Follow us over to Substack for extra content and discussion! SPONSOR: Discover your history - use our link bit.ly/Triggernometry_MH to start a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage offers.
The issue I have with many Liberals, even here on Triggernometry, despite my profound respect for this channel, is that they still treat right-wing thought not as an alternative way of looking at the world, but as a kind of disease that must be contained. "The rise of the Right is because of the failure of the Left" as phrased as though right wing viewpoints are an unnatural thing, that the default moral human viewpoint is to be a liberal and if people move away from it, that is not a matter of their own conscience but rather, a policy failure.
I think though that Stephen Fry views being liberal very differently than the way it is being pushed by current society. He talks about a type of morals where people would self-censor themselves to avoid being offensive to others. Progressives now shout their abortion and their own truth and society be damned. The right now consists of the conservatives and the classical liberals.
Although I kind of agree with your point, what exactly is the political-philosophy of the ‘right’? I mean there is conservatism, right liberals, I mean even National-Socialism is rightwing, although thats the very far right. I’m not saying that you or anyone is a national socialist, but what is the main political philosophy of the ‘right’?
It never did make sense, it was deliberately deceptive. Fascism and Nazism sprung from communism, all totalitarian left. During WW1 Mussolini saw that the common soldier would only go with socialist ideas if it was married to nationalism. Hitler was steeped in philosophy and ideas and he too adapted socialism. The National Front were never right wing, they were again a different sect of socialist. What is right wing? Capitalist? This was Marx's word, which rebranded the free market, freedom. You are correct - framing right vs left had people barely engaging with ideas, usually mis-identifying themselves, getting emotional, turning political parties into football teams.
Left and right still represent two rough clusters of ideas. I agree that sometimes specific ideas seem to be appropriated by one side or the other in completely arbitrary ways, but in general, they are two patterns that keep repeating in history for good reason (even before they actually got their names you can see a lot of situations where similar differences resulted in conflict). And when having electoral politics forming two big alliances is essentially the natural outcome, as fragmentation means being weaker, so pretty much the power balance invites this sort of clustering.
Absolutely. I have views across the political spectrum. I am politically homeless. Politics is not a sports game. It should not have 'sides', just ideas.
It's funny to hear Mr Fry say that slippery slope is a fallacy and then 1 minute later express dismay at how absolutely mad things have become. There is a slope, it's quite slippery, and we're on it.
@@homewall744 false dichotomy. But I might see what you're saying. The left has slipped from 'you can change your gender, not your sex' to 'trans women are women'.
What I think about Stephen Fry is that he is fundamentally, at heart, a KIND person. Kindness is something that is missing in a lot of people. If our politics or opinions come from a place of kindness, you’ll find that we are respectful and able to challenge our thinking critically. Kindness makes sense.
I used to think so, but I think there's something in his reactionary positioning over the past maybe 10 years now, that bespeaks something much less kind deeper down.
"A decent person doesn't want to offend.." No, sometimes a decent person does want to offend, circumstances exist where deliberately offending is the moral thing to do.
The difference perhaps, is intentionally offending another for only the sake of being unpleasant and not in pursuit of a greater point or to defend an important principle. Offense is a strictly subjective condition almost always and we appear, quite suddenly, on the “slippery slope” when governments attempt to mandate what is or isn’t offensive. Free speech can, in large part, be mandated. It’s not possible to mandate amity, contentment or the elusive state of not being offended by the speech of others. Mandating that, in almost all situations, no bars will be placed on speech produces inevitably some uncomfortable situations and people who feel aggrieved but it is far and away preferable to the alternatives.
My head is spinning. I'm just a working class, ex offender( lots of years ago), father of two beautiful adult daughters ,and a twelve year old grandson. This is my first time, listening in, on your show. Stephen fry, has always been a favourite of mine. Your questions and responses were amazing. Best hour I've spent, in a long time. I don't watch television, and always struggle with getting the truth, what's going on in the world. Once again, thank you both. Thank you Stephen, also.
The difficulty with truth is that there's just SO MUCH data now, yet there's even more opinions layered on top. I don't blame your head for spinning lol. If you like this kind of stuff but are unsure where else to go, I'd recommend Chris Williamson, whose podcast is called "Modern Wisdom". Very chilled yet informative, and touches on a ton of areas that mainstream media either ignores or goes way too extreme on (eg. gender differences).
I agree. So well said by you. Isn't it a joy to find intelligent and valid podcasts? I love Stephen Fry, as well, so this was a real treat! Happy Holidays to you 🙂
Lots of great discussions going on this channel, have a scroll through to find their guests and check out another one when you have time. Have a great Christmas with your family =)
I was going to give my appraisal of this interview, instead I would like to say how fantastic the comments that I have read are and that I cannot say anything that the others have said already. Well done everyone.
Not everyone though. Many comments are typical banal social media smart-assing devoid of any input to the topic and the conversation. "He's overrated", "Old pompous dimwit", "Stupid person's smart person" etc. are comments I cringe at. Do those people not see that they sound like those they criticize? Name calling and zero arguments while countering a diferring view are part of the problem, not Stephen Fry.
@dvanaestcestica1135 if they sound like those they criticise, then they sound like Fry - surely to you that's a good thing ? . . . But to call Fry pompous is totally accurate . . . pomposity with the usual assumption that his own view is the right one and that he has special wisdom because he is "Liberal" - Im afraid he is sadly deluded in that notion . . .
@@dvanaestcestica1135let’s just say it’s pretty obvious from the comments who’s actually watched the video and who’s just seen Fry is the interviewee and then vented their spleen without listening to much (if any) of the podcast.
I feel a sense of relief to hear this discussed in this environment... I'm on the Autism spectrum and so grew up feeling socially isolated in a relatively conservative Christian family, but a loving one that by and large accepts others as they are. So I was grounded in broadly conservative and idealist Christian values, though with a liberal streak. My friends circle by contrast are almost all liberal, LGBTQ, atheist, agnostic, etc and the vast majority are online friends I've met throughout my 20s from Europe and America (I'm in South Africa). Being someone with no love of conflict and a gentle Christian upbringing I tended to take people as they were and avoid offending them as best I could. Over time I've come to relate to many aspects on the left myself and drifted towards that sphere of thought. But from 2019 onwards, it felt as though something was changing and the road became rockier between myself and many of my deeply 'liberal' friends. I began to feel more and more like I was being silently judged for not being as wholeheartedly left them and I couldn't speak my mind even politely on any topical issue without someone being deeply offended. Whereas they would freely insult other groups to whom many of my loved ones or indeed myself belonged and speak their minds perfectly freely. There might be fights between them, but those always blew over without a lasting stigma. I won't go into detail about the more personal wounds inflicted by some of my liberal acquaintances, but I acknowledge that they have unfairly darkened my feelings towards the left in general. Nowadays I feel like I'm bottling up my thoughts and emotions for fear of being beaten over the head with their beliefs or discarded for spoiling their party and it's led to me pulling away from both my liberal friends and the left more generally. I cling to basic liberal principles on an intellectual and sentimental basis, according to what I've learned from history and the inherited Christian guilt for the evil which has been committed in the name of good (even though I am now agnostic at best, my roots and my family remain Christian and a part of my identity) But in my darkest moments of hurt, despair and rejection through the past few years, a cruel retort has grown in mind that rises up now whenever I hear a liberal talking like a pastor. It absolutely isn't the whole truth, but it does carry a measure of truth and I wish it didn't: "The only thing liberals have taught me, is that all their high principles only apply when it is convenient, profitable and preferably pleasurable for them." I don't believe that is what Liberalism stands for, and I don't want this antagonism between right and left to grow yet again into something pointlessly destructive. But I do feel that something has gone deeply wrong somewhere along the spectrum of the left and that it is breeding the very opposite of the values of inclusivity, equality and fairness which I believed it stood for. I'm no saint, what gentleness I have is more likely born of my non-confrontational nature and I am full of bitterness and anger I thought myself above not a few years ago. But I will always remember and cherish that brief window of peaceful and loving coexistence between an awkward Christian idealist and his atheist, gender queer best friend, that now seems so long ago. To me, that is what Liberalism means. Not dodging differences or fighting over offense, but treating those who are different or indeed think differently the way we would like them to treat us in return. Good luck to all those who do just that and may it bear good fruit in abundance~ And sorry for rambling so, I enjoyed the podcast~
What a wonderful post. I can't say how similar my experience has been. Only last night my nephew loudly 'outed' me in a crowded restaurant because I wasn't left enough (I was crticising Kier Starmer). The progressive left have made discussing politics quite difficult nowadays and the woolly liberal intellectuals, like Stephen Fry, who would prefer not to examine the fault lines, have let us all down by not standing up to the nonsense.
That sounds terrible, friends should not fight in such ways about topics that they likely have very little bearing on. I must say I am surprised that alot of people are referring to Liberals as leftists, my understanding has always been that liberals are closer to centrists believing the current system is just and that all that must be altered is social norms, then again perhaps I have spent too much time in anarchist circles. From what i've seen and experienced it doesn't surprise me too much that this happened, it seems that these days liberals define themselves in opposition to the right, that the conversation topics are brought about by the rights actions not the liberals. This is not very good philosophical grounds for a political movement and it does not surprise me it has blown up in their face... I hope that these things have not made you lose faith in humanity, the truth is we are all confused animals and we want this world to make sense but the world doesnt make sense its pure nonsense and its filled with wonderful, contradictory yet beautiful people
@@Percole Thanks for the reply. In the UK we have the far left (Revolutionary Communists, Socialists, SWP, Greens and Radical Progressives) the moderate left (Labour Party, various unions, Fabian Society) the centrists (Classical Liberals, Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats) the right (Conservatives, Reform UK) and the far right (which could include fascists, ethno-nationalists and radical libertarians). It is a spectrum or it at least it used to be, we now have four independent MPs who seem to represent Islam. I'm not sure where they stand politically but they support cousin marriage and want the re-introduction of blasphemy laws. They also advocate for more severe legal penalties for 'Islamophobia', which they want to be in charge of defining. We also have Scottish nationalsts, Northern Irish Protestant Nationalists and Irish Catholic Republicans (separatists. who get elected and then refuse to attend the UK Parliament). First of all Brexit caused fractures amongst each of those groups, then the 'woke' agenda, then the trans ideologies started cut across those dividing lines too. Populist politics, like the kind Donald Trump espouses, are now a source of division too. The conflict in Gaza has split the left and political lslamism seems to have taken over the Greens. Irish republicans are very pro-immigration and multi-culturalism, as are the Scottish Nationalists! More traditional Nationalist sentiments can be found in amongst many of the ideological groups on the right, particularly linked to the lowering of immigration and strengthening borders, while the left strongly defend multi-culturalism and unopposed mass immigration. The most confusing of these groups are the 'woke' conservatives who support identity politics, do not seem to want to conserve anything of British culture and have much more in common with the globalists on the left. Talking of which, you can now find both nationalists (pro Brexit) and internationalists (anti Brexit) on the left. I should mention we also have a progressive, liberal cultural elite (which includes the Church of England and the BBC) who support all green issues (like net zero) and are fiercely pro-minority, anti-populist, hate Trump, very critical of the working class indigenous population but very pro-trans, pro Palestine, anti-Israel, pro-LGBTQ+, defensive of Islam and who advocate for BLM, DEI. They also seem to approve of the various authoritarian, legal restrictions on freedom of speech, such as our 'non-crime hate speech' laws. Because they are a wealthy, priviledged and sheltered elite, they are rarely troubled by the negative consequences of their positions, such as street crime, low wages, high house prices and social disfunction. As George Orwell once said, they would rather steal from the poor box than stand for the national anthem or salute the flag! Nowadays they are very ashamed of Bitish history and want to 'de-colonize' everything they can. It's a complicated patchwork of cultural and political divisions. The one thing you can be sure everyone agrees about, however, is everybody in the UK hates the moderates in the centre! Probably because they are not solely informed by ideology, tend to be led by logic, facts and evidence and can see sense on both sides of an argument. I consider myself to be in that group, but you never know, if you ask my nephew, I might be a fascist! Who knows? Thanks for the reply.
There is a lot to like about Mr Fry. But he’s been rich and famous for so long, cushioned and cocooned within high society, I don’t think he knows what’s affecting ordinary people. Parts of him seem to be very aware of “the left” having messed up, while in the next breath he’s downplaying it all. Where’s the anger? Like I’m “on the left” and I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!
I for myself think that every discussion or debate is better off with less emotion. Outrage is not a proof of sincerity and you can be very productive without it.
They also sink the boats on purpose even with kids on board which is why they die half the time, to force us to save them as in our waters (the law) echr
Biology is a lving thing, even the concept itself. Most people will try to use biology to fool you into believing the unthinkable, but human nature is immutable.
Fry has been someone I have held in high regard my whole life (= after I've started encountering him first through comedy and acting and then other things he has done, said and debated) due his various talents and general intellect, but in recent years I've heard more and more totally out of touch statements from him which either made little sense, or was a direct counterclaim to something he had just said within last 5 minutes so it looked he is holding two opposite viewpoints.
From my experience, every fact about the world needs to be put in some context to be better understood. You can have different opinions about the broader context of specific facts (maybe because of a lack of knowledge and maybe there is some knowledge we won't be ever able to reach) In other words, a specific fact is nothing. You need to know how something interacts with other things and relative to them. Even math should be put in context to describe the world. Therefore, in this case, what is the most important is context not only facts.
I really appreciate how you debate and discuss things so respectfully even when you don’t agree exactly with what someone says. It’s a lost art in this digital age. If viewers take nothing else from this amazing channel, I hope they learn how to discuss things face to face with people respectfully.
Im an old fashioned Athiest, working class, democratic socialist tradesman (among other things). I think government healthcare, access to clean water and reasonably priced food, a base level of housing, strong workers rights, equitable access to education and a strong sensible social safety net underpinning a regulated but almost entirely free market are laudable and decent goals for a society to strive for. What I couldnt care less about is the touchy feely stuff about saying the right thing, virtue signaling and getting angry every time someone says something slightly off colour. I think we should speak as we speak, being honest about who we are and where we are in our thinking and allow others the courtesy regardless the difficulty that at times causes. How will I find my people in this world if nobody has the latitude and freedom to be themselves out of fear? I want asssholes to be assholes so i can avoid them and waste less precious time humouring them. After 17 years of rough toil as a service plumber with me you will get what what you get, i will tell you EXACTLY what is on my mind in no uncertain terms regarless the consequences and invite any and all to do the same in their dealings with me.
