If you are reading this you probably made your way here via twitter, which is fortunate as it saves me the effort of having to write an explanation of it (twitter, not the word ‘it’ – if you need help with that then this is probably not the ideal first port-of-call) as a background to this post. If you are not here reading this then a fundamental paradox has arisen with regard to the laws of physics and we’re all buggered. In either case, this is my first stab at writing anything of a bloggy nature and I would therefore appreciate it greatly if you could see your way clear to forgiving me for the myriad mistakes, both factual and grammatical, that are bound to ensue.
Anyway, enough of the rambling preamble and on to the point of this gormless blathering; Recently something about twitter has been seriously yanking my chain.
As you may or may not be aware, in recent weeks the British comedian and TV personality Ricky Gervais has taken to airing his views via the medium of twitter, and has ruffled a number of feathers in the process. The crux of the kerfuffle is Gervais’ use of the word “mong”. Many have taken issue with this word, seeing it as a derogatory term that refers specifically to those with Down’s Syndrome, especially when viewed in conjunction with Gervais’ frequent uploads of photographic portraits of himself pulling excruciatingly idiotic faces. Gervais himself is unrepentant in his own defence, going to great pains to explain that this is not his intention, and that in much the same way as “gay” is no longer taken to mean “happy”, neither is his use of “mong” a reference to Down’s Syndrome. At the time of writing, if anything, he has increased the frequency of his use of the word, presumably in an effort to further antagonize those to whom he does intend it to apply (i.e. those who are offended by it). He also has his share of supporters in this. I’m not going to get into a tweet-by-tweet regurgitation of it all here – you can read them yourself by heading over to http://twitter.com/#!/rickygervais .
It is worth elucidating that I am not personally offended by the use of this word – not because as I don’t have DS it does not apply to me in the form of an insult – but because I am not offended by any word. Words are no more than a collection of letters or sounds arranged in a particular order to convey meaning. The meaning that is intended by its user or author is not, however, necessarily the same as that deduced or interpreted by its recipient. In other words – any offence taken at the use of the word is a creation of the thought processes and rationale of the reader or listener, the upshot of all this being that in order for a word – any word – to have the power to offend, that power has to be assigned to it by the offended rather than the offender. It was for precisely this reason that I felt myself able this afternoon to tweet Ricky Gervais to tell him that, whilst I didn’t necessarily share his opinions, he retains the right to express those opinions in any way he sees fit.
At this point I would like to point out the obvious – I do not know Mr. Gervais in any capacity, and so cannot speak for him or his intent. What I can do is explain that, despite my frequent use of many words which others may deem to be offensive, such as fuck, cunt, wanker, bastard, poochute, arsecream, biscuit and/or any number of others, it is never my intention to seek to offend anybody (life’s too short, frankly), but I indubitably do offend inadvertently on a regular basis.
And so to that about twitter which has recently come to grate upon my thrupenny bits: The Morality Police. The Mary Whitehouse Brigade. The Incessantly Outraged. The Disgusted of Milton Keynes Epistolary Association. Call them what you will. Those individuals who feel it their self-appointed duty to decide upon a moral code for the rest of humanity. I have a message for these fossilised remnants of Victorian moral rectitude – don’t, DO NOT under any circumstances attempt to tell me how to live my life. Do not seek to impose your own values on others, for what you are doing amounts to little more than ethical fascism. That’s right – I AM comparing you to Hitler and his cronies. (deliberate nod to Godwin’s law – please stop banging on about it, thanks.) Don’t get me wrong, I, probably much like you, despise the peddling of hate in any form. But to respond to it – to become outraged by it, is to lend it both power and a continued platform. In addition to this, there is the small matter of perspective. At any given moment in the long history of the human species, there have been people dying and suffering. Right now children are being starved to death, tortured and mutilated. Right now people are being denied their right to freedom of thought, speech and action. Surely even the weakest and most defenceless of us can withstand a hurtful word or two spat from the mouth of a hateful idiot (n.b. I am not labelling Ricky Gervais thusly, even if many of you may choose to do so). Furthermore, I do not give much credence to the argument that such words when hurled with intent and venom inspire others to hate or to disregard the thoughts and feelings of others. Those that would do so would have done so in any case – for they are brainless morons (or mongs as Gervais would say) and it will be a long time indeed before we as a species are free of such individuals.
