I watched the BAFTAs with my girlfriend last night and I have to say, when Stephen made that comment we both said 'woah that's a bit mean' out loud. Of course, being the general public we're not aware of Mr Fry's relationship with the lady who won the award but from an outside perspective it came across as a bit bullying.
I only found out today about the twitter backlash and I don't think it should be lumped in with so called SJW movements, or the anti-anti-offensive movement, it really sounded like a hurtful unnecessary comment that he shouldn't have made without context or clarifying their relationship. It really seemed un-characteristically mean for Mr Fry.
Without clarifying it it looks like he stood on stage in front of a bunch of rich celebrities and slagged off the winner of an award for not wearing conventional dress to an award show.
I'm all for offensive comedy, but this wasn't a joke, he was basically slagging her off in public, live on television to a room full of people. Without context of their relationship it really looks like bullying. That's completely different to an offensive stand up comedy joke, especially when its so personally targeted. Some context to clarify that it wasn't mean and they're friends would have taken the edge off the 'joke' and nobody would have cared, but it was so off the cuff and mean it just looks like he is bullying her, which is probably what touched a chord with so many people. I'm sure Mr Fry is the last person who would want to be seen as bullying anyone.
The thing is, it wasn't their business to care. They had no part in it or knowledge of the people involved but they leapt into avenger mode anyway. And a lot of their responses were way outside of civil interactions.
This is one of the very least appealing changes in Anglophone culture over the past 10 years. The world would be far better off if Twitter made personal attacks, doxxing, etc (except possibly against politicians) a TOS violation that lead to account closure.
The problem is, Twitter would be much worse off. They literally profit from hatred and anger.
I'd like to be clear that I'm not advocating anyone on twitter or anything that was said, I have not read any of the twitter response to this.
I just wanted to say that I could understand why people saw it the way they did, because to me it came across as really mean. It really stood out and made Mr Fry seem rather mean even compared to some of his other jokes. I'm not personally offended and I'm not going to twitter about it but I can see why people felt it was harsh because it felt harsh to me.
I mean, I watched the show, I heard what he said, it's whole tone was off compared to the rest of the night. It really stood out and sounded awfully harsh.
Now I'm not going to go to twitter about it, it didn't offend me but it did come across rather mean and crass.
Fry's post says that one of the problems is due to people being offended on behalf of other people they have never met.
So they are not offended personally (e.g like most people), but they imagine that it would be offensive to someone else (e.g. a minority) and decide to co-opt this imagined offence.
It's a curious difference in being offended personally, and defending others via imagining the offence of that other. One can see another point of view, but its harder to imagine another changing their point of view.
Well I'm actually curious now what the twitter response was, because as I've expressed here, I think his 'joke' missed the mark and came off harsh, which I found hurtful by proxy I suppose. I wouldn't like to be called that live on television. So I'm assuming most of the response was 'that wasn't very nice I think you should apologise for that remark' and Mr Fry's response is to get annoyed that anyone would get offended by his comment and eventually close his twitter account. I'm sure there were much more extreme remarks but this is twitter, you're going to get chaff with the wheat.
I personally think he was out of line and even with the context of they were friends I think it was a mis-judged joke. I'm not going to go on social media to tell him about it but my opinion of him has certainly changed based on this behaviour.
Do you really not understand how telling a woman that she looks like a bag lady is offensive, even setting aside the fact that a.) this was on a television program and b.) the woman was not in a position to say anything in response?
"Only one of the great cinematic costume designers would come to the awards dressed like a bag lady.
So lets break that down.
The subject is a "cinematic costume designer" According to Sir Fry, she is a great one at that.
Then we have the other part of the statement: "She came to the awards dressed as a bag lady." This part of the statement is a bit odd/stands out when compared to a group of rather posh individuals.
When you put both parts of this together you have a really positive reference by Mr. Fry then combined with an odd/"less flattering" situation. It's ironic.
What make this even funnier and more congratulating is: She's a costume designer. Maybe this was intended. At the end of the day Stephen Fry was pictured with the individual and there have been claims that there is no bad blood between the two.
To call it an offensive joke seems like you're perverting what was actually said and would require striping out the context.
Mr. Fry did not say: "Shes a bag lady, too poor to receive this award. Just take a look at her clothes"
That could be considered a joke at the expectation of being posh, at a highly honor awards ceremony, and would be considered offensive to the subject and maybe the audience.
Combine this with stories that rise to prominence based on a limited set of facts, distorted truths, or outright lies, and it's particularly pernicious. That people are instantly willing to offer the absolute worst wishes (and actions) they can muster, on a few words posted over a picture, and personally involve themselves in something they know NOTHING about is disheartening.
Not everyone deserves a microphone. Yet as an industry, we have built billions of them. (Comment sections, including this one, are the place to start when thinking about that.)
The problem is that Stephen Fry loves to dish it out, then has a petulant hissy fit because he can't take it. He loves to claim there's "no right not to be offended" - except when it comes to his precious sensibilities, apparently.
But if she has just been (yet again) nominated as one of the World's or Britain's best costume designers, how is poking fun at her current outfit, by a comedian of all people, "being mean"? Is it not that contrast that makes the joke?
Well just watch the whole thing, from nomination to winning, to award acceptance to Mr Fry taking the stage again and tell me that his comment sounds like a joke. I'm sure he intended it to be a joke and to not be taken seriously, and I'm sure he was sincere when he was calling her the best costume designer in Britain, but the joke didn't work. The comment came across as crass and harsh and mocking of a woman who's just won an award just because she's dressed unconventionally for an awards ceremony.