You believe all that can be provided by the government as well as being 'entirely free market'? You might as well just call yourself a Thatcherite and be done with it.
What I choose not to say is as much of who I am as what I do say. I am not one thing, I am many things contained within one body, and one history. I am not a cause, I am a conglomeration of processes. I often think of things I do not wish to share with whomever I happen to be with at the time. That said I do think people ought to be able to say what they choose to say, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be judged for it. No one can tell me who I can and cannot judge. I do recognize the right of governments to curtail the power of my judgments, so long as I can influence the power of that government (example, should I despise Mormons I recognize that I am not allowed to not hire someone for a job because they are Mormon. Of course that is irrelevant to my contempt for Mormons, it's relevant to my power as an employer which exists in a separate sphere from my opinions.) I agree with Stephen Fry, Accuracy is less important than effect in most circumstances. Mostly this is because accuracy is only existant from a given perspective, it's rarely universal. I won't lie to people, but neither do I communicate all the truths I can see from all the perspectives I can imagine. Example: Brian Thompson was a Father and Husband and by existing accounts a decent one. He was the CEO of UHC, and he was a boon to the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular. His mother in Law - often a fraught relationship - called him a good man. All of that is true from one or more perspectives, and none of it is relevant to someone who has been denied care by UHC, nor is any of it directly related to why he was targeted. The point I'm trying to get across is that for better or worse I can't imagine a world where people don't self censor sometimes, and I don't think that's really how the mind works. Government censorship is generally speaking a bad idea. I want people to oppose it. I don't think it's always 100% uncalled for, even if it's not the best available solution. in the modern media landscape, I can absolutely understand where it needs to be discussed. We live in a world of Media where both large powerful Corporations and foreign governments have the power and the tools to very directly target domestic citizens to disrupt democracy and public discourse. I'm somewhat cautiously OK with those cannels being limited. in the end, truth will out, but a lot of damamge can be done in the interim.
@@MyIDIsNotAvailableDawkins critiqued people like Ken Ham who deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. There are intellectual Christians like Alister McGrath and the lake John Polkinghorne, but it seemed the right doesn’t like them...
Wanted to scream multiple times. I love this man. National treasure. Salt from good earth. Disagree with him on the framing of all of his arguments. Gutted.
Uff. Indeed this is sad, especially the misunderstanding of Chapelle... How can He be so tone deaf in this case, yet so sharp and astute in others... Well I guess that just makes him human.
It's not that people want to say things that are palpably offensive; it's that certain things will be called offensive even when they have an entirely factual basis. Honest, factual criticism of non-western cultures has almost completely disappeared, for example. Another example is how the anyone critical of illegal immigration is immediately assumed to be critical of immigration of any kind, and that the basis of this is racism.
Surely the point is that a Government has a duty to allow in immigrants only that satisfy a specific national requirement that cannot be satisfied locally, and who are seen to be compatible with the country's society and culture.
@davidtuer. If we can no longer satisfy our own needs, we must change the way we do things internally. Bringing people in just perpetuates the basic problem - and imports a few new ones.
Fun fact, the 13/50 statistic is mirrored in London with the same group having the same population percentage to crime ratio. Point it out and you get called a racist.
You have Nigel Farage complaining about hearing people speak foreign languages on the tube etc, even though his German wife would almost certainly speak in German if talking to another German.
Actually it does, you see as a modern and decent society we shouldn't feel as if there are no consequences to outright being offensive to a complete stranger JUST because they belong to a minority group, that's not offense, it's not free speech, it's bullying. The problem is that the only way to stop it in a world run by box tickers, is to create laws that harm everyone. Just as in the workplace when one person takes the piss, you get new rules/policies which annoy and harm everyone. The solution is for society to govern itself, to regain the common human decency and respect that our media has been destroying for decades, to distract us from our real common enemy and divide us all.
Actually I don't think this is really how it works. It's how people who spend a lot of effort in controlling speech _think_ it works. But then in practice it never actually works out, so obviously the theory isn't all that. It could be that it would actually work if someone was literally raised in a super-totalitarian environment with entire words and concepts completely erased from the vocabulary, but very few if any countries have actually ever managed that level of complete control.
@@HaganeNoGijutsushi The people who are demanding you speak only in a manner they allow using only words they approve of have done serious damage to the west and when the very much deserved backlash has started, the left doesn't get to bitch, whine and complain about it. They had their chance to rule and they not only fumbled the ball, they're demanding to give the ball back to them and go home with it despite them not even owning the ball.
I have every respect for this man. He saw the horrors of what actual policing against LGBT was. He saw what real institutional racism was. He saw what overstepping government tyranny was in both the UK and abroad. The man was a Coldstream Guardsman in his youth for God's sake. He saw all the horrid and sordid parts of humanity of every facet missing only one: being a racial minority. When he says "this side has gone way too far and is no longer the side that is right or even sane" you should listen
Free speech is a bedrock because it is essential to protect against tyranny. You must be free to critique and critise the establishment at all times, to hold it to account.
Mary Whitehouse understood children needed to remain children, something Stephen Fry does not seem to comprehend. My son as a little boy was utterly traumatised by an unexpected mutilation scene at 5 pm. Mary Whitehouse brought in the 9 pm watershed and I am eternally grateful.
What a joy to watch. To see people who certainly disagree in a lot of instances have a civilised, rational discussion without any insult, accusation or whatever makes listening to discussions so cumbersome these days. Many, many thanks for this great interview.
This has been unexpectedly insightful. For a while now, as someone who identifies as Center-Left, I've struggled with a sense of disenfranchisement with the Left as a whole, without being able to pinpoint exactly why. I've felt, for lack of a better word, alarmed by what seems like an increasingly hostile attitude on the Left toward reasonable questions, a refusal to engage in productive discourse, and a general unwillingness to understand opposing viewpoints. Stephen's explanation resonates deeply with me, as it perfectly articulates what I’ve been grappling with. I’ve had the growing suspicion that the Right is becoming more extreme and powerful, fueled in part by the antagonism of a Left that appears more focused on the impact of offensive remarks on themselves or others than on addressing the root issues. Instead of effectively countering the Right’s rhetoric in a calm, rational manner, the Left often seems stuck in a cycle of reactive outrage. This, in turn, alienates people who feel disconnected from the constant outrage-those who are either less indignant or indifferent to the latest controversies-pushing them toward demagogues who offer them a sense of belonging. The whole situation feels counterproductive and deeply frustrating.
The problem with this is that the "far left" doesn't actually have representation in our government. They're *not* doing their "far left" agenda. The right has been chasing a boogieman, and then through their own echo chambers and extremist purity tests, radicalized themselves into the far right. Overall, "You made me do these bad things" is a really fucking dumb argument if I am being honest.
That last point was especially pertinent: a huge proportion of people, who have certainly not lived so long that they might expect some total societal paradigm-shift, feel obliged to say things like 'I'm on the left myself, but I must still say this' or 'this person makes an interesting point - it's not that I agree with him on everything', etc. All the disclaimers, because issues which were once eminently 'left-wing' (and/or libertarian) - free speech would certainly be one of them - have somehow fallen out of favour. It is quite odd that anyone feels the need to present their 'credentials' before simply discussing an issue. (If, hypothetically, I were a centrist or a right-winger, would I then warn people not to take me seriously on account of this?! An amusing thought. We're only putting such limitations upon ourselves). And I can't recall any public figure I ever agreed with about everything, so that is an equally strange thing to emphasise. (Although I will doubtless do both of these strange things myself in the next few days or so). Possibly it's simply the fact that more and more of our interactions are with people or entities which can't be directly identified - no wonder we become slightly neurotic about signalling 'who we are' before saying anything. The more we feel like we're talking to everyone, the less we'll have to say. (So thanks to the millions who won't read this. 😆)
Місяць тому
The game of identity politics is one of exclusion, overt racism and inequality / uneven playing field. Politicians have nothing to offer, therefore they resort to weaponised rhetoric and policies. Arresting people for tweets, GTFOH with that nonsense! These are some sick and twisted individuals that support and enforce such policies! #wtf
Isn’t the left always like this though ? Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao. Kim Jon Un. Robenspierre. Chavez. Castro. At the point of a bayonet is the only way nonsense can be implemented 🤷♂️
It is a rare thing to read the comments of a youtube video and find a nuanced discussion with a lot of polite and insightful commentary that puts the content of the video to shame. My thanks to all of you.
I think Mr Fry doesn't understand Chapelle. Chapelle spoke deeply about his Trans friend committing suicide. Chapelle blames us and himself for not finding a solution and I think Dave thinks, affirming transgenderism is the problem not the solution. Thats just my take.
I think Chappelle was punching down. I think all in all he has like 5 specials with transgender jokes. And these jokes are still the same. They are valid: the joke Michael Jordon identifies as a woman and scores 150 points at a game - OK, I see what he meant. Of course. But repeating that same joke in every other special? Why? It doesn't serve any purpose than: Look I can say these things, cos they can't cancel me. But it is not even funny, it is and old material. it's lazy.
But, but, but, Fry talks posh and sounds clever and remembers lots of facts. He can see all and understand all from his perch in his silver spoon ivory tower.
So right. This is the same as his statement, "the left are more interested in being right than effective", they haven't been right for at least least 20 years, 20 years of lefty policies ruining the country and all they do when the evidence demonstrates they are wrong is double down. The left are more interested in convincing everyone they are right, rather than actually being right.
He doesn't see it. He sees whatever echo chamber facts have been presented to him and thinks its dangerous to break out/beyond of said echo chamber because the ebil rightwingers will get you out there.
5 min in and Stephen says the dumbest thing about slippery slopes, Stephen, we are living in the slippery slope predicted 20 years ago, it is not a fallacy.
And he called the people who were saying that 20 years ago bigots and racists. This mess is Stephen Fry's fault. I can't believe I ever fell for the lie that this odious creep is clever. In his defense, he did state he's not actually clever, just good at remembering. In other words, he admitted to being little more than a parrot.
@@icarusjumped2719 based on your reply I went back and watched it again and sorry no, he is clearly scoffing at the idea and uses the term "used to be" as a means to undermine the concept of a slippery slope warning.
Stephen Fry remains a 'human treasure' - decent, well-spoken, funny, yet serious, truthful and so very capable of including and understanding and bridging the divides of humanity (however distateful they may be). Fantastic interview!
I grew up in a time when 'woke' held its original meaning, which was to be forever aware of the dark underbelly of institutional racism. The newer meaning is foreign to me. I keep catching myself going on line and reminding myself of the new incarnation of the word. Old Woke was straight up legit and warranted. New Woke seems really contrived and misguided.
@@Loonypapa you’ve got the interpretations reversed. The original definition is an ebonics term of art justifying rampant antisocial and criminal behaviour in black American communities of the 1990s by waving the phantom of white supremacy like a klan hood on a pike. The new definition, used properly, as the insult it always ought to have been, effectively means “vain, self important, or ideologically indiscreet, and acting in contradiction to a stated objective”. You’ve been a rather pliant punching bag in this comment section. It’s easy, if not as gratifying, to defeat a rotting vegetable in a contest of wit.
Because liberals can't argue against woke. Liberalism is about equality and progress. They can't say "now stop". Why would they say that? Traditionalists, conservatives or non-liberals can say stop. They can set barriers past which they do not want to move. Quick example: Liberals wanted gay marriage. They got it. What was argument? Two people who love each other. Now somebody comes and says: "I want to marry my brother". What will they argue? Why should two homosexuals be allowed to marry and not two brothers? If argument is love, they should be allowed to. Reality is, there is only one argument why brother and brother, mother and son etc. could not get married. Because marriage is about children, creating next generation and creating stable environment for children. And that there should be separation of gene pool (hence no incest). That's the only valid argument and it is the same one which invalidates gay marriage.
It's a joy to hear Stephen speak as he uses English so beautifully. He mentions his fear for immigrant families coming over on rickety boats..from what I've seen it's mainly young men who are arriving.
I just love the way KK makes people in general or in this case the wonderful Stephen Fry, go back on what they have just ostentatiously stated as fact. Fry is a lovely man but he is 100% rooted in the establishment camp. Fry is part of the problem not the solution, that much is obvious from this delightful discourse.
That's exactly what I thought. He has nothing to offer because he still thinks we have a social/political culture that actually disappeared fifteen years ago.
He's not wonderful or lovely. He's is a vile, hateful, anti Christian. He stole money and did time for it in a cushy prison even though he was well off and didn't need it. He sleeps with a man who dresses as a teenager. He's gross. He helped destroy this country.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Actually I was surprised how muddled he seemed, I started to wonder if he was being a bit dishonest, he certainly moved away from the point a few times when KK tried to pin him down. I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens would not have been so wishy-washy.
Good point. He is enormously smart, with outstanding communication skills. So when he is wrong, he puts the case more eloquently than practically anyone on the planet. I've always loved him.
"The left would rather be right than effective." Except they are WRONG. The left is doing all the totalitarian things he fears the right may do, but somehow the "left" is still correct. Utter insanity.
"Slippery slope" is not a fallacy when it comes to laws and power. I hate it when people think that because THEY think a certain way everybody else does as well.
The slippery slope is when you say 'If A then B and C must follow'. It's not fallacious to say 'If A then likely B and likely C'. Lot of people, including Fry slip over the imperative aspect.
What differentiates the "slippery slope" from the more common historic "political pendulum" effect, is the presence of pushback. In the engineering discipline of Controls Theory, this pushback is called a restoring force. The Cancel Mob, and its allies in Parliament, have attempted to make pushback (free speech) illegal, eliminating the restoring force. This is the reason we're on a slippery slope right now. Anyway, seeing the "slippery slope" as boolean (either it is a fallacy or it isn't) is just wrong. It is a function of whether the restoring force is positive or negative.
24:14 Huge respect Konstantin...Stephen is someone we all hugely admire, and yet you very delicately & clearly called out and challenged his essentially 'straw man' reasoning from this point onwards to perfectly relocate where and describe what the real battle lines are, and where people so often start talking at cross-purposes 👏👏👏
@@hellodavey1902 What alarms me is who did he think was sending him those anti-Semitic insults after he addressed the nation about the rising amount of hate crimes against Jews? The “far right”, which is a pejorative term that’s thrown around so much it doesn’t mean anything anymore or the radicalized leftist university students just released from their reeducation camps? I’m American, so forgive me if I was incorrect about any of those details.
