[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.