A sensitive, thoughtful and accurate piece. If people like Stephen Fry can be so easily misled it's easy to see how so many others jump on idealistic and seemingly 'humane' bandwagons without looking at the small print.
Thoughtful piece. There’s something a bit sad about watching someone so apparently reasonable drift into the sort of dogma he used to challenge. Makes you wonder how many others are doing the same.
What should the response be to somebody as influential and learned as Stephen Fry coming out with such strong allegations of 'radicalisation'?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I want to see Stephen Fry elaborate. But not as part of a one-sided penned piece where he gets to set out his position with no challenge.
I want to see him on stage, with JK Rowling attempt to defend these quite extreme 'radicalisation' claims.
Why is it that positions that were held as entirely normal 20 years ago and have been held for milennia are so suddenly considered 'radicalised' and extreme?
Such a fundamental change in such a short time? Surely that recency is instructive?
How can we challenge extremists like Stephen Fry? As a gay man, isn't there a good chance that Stephen Fry would also fall victim to gender ideology if he were born post 2020? Rather than being a gay man he may be considered a trans woman?
Good questions — and yes, it’s puzzling, especially in someone as intelligent as Fry. But intelligence is no safeguard against self-deception; if anything, it can make it easier to rationalise absurdities.
In Fry’s case, I suspect it’s partly identity-driven. As a gay man, a liberal, and someone long positioned as a moral voice of reason, he likely feels a strong obligation to align with what he sees as the “kind” and “tolerant” stance — even when that stance begins to contradict the very principles he once championed. The result is a kind of moral contortion, where incoherence and intolerance are reframed as the height of compassion.
A sensitive, thoughtful and accurate piece. If people like Stephen Fry can be so easily misled it's easy to see how so many others jump on idealistic and seemingly 'humane' bandwagons without looking at the small print.
Thank you. And yes, my thoughts exactly.
Thoughtful piece. There’s something a bit sad about watching someone so apparently reasonable drift into the sort of dogma he used to challenge. Makes you wonder how many others are doing the same.
What should the response be to somebody as influential and learned as Stephen Fry coming out with such strong allegations of 'radicalisation'?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I want to see Stephen Fry elaborate. But not as part of a one-sided penned piece where he gets to set out his position with no challenge.
I want to see him on stage, with JK Rowling attempt to defend these quite extreme 'radicalisation' claims.
Why is it that positions that were held as entirely normal 20 years ago and have been held for milennia are so suddenly considered 'radicalised' and extreme?
Such a fundamental change in such a short time? Surely that recency is instructive?
How can we challenge extremists like Stephen Fry? As a gay man, isn't there a good chance that Stephen Fry would also fall victim to gender ideology if he were born post 2020? Rather than being a gay man he may be considered a trans woman?
Good questions — and yes, it’s puzzling, especially in someone as intelligent as Fry. But intelligence is no safeguard against self-deception; if anything, it can make it easier to rationalise absurdities.
In Fry’s case, I suspect it’s partly identity-driven. As a gay man, a liberal, and someone long positioned as a moral voice of reason, he likely feels a strong obligation to align with what he sees as the “kind” and “tolerant” stance — even when that stance begins to contradict the very principles he once championed. The result is a kind of moral contortion, where incoherence and intolerance are reframed as the height of compassion.
If they can make you believe absurdities. They can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire! Yes, indeed.