The one thing I always remember about Stephen Fry since I was a teen was reading about how he wanted to unalive himself. Seeing him here, healthy, talking sense, brings me joy.
Yeah and if he weren’t incredibly wealthy and priveleged he wouldn’t have got the psychiatric care he needed and he wouldn’t be here today. And I’m sure people like the hosts of this podcast would have seen his bipolar disorder back then and told him to “toughen up” and stop being so precious
I must say, Fry's smugness was off the charts when he was talking about Dave Chappelle punching down at those poor, helpless, defenseless, weak little transmissions. Is that really how you feel about them? Cause that is mighty patronizing.
Yes. They are a weak minority. Stop pretending you give a fk about talking down to them. The reason why most Americans can't afford a home or to start a family or why most Americans live pay check to pay check or why wages have not kept pace with worker productive output or why Americans refuse to see the doctor when they are sick or any of the countless other ridiculous socioeconomic issues plaguing America is not because of the 7 trans people beating the sh*t out of women in women's boxing. It's because of the corporation which own your existence. Do you know how many residential dwellings are bought up by the likes of Blackrock and other private equity funds? Do you know how much taxpayer money was STOLEN by the banks across every time they've been bailed out of bankruptcy? Do you know how much of the wealth you work for every day is stolen from you and trickled up to the 1% out of your pocket? And you want to keep whining about trans people being the problem? Open your eyes. Nobody actually gives a fk about trans people existing when they aren't sure where their kid's next meal is coming from. The whole culture war nonsense is a distraction pulled over your eyes to give you an easy enemy to hate so that you won't think too hard about who your ACTUAL enemy is. It's so disappointing that the public just keeps eating this garbage up. Every week for the past 5 years I've heard nothing from every right wing media outlet but whining about woke bullsh*t. Curated highlight reels of random blue haired r*tards from tiktok saying something stupid and the media holding them up as though they are on the level of Noam Chomsky in terms of representing the left. Don't you think it's funny how they only show these idiots and never invite someone like Chomsky himself to come on their shows? It's a simple and easy narrative to believe that trans people are the boggey-they/them and that all your problems are their fault but the truth is far less sensational and far more nefarious. You've been buying into a carefully constructed distraction designed to paralyze you from taking any meaningful action for years.
At least Konstantin pushed back in the exactly correct way. And then Fry agreed? Fry seemed to be saying one thing then another in the next breath at a few points here.
There was a time when Politicians were involved in Party Policy making while still being obliged to advocate for ALL their constituents. They would put themselves forward as being prepared to pursue certain things and would then adhere to those promises secure in the knowledge that they had secured the backing of the folk who voted for them. If they 'kept their word' and had integrity they were doing what they should be doing. Conversely 'Comedians' and 'Entertainers' operated in a unreal world where all concepts were open for usually humourous debate, on the understanding that like the court 'Jester' of old was allowed licence to 'mock' as it opened up 'taboo' subjects and facilitated debate. The problem grew when Politicians wanted to free themselves from their obligation re integrity and Democratic representation, while enjoying the licence allowed 'Comedians' Most problems would be resolved if Professionals simply stayed in their lane, or at least qualified the position from which they spoke. It is also very convenient to use amorphous terms like 'leftist' and 'Right Wing' while using labels like 'Fascist','Socialist' and 'Communist' without any real understanding of what they might mean, and how many people may hold views that might conflict with what others consider fixed. The true pursuit of Democracy is never going to be easy,it's not supposed to be it's as much about responsibilities as rights and involves endless negotiation and compromise. The future is very much in the hands of the Billionaires and the People and it is only the solidarity and commitment to each other that makes any kind of Democratic future possible,but that will require far more effort from far more people than the Oligarchs will need to quash any kind of real freedom, and as such the future may indeed be grim. If, we could just return to people being allowed to pursue their lives in privacy,while people who go to or choose to be entertained are allowed to utilise the accepted licence of comedy (or not participate) as they choose.
If only they were weak little transmissions. Instead they hold inordinate power and influence over the media, academia and government policy. Not to mention posing a physical threat to women and children.
Oh, thank god for Stephen Fry. Right now I really needed some figure from my childhood and early adulthood to not be a huge disappointment. Actuality, to call Stephen Fry “not a huge disappointment,” would be a complete understatement, he continues to exceed all my expectations ❤
LOL, I always for Decades blamed the Right for the Rise of the Left! Now that Left is Loonyville, Bout time the Right (Trump) has introduced common sense.
For a free society to thrive, it must allow for the free exchange of ideas, even those that risk offending others. The subjective nature of offense makes it an unreliable standard for constructing laws, as no one entity should be trusted to decide what is or isn't acceptable speech. Instead of criminalizing offense, societies should prioritize fostering open dialogue and equipping individuals with the tools to engage critically with ideas they find disagreeable. In the words of Orwell, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'
Yes, but there are immense downsides as well. What if I don't want other people to say something I don't like? What if I am offended by it and it causes bad feelings and I don't want to change my behavior or even come to the conclusion I could be wrong? - I don't think you understand how bad that would be!
Grow up. Think for yourself. Living equals being hurt and offended sometimes. It gives you a chance to evaluate yourself. We all have been offended by something that has hurt our feelings. Deal with it. Or as I was told, "Suck it up, Buttercup." It happens. Move on. Stop whining. Live your best life.
What a shining example of playing the violin whilst the titanic sinks. This guy cant tell whether he's pumped or stuffed. He identifies that there is an issue but just cant fathom that his way of thinking is directly a part of arriving at that issue.
I’ve always been middle of the road politically with a leaning to the left, now my views are classed as far right ?!! I haven’t changed, the terrain has moved beneath my feet
I'm the same. Also, I would argue with Fry thst often little kids are going to school in drag (that is what it is) because adults have put the idea in their heads.
Ah. Well, if you've always been left leaning, perhaps it's time for a change? The Left has always been wrong. And it has always been destined for where we have ended up.
Left wing is progressive. If your views aren't progressive with the times then you are conservative as you do not want to change your political views. Makes sense, right? In the 80s, it was normal to see gay people as evil. So if you were left wing in the 80s, and today you consider it evil to be trans but you are okay with gay people because you were progressive 50 years ago then you're not a progressive anymore today
A lot of people confuse being offended and being insulted. If you say "I think that's offensive" it suggests it's universally offensive to everyone else on behalf of everyone else. "I think that's insulting" is a personal matter and what people actually should be saying.
@philwatts. We think that we are liberal. But I’m beginning to think we have merely exchanged one set of sacred cows for another. ‘’ Anti-racism “ has become just as.ferocious and trigger-happy as racism itself. It has even invented its own language - a move which is about as totalitarian as you can get. For example , we have the pure invention of “Islamophobia” - a far stretch from ‘deep dislike” , or even hatred ( a perfectly valid term). Opponents of Islamic philosophy must be classified as mentally deranged. This concept has been cleverly slipped under the door and “normalised” by constant use. Even the use of “race” is bogus. Racial theory was busted long ago. But it’s a safer word to use when you are desperate to avoid the topic of cultural incompatibility - and a shift of values that cannot be accommodated in the civil and legal foundations of the Western world. Even in a liberal, secular society.
If you find something offensive it's almost certainly because it's true but you don't want it to be. Westerns are so intellectually disabled from 100 years of nihilism and relativism that they struggle with this, even to the point of totally abandoning the truth and making it illegal to offend people.
Saying that something is offensive and being offended on behalf of someone have been blurred together when they are two different things. Saying that something is offensive or can be seen as offensive is more of a caution/warning that what is being said (whether the person realises it or not) can be confrontational depending on who hears. Being offended on behalf of someone is a virtuous stance and is what most people think of when someone says “that’s offensive”.
Neither seem substantial complaints. I wonder if you're confusing personal politics with important matters of state. The "manners problems" seem largely manufactured and superficial. Of course, this is how aristocracies assert their totalitarianism - politeness regimes.
People have debated for thousands of years whether a wedge is a slope and if so, which one are we on, or is being inserted. Personally I'm not bother about the thin end of the wedge. It's the other end I fear. I just hope we're on a slope. That sounds like fun.
I'm a conservative but absolutely love to hear from Steven and his thoughts . We should all have the right to speak the truth and what we observe in our society .
As an American conservative independent, and a Christian, I adore and respect Stephen for how much he has been an advocate for free speech. Truly appreciate his insights.
Mr Fry. Didnt the world get to this state because in the 90's and 2000's we were being polite. I think its time politness takes a back seat to the truth. Even though it hurts your feelinhs. Fry is fighting for arguments fought 8years ago. Its well beyond the point now in 2024. Battle grounds are fought in classrooms for the minds of children and we sane people need to speak up.
It was never politeness, this is about cowardice. Most luvvies are weak and cowardly, in fact a lot of people are. Many people will do anything to go along with a group. This is one of the defining characteristic incidentally of those attracted to Leftism, they want to belong to a group. Understandable but also dangerous. Politeness here = cowardice.
Circumstantial evidence here is that Fry was very seriously abused as a child, which pushed him into the "community" that he so vociferously defends. Even to the point of defending their recruiting their next generation, even as he was recruited.
@@jimluebke3869 So your argument is he was made gay by abuse? Gay people also come from loving and accepting heterosexual communities. You will need to explain them. Gay people often realise very young that they are gay, without any abuse whatsoever. Gayness occurs in many mammals. Time to accept that and move on. They're just people wanting the freedom to live their lives.
This is the first I've seen of your vids and it was fascinating. And it certainly did not look like a seance... loved the split screen over the exquisite marble table, allowing us to see the expressions of two of the people in the discussion.
He's right that Free Speech is not the end goal. But, Free Speech is NOT the end goal in America. But, you *need* Free Speech to get everything else. Being able to BREATHE is not the end goal of a person. But you NEED it to live.
Exactly. One might say we put morals or decency as the foundation of it all, instead of free speech. But then it's an unsteady foundation because without protected freedom of speech, why would criticism or concern be allowed? Why would informing people be allowed? Why would a plebian be allowed to doubt an expert? The ruling class typically does not want accountability, or to have their mistakes publicized. It would be disastrous. Too easily corrupted.
He doesn’t understand it at all. The US constitution is supposed to protect the people against government overreach. Freedom of speech is paramount for the exchange of ideas, and the formation of both common values, and those we reject.
@@justmemimi7338 Agreed - I didn't mention how it is the FIRST Amendment just to keep the comment simple, but yes. And, he has to know that if anything is "first" or paramount in the US, it's "freedom" not "free speech" which is just one component of that freedom. Our Constitution is not a document that limits the citizens - it's what limits the GOVERNMENT - which is profound.
@@justmemimi7338 And instead you allowed and began to worship corporate and upper class overreach or outright tyranny. The american experiment failed utterly, and you americans fail to take accountability for it. Instead doubling down on your failed culture and ideology and branding everything else, from what is actual democracy to functioning, spliced socialism (like the Nordic model, for instance) as "evil communism". You've made religion out of capitalism, to your own destruction.
9:15 this is a terrible argument left unchallenged. It is a strawman of what people mean by "You can't say anything anymore." People get police visits for thinking that a woman can't have a peen. They went to court for it. He's in denial. The lads let it roll.
Yes he is contradicting himself so glaringly, it's amazing. He says he paid for a person's lawyers because they were about to be sent to prison over speech, and then suggests that the taxi driver was an idiot for saying his speech was being limited.
Yeah. Fry seems oblivious to the fact that the refusal to say what cannot be said is the issue, you can tell someone you won't report them, but you cannot ensure it, there is no way for a cabby to know Fry won't take note of his badge number and phone the popo as soon as he's out of sight, and THAT is the method of suppression..
I'm quite left wing, but the idea of putting people in jail for speech is so Antithetical as to cause revulsion. I think it's awful to call fat people fat, simply because it's rude, but it shouldn't cause someone to be arrested. Calling someone by their former name after a name swap is also rude, but far from a reason to be placed in jail.
@@unthenner5519 there was guy charged for anti-trans commentary in 2020, then subsequently the judge ruled in his favor. the right has turned this into "thousands of people being arrested for speaking facts"
Over the decades of my life listening carefully to this man I literally can't think of a single work hes said that I disagree with. He is the giant whose shoulders many of us stand on.
The people who mocked and ridiculed Christianity are saying that the western culture is under attack, forgetting that the western culture is Christianity 😂😂😂😂
Yes, but a country's culture changes over time. The English used to worship the old gods before they switched to this new Jewish one and now most of them don't believe in any of them.
@@RobertFletcherOBE You know full well what the OG commenter was saying. They made a perfectly valid point, but like most atheists you can't help being childish and petty.
Exactly. Well said. I'm sick of people like Fry, Cleese and Rowling getting pats on the backs from the right just because they occasionally say the sky is blue.
I would have loved to hear Stephen reply to the following..... .....as a gay man, do you agree with laws banning speech calling for stoning gay people because of religious beliefs? .....being of Jewish heritage, do you agree with laws banning denial of the Holocaust?
It’s a sign of intelligence, he is seeing things from multiple sides while connecting different strands from throughout the interview. He agrees and poses counter points. My late father was an extremely intelligent man and through discussing points from all sides one gets a better picture of the subject.
Thank you I thought he is a wind bag as well far removed from the reality of ordinary peoples lives. God made ordinary people and this snob looks down on them. What a brilliant ass!
Indeed - and are of course considered convenient epithets by those of the opposite side to group to vilify and marginalize anyone who disagrees with your point of view!
Even the title "The Rise of the Right is the Left's Fault" is an absurd simplification of how individuals think. If my categories are: pro-choice, free speech, fiscal conservative, religious pro-LEGAL immigration, pro equality but anti-DEI, anti-ILLEGAL immigration ... what am I ??
That’s not the notion. People on the left have always believed in progress, changing things for the better, improving things etc hence the name progressives. People on the right believe in the status quo, they don’t want to force change, they believe change will happen organically they react to change hence the term reactionary. Left has always taken the higher ground because it traditionally wanted things done now, changed now for the better.
Especially considering historically, pretty much every big conflict or genocide has been a direct fault of socialism or communism gone haywire. Just look at the German national socialist party, the soviets, Mao, North Korea etc. This is just a massive gaslighting trying to make the right out to be the bad guys
@@mpwaterhouse That means you don't fit into the predetermined box that the status quo has defined all people must belong to. Individualism and thought is not something that is encouraged these days.
