'ing", "don't fuss, how can you make this into such a big deal?" or "you're white/black/male, so you're not allowed to feel insulted about this".

No, what I mean is not closer to "your feelings are dumb" either. Telling someone to fuck off is communicating that their /presence/, or their /attitude/ is unwanted. It doesn't directly attack their feelings at all. It may be uncaring, and the recipient may still be hurt by it, but it's a far cry from denying people their right to feel.