In closing I have some advice. You may choose to heed it or otherwise – as a free individual you have the right to live your life as you choose – but I shall offer it nonetheless. If you engage in an argument with a fuckwit you will soon find a steady breeze of vacuous intransigence blowing in your direction and micturatory fluid spattered down the front of your jodhpurs. The next time you come across something on twitter you do not like – simply ignore it. Nobody forces you to follow any particular individual on twitter nor heed their words in life. You can choose to block or unfollow them on twitter, and in life you can choose to turn your back and walk away.
So what you’re saying is you’re not Ricky?
Posted by Renate | October 18, 2011, 9:13 amsuperb. been trying to point the same thing out to people for years.
Keep it up.
Posted by Tom | October 18, 2011, 9:13 ambiscuit?
Posted by everythingability | October 18, 2011, 9:13 amTo understand the glorious joy of the word biscuit you should check out Jess Thom’s marvellous website http://www.touretteshero.com. She’s doing wonderful work raising awareness and highlighting the many issues faced by Tourette’s sufferers.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 11:25 amagreed. but to play devil’s advocate here, are you saying we shouldn’t call anyone out on offensive and/or idiotic things they say?
Posted by T | October 18, 2011, 9:15 amNo – when it’s genuine hate or abuse we should stamp on it. My point is that I don’t think this is Gervais’ intent or meaning.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 11:25 amWell said.
Posted by scottpoland | October 18, 2011, 9:18 amAt last! someone who gets it! someone who understands that if you really dont like someting then there is no point standing infront of it yelling at it. all that does is give it the attention it needs to survive.
Posted by Miss Behaviour | October 18, 2011, 9:19 amMong!
Posted by Russell Jones | October 18, 2011, 9:24 amSo what you’re saying is, if I get told to fuck off and get called a wanker, it’s my fault for being offended?
Posted by Anonymous | October 18, 2011, 9:25 amNo – I’m saying it’s your choice to be offended or not, that is all.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 11:25 amAs the old saying goes “Opinions are like arse-holes everybody has one”.
Posted by Mary | October 18, 2011, 9:26 amVery nicely said, everybody has the choice to follow or not follow! If I was to stick my finger in an electrical socket only to find I was not amused by the result, I would remove my finger from afore mentioned socket, as to stand there moaning about my human rights being violated by the electricity, would not stop the unpleasant effect, and further more as my finger would be the invading party surely it is my responcibility to remove said finger to avoid the continued unpleasantry, if I fail to do this surely I must lable myself a MONG!!!
Posted by War Angel Lewis (@Tenshi_Aikikai) | October 18, 2011, 9:28 am“and in life you can choose to turn your back and walk away.” Unless you’re a disabled person being kicked repeatedly in the head. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032228/Disabled-mother-beaten-unconscious-horrifying-double-decker-buggy-rage-attack.html
Posted by Keiron Nicholson | October 18, 2011, 9:28 amDid you really compare Richard Herring to Mary Whitehouse? Or the Nazis? Wow!
Ricky Gervais, of course, has every right to use the phrase “mong” and pull Downs Syndrome faces, like most of us stupidly did when we were schoolkids in the 70s, but the question is, why is he so determined to do so?
The thing is, I’m a huge Gervais fan (for his TV work anyway) but his posts on Twitter have really disappointed me. He has encouraged his followers to call people that pull him up on his use of language “mongs” too. Which must be lovely for any disabled people who point out to Gervais the unacceptability of his archaic language use.