I don't buy into the "national Treasure" label given to Fry. I find him very overrated but the label seems to have been put on him by the modern British establishment and media class (private education and Oxbridge) that he is part of and embodies, A bourgeois lefty who presents himself as the some sort of unifying voice of reason and sanity but underneath the verbosity is as about as relevant as any other bubble dwelling luvvie.
Id give it to Rowan Atkinson, or... damn, whats his name, came up with Rowan in blackadder, played Dr. House. Cant remember, but yeah him. Both are great class actors.
@@Belzediel Just watched Diehard this week, first time in decades; man every scene was a pure pleasure to watch. Maybe I was missing the '80s or it really is just that good.
I think the reason why modern free speech comedians make jokes of minorities is actually pretty simple. A big part of comedy is to poke the sacred cow, and because culturally these groups are more protected than any other, to where even light criticism is frowned upon, they are the modern day version of that. Making fun of white people, straight people, etc, is the norm now, comedy isn't interesting when it's just saying the same thing you hear every day, the shock is the point. The problem is people conflate that with actually hating those groups, which generally isn't true.
It all depends if the comedian actually tells jokes. I sometimes hear comedians insult some minority group, but there's nothing funny about it. There is no joke. Sometimes it's nothing more than "look what I dare to say now", without actually adding anything funny. Then it becomes a problem.
... he literally said that elites don't speak for the rest of humanity and that the problems of real people can't be easily categorized with universal academic statements. He's literally saying the opposite of what you've just said he does ... you might want to watch this video again because you may have watched it but I don't think you actually listened ...
Thank Goodness itself for the heart, mind, reason and courage of Mr. Fry. I just wish you could be around for another 100 years to see the young people growing up today - through it all. Xxxx
Fry helped to make it this way, pushed the idea that we should always veer-left. He is woke, he just managed to stay supporting free speech for most things...
It’s always interesting to listen to Fry: he is bright, knowledgeable and articulate. But, that said, he does - despite criticising the left - often represent their worst faults. When he says ‘the trouble with the left is they prefer to be right than effective’ he is tacitly implying they are right. But they are often wrong! They are wrong to embrace CRT, to obsess about trivialities such as transgender toilets, to promote highly divisive identity politics, to cancel those they disagree with, to downplay class, to propose climate change policies that would immiserate half the world, to name but a few of their erroneous projects. Marx was mostly wrong, so were Lenin, Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao etc ad infinitum.
@@astraea9644 And yet they are not even that! They’re frequently nasty, vindictive, prideful, domineering, immoral, self-important, violent, arrogant, destructive………
Great metaphor! And yes, they must. One day you must stand on your own two feet, voice your own opinion and be counted as your own man, without crutches of someone else's opinion. Saddening, painful even, but necessary.
And... what Mr Fry mentions about not offending people is boIIocks, not offending people who actively seek and claim offence has lead to the appalling state the UK is now, greatly 'enriched' and utterly disunited.
@@Xanaduum People get offended by everything. Particularly the whites. Though the blacks get worked up over a lot of stuff that is their fault and the fault of my people and the Jews.
it's a style choice. There are confrontation interview styles, where statements are challenged. This is the conversational style where the guest gets to talk with less challenging. Both have their pros and cons. The confrontational style can mean the guest never gets to finish a thought and makes the guest less open and more defensive. The conversational style means they will be challenged less but may be more forthcoming. I think both have their place. We don't have to take things at face value in either case. In normal conversation we will often switch flow or contradict ourselves sometimes changing what we think half way through a sentence. That's pretty human I think. Although now, I'm not sure I agree with myself.
To be honest, here. I only lasted 13 minutes in. I know that probably says more about me than the video. But I actually found this rather tedious to listen too.
Few misguided thoughts on Fry here. As a Brit, I would say he’s a national treasure because of his eloquence and intelligence, but also because he’s a reminder of incredible poshness, whilst still being different from those type of folk. He suffers from quite severe mental health issues, is homosexual, and really has lived an incredibly interesting life (prison etc). You don’t have to agree with everything he says, but he’s always worth a listen, even if you do want to cherry pick from his ramblings.
Exactly. It's also probable that if you asked him his thoughts on one thing he might have a slightly different answer a week later. That's human. Thoughts are a journey. I'd be more suspicious of someone who gave the same answer all the time (unless they'd been doing a lot of interviews in a row) and all the thoughts lined up perfectly.
@ that seems to be what people like these days. Conversations have become an immovable force vs unstoppable object. It’s refreshing to see people change their opinions…. But it rarely happens these days.
26:00 onwards. He misses the point about being told what to say. What used to happen was that certain words were censored. Nowadays ideas are censored.
@@martinkirotar6994 Fry wasn't talking about ideas. He was talking about swearing etc. What ideas were censored? In the UK (in the 60s and 70s) we could talk about Marxism, Nazism and everything in between. We could talk about any and all religions and sects. We could talk about sex and sexuality.
I would like to remind Steven, they are not rikerty, rakey, boats , they are brand knew dinghy's of military spec used by every military in the world, they also have brand new outboard engines and are clearly fine vessels to get across the channel even overloaded with Military aged Men.
-o dear. Love Stephan Fry: the voice of temperance & reason aka the 'decency' quotian. ~ Sadly, he's ALMOST of another era now. ... Good interview, fellas. 👏👏🙏⛄️❣️
This was a great show to watch. I genuinely enjoy the fact that the arguments being raised were challenged and contested in thoughtful and reasonable ways.
@normant. Everyone loves Stephen . He’s an armchair traveller - which is perfectly fine. But we mustn’t think he’s Christopher Hitchens . Christopher was essentially a scorcher. We need all sorts.
It was a marvel to watch a man of such pith and wit be so utterly vague and anodyne. Well, at least he's preserved his career, if not his credibility..
@@mrbeat7405 Mr Fry is like a national treasure in the UK, it is a though he belongs to all of us, so we all feel we have the right to reflect upon his words. He would expect no less, even if we are critical.
I loved listening to this. I found it soothing and interesting as listening to my grandpa talk. I did however, heard surprisingly little new insights or things of substance. He can simply speak in such a manner to make anything interesting.
Stephen Fry is the one who was moaning about Musk buying twitter only a couple of months ago… he was completely incoherent on that occasion, strange. Like he was playing a role that he knew he needed to play on that radio station.
Stephen is someone who loves Twitter when it came out quite a while ago. You can't ignore that it changed massively, before and after musk. It's hardly a nice place to be in anymore.
I grew up watching Stephen Fry and I will always be tremendously fond of him. However, I can't help but think that his generation of liberals are the reason we are in such a mess today.
Social media is where celebrities come to destroy their legacies. Very disappointing to see another person I once admired speaking about people he doesn't even know.
This talented genius British 'national treasure' incorporates so many ideas and quotes in his discourse here, ranging from the Greek philosophers to Woody Allen ! Then he's off for a suit and tie lunch at one of his favourite London Gentleman's clubs ! Rock on, Stephen Fry.
Follow us over to Substack for extra content and discussion!
SPONSOR: Discover your history - use our link bit.ly/Triggernometry_MH to start a 14-day free trial and enjoy all the amazing features MyHeritage offers.
Well done lads, your channel is certainly living up to the name, judging by the many salty comments.
ua-cam.com/video/XqN2qFvY64U/v-deo.html
@@davidbrinnen People despise Fry and righty so. I would expect salty comments.
How many decades younger is Stephen’s “wife”? And he’s preaching about values? Dirty nonce.
More liberal bollocks.
The issue I have with many Liberals, even here on Triggernometry, despite my profound respect for this channel, is that they still treat right-wing thought not as an alternative way of looking at the world, but as a kind of disease that must be contained. "The rise of the Right is because of the failure of the Left" as phrased as though right wing viewpoints are an unnatural thing, that the default moral human viewpoint is to be a liberal and if people move away from it, that is not a matter of their own conscience but rather, a policy failure.
Exactly. They have their heads shoved up each others arses with the supposed moral superiority.
I think though that Stephen Fry views being liberal very differently than the way it is being pushed by current society. He talks about a type of morals where people would self-censor themselves to avoid being offensive to others. Progressives now shout their abortion and their own truth and society be damned. The right now consists of the conservatives and the classical liberals.
Could not agree more.
Well said.
Although I kind of agree with your point, what exactly is the political-philosophy of the ‘right’? I mean there is conservatism, right liberals, I mean even National-Socialism is rightwing, although thats the very far right.
I’m not saying that you or anyone is a national socialist, but what is the main political philosophy of the ‘right’?
Left/ right is a stupid binary that stopped making sense decades ago. Let's just talk about ideas, not "sides."
Not just stupid simply used more as a vilification vector to categorize and undermine those who disagree with you.
It never did make sense, it was deliberately deceptive. Fascism and Nazism sprung from communism, all totalitarian left. During WW1 Mussolini saw that the common soldier would only go with socialist ideas if it was married to nationalism. Hitler was steeped in philosophy and ideas and he too adapted socialism. The National Front were never right wing, they were again a different sect of socialist.
What is right wing? Capitalist? This was Marx's word, which rebranded the free market, freedom. You are correct - framing right vs left had people barely engaging with ideas, usually mis-identifying themselves, getting emotional, turning political parties into football teams.
Well put.
Left and right still represent two rough clusters of ideas. I agree that sometimes specific ideas seem to be appropriated by one side or the other in completely arbitrary ways, but in general, they are two patterns that keep repeating in history for good reason (even before they actually got their names you can see a lot of situations where similar differences resulted in conflict). And when having electoral politics forming two big alliances is essentially the natural outcome, as fragmentation means being weaker, so pretty much the power balance invites this sort of clustering.
Absolutely. I have views across the political spectrum. I am politically homeless.
Politics is not a sports game. It should not have 'sides', just ideas.
It's funny to hear Mr Fry say that slippery slope is a fallacy and then 1 minute later express dismay at how absolutely mad things have become. There is a slope, it's quite slippery, and we're on it.
Logic not your strong point ius it
@@aiistyt So you either think the mess is deliberate (and thus not the slippery slope), or you don't think there's any mess now.
@@homewall744 false dichotomy.
But I might see what you're saying. The left has slipped from 'you can change your gender, not your sex' to 'trans women are women'.
@@aiistytprojection anyone?
It's a fallacy when it's used in place of a sound argument. If you can *argue* things will get worse then, that's valid.
What I think about Stephen Fry is that he is fundamentally, at heart, a KIND person. Kindness is something that is missing in a lot of people. If our politics or opinions come from a place of kindness, you’ll find that we are respectful and able to challenge our thinking critically. Kindness makes sense.
I used to think so, but I think there's something in his reactionary positioning over the past maybe 10 years now, that bespeaks something much less kind deeper down.
UNLESS CIVIC DUTY IS RESURRECTED, KINDNESS WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE AN EFFORT. DUH............
@@weatheranddarkness BOTTOMFEEDERS LIKE YOU KNOW. YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ANY EDUCATION?
@martinkent333 Do you always type in upper case letters and say “duh” or is it just today that you decided to sound obnoxious 😂🤷♀️
@@Obliperation YOUR PARANOIA IS STOKED DAILY. YOU SCARE YOUR YOUNGER RELATIVES...................
"A decent person doesn't want to offend.." No, sometimes a decent person does want to offend, circumstances exist where deliberately offending is the moral thing to do.
As Christopher Hitchens said "there are people one might wish to offend".
Sometimes ridicule is the only defense against unintelligible positions.
The first caveman to hurl an insult rather than a rock is the progenitor of civilisation
I thought that quote was cute. So very British.
The difference perhaps, is intentionally offending another for only the sake of being unpleasant and not in pursuit of a greater point or to defend an important principle. Offense is a strictly subjective condition almost always and we appear, quite suddenly, on the “slippery slope” when governments attempt to mandate what is or isn’t offensive. Free speech can, in large part, be mandated. It’s not possible to mandate amity, contentment or the elusive state of not being offended by the speech of others. Mandating that, in almost all situations, no bars will be placed on speech produces inevitably some uncomfortable situations and people who feel aggrieved but it is far and away preferable to the alternatives.
My head is spinning. I'm just a working class, ex offender( lots of years ago), father of two beautiful adult daughters ,and a twelve year old grandson. This is my first time, listening in, on your show. Stephen fry, has always been a favourite of mine. Your questions and responses were amazing. Best hour I've spent, in a long time. I don't watch television, and always struggle with getting the truth, what's going on in the world. Once again, thank you both. Thank you Stephen, also.
The difficulty with truth is that there's just SO MUCH data now, yet there's even more opinions layered on top. I don't blame your head for spinning lol.
If you like this kind of stuff but are unsure where else to go, I'd recommend Chris Williamson, whose podcast is called "Modern Wisdom". Very chilled yet informative, and touches on a ton of areas that mainstream media either ignores or goes way too extreme on (eg. gender differences).
I agree. So well said by you. Isn't it a joy to find intelligent and valid podcasts? I love Stephen Fry, as well, so this was a real treat! Happy Holidays to you 🙂
Best wishes to you all, Merry Christmas!
Lots of great discussions going on this channel, have a scroll through to find their guests and check out another one when you have time. Have a great Christmas with your family =)
He’s an establishment arse mate. You need to get out more. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that everyone they have on the like or agree with.
I was going to give my appraisal of this interview, instead I would like to say how fantastic the comments that I have read are and that I cannot say anything that the others have said already. Well done everyone.
Not everyone though. Many comments are typical banal social media smart-assing devoid of any input to the topic and the conversation. "He's overrated", "Old pompous dimwit", "Stupid person's smart person" etc. are comments I cringe at. Do those people not see that they sound like those they criticize? Name calling and zero arguments while countering a diferring view are part of the problem, not Stephen Fry.
@@dvanaestcestica1135Yet here you are
@dvanaestcestica1135 if they sound like those they criticise, then they sound like Fry - surely to you that's a good thing ? . . .
But to call Fry pompous is totally accurate . . . pomposity with the usual assumption that his own view is the right one and that he has special wisdom because he is "Liberal" - Im afraid he is sadly deluded in that notion . . .
Feel the same. Brilliant ❤
@@dvanaestcestica1135let’s just say it’s pretty obvious from the comments who’s actually watched the video and who’s just seen Fry is the interviewee and then vented their spleen without listening to much (if any) of the podcast.
I feel a sense of relief to hear this discussed in this environment...
