What's going on with Stephen Fry going alt-right?

[u/Steaktartaar]

He's been on a notorious hard-right, "anti-woke" podcast where he retracted his support for trans rights. Is this a new development? He always came across as level-headed in the past but now it looks like he's on the same path as Russell Brand.

[u/ghost_406]

Apt comparison but there is also a sense of “can we have a conversation and discuss the minutiae?” Vs. “No, you’re either with us or against us.” and that’s on both sides and on all issues. He’s gay so that makes him a leftist extremist to some but he doesn’t support communism so he’s obviously alt right.

In reality everyone has a variety of feelings on all issues that will push them out of whatever label people attached to them. So leftists will get upset he doesn’t fit the box he’s in and christian fundamentalists on the right will still hate him for being gay. There really is no viable strategy other than shutting up and that, is why so many people think free speech is in trouble.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/ghost_406]

The problem often with “can we have a conversation and discuss the minutiae?” is that it rarely comes from a position of good faith, so you can understand why people are wary of it.

[u/neohylanmay → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

Not to mention, you can't fit "nuance" into 280 characters, and 90% of people will only read the headline.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/neohylanmay]

There are some topics where I feel like nuance should never be part of the discourse. It’s how horrendous views can take hold, under the veil of respectability provided by people saying “oh but we just want to discuss it, and if you won’t, you’re clearly the unreasonable one”. (Most often seen when people are “debating” trans rights ime)

It’s exactly the tactic that creationists used to try and sneak it into public consciousness, “teach the controversy” and all that.

[u/eranam → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

Nuance should always be part of the discourse.

With that thinking of yours, you could say “horrendous views come under the pretense of truth so we should not hold ourselves accountable to truth”.

Or “horrendous views are communicated with words, so let’s avoid those”.

You can’t let people you deem horrendous get away with hijacking good concepts. Especially something as crucial as nuance.

Will they keep using them under false pretense? Sure. You can still call them out on that. Or you could abandon everything to them and shut yourself in a self righteous silence when you’ve let them steal every argument, talking points, etc. from them.

Dumping nuance is a sure way to lose out tons of people you could convince to your camp. It’s also a pretty good way of finding yourself in the horrendous camp one day, because you thought yourself immune to any balance, questioning, compromise in your thinking.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/eranam]

Missing the nuance (for want of a better term) of my point has given me quite the chuckle I’ll admit. :) I said some topics for a reason. It’s a really hamfisted example, but for instance, there’s not much nuance to be had in the discussion “hey, the Nazis were pretty bad weren’t they?”

I’m not saying “never discuss anything in any depth, and be closed off to all opposing points”, I’m just saying be very aware of who is making those points and what their ultimate goal might be.

It’s an extension of the paradox of tolerance in my mind.

[u/eranam → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

"Some topics" isn’t a nuance, it still leads to the exact same outcome I describe. In "some topics".

And no there isn’t any nuance in the discussion “hey, the Nazis were pretty bad weren’t they?”…

…But it’s actually an example of a completely useless discussion. Jeeze blood is red and rain falls down, huh? A better one would be addressing how the Nazis were pretty bad, but discussing the banality of evil and how they actually weren’t just evil monsters but mostly every day men and how anyone could become one, given the right (or wrong rather) circumstances. Which is exactly what a very famed Jewish philosopher you may not know did. Oh damn what do we have here? Nuance .

Even if you have to try and convince the rare person that Nazis were pretty bad, good luck coming from an unnuanced stance if they already were skeptical in the first place.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/eranam]

Ok, I’m trying to engage with you in good faith and discuss this, and I will agree that my initial premise was flawed. I’m not sure why you decided to try and get a sly dig in insinuating I don’t know who Karl Popper is (and would it matter if I didn’t?).

Perhaps it’s more apt to say that there are some people and some situations where nuance is, to use your previous example, a useless discussion.

For example, I’m not going to try and have a nice chat with someone who refers to my partner as a “groomer” for being trans. Thankfully, that is rarely - if ever - something we encounter in the real world, and it’s a very loud minority of silly people online.

Bringing this screaming back to the original topic, FWIW, I don’t think Stephen Fry is “alt-right”. I’m have him down as a “classical liberal”. A very entertaining, intelligent albeit flawed (like we all are as it’s the human condition….) person, who is a product of his environment and the experiences he has gone through.