I used to see irony all over Gervais’ work, and now I’m wondering how much of it was true irony and how much of it was actually his real beliefs.
Perhaps he’ll use “spaz” soon and claim it has nothing to do with cerebral palsy?
Posted by Andy McHaffie (@AndyMcH) | October 18, 2011, 9:31 amThe piece was meant to be contentious and provocative – I’m aware that language actually has power to cause harm and suffering, especially when historical context is applied. My argument is not with those individuals or groups within society who suffer harm as the result of genuine hate and quite rightfully object to it, but rather with those who feel the need to jump on every PC bandwagon as soon as it gets rolling. I appreciate that it is often required that we take a stand, both societally and as individuals, when a group or individual is victimised. I have done so myself on a number of occasions and will continue to do so. However, I genuinely believe Gervais when he claims his use of the word is not intended in a hateful manner. I also think, for the record, that he enjoys stirring things up by poking the Daily Mail brigade with a pointy stick. And one final point. I’m a fan of Richard Herring and follow him on twitter. I don’t know him personally but admire his comedy greatly. The Hitler reference was meant to be a cheeky nod to Godwin’s principle btw, but as others have already pointed out to me I didn’t make this particularly clear.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 11:25 amIgnoring your own outrage at the “outraged brigade”…there are – actually – people living with disability who ARE being genuinely offended by Ricky Gervais’s post-modern attempts to redefine hate words as funny (because they “used to be” hate words…geddit?!).
What next for Ricky? The N word?? Something to do with Islam perhaps…Or do those have a bit too much “bite back”?
My son has disabilities and we’d rather Ricky made up some actual *new* words. It’s simpler and funnier, that way.
Posted by Paul Joyce (@bergersmicer) | October 18, 2011, 12:44 pmThere was meant to be a fair degree of irony in my “outrage” at the outrage of others. The fault in all of this is entirely my own for not better employing the language (english) I love to better express myself. I have made attempts to explain myself more fully in some of the replies to these comments, but fear that I continue to make a complete pig’s ear of it.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 2:41 pmI think debating language and it’s use is very difficult using only the written word.
Take away facial expression and body language and you remove 75% of communication and need to be very precise.
This is where Ricky G and others have come unstuck: we can’t see the wink or the self-deferential shrug of the shoulders…just the words.
And when those words are limited to a context of just 140 characters…
Posted by Paul Joyce (@bergersmicer) | October 19, 2011, 2:01 pmBrilliant piece. Love it.
Posted by Dale | October 18, 2011, 9:35 amThe understanding of the English language always seems to be a bit of a problem for the self righteous. Twitter advertises this very well, I once saw where someone (rather famous) called someone a racist because he had been referred to as a Jew. Judaism is a religion and not a race so therefore it can not be a racist comment.
I got myself into a rather sticky situation after an altercation with a male nurse, apparently I called him gay. During the police interview I was asked, “Do you think it is ok to refer to someone as gay” to which I responded. As gay is a sexuality, then it’s about as harmful as calling a man a man or a woman a woman.
The officer didn’t agree and a that point informed me that homophobia carries an automatic 6 month prison sentence. I changed tactics at that point and fortunately for me they changed the charge
So the reason for this reply is even though morally we may have no real intention of causing others harm we must always take into account the stupidity of the self righteous because even if they should not win the argument, unfortunately they often do
Great first blog by the way…
Posted by Energy Entertainment (@Energy_Ent) | October 18, 2011, 9:42 amJudaism is a religion yes, but the word jew is ethnoreligious. For example, you can be a jew and an atheist. Jewish can mean race and religion. Jew is a valid term for someone who adheres to judaism and someone who may have jewish ethnicity, who may or may not be religious. It’s important to acknowledge this.
Posted by Stephen | October 18, 2011, 12:49 pmAlso, your complete misjudgment of sexual orientation and gender, and when words are taken out of context rather than plain derogatory seems to mind blowing to get into.