I'm on the Autism spectrum and so grew up feeling socially isolated in a relatively conservative Christian family, but a loving one that by and large accepts others as they are. So I was grounded in broadly conservative and idealist Christian values, though with a liberal streak. My friends circle by contrast are almost all liberal, LGBTQ, atheist, agnostic, etc and the vast majority are online friends I've met throughout my 20s from Europe and America (I'm in South Africa). Being someone with no love of conflict and a gentle Christian upbringing I tended to take people as they were and avoid offending them as best I could. Over time I've come to relate to many aspects on the left myself and drifted towards that sphere of thought. But from 2019 onwards, it felt as though something was changing and the road became rockier between myself and many of my deeply 'liberal' friends. I began to feel more and more like I was being silently judged for not being as wholeheartedly left them and I couldn't speak my mind even politely on any topical issue without someone being deeply offended. Whereas they would freely insult other groups to whom many of my loved ones or indeed myself belonged and speak their minds perfectly freely. There might be fights between them, but those always blew over without a lasting stigma. I won't go into detail about the more personal wounds inflicted by some of my liberal acquaintances, but I acknowledge that they have unfairly darkened my feelings towards the left in general. Nowadays I feel like I'm bottling up my thoughts and emotions for fear of being beaten over the head with their beliefs or discarded for spoiling their party and it's led to me pulling away from both my liberal friends and the left more generally. I cling to basic liberal principles on an intellectual and sentimental basis, according to what I've learned from history and the inherited Christian guilt for the evil which has been committed in the name of good (even though I am now agnostic at best, my roots and my family remain Christian and a part of my identity)
But in my darkest moments of hurt, despair and rejection through the past few years, a cruel retort has grown in mind that rises up now whenever I hear a liberal talking like a pastor. It absolutely isn't the whole truth, but it does carry a measure of truth and I wish it didn't:
"The only thing liberals have taught me, is that all their high principles only apply when it is convenient, profitable and preferably pleasurable for them."
I don't believe that is what Liberalism stands for, and I don't want this antagonism between right and left to grow yet again into something pointlessly destructive. But I do feel that something has gone deeply wrong somewhere along the spectrum of the left and that it is breeding the very opposite of the values of inclusivity, equality and fairness which I believed it stood for.
I'm no saint, what gentleness I have is more likely born of my non-confrontational nature and I am full of bitterness and anger I thought myself above not a few years ago. But I will always remember and cherish that brief window of peaceful and loving coexistence between an awkward Christian idealist and his atheist, gender queer best friend, that now seems so long ago. To me, that is what Liberalism means. Not dodging differences or fighting over offense, but treating those who are different or indeed think differently the way we would like them to treat us in return.
Good luck to all those who do just that and may it bear good fruit in abundance~
And sorry for rambling so, I enjoyed the podcast~
Thanks for reminding us what friendship means. I love the honesty of people on the spectrum.
🙏🏼
This was beautiful, thanks for sharing
What a wonderful post. I can't say how similar my experience has been. Only last night my nephew loudly 'outed' me in a crowded restaurant because I wasn't left enough (I was crticising Kier Starmer). The progressive left have made discussing politics quite difficult nowadays and the woolly liberal intellectuals, like Stephen Fry, who would prefer not to examine the fault lines, have let us all down by not standing up to the nonsense.
That sounds terrible, friends should not fight in such ways about topics that they likely have very little bearing on. I must say I am surprised that alot of people are referring to Liberals as leftists, my understanding has always been that liberals are closer to centrists believing the current system is just and that all that must be altered is social norms, then again perhaps I have spent too much time in anarchist circles.
From what i've seen and experienced it doesn't surprise me too much that this happened, it seems that these days liberals define themselves in opposition to the right, that the conversation topics are brought about by the rights actions not the liberals. This is not very good philosophical grounds for a political movement and it does not surprise me it has blown up in their face...
I hope that these things have not made you lose faith in humanity, the truth is we are all confused animals and we want this world to make sense but the world doesnt make sense its pure nonsense and its filled with wonderful, contradictory yet beautiful people
@@Percole Thanks for the reply.
In the UK we have the far left (Revolutionary Communists, Socialists, SWP, Greens and Radical Progressives) the moderate left (Labour Party, various unions, Fabian Society) the centrists (Classical Liberals, Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats) the right (Conservatives, Reform UK) and the far right (which could include fascists, ethno-nationalists and radical libertarians). It is a spectrum or it at least it used to be, we now have four independent MPs who seem to represent Islam. I'm not sure where they stand politically but they support cousin marriage and want the re-introduction of blasphemy laws. They also advocate for more severe legal penalties for 'Islamophobia', which they want to be in charge of defining. We also have Scottish nationalsts, Northern Irish Protestant Nationalists and Irish Catholic Republicans (separatists. who get elected and then refuse to attend the UK Parliament).
First of all Brexit caused fractures amongst each of those groups, then the 'woke' agenda, then the trans ideologies started cut across those dividing lines too. Populist politics, like the kind Donald Trump espouses, are now a source of division too. The conflict in Gaza has split the left and political lslamism seems to have taken over the Greens. Irish republicans are very pro-immigration and multi-culturalism, as are the Scottish Nationalists!
More traditional Nationalist sentiments can be found in amongst many of the ideological groups on the right, particularly linked to the lowering of immigration and strengthening borders, while the left strongly defend multi-culturalism and unopposed mass immigration.
The most confusing of these groups are the 'woke' conservatives who support identity politics, do not seem to want to conserve anything of British culture and have much more in common with the globalists on the left. Talking of which, you can now find both nationalists (pro Brexit) and internationalists (anti Brexit) on the left.
I should mention we also have a progressive, liberal cultural elite (which includes the Church of England and the BBC) who support all green issues (like net zero) and are fiercely pro-minority, anti-populist, hate Trump, very critical of the working class indigenous population but very pro-trans, pro Palestine, anti-Israel, pro-LGBTQ+, defensive of Islam and who advocate for BLM, DEI. They also seem to approve of the various authoritarian, legal restrictions on freedom of speech, such as our 'non-crime hate speech' laws.
Because they are a wealthy, priviledged and sheltered elite, they are rarely troubled by the negative consequences of their positions, such as street crime, low wages, high house prices and social disfunction. As George Orwell once said, they would rather steal from the poor box than stand for the national anthem or salute the flag! Nowadays they are very ashamed of Bitish history and want to 'de-colonize' everything they can.
It's a complicated patchwork of cultural and political divisions.
The one thing you can be sure everyone agrees about, however, is everybody in the UK hates the moderates in the centre! Probably because they are not solely informed by ideology, tend to be led by logic, facts and evidence and can see sense on both sides of an argument. I consider myself to be in that group, but you never know, if you ask my nephew, I might be a fascist! Who knows?
Thanks for the reply.
There is a lot to like about Mr Fry. But he’s been rich and famous for so long, cushioned and cocooned within high society, I don’t think he knows what’s affecting ordinary people. Parts of him seem to be very aware of “the left” having messed up, while in the next breath he’s downplaying it all. Where’s the anger? Like I’m “on the left” and I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!
Excellent insight, I concur wholeheartedly,.
You have a point he's intellectually on the Left with none of the fire or passion that poorer people have to stoke.
The left died years ago.
And has been replaced by nonsense.
Has nothing to do with the working classes anymore.
And starmer is clear off his nut
Yes!!! 🙌
I for myself think that every discussion or debate is better off with less emotion. Outrage is not a proof of sincerity and you can be very productive without it.
Stephen I'm sorry mate but theres not boats of families coming across the channel.
There kind of is pal, cause the economic migrant men on the boats bring their families when their "asylum claims" are approved.
Maybe he just has a thing for 18yo Albanian males
They also sink the boats on purpose even with kids on board which is why they die half the time, to force us to save them as in our waters (the law) echr
hehe or the Solent. Dirty migrants from the ISLE OF WIGHT.
💯. I shouted at the TV when he said that! Still a delusional lefty
"An opinion about biology"?
Odd phrase
I do not consider biology an "opinion"
I wish more on the right shared your view. Maybe they'd leave pregnant women alone.
I don't either. It's more of a matter of fact to me
Biology is a lving thing, even the concept itself. Most people will try to use biology to fool you into believing the unthinkable, but human nature is immutable.
Fry has been someone I have held in high regard my whole life (= after I've started encountering him first through comedy and acting and then other things he has done, said and debated) due his various talents and general intellect, but in recent years I've heard more and more totally out of touch statements from him which either made little sense, or was a direct counterclaim to something he had just said within last 5 minutes so it looked he is holding two opposite viewpoints.
From my experience, every fact about the world needs to be put in some context to be better understood. You can have different opinions about the broader context of specific facts (maybe because of a lack of knowledge and maybe there is some knowledge we won't be ever able to reach) In other words, a specific fact is nothing. You need to know how something interacts with other things and relative to them. Even math should be put in context to describe the world. Therefore, in this case, what is the most important is context not only facts.
I've always loved this man. It's such a comfort to hear him, in this day and age, express my own feelings in better words.
I really appreciate how you debate and discuss things so respectfully even when you don’t agree exactly with what someone says.
It’s a lost art in this digital age. If viewers take nothing else from this amazing channel, I hope they learn how to discuss things face to face with people respectfully.
Im an old fashioned Athiest, working class, democratic socialist tradesman (among other things). I think government healthcare, access to clean water and reasonably priced food, a base level of housing, strong workers rights, equitable access to education and a strong sensible social safety net underpinning a regulated but almost entirely free market are laudable and decent goals for a society to strive for. What I couldnt care less about is the touchy feely stuff about saying the right thing, virtue signaling and getting angry every time someone says something slightly off colour. I think we should speak as we speak, being honest about who we are and where we are in our thinking and allow others the courtesy regardless the difficulty that at times causes. How will I find my people in this world if nobody has the latitude and freedom to be themselves out of fear? I want asssholes to be assholes so i can avoid them and waste less precious time humouring them. After 17 years of rough toil as a service plumber with me you will get what what you get, i will tell you EXACTLY what is on my mind in no uncertain terms regarless the consequences and invite any and all to do the same in their dealings with me.
What's an Athiest ? Someone who can't even write properly ?
You believe all that can be provided by the government as well as being 'entirely free market'? You might as well just call yourself a Thatcherite and be done with it.
Spot on
Bravo! This American agrees with you.
What I choose not to say is as much of who I am as what I do say. I am not one thing, I am many things contained within one body, and one history. I am not a cause, I am a conglomeration of processes. I often think of things I do not wish to share with whomever I happen to be with at the time.
That said I do think people ought to be able to say what they choose to say, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be judged for it. No one can tell me who I can and cannot judge. I do recognize the right of governments to curtail the power of my judgments, so long as I can influence the power of that government (example, should I despise Mormons I recognize that I am not allowed to not hire someone for a job because they are Mormon. Of course that is irrelevant to my contempt for Mormons, it's relevant to my power as an employer which exists in a separate sphere from my opinions.)
I agree with Stephen Fry, Accuracy is less important than effect in most circumstances. Mostly this is because accuracy is only existant from a given perspective, it's rarely universal. I won't lie to people, but neither do I communicate all the truths I can see from all the perspectives I can imagine. Example: Brian Thompson was a Father and Husband and by existing accounts a decent one. He was the CEO of UHC, and he was a boon to the company as a whole and the shareholders in particular. His mother in Law - often a fraught relationship - called him a good man. All of that is true from one or more perspectives, and none of it is relevant to someone who has been denied care by UHC, nor is any of it directly related to why he was targeted. The point I'm trying to get across is that for better or worse I can't imagine a world where people don't self censor sometimes, and I don't think that's really how the mind works.
Government censorship is generally speaking a bad idea. I want people to oppose it. I don't think it's always 100% uncalled for, even if it's not the best available solution. in the modern media landscape, I can absolutely understand where it needs to be discussed. We live in a world of Media where both large powerful Corporations and foreign governments have the power and the tools to very directly target domestic citizens to disrupt democracy and public discourse. I'm somewhat cautiously OK with those cannels being limited. in the end, truth will out, but a lot of damamge can be done in the interim.
Who would have thought Steven trashing his own Culture for years would have unintended consequences.......
Amen. These liberals will always have their cake and then they will eat it.
Yeap. Dawkins the same..
@@MyIDIsNotAvailableDawkins critiqued people like Ken Ham who deserve to be mocked and ridiculed. There are intellectual Christians like Alister McGrath and the lake John Polkinghorne, but it seemed the right doesn’t like them...
Fry has lived in high society for so long he's lost the big picture.
Exactly.
I don’t watch tv. Because this sort of content is superior…love Fry..what a great intellect
Wanted to scream multiple times.
I love this man. National treasure. Salt from good earth.
Disagree with him on the framing of all of his arguments.
Gutted.
He's always been an ahole.
He is a phoney. Always has been.
Uff. Indeed this is sad, especially the misunderstanding of Chapelle... How can He be so tone deaf in this case, yet so sharp and astute in others... Well I guess that just makes him human.
'salt of the Earth'
Up till about 5 years ago, nothing wrong.
But since then his views have become somewhat narrower, to put it mildly. Maybe it's his age.
It's not that people want to say things that are palpably offensive; it's that certain things will be called offensive even when they have an entirely factual basis. Honest, factual criticism of non-western cultures has almost completely disappeared, for example. Another example is how the anyone critical of illegal immigration is immediately assumed to be critical of immigration of any kind, and that the basis of this is racism.
MASS immigration is the real problem. It’s 20-fold larger than the illegal variety.
Surely the point is that a Government has a duty to allow in immigrants only that satisfy a specific national requirement that cannot be satisfied locally, and who are seen to be compatible with the country's society and culture.
@davidtuer. If we can no longer satisfy our own needs, we must change the way we do things internally. Bringing people in just perpetuates the basic problem - and imports a few new ones.
Fun fact, the 13/50 statistic is mirrored in London with the same group having the same population percentage to crime ratio. Point it out and you get called a racist.
You have Nigel Farage complaining about hearing people speak foreign languages on the tube etc, even though his German wife would almost certainly speak in German if talking to another German.
If they control the way you speak they control the way you think
Offense has nothing to do with it.
Actually it does, you see as a modern and decent society we shouldn't feel as if there are no consequences to outright being offensive to a complete stranger JUST because they belong to a minority group, that's not offense, it's not free speech, it's bullying. The problem is that the only way to stop it in a world run by box tickers, is to create laws that harm everyone. Just as in the workplace when one person takes the piss, you get new rules/policies which annoy and harm everyone.