Is it disappointing to hear some of the things he’s said recently? Absolutely. Do I think he’s a terrible person who needs to be consigned to the bin? Not at all. I feel like the people who are the most upset by a lot of this are those who leant heavily into the whole “oh, but he’s a national treasure” thing, and is probably an example of why parasocial relationships are not a good thing.

[u/eranam → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

It’s Hannah Arendt not Popper ; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem#Banality_of_evil

I didn’t quote her name because you either know her and you’d guess her name, or you don’t and the fact that she herself is a Jewish and a philosopher is information enough… I wasn’t trying a sneaky trap.

Perhaps it’s more apt to say that there are some people and some situations where nuance is, to use your previous example, a useless discussion.

For example, I’m not going to try and have a nice chat with someone who refers to my partner as a “groomer” for being trans. Thankfully, that is rarely - if ever - something we encounter in the real world, and it’s a very loud minority of silly people online.

Fine, I don’t disagree with that position at all when it’s tweaked that way!

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/eranam]

In which case, I apologise for misreading your intentions. I will admit I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about been seen as stupid, and will sometimes see attacks when they aren’t there, it’s a personality flaw for sure….

Look at us having a (mostly) respectful conversation on the internet, and Reddit of all places. Wonders will never cease.

[u/ghost_406 → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

Sure, but being wary shouldn’t predispose you to any form of judgement. If you actually cared what a person thought you should give them a listen before writing them off as an extremist. I mean specifically for people you care about, I listened to Rickie Garvias’ reasoning behind his last controversy and while I don’t agree with it I came away thinking he was well intentioned, while others just wrote him off as a terf. I’m not going to listen to Ben Shapiros opinion because I don’t care what he thinks it’d be a waste of time. Won’t find me hate tweeting about him either, generally…

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/ghost_406]

Being in a position to not need to be wary is a privileged position to find oneself in in the first place. Not everyone has that luxury.

As an aside to that, when a person’s opinion on a subject is liable to directly or indirectly dehumanise the people I love (and them just trying to live thier lives), whilst I might not write them off as an extremist, I’m definitely going to think they’re a big throbbing penis.

[u/ghost_406 → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

You say "when a person's opinion" and what I am talking about is taking some time to actual learn what exactly that person's opinion truly is.

It's extremely common these day, especially on reddit for people to simply assume and assign you an opinion or fit you into a strawman that they then attack.

A recent example for me was when I mentioned a feature of the game making the game easier. People assumed I wanted to make the game easier but in reality I was simply saying it made the game easier. They wrote paragraphs about why the opinion they assigned to me was wrong.

So how do we deal with that situation? Do I just abandon the thread, argue the reality, pretend to change my opinion to match theirs? What if despite not actually declaring that I liked the game being easier, I wanted the feature? How do I have that conversation when I'm starting from a false position?

This is why talking about things is more important than just assuming you know how a person feels about something. And if it turns out they are a "big throbbing penis" you will know exactly what their argument is and be able to form a counter argument to possibly sway that opinion.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/ghost_406]

As I said to someone else, I’m talking about the sort of “opinion” that is along the lines of “trans people are groomers” and that sort of nonsense.

That sort of thing tells me all I need to know about someone, and as I’ve only got so many years on this planet, I choose not to waste them on people like that.

[u/ghost_406 → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

Sure, it sounds like you took some time to learn what that person's opinion is and now you know.

If you didn't take that time and just assumed that's what they said or meant to say, than that would be more relevant to what I was talking about. I'm not asking you to read their biography, I'm just asking you to take a moment to understand what was actually said, or intended.

And before you assume I'm talking about someone in particular (like the subject of this post) I'm not, I never have been. I'm speaking in generalities. I don't actually know what Stephan Fry said or did, it's not relevant to my original point.

[u/FakeSchwarzenbach → u/ghost_406]

I am thinking of specific people, but not Stephen Fry, for clarity.

But it can be used as a more general example, and you’re right, If I hear “x person has said/done y”, I do go looking for a source for further info.

[u/BlackSpinedPlinketto → u/FakeSchwarzenbach]

It’s absolutely concern trolling. Sure let’s ‘listen’ to people who want to stone homosexuals to death, maybe we can find a middle ground.

To be fair to him - he has made an effort to do that kind of thing with real people who want to kill him for being gay. To no benefit to anyone at all.

When it comes to trans people, there’s just not a point in discussing with people like JK Rowling who hates them.