Posted by Stephen | October 18, 2011, 12:57 pmpretentious shite
Posted by stegforg | October 18, 2011, 9:51 amA few points: first, I think the Disgusted of Milton Keynes Episolory Association makes for a good acronym (Domkea) and, if doesn’t already, should be formed on that basis alone.
Second, whilst I agree with most of your points, I always think the “there are people dying somewhere so what’s happening here doesn’t matter as much” arguement is a little weak. Its natural to focus on things closer to home, so an issue might be objectively miniscule in comparison to global woes but relatively important on the small scale. Incidently, the whole Gervais “mong” thing is neither objectively not relatively important. Words iz words, as you say.
Finally, I always say: arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win…
Posted by distilled | October 18, 2011, 9:53 amWow. Special olympics gags. No danger of anyone misinterpreting your intentions eh? You cheap sad sick fuck.
Posted by oni | October 18, 2011, 12:29 pmNice first attempt. And I agree with you completely. Words are just words. Unless you live in a muslim country and you profane the name of Allah, or the prophet Mohammed. Or unless you live in any multicultural society, you happen to be white, and you call a black man a N*gger.
In either/both of those instances, you’re liable to get punched, stabbed, or lit on fire by a mob of irate mongs.
Posted by papadonkee | October 18, 2011, 9:57 amHi just finished reading your 1st blog and I must say I enjoyed it very much. It seems,especially on twitter,that some people make it their lifes work to be offended by just about anything and haven’t worked out that they can press the unfollow button.they are probably the same people who sit through an episode of 8 out of 10 cats then write in to copmplain the content ‘was quite rude’,instead of just switching channels. Anyway,well done and look forward to your next post.
Posted by sue | October 18, 2011, 10:06 amHi, interested in some of the points you made. Agree with some of the principles in theory but in practice I have a few concerns about what this means. I just want to ask a few hypothetical questions and see what your response is. Devils advocate if you will.
Does a black person, or anybody, have the right to find the word nigger offensive? Considering it’s historical use as a derogatory term for a persecuted minority placed into slavery and the connotations that arise from it, I would say yes. If Ricky Gervais were championing the general use of that word would your defense be the same and would you be surprised if people just dismissed you as a racist? Do you think that comedy and society has moved on from Jim Davidson blacking up and doing impressions of a stereotype of a black man for the entertainment of others? IMO Ricky Gervais is doing exactly the same thing but with mentally disabled people, a group who can’t defend themselves. Perhaps they need people to be offended on their behalf. Is civilised society not judged by how it protects the weak? I have first hand experience of people with Downs and have witnessed the bullying that they are subjected to through no fault of their own. The downs sufferers I know do get called mongs and are aware that it is an offensive term. So why celebrate it as a justifiable example of free speech? There are plenty other free speech issues for someone with Ricky’s popularity to get behind. As you point out yourself there is lots of suffering in the world so why not nip in the bud some little bits that aren’t necessary and deal with the important stuff too. Why endlessly champion the right for people to insult a group who can’t understand the irony.
Personally, I have a lot of respect for Ricky’s work (apart from his dabbling in hollywood…let’s be honest…) I am not sure what he is playing at with this and find it hard to believe someone of his intelligence isn’t just setting off a bomb on twitter, which he has written he knows is full of idiots, just to see what happens. He wants the liberals to be offended and others to rally in the defense of something which frankly is pretty hard to defend. I think he finds this hilarious, not because of some need to use the term mong or fight for freedom of speech but simply to rub his hands with glee at all the fuss he haas created. Personally I think this might bite him in the arse but I am also interested to see the result.