The solution is for society to govern itself, to regain the common human decency and respect that our media has been destroying for decades, to distract us from our real common enemy and divide us all.
Yes , you are correct ( Mr. Fry seems extremely mixed up on the issue. )
Actually I don't think this is really how it works. It's how people who spend a lot of effort in controlling speech _think_ it works. But then in practice it never actually works out, so obviously the theory isn't all that. It could be that it would actually work if someone was literally raised in a super-totalitarian environment with entire words and concepts completely erased from the vocabulary, but very few if any countries have actually ever managed that level of complete control.
@@HaganeNoGijutsushi The people who are demanding you speak only in a manner they allow using only words they approve of have done serious damage to the west and when the very much deserved backlash has started, the left doesn't get to bitch, whine and complain about it. They had their chance to rule and they not only fumbled the ball, they're demanding to give the ball back to them and go home with it despite them not even owning the ball.
RICU at it again, look them up its a special home office disinformation unit staffed by far left civil servants.
I have every respect for this man. He saw the horrors of what actual policing against LGBT was. He saw what real institutional racism was. He saw what overstepping government tyranny was in both the UK and abroad. The man was a Coldstream Guardsman in his youth for God's sake. He saw all the horrid and sordid parts of humanity of every facet missing only one: being a racial minority. When he says "this side has gone way too far and is no longer the side that is right or even sane" you should listen
Afraid you may have your facts wrong there - I can't find evidence that any of the three gents on this podcast were ever in the military.
Free speech is a bedrock because it is essential to protect against tyranny. You must be free to critique and critise the establishment at all times, to hold it to account.
And every generation must fight for it.
indeed
Right now transgender authority is playing the victim while wielding the sword. Up in his ivory tower Fry can’t see what’s under his nose.
Mary Whitehouse understood children needed to remain children, something Stephen Fry does not seem to comprehend. My son as a little boy was utterly traumatised by an unexpected mutilation scene at 5 pm. Mary Whitehouse brought in the 9 pm watershed and I am eternally grateful.
I don't think he's against that.@@catherinerobilliard7662
What a joy to watch. To see people who certainly disagree in a lot of instances have a civilised, rational discussion without any insult, accusation or whatever makes listening to discussions so cumbersome these days. Many, many thanks for this great interview.
This has been unexpectedly insightful. For a while now, as someone who identifies as Center-Left, I've struggled with a sense of disenfranchisement with the Left as a whole, without being able to pinpoint exactly why. I've felt, for lack of a better word, alarmed by what seems like an increasingly hostile attitude on the Left toward reasonable questions, a refusal to engage in productive discourse, and a general unwillingness to understand opposing viewpoints.
Stephen's explanation resonates deeply with me, as it perfectly articulates what I’ve been grappling with. I’ve had the growing suspicion that the Right is becoming more extreme and powerful, fueled in part by the antagonism of a Left that appears more focused on the impact of offensive remarks on themselves or others than on addressing the root issues. Instead of effectively countering the Right’s rhetoric in a calm, rational manner, the Left often seems stuck in a cycle of reactive outrage.
This, in turn, alienates people who feel disconnected from the constant outrage-those who are either less indignant or indifferent to the latest controversies-pushing them toward demagogues who offer them a sense of belonging. The whole situation feels counterproductive and deeply frustrating.
@@Char1iBr0wn not a single word I disagree with there, and a very clear description of exactly what I've been seeing happen from my perspective too.
The problem with this is that the "far left" doesn't actually have representation in our government. They're *not* doing their "far left" agenda.
The right has been chasing a boogieman, and then through their own echo chambers and extremist purity tests, radicalized themselves into the far right.
Overall, "You made me do these bad things" is a really fucking dumb argument if I am being honest.
That last point was especially pertinent: a huge proportion of people, who have certainly not lived so long that they might expect some total societal paradigm-shift, feel obliged to say things like 'I'm on the left myself, but I must still say this' or 'this person makes an interesting point - it's not that I agree with him on everything', etc. All the disclaimers, because issues which were once eminently 'left-wing' (and/or libertarian) - free speech would certainly be one of them - have somehow fallen out of favour.
It is quite odd that anyone feels the need to present their 'credentials' before simply discussing an issue. (If, hypothetically, I were a centrist or a right-winger, would I then warn people not to take me seriously on account of this?! An amusing thought. We're only putting such limitations upon ourselves). And I can't recall any public figure I ever agreed with about everything, so that is an equally strange thing to emphasise. (Although I will doubtless do both of these strange things myself in the next few days or so).
Possibly it's simply the fact that more and more of our interactions are with people or entities which can't be directly identified - no wonder we become slightly neurotic about signalling 'who we are' before saying anything. The more we feel like we're talking to everyone, the less we'll have to say. (So thanks to the millions who won't read this. 😆)
The game of identity politics is one of exclusion, overt racism and inequality / uneven playing field.
Politicians have nothing to offer, therefore they resort to weaponised rhetoric and policies.
Arresting people for tweets, GTFOH with that nonsense! These are some sick and twisted individuals
that support and enforce such policies! #wtf
Isn’t the left always like this though ? Lenin. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao. Kim Jon Un. Robenspierre. Chavez. Castro. At the point of a bayonet is the only way nonsense can be implemented 🤷♂️
It is a rare thing to read the comments of a youtube video and find a nuanced discussion with a lot of polite and insightful commentary that puts the content of the video to shame. My thanks to all of you.
I think Mr Fry doesn't understand Chapelle. Chapelle spoke deeply about his Trans friend committing suicide. Chapelle blames us and himself for not finding a solution and I think Dave thinks, affirming transgenderism is the problem not the solution.
Thats just my take.
I think Chappelle was punching down. I think all in all he has like 5 specials with transgender jokes. And these jokes are still the same. They are valid: the joke Michael Jordon identifies as a woman and scores 150 points at a game - OK, I see what he meant. Of course. But repeating that same joke in every other special? Why? It doesn't serve any purpose than: Look I can say these things, cos they can't cancel me. But it is not even funny, it is and old material. it's lazy.
Probably more nuanced than Fry's....
Agree!!
I doubt he watched it. Just took the mobs version as gospel.
But, but, but, Fry talks posh and sounds clever and remembers lots of facts. He can see all and understand all from his perch in his silver spoon ivory tower.
I washed out when he said familys coming to the uk in rickity boats illegally..not familys young men only why cant he accept what he sees .
Because if he admits he is wrong on one thing, he may have to ask questions about the rest.
So right.
This is the same as his statement, "the left are more interested in being right than effective", they haven't been right for at least least 20 years, 20 years of lefty policies ruining the country and all they do when the evidence demonstrates they are wrong is double down.
The left are more interested in convincing everyone they are right, rather than actually being right.
He doesn't see it. He sees whatever echo chamber facts have been presented to him and thinks its dangerous to break out/beyond of said echo chamber because the ebil rightwingers will get you out there.
@@GodwynDihouse of cards
He chooses not to see it, wilful blindness.
And is insulated from reality in his elite ivory tower.
5 min in and Stephen says the dumbest thing about slippery slopes, Stephen, we are living in the slippery slope predicted 20 years ago, it is not a fallacy.
And he called the people who were saying that 20 years ago bigots and racists. This mess is Stephen Fry's fault. I can't believe I ever fell for the lie that this odious creep is clever. In his defense, he did state he's not actually clever, just good at remembering. In other words, he admitted to being little more than a parrot.
To play devils advocate, he said "used to be a fallacy"
@@icarusjumped2719 based on your reply I went back and watched it again and sorry no, he is clearly scoffing at the idea and uses the term "used to be" as a means to undermine the concept of a slippery slope warning.
@@billdoor1569 possibly. I am only listening while i work, so yeah. I disagree with most of what he has said though so...
@@billdoor1569 and what slippery slope are we talking about here?
Stephen Fry remains a 'human treasure' - decent, well-spoken, funny, yet serious, truthful and so very capable of including and understanding and bridging the divides of humanity (however distateful they may be). Fantastic interview!
This was a great example of asking a couple of question then just shutting up and letting your subject dig their own grave. He dug it.
reminds me of neil degrasse tyson trying to justify woke
I grew up in a time when 'woke' held its original meaning, which was to be forever aware of the dark underbelly of institutional racism. The newer meaning is foreign to me. I keep catching myself going on line and reminding myself of the new incarnation of the word. Old Woke was straight up legit and warranted. New Woke seems really contrived and misguided.
@@Loonypapa you’ve got the interpretations reversed. The original definition is an ebonics term of art justifying rampant antisocial and criminal behaviour in black American communities of the 1990s by waving the phantom of white supremacy like a klan hood on a pike.
The new definition, used properly, as the insult it always ought to have been, effectively means “vain, self important, or ideologically indiscreet, and acting in contradiction to a stated objective”.
You’ve been a rather pliant punching bag in this comment section. It’s easy, if not as gratifying, to defeat a rotting vegetable in a contest of wit.
Because liberals can't argue against woke. Liberalism is about equality and progress. They can't say "now stop". Why would they say that? Traditionalists, conservatives or non-liberals can say stop. They can set barriers past which they do not want to move.
Quick example: Liberals wanted gay marriage. They got it. What was argument? Two people who love each other. Now somebody comes and says: "I want to marry my brother". What will they argue? Why should two homosexuals be allowed to marry and not two brothers? If argument is love, they should be allowed to. Reality is, there is only one argument why brother and brother, mother and son etc. could not get married. Because marriage is about children, creating next generation and creating stable environment for children. And that there should be separation of gene pool (hence no incest). That's the only valid argument and it is the same one which invalidates gay marriage.
Funny you mentioned that 😁 the last time I saw Stephen Fry was when he debated with that mouthpiece Tyson 🤔👍🏼🏴
@@LoonypapaHow is it contrived and misguided? It's a term that just took on new meaning over the years.
It's a joy to hear Stephen speak as he uses English so beautifully. He mentions his fear for immigrant families coming over on rickety boats..from what I've seen it's mainly young men who are arriving.
Gaslighting at its finest.
He loves young men. Isn't his husband a third of his age?
A joy it is not.
Exactly. Fry is insufferable. His misdirection is exactly the problem on the left.
It's as if what I heard in the video is echoed in the comments. Constant referring to immigrants as the "problem".
What a class act. I could listen to his Stephen all day.
I just love the way KK makes people in general or in this case the wonderful Stephen Fry, go back on what they have just ostentatiously stated as fact. Fry is a lovely man but he is 100% rooted in the establishment camp. Fry is part of the problem not the solution, that much is obvious from this delightful discourse.
That's exactly what I thought. He has nothing to offer because he still thinks we have a social/political culture that actually disappeared fifteen years ago.
He's not wonderful or lovely. He's is a vile, hateful, anti Christian. He stole money and did time for it in a cushy prison even though he was well off and didn't need it. He sleeps with a man who dresses as a teenager. He's gross. He helped destroy this country.
@@PWMoze- To be fair, he *was* that culture 15 years ago. He was the fairy on the cake, almost literally. No surprise that he hasn’t moved on.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 Actually I was surprised how muddled he seemed, I started to wonder if he was being a bit dishonest, he certainly moved away from the point a few times when KK tried to pin him down. I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens would not have been so wishy-washy.
@@PWMoze - Hitch was a leftie who drifted right during his life. Fry has always been a leftie.
Fry is a walking reminder that one person can be both very right and massively wrong at the same time. It’s really a public service, he does.
He's a walking contradiction.
He believes in free speech so much that he deleted his X account
As someone apparently once said he is the stupid person's intellectual.
Good point. He is enormously smart, with outstanding communication skills.
So when he is wrong, he puts the case more eloquently than practically anyone on the planet.
I've always loved him.
"The left would rather be right than effective." Except they are WRONG. The left is doing all the totalitarian things he fears the right may do, but somehow the "left" is still correct. Utter insanity.
"Slippery slope" is not a fallacy when it comes to laws and power. I hate it when people think that because THEY think a certain way everybody else does as well.
The slippery slope is when you say 'If A then B and C must follow'. It's not fallacious to say 'If A then likely B and likely C'. Lot of people, including Fry slip over the imperative aspect.
I'll see that 'slippery slope fallacy' and raise with the Overton Window.
"I hate it when people think that because THEY think a certain way everybody else does as well." the irony of your comment is profound.
@@SatansSpatula That's not irony.
What differentiates the "slippery slope" from the more common historic "political pendulum" effect, is the presence of pushback.
In the engineering discipline of Controls Theory, this pushback is called a restoring force.
The Cancel Mob, and its allies in Parliament, have attempted to make pushback (free speech) illegal, eliminating the restoring force. This is the reason we're on a slippery slope right now.
Anyway, seeing the "slippery slope" as boolean (either it is a fallacy or it isn't) is just wrong. It is a function of whether the restoring force is positive or negative.
What a magnificent interview
Thank you and thank you Stephen
24:14 Huge respect Konstantin...Stephen is someone we all hugely admire, and yet you very delicately & clearly called out and challenged his essentially 'straw man' reasoning from this point onwards to perfectly relocate where and describe what the real battle lines are, and where people so often start talking at cross-purposes 👏👏👏
We do not 'all hugely admire' Stephen Fry.
@@judithcressey1682We do when he s in Blackadder.
@@hellodavey1902 What alarms me is who did he think was sending him those anti-Semitic insults after he addressed the nation about the rising amount of hate crimes against Jews? The “far right”, which is a pejorative term that’s thrown around so much it doesn’t mean anything anymore or the radicalized leftist university students just released from their reeducation camps?
I’m American, so forgive me if I was incorrect about any of those details.
We don't all admire him. Alot of us can't stand this fake hypocrite.
He's not a fake hypocrite. You must be the people he's talking about... @@racheljames7
The one thing I always remember about Stephen Fry since I was a teen was reading about how he wanted to unalive himself. Seeing him here, healthy, talking sense, brings me joy.
Yeah and if he weren’t incredibly wealthy and priveleged he wouldn’t have got the psychiatric care he needed and he wouldn’t be here today. And I’m sure people like the hosts of this podcast would have seen his bipolar disorder back then and told him to “toughen up” and stop being so precious
Not to mention the fact he’s gay - should we support the “right to offend” and abuse him with homophobic slurs until he “unalives” himself??
It's kill. Not unalive as Stephen himself says 😂
It's kill. Not unalive as Stephen himself says 😂
@@alexfenton229 I've gotten algorithm'd several times by UA-cam. The AI censor can be ruthless sometimes.