I think he missed the mark with his 'joke', and as I've said before I'm not personally offended and I'm not going to tell him off publicly on social media but I can't help how his comment felt mean spirited to me and still does despite context of their familiarity.
Yeh me and my kids will be paying for a long time for the worlds biggest banking (per capita) debacle and the destruction of the economy in the 00s by various governments. With kids its sort of hard to leave :( Tho' it is a nice place to live despite all the carry on.
But hey look over there at the news yet another multinational setting up to launder/funnel money onto somewhere warmer and seems like a housing bubble is re-inflating again.
--------
edit: last year i arranged my salary to remain under the high tax rate band
Gross: €32.6 K
Net (after PAYE,PRSI,USC): €25 K
The accountant said that above this €32K line i would have lost about ~53 cents in taxes for each €1.00 earned by ending up in the highest tax band...
So I left the extra money in company (corporation tax 12.5%) and will spread out my wages over few years, tho is risky practice if the company gets sued and loses the money.
There is an option to pay into a pension but with the pension funds being so mismanaged and the government actively robbing all pensions and destroying the pension reserve that would be downright stupid.
Set up a trust or a separate management company that cannot be easily sued (only one client: your other business). If for some reason Irish tax law doesn't work for this case, you can probably set up a foreign owned management company or quality assurance company. Another option is to buy business insurance for lawsuits, though really do you research and record the call you have with the rep because he will promise you things that are not true. If you don't have one party consent for phone calls in Ireland do it from a country that does.
Yeh the problem is you do not want to cross Revenue, they do assume your are guilty and you have to prove your innocence when it comes to tax matters. Best if possible not do anything which they might interpret as dodgy.
I just can't imagine it - "Great, you got a pay rise! Now you get to take home less, until your pay rises by another $5,000!"
Edit: On second reading, I think I understand what the OP is talking about: leaving money in the company they operate, which pays out (I guess through dividends?) at a lesser tax rate than if it were paid out directly as wages. I'm pretty sure this is a standard technique in the rest of the world, and not particularly unique to Ireland.
Does any country out there not tax progressively?
I just can't imagine it - "Great, you got a pay rise! Now
you get to take home less, until your pay rises by
another $5,000!"
He's just whining. At no point under the progressive tax system do you get penalized for earning more: the first $35K of your income is still taxed at the lower rate. When you earn dollar number 35,001, that dollar is taxed at 53%, but your average tax rate only goes up a hundredth of a percent.
This misunderstanding of how tax brackets is so widely pervasive that I can only assume it's the work of enemy action: people who want to reduce income taxes, or to move the tax burden to the poor by implementing a flat tax rate.
He's still paying a significantly higher tax rate on that dollar than if he didn't earn it this year.
If he is not hurting for cash and he could defer it until next year (or year after that) with no penalty at all and (arguably) negligible risk, thus paying the lower personal income tax rate on that dollar, why not do it?
I don't see what part is misunderstood. If you're being paid by your employer, obviously you want to take the raise regardless of higher taxes. If you are your own employer, both entities are paying taxes and each dollar of taxes paid is coming out of your own pocket.
The money doesn't appear out of thin air. It takes time and stress to earn each euro. Especially if you work for yourself or in a startup, you are probably working for someone else so you do not comprehend the perspective of someone who is trying to make his own way in the world.
The tax system here puts a huge disincentive to work hard and earn a lot, at least there is an option if you have your own company to defer and stretch your wages over longer period BUT that comes with all sorts of risk since IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY but company money and corporation tax.
That's very short-sighted. If you are incorporated for yourself then:
> each dollar of taxes paid (by either entity) is coming out of your own pocket
You can keep it in pocket A, the corporation, and pay taxes once (on profits only, I guess), or move it to pocket B and pay taxes a second time also, at a much higher rate (and on overall income, again a larger basis than it would be to count up personal profits.) If you can replace some personal expenses with corporate expenses, end-around pocket B completely, now your business has also made less profit, so pays less corporate tax. I am not a tax accountant (or even remotely skilled in taxes) and this is not tax advice, but it makes pretty good sene to me. Certainly some part less than all of what I suggest would be considered illegal tax dodging or corporate malfeasance.
Sounds like a good incentive for CEOs/majority owners of small businesses to live frugally and to refrain from looting their corporate coffers excessively. Sure, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but it also seems very clear to make the case that two whole birds in the bush are worth more than 0.94 birds in the hand.
That's approximately how I read it. Even if it's his company, money he puts in his own pocket needs to have income tax paid on it (I would suppose this means, after any appropriate corporate taxes are paid by the corporation).
If the money does not actually leave the company and go into his pocket, the only taxes that would need to be paid are those (low) corporate taxes.
Of what value is money you can't have in your pocket and spend, of course, is an exercise for the reader, but presumably it could be paid out as personal income over a greater number of years (if the company survives that long) without ever paying $0.53/1.00 in personal income taxes on any portion of that money.
This is what I do. I worked hard for three years, pay myself a wage thats in the minimum pay bracket and will travel until the company money is gone. I'm not give a cent more than I have to to those crooks.
Wow, the comments on this post really do sum up his points in this article. The whole article isn't about goto at all, but about programming myths and how they perpetuate and how HN is just allowing us to be more lazy by only reading the titles to posts. Why is nobody discussing the actual intent behind this article, which is how myths and, slightly related, programming myths begin and propagate throughout our education and culture.
Instead, ITT, gotos are bad and here's why, gotos are ok and here's why, gotos are good and here's why.