As for your last piece of advice. This is all very well but if I feel the need to jump to the defense (granted some do it too much and unnecessarily) of someone I judge to need help then I will. You are absolutely right, you can choose to turn your back, you can also choose to stand and fight. Why turn a blind eye to injustice if you can speak up. In exactly the same sentiment why argue with the people who tell you they don’t like something. Why not ignore them? You are free to say what you like just as much as people are free to point out that they are offended. I don’t walk by in the street and ignore the weak being picked on just like I didn’t stand by in the playground when the kid with learning difficulties was having stones thrown at him.
Posted by Interested in the debate not a trolling match. | October 18, 2011, 10:09 amEverybody, of course, has the right to find something either offensive or otherwise. My bugbear is with those who seek to decide for OTHERS what they should find offensive. For the record I am all for defending those unable to defend themselves, just that in this instance I feel that much of the moral indignation regarding Gervais’ comments is misplaced. The greatest lesson I personally will take from this, is that in future I should be more considered in what I write in an effort to express myself more clearly. As I mentioned in the original post – it is never my intention to offend or to cause undue distress.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 12:03 pmFair enough, I’m glad this has been a valuable experience.
I would say that some, perhaps most, people who are offended by this are not trying to tell others to be offended but merely saying that they are offended. You cannot chose to un-listen to something you have heard that offended you and if you are offended then why not say so? This is no Daily Mail- sensationalist-moral high ground issue. No preaching, no righteous indignation and call to arms. When someone says, “I think that saying mong and pulling a face of mentally disabled person (which does blow the whole “mong doesn’t mean that anymore” defense out of the water) is offensive, RG has publicly outed them and a vast amount of bullying, to the extent of people telling others they should die, ensued. As a popular celebrity RG has used his power and influence to incite and supported his followers when they have insulted the people who dared to say they find something offensive. This is beyond the issue of words and usage and interesting debate. This is RG being a dick about it.
Posted by Interested in the debate not a trolling match. | October 18, 2011, 12:33 pm“My bugbear is with those who seek to decide for OTHERS what they should find offensive.”
… surely all that matters in this are those – mentioned by myself and “Interested in the debate not a trolling match” – who do have Downs and who are called mongs (still) and who are offended.
Personally I am offended because my son has disabilities (and is called names) and because I have friends who’s children have Downs or similar disabilities (who are also still called names).
Ricky is not helping them at all and is letting his ego run away with him. He’s no great supporter of freedom of speech he’s an entertainer with no structured political agenda who is trying to advance his “positioning”. In this instance it’s really not funny it’s hurting people.
Posted by Paul Joyce (@bergersmicer) | October 19, 2011, 2:14 pmI am no longer responding to comments on this particular post due to time constraints. For a revised and clarified position please refer to the latest post “a revision/clarification/apology” Thanks.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 19, 2011, 3:08 pmYou can’t advocate free speech..well you can but it has implications . To say “ignore it” is a bit late because the damage is done … At what point does the reader switch off.. .. obviously after he/she has been offended.. .. Is it not better to say have your free speech .. but do not offend ..Freedom to speak and freedom to read.. equality of this amazing tool we have at our fingertips
Posted by sally | October 18, 2011, 10:14 amGood read. Fully approve of the sentiment used. People find themselves all to ready to hate the ‘little’ things in life rather than stepping back and looking at all the massive hate crimes taking place: War, Torture, Religion etc, all massive hate crimes…
those who associate ‘mong’ as Downs Syndrome are proably the same people who used it 20yrs ago when it was a fashionable insult among the un-educated and simply retarded ‘normal’ folks. I use and have used ‘mong’ to describe ugly people, fat people, ‘chavs’, and mostly people who use too much make up/fake tan/’cool’ clothes/jewellry etc when they go clubing on fri/sat nights. Seriously, look in the mirror guys, you look seriously mong!
Posted by dandd2 | October 18, 2011, 10:27 amLong comment here, sorry, but I have spent a while considering this situation. If you’d just indulge me for a moment:
[TL;DR - Words do have power/ Gervais has every right to tweet what he wants/ Could do with explaining why he's taking such efforts to make an issue out of it]
I’d broadly agree that people have the right to express themselves however they choose and any offence taken is an issue for the ‘offendee’. However, words are not just collections of sounds, they can have a power imbued by historical context. Take my least favourite word in the English language for example (and I actually shudder to type it), ‘Paki’. On the face of it, a contraction of Pakistani. Nothing too terrible about that? Except that, to me at least, it conjures up images of the very worst of British culture. The ‘N’ word has a similar effect in the US and that’s because these terms come with terrible historical baggage.
Turning to Ricky Gervais’ use of the word ‘mong’, I am not particularly offended by it personally but I’m sure there are those who have been on the receiving end of this term whilst suffering terrible bullying. Ricky Gervais has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t use this word in any sense to imply downs syndrome, he seems to enjoy the euphonics of the term. That’s as maybe and he can continue to use it as much as he likes, that’s his right. Why he has decided to make some sort of crusade out of this right is more of a mystery to me. For the record I’m someone who admires Gervais’ work in general. He possesses great talents, amongst them his ability to set his own agenda regardless of the opinions of others. This has served him well. He may turn-off a section of the public but has stated [words to the affect that] he’d rather make programmes that half a million viewers site as their favourite than ones that 12 million viewers think are okay. The world would be a better place if more artists took this attitude and didn’t play it so safe. Thing is, a sitcom is a crafted, well considered piece of work, Twitter is not. You have a thought and then it’s out there, no filters. I’m still unsure if Ricky Gervais is making some meta-point in his frequent Tweeting of the word ‘mong’. He’s a more talented man than I and I may well be missing something. Problem is, so are the vast majority of his audience. What seems to be happening in that many people are pulling him up about the usage of this word, some aggressive, some polite. He’s taken to RT’ing many of these comments. No harm done when these replies are from the professionally morally-outraged brigade but I looked on the timeline of a girl who’d sent a not unreasonable comment to Ricky, basically registering her offence (as she is entitled to do). After Ricky RT’d her comment, she received a whole mess of aggressive comments from other Twitter users. This, however unintentionally, is basically bullying on Gervais’ part. She may have 100 followers but he has half a million. Not a fair fight and this bothers me greatly.
To conclude, Ricky Gervais does have the right to tweet whatever he likes. I wonder if he realises that the section of his audience that admires him for the stance he has taken is one that he probably least likes. This is becoming uncomfortably like the Extras episode where Andy compromises his own ideals and spends time with his unquestioning, fawning fans at the pub in exchange for an ego boost.
What I’d like Gervais to do is maybe explain in his blog his why he feels this is such an important issue to him. He’s a very bright guy so I’d expect there to be some sort of intellectual justification for this behaviour. At the moment I have a horrible suspicion that because he’s new to Twitter he doesn’t realise how much harm he may be doing to his reputation. Does he really want to be left with only those grinning Yes-men down the pub as his audience? I get the impression that the respect of people he respects is important to him. I fear he may lose that respect if he continues on this trajectory.
Sorry for the length of this comment. I do hope you had the patience to read it. I’ve tried to be balanced because I generally hate the way any online comment has to take a hard line one way or another. Thanks for your patience in letting me express my thoughts on this matter.
Posted by Joe Marley (@groovyreg) | October 18, 2011, 10:31 am‘effect’ not ‘affect’ (grr!)
Posted by Joe Marley (@groovyreg) | October 18, 2011, 12:17 pmOutstanding! Too many eager to be offended morons out there trying to impose their world view on the ret of us. More power to your elbow.
Posted by TheFatNo.8 | October 18, 2011, 10:41 amNice. Agree totally. My pet peeve is those that hate the word Cunt. Personally, I love it. Such an aggressive sounding work. It can be spat at someone (usually a customer out of ear shot) and is ultimately satisfying.
Incidentally, I hate