I must say, Fry's smugness was off the charts when he was talking about Dave Chappelle punching down at those poor, helpless, defenseless, weak little transmissions.
Is that really how you feel about them? Cause that is mighty patronizing.
Yes. They are a weak minority. Stop pretending you give a fk about talking down to them. The reason why most Americans can't afford a home or to start a family or why most Americans live pay check to pay check or why wages have not kept pace with worker productive output or why Americans refuse to see the doctor when they are sick or any of the countless other ridiculous socioeconomic issues plaguing America is not because of the 7 trans people beating the sh*t out of women in women's boxing. It's because of the corporation which own your existence.
Do you know how many residential dwellings are bought up by the likes of Blackrock and other private equity funds? Do you know how much taxpayer money was STOLEN by the banks across every time they've been bailed out of bankruptcy? Do you know how much of the wealth you work for every day is stolen from you and trickled up to the 1% out of your pocket? And you want to keep whining about trans people being the problem? Open your eyes.
Nobody actually gives a fk about trans people existing when they aren't sure where their kid's next meal is coming from. The whole culture war nonsense is a distraction pulled over your eyes to give you an easy enemy to hate so that you won't think too hard about who your ACTUAL enemy is. It's so disappointing that the public just keeps eating this garbage up.
Every week for the past 5 years I've heard nothing from every right wing media outlet but whining about woke bullsh*t. Curated highlight reels of random blue haired r*tards from tiktok saying something stupid and the media holding them up as though they are on the level of Noam Chomsky in terms of representing the left. Don't you think it's funny how they only show these idiots and never invite someone like Chomsky himself to come on their shows? It's a simple and easy narrative to believe that trans people are the boggey-they/them and that all your problems are their fault but the truth is far less sensational and far more nefarious. You've been buying into a carefully constructed distraction designed to paralyze you from taking any meaningful action for years.
And shows that he didnt watch the performances.
At least Konstantin pushed back in the exactly correct way. And then Fry agreed? Fry seemed to be saying one thing then another in the next breath at a few points here.
There was a time when Politicians were involved in Party Policy making while still being obliged to advocate for ALL their constituents.
They would put themselves forward as being prepared to pursue certain things and would then adhere to those promises secure in the knowledge that they had secured the backing of the folk who voted for them.
If they 'kept their word' and had integrity they were doing what they should be doing.
Conversely 'Comedians' and 'Entertainers' operated in a unreal world where all concepts were open for usually humourous debate, on the understanding that like the court 'Jester' of old was allowed licence to 'mock' as it opened up 'taboo' subjects and facilitated debate.
The problem grew when Politicians wanted to free themselves from their obligation re integrity and Democratic representation, while enjoying the licence allowed 'Comedians'
Most problems would be resolved if Professionals simply stayed in their lane, or at least qualified the position from which they spoke.
It is also very convenient to use amorphous terms like 'leftist' and 'Right Wing' while using labels like 'Fascist','Socialist' and 'Communist' without any real understanding of what they might mean, and how many people may hold views that might conflict with what others consider fixed.
The true pursuit of Democracy is never going to be easy,it's not supposed to be it's as much about responsibilities as rights and involves endless negotiation and compromise.
The future is very much in the hands of the Billionaires and the People and it is only the solidarity and commitment to each other that makes any kind of Democratic future possible,but that will require far more effort from far more people than the Oligarchs will need to quash any kind of real freedom, and as such the future may indeed be grim.
If, we could just return to people being allowed to pursue their lives in privacy,while people who go to or choose to be entertained are allowed to utilise the accepted licence of comedy (or not participate) as they choose.
If only they were weak little transmissions. Instead they hold inordinate power and influence over the media, academia and government policy. Not to mention posing a physical threat to women and children.
Oh, thank god for Stephen Fry. Right now I really needed some figure from my childhood and early adulthood to not be a huge disappointment.
Actuality, to call Stephen Fry “not a huge disappointment,” would be a complete understatement, he continues to exceed all my expectations ❤
Thanks
The left: Who radicalized you?
Me: You did!
LOL, I always for Decades blamed the Right for the Rise of the Left!
Now that Left is Loonyville, Bout time the Right (Trump) has introduced common sense.
This. Essentially.
I was, also, probably one of the many that watched, in utter bewilderment, their political 'home' turn into a ship of fools.
Very apt comment
@kdog3908 exactly.
Correct. He rages at God throws Him out and then wonders why everything is messed up.
For a free society to thrive, it must allow for the free exchange of ideas, even those that risk offending others. The subjective nature of offense makes it an unreliable standard for constructing laws, as no one entity should be trusted to decide what is or isn't acceptable speech. Instead of criminalizing offense, societies should prioritize fostering open dialogue and equipping individuals with the tools to engage critically with ideas they find disagreeable. In the words of Orwell, 'If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.'
Making laws on offensiveness is making an honor-based society with no honor.
Yes, but there are immense downsides as well. What if I don't want other people to say something I don't like? What if I am offended by it and it causes bad feelings and I don't want to change my behavior or even come to the conclusion I could be wrong? - I don't think you understand how bad that would be!
Grow up. Think for yourself. Living equals being hurt and offended sometimes. It gives you a chance to evaluate yourself. We all have been offended by something that has hurt our feelings. Deal with it. Or as I was told, "Suck it up, Buttercup." It happens. Move on. Stop whining. Live your best life.
What a shining example of playing the violin whilst the titanic sinks.
This guy cant tell whether he's pumped or stuffed.
He identifies that there is an issue but just cant fathom that his way of thinking is directly a part of arriving at that issue.
Yours is the most accurate comment on here in my opinion. Well said.
ARMCHAIR EXPERTS LIKE MR FRY HELP HIS SUBSCRIBERS FROLIC IN IGNORANCE! WHAT A GUY!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve always been middle of the road politically with a leaning to the left, now my views are classed as far right ?!!
I haven’t changed, the terrain has moved beneath my feet
I'm the same. Also, I would argue with Fry thst often little kids are going to school in drag (that is what it is) because adults have put the idea in their heads.
I know people who say the exact opposite so some of you must be moving!
I'm 54 and have exactly the same experience as you.
Ah. Well, if you've always been left leaning, perhaps it's time for a change? The Left has always been wrong. And it has always been destined for where we have ended up.
Left wing is progressive. If your views aren't progressive with the times then you are conservative as you do not want to change your political views. Makes sense, right? In the 80s, it was normal to see gay people as evil. So if you were left wing in the 80s, and today you consider it evil to be trans but you are okay with gay people because you were progressive 50 years ago then you're not a progressive anymore today
A lot of people confuse being offended and being insulted. If you say "I think that's offensive" it suggests it's universally offensive to everyone else on behalf of everyone else. "I think that's insulting" is a personal matter and what people actually should be saying.
Good point - I 100% agree
@philwatts. We think that we are liberal. But I’m beginning to think we have merely exchanged one set of sacred cows for another. ‘’ Anti-racism “ has become just as.ferocious and trigger-happy as racism itself. It has even invented its own language - a move which is about as totalitarian as you can get. For example , we have the pure invention of “Islamophobia” - a far stretch from ‘deep dislike” , or even hatred ( a perfectly valid term). Opponents of Islamic philosophy must be classified as mentally deranged. This concept has been cleverly slipped under the door and “normalised” by constant use. Even the use of “race” is bogus. Racial theory was busted long ago. But it’s a safer word to use when you are desperate to avoid the topic of cultural incompatibility - and a shift of values that cannot be accommodated in the civil and legal foundations of the Western world. Even in a liberal, secular society.
If you find something offensive it's almost certainly because it's true but you don't want it to be. Westerns are so intellectually disabled from 100 years of nihilism and relativism that they struggle with this, even to the point of totally abandoning the truth and making it illegal to offend people.
Saying that something is offensive and being offended on behalf of someone have been blurred together when they are two different things.
Saying that something is offensive or can be seen as offensive is more of a caution/warning that what is being said (whether the person realises it or not) can be confrontational depending on who hears.
Being offended on behalf of someone is a virtuous stance and is what most people think of when someone says “that’s offensive”.
Neither seem substantial complaints.
I wonder if you're confusing personal politics with important matters of state.
The "manners problems" seem largely manufactured and superficial.
Of course, this is how aristocracies assert their totalitarianism - politeness regimes.
I just kept thinking skewer him, skewer him, its not like he's going to be back 🤣
What an interview! Epic! Gotta love Mr. Fry xxxxx
Oh dear, Stephen, you have a long way to come, it is not a slippery slope it is the thin end of the wedge.
People have debated for thousands of years whether a wedge is a slope and if so, which one are we on, or is being inserted. Personally I'm not bother about the thin end of the wedge. It's the other end I fear. I just hope we're on a slope. That sounds like fun.
I'm a conservative but absolutely love to hear from Steven and his thoughts . We should all have the right to speak the truth and what we observe in our society .
I'm independent conservative too and I wish we can get along and talk maybe try to respect than being upset.
@@Slyarno2795
So you agree with trying to look inwards before throwing rocks at the less fortunate?
As an American conservative independent, and a Christian, I adore and respect Stephen for how much he has been an advocate for free speech. Truly appreciate his insights.
@@Slyarno2795 Independent and Conservative are mutually exclusive.
you have that "right" - who is stopping you? get a life ffs
Mr Fry. Didnt the world get to this state because in the 90's and 2000's we were being polite. I think its time politness takes a back seat to the truth. Even though it hurts your feelinhs. Fry is fighting for arguments fought 8years ago. Its well beyond the point now in 2024. Battle grounds are fought in classrooms for the minds of children and we sane people need to speak up.
It was never politeness, this is about cowardice. Most luvvies are weak and cowardly, in fact a lot of people are. Many people will do anything to go along with a group. This is one of the defining characteristic incidentally of those attracted to Leftism, they want to belong to a group. Understandable but also dangerous. Politeness here = cowardice.
Circumstantial evidence here is that Fry was very seriously abused as a child, which pushed him into the "community" that he so vociferously defends.
Even to the point of defending their recruiting their next generation, even as he was recruited.
Or, you're told that classrooms are battlegrounds for the minds of children and it's massively overblown. Burning books is certainly not the answer.
@@jimluebke3869 So your argument is he was made gay by abuse? Gay people also come from loving and accepting heterosexual communities. You will need to explain them. Gay people often realise very young that they are gay, without any abuse whatsoever. Gayness occurs in many mammals. Time to accept that and move on. They're just people wanting the freedom to live their lives.
@@tamfuwing1 Actually read some of the books at issue, and see if you have enough human decency to change your mind there.
This is the first I've seen of your vids and it was fascinating. And it certainly did not look like a seance... loved the split screen over the exquisite marble table, allowing us to see the expressions of two of the people in the discussion.
He's right that Free Speech is not the end goal. But, Free Speech is NOT the end goal in America. But, you *need* Free Speech to get everything else. Being able to BREATHE is not the end goal of a person. But you NEED it to live.
Exactly. One might say we put morals or decency as the foundation of it all, instead of free speech. But then it's an unsteady foundation because without protected freedom of speech, why would criticism or concern be allowed? Why would informing people be allowed? Why would a plebian be allowed to doubt an expert? The ruling class typically does not want accountability, or to have their mistakes publicized. It would be disastrous. Too easily corrupted.
He doesn’t understand it at all.
The US constitution is supposed to protect the people against government overreach.
Freedom of speech is paramount for the exchange of ideas, and the formation of both common values, and those we reject.
@@justmemimi7338 Agreed - I didn't mention how it is the FIRST Amendment just to keep the comment simple, but yes.
And, he has to know that if anything is "first" or paramount in the US, it's "freedom" not "free speech" which is just one component of that freedom.
Our Constitution is not a document that limits the citizens - it's what limits the GOVERNMENT - which is profound.
@@jakedunnegan well said.
@@justmemimi7338 And instead you allowed and began to worship corporate and upper class overreach or outright tyranny.
The american experiment failed utterly, and you americans fail to take accountability for it.
Instead doubling down on your failed culture and ideology and branding everything else, from what is actual democracy to functioning, spliced socialism (like the Nordic model, for instance) as "evil communism".
You've made religion out of capitalism, to your own destruction.
9:15 this is a terrible argument left unchallenged.
It is a strawman of what people mean by "You can't say anything anymore."
People get police visits for thinking that a woman can't have a peen. They went to court for it.
He's in denial.
The lads let it roll.
I thought the same thing. The fact that the taxi driver was afraid to say it does not mean it was an incorrect view.
Yes he is contradicting himself so glaringly, it's amazing. He says he paid for a person's lawyers because they were about to be sent to prison over speech, and then suggests that the taxi driver was an idiot for saying his speech was being limited.
Yeh and he slips into a strong accent when degrading that person - classism at its best - his equivalent of the basket of deplorables comment.
It was challenged seconds later.
Yeah. Fry seems oblivious to the fact that the refusal to say what cannot be said is the issue, you can tell someone you won't report them, but you cannot ensure it, there is no way for a cabby to know Fry won't take note of his badge number and phone the popo as soon as he's out of sight, and THAT is the method of suppression..
I'm quite left wing, but the idea of putting people in jail for speech is so Antithetical as to cause revulsion. I think it's awful to call fat people fat, simply because it's rude, but it shouldn't cause someone to be arrested. Calling someone by their former name after a name swap is also rude, but far from a reason to be placed in jail.
Who is being arrested for calling people fat or by the wrong name?
@@unthenner5519 there was guy charged for anti-trans commentary in 2020, then subsequently the judge ruled in his favor. the right has turned this into "thousands of people being arrested for speaking facts"
Over the decades of my life listening carefully to this man I literally can't think of a single work hes said that I disagree with. He is the giant whose shoulders many of us stand on.
The people who mocked and ridiculed Christianity are saying that the western culture is under attack, forgetting that the western culture is Christianity 😂😂😂😂
Yes, but Christianity and Islam are still rightly open to ridicule. We must ridicule the preposterous.
Yes, but a country's culture changes over time. The English used to worship the old gods before they switched to this new Jewish one and now most of them don't believe in any of them.
So If I'm an Atheist or agnostic I'm not western? Is a Japanese christian western then?
@@RobertFletcherOBE You know full well what the OG commenter was saying. They made a perfectly valid point, but like most atheists you can't help being childish and petty.
Exactly. Well said. I'm sick of people like Fry, Cleese and Rowling getting pats on the backs from the right just because they occasionally say the sky is blue.
I'd rather have honest chaos than dishonest harmony
Where are all the families coming over in boats 😂
Fry is an extraordinary man. We are very much aligned in many respects and I've been trying to make this point for years. We are blessed to have him.
Says the very man that AIDED AND ABETTED ALL THIS MADNESS
his character in V was one of the good ones
Stephen contradicts himself a lot.
I would have loved to hear Stephen reply to the following.....
.....as a gay man, do you agree with laws banning speech calling for stoning gay people because of religious beliefs?
.....being of Jewish heritage, do you agree with laws banning denial of the Holocaust?
It’s a sign of intelligence, he is seeing things from multiple sides while connecting different strands from throughout the interview. He agrees and poses counter points. My late father was an extremely intelligent man and through discussing points from all sides one gets a better picture of the subject.
@Cruck2
I don't think so. He's just a yes man.
@@theeggtimertictic1136 he’s definitely not a yes man, especially if you read or watch his other stuff
He is having a conversation not driving a thesis.
The slippery slope is without question real. Give em a inch and they take a mile. This guy is a bag of wind.
Thank you I thought he is a wind bag as well far removed from the reality of ordinary peoples lives. God made ordinary people and this snob looks down on them. What a brilliant ass!
A windbag, a blowhard, a phoney, clueless.
He's vile.
A fallacy has to survive contact with reality to remain a fallacy.
Yes that struck me the same way. The “slippery slope” is perfectly apt when referring to bad actors not operating in good faith (no pun intended).
Its interesting seeing Stephen updating his software ever so slowly.
In equal parts brilliant and maddening, an excellent interview gents.
What reprehensible straw manning from Steve here
He's been doing it for years.
The notion that left is good right is bad is a ridiculous starting point
Indeed - and are of course considered convenient epithets by those of the opposite side to group to vilify and marginalize anyone who disagrees with your point of view!
Even the title "The Rise of the Right is the Left's Fault" is an absurd simplification of how individuals think. If my categories are: pro-choice, free speech, fiscal conservative, religious pro-LEGAL immigration, pro equality but anti-DEI, anti-ILLEGAL immigration ... what am I ??
That’s not the notion. People on the left have always believed in progress, changing things for the better, improving things etc hence the name progressives.
People on the right believe in the status quo, they don’t want to force change, they believe change will happen organically they react to change hence the term reactionary.
Left has always taken the higher ground because it traditionally wanted things done now, changed now for the better.
Especially considering historically, pretty much every big conflict or genocide has been a direct fault of socialism or communism gone haywire. Just look at the German national socialist party, the soviets, Mao, North Korea etc. This is just a massive gaslighting trying to make the right out to be the bad guys
@@mpwaterhouse That means you don't fit into the predetermined box that the status quo has defined all people must belong to. Individualism and thought is not something that is encouraged these days.
I don't buy into the "national Treasure" label given to Fry. I find him very overrated but the label seems to have been put on him by the modern British establishment and media class (private education and Oxbridge) that he is part of and embodies, A bourgeois lefty who presents himself as the some sort of unifying voice of reason and sanity but underneath the verbosity is as about as relevant as any other bubble dwelling luvvie.
Fry makes me sick. He pontificate about decency while he sodomises a bloke who dresses like a teenage emo.
Id give it to Rowan Atkinson, or... damn, whats his name, came up with Rowan in blackadder, played Dr. House. Cant remember, but yeah him. Both are great class actors.
Well said.
Nice one curly.
@@icarusjumped2719 hugh laurie, the other half of fry and laurie?
Poor Stephen. He's a captive audience. Love him. ❤️
Wow, didn't think Stephen could be so wrong.
As the revered master of philosophy, St. Johnathan of McClaine once put it, "Welcome to the party, pal!"
@@Belzediel Just watched Diehard this week, first time in decades; man every scene was a pure pleasure to watch. Maybe I was missing the '80s or it really is just that good.
@@lhurst9550 It's just THAT good.
Out of touch: he's still living in the society of his youth, in his head nothing has changed. His wealth and fame insulates him from the real world.
You haven't listened to any of his unscripted conversations, have you. There's no hiding it in an hour or more.
I think the reason why modern free speech comedians make jokes of minorities is actually pretty simple. A big part of comedy is to poke the sacred cow, and because culturally these groups are more protected than any other, to where even light criticism is frowned upon, they are the modern day version of that. Making fun of white people, straight people, etc, is the norm now, comedy isn't interesting when it's just saying the same thing you hear every day, the shock is the point. The problem is people conflate that with actually hating those groups, which generally isn't true.
I don't think any of the against free speech people actually watch or understand comedy
It all depends if the comedian actually tells jokes. I sometimes hear comedians insult some minority group, but there's nothing funny about it. There is no joke. Sometimes it's nothing more than "look what I dare to say now", without actually adding anything funny. Then it becomes a problem.
He’s forgetting that the working class are very patriotic, and therefore he’s dismissing them as irrelevant as they aren’t his class
The modern left thinks it's their duty to educate the working class not represent or support them.
... he literally said that elites don't speak for the rest of humanity and that the problems of real people can't be easily categorized with universal academic statements. He's literally saying the opposite of what you've just said he does ... you might want to watch this video again because you may have watched it but I don't think you actually listened ...
Thank Goodness itself for the heart, mind, reason and courage of Mr. Fry. I just wish you could be around for another 100 years to see the young people growing up today - through it all. Xxxx
This is why i don't have "national treasures" or heroes in my life.
You haven't met me yet, obviously. 🙂
True. People are just people. This is why I completely disagree with the concept of a Royal Family.
I’m being objective: we don’t need any. Be your own 😊
Fry helped to make it this way, pushed the idea that we should always veer-left.
He is woke, he just managed to stay supporting free speech for most things...
He doesn’t understand that the “kindness” that they speak of, is conformity of ideology and behaviour.
He has a lot of reflecting to do.
Yes. And even then he's only for free speech for "most" things, as you right said, and not for all things. Therefore he's not for free speech at all.
So what if he's left?
Should everybody be of the same opinion you are?
"Free speech rights for most things" aren't really free speech rights.
Supporting civil rights and free speech isn't the same as woke. Identitarians and liberals are not the same thing.
It’s always interesting to listen to Fry: he is bright, knowledgeable and articulate. But, that said, he does - despite criticising the left - often represent their worst faults. When he says ‘the trouble with the left is they prefer to be right than effective’ he is tacitly implying they are right. But they are often wrong! They are wrong to embrace CRT, to obsess about trivialities such as transgender toilets, to promote highly divisive identity politics, to cancel those they disagree with, to downplay class, to propose climate change policies that would immiserate half the world, to name but a few of their erroneous projects. Marx was mostly wrong, so were Lenin, Stalin, Pot Pot, Mao etc ad infinitum.
I think a better definition would be they prefer to be seen to be virtuous
They'd rather be self-righteous than be effective.
Performative Virtue.
@@astraea9644 And yet they are not even that! They’re frequently nasty, vindictive, prideful, domineering, immoral, self-important, violent, arrogant, destructive………
You've explained perfectly why he's utterly uninteresting.
And they let him get away with it. Very lazy interviewing.
Will always love Stephen. Very insightful and respectful in addition to intelligent.
Is this like it was to watch Elvis at the end of his career?? Must all heroes fade away??
Elvis was always a good singer. Fry has always been a twat.
😢
Never a hero of mine, but then I despise ‘celebrities’.
You just need to realize that you only like him when he's pretending to be someone he's not.
Great metaphor! And yes, they must. One day you must stand on your own two feet, voice your own opinion and be counted as your own man, without crutches of someone else's opinion. Saddening, painful even, but necessary.
Fry is an overrated mid-wit. People like him put us in this position and now complain it's all gone wrong.
He’s a very clever dude. But he lives in the elite London bubble, a rarefied world rarely touched by the reality that 95% of Brits face every day.
And... what Mr Fry mentions about not offending people is boIIocks, not offending people who actively seek and claim offence has lead to the appalling state the UK is now, greatly 'enriched' and utterly disunited.
I remember when he said "Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're correct..." or something along those lines.
Literally gone back on what he stood for. Now it doesn't suit him, he's mealy-mouthed about it. I'm actually shocked.
That's true, but there's a difference between that and going around intentionally trying to offend people. @@Sujad
@@Xanaduum People get offended by everything. Particularly the whites. Though the blacks get worked up over a lot of stuff that is their fault and the fault of my people and the Jews.
Thank you for putting what we came to hear in the first few seconds. Thumbs up
I wish they had challenged him more when he double spoke.
it's a style choice. There are confrontation interview styles, where statements are challenged. This is the conversational style where the guest gets to talk with less challenging. Both have their pros and cons. The confrontational style can mean the guest never gets to finish a thought and makes the guest less open and more defensive. The conversational style means they will be challenged less but may be more forthcoming. I think both have their place. We don't have to take things at face value in either case. In normal conversation we will often switch flow or contradict ourselves sometimes changing what we think half way through a sentence. That's pretty human I think. Although now, I'm not sure I agree with myself.
BOTTOMFEEDERS ARE SO AWESOME! YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Joe Rogan says you shouldn't judge a fighter on his later years but how he did in his prime.
I appreciate you for that.
To be honest, here. I only lasted 13 minutes in. I know that probably says more about me than the video. But I actually found this rather tedious to listen too.
Yep, all too predictable.
@@visionlandmusic You said it,
What a pity.
No, it's the video and the insufferable individual featured in it. You did the right thing and preserved your braincells.
Always amazing to get Stephen Fry speaking his mind on anything
Few misguided thoughts on Fry here. As a Brit, I would say he’s a national treasure because of his eloquence and intelligence, but also because he’s a reminder of incredible poshness, whilst still being different from those type of folk. He suffers from quite severe mental health issues, is homosexual, and really has lived an incredibly interesting life (prison etc). You don’t have to agree with everything he says, but he’s always worth a listen, even if you do want to cherry pick from his ramblings.
Exactly. It's also probable that if you asked him his thoughts on one thing he might have a slightly different answer a week later. That's human. Thoughts are a journey.
I'd be more suspicious of someone who gave the same answer all the time (unless they'd been doing a lot of interviews in a row) and all the thoughts lined up perfectly.
@ that seems to be what people like these days. Conversations have become an immovable force vs unstoppable object. It’s refreshing to see people change their opinions…. But it rarely happens these days.
26:00 onwards. He misses the point about being told what to say. What used to happen was that certain words were censored. Nowadays ideas are censored.
@@iainmrodgers9991 Back in the day, there were definitely also ideas behind the words.
@@martinkirotar6994 Fry wasn't talking about ideas. He was talking about swearing etc.
What ideas were censored? In the UK (in the 60s and 70s) we could talk about Marxism, Nazism and everything in between. We could talk about any and all religions and sects. We could talk about sex and sexuality.
I would like to remind Steven, they are not rikerty, rakey, boats , they are brand knew dinghy's of military spec used by every military in the world, they also have brand new outboard engines and are clearly fine vessels to get across the channel even overloaded with Military aged Men.
Yep. Nigel Farage definitely has a point for millions of people.
Fry reminds me of John Cleese who when he got old he complained that the norms he mocked and undermined were gone.
Kind of reminds you of the story of Icarus, no?
Another luvvie.
@@homemaintenance1234 another Etonian
@@Tom-sd9jb More of the arborist who's sawing off the branch he's sitting on.
The all eventually join the Knights Who Say "Ni"
He’s terrified of being out of the Luvvy set.
-o dear. Love Stephan Fry: the voice of temperance & reason aka the 'decency' quotian. ~ Sadly, he's ALMOST of another era now. ... Good interview, fellas. 👏👏🙏⛄️❣️
This was a great show to watch. I genuinely enjoy the fact that the arguments being raised were challenged and contested in thoughtful and reasonable ways.
He's just all over the place philosophically and a perfect example of why we're in the mess that we're in.
Yes, liberal bullshit
I love Stephen fry, seems a genuinely good person. He seems sheltered to the threat facing the modern west.
He's verging on champagne socialist
At a certain point ignorance becomes a choice, and he has sided with evil.
100%
@normant. Everyone loves Stephen . He’s an armchair traveller - which is perfectly fine. But we mustn’t think he’s Christopher Hitchens . Christopher was essentially a scorcher. We need all sorts.
@@belindamay8063 He's a champagne socialist by the sounds of it
It was a marvel to watch a man of such pith and wit be so utterly vague and anodyne. Well, at least he's preserved his career, if not his credibility..
Well said. Much more to the point than anything Fry said.
Who are you to say such things about anyone. Do you possess some sort of divine right to be so mocking?
@@mrbeat7405 Mr Fry is like a national treasure in the UK, it is a though he belongs to all of us, so we all feel we have the right to reflect upon his words. He would expect no less, even if we are critical.
Why should he have a career if he is not credible?
His kind will not be missed.
@@jimluebke3869 He's not gone yet mate. There's still plenty of life in the old chap.
I loved listening to this. I found it soothing and interesting as listening to my grandpa talk.
I did however, heard surprisingly little new insights or things of substance. He can simply speak in such a manner to make anything interesting.
Stephen Fry is the one who was moaning about Musk buying twitter only a couple of months ago… he was completely incoherent on that occasion, strange. Like he was playing a role that he knew he needed to play on that radio station.
I ever come to realise Stephen Fry isn't inteligent at all. He's just good at remembering scripts.
Stephen is someone who loves Twitter when it came out quite a while ago. You can't ignore that it changed massively, before and after musk. It's hardly a nice place to be in anymore.
@ it’s much less filtered, yes. That’s a good thing for everyone in the free world
@@yscol1313 maybe, in my opinion it's a cesspool of hate and even more misinformation then before. But yes it was also terrible before Elon
@ community notes is pivotal imo
I grew up watching Stephen Fry and I will always be tremendously fond of him. However, I can't help but think that his generation of liberals are the reason we are in such a mess today.
Then why would you be fond of someone who helped to do so much harm? He's a vindictive, horrible, odious creature.
Spot on!
Social media is where celebrities come to destroy their legacies.
Very disappointing to see another person I once admired speaking about people he doesn't even know.
I feel the same.
And yet, it's good to know the truth finally, so his legacy (so entrenched at the BBC now) can be effectively combated.
You're the exact sort of person he's talking about. @@jimluebke3869
This talented genius British 'national treasure' incorporates so many ideas and quotes in his discourse here, ranging from the Greek philosophers to Woody Allen ! Then he's off for a suit and tie lunch at one of his favourite London Gentleman's clubs ! Rock on, Stephen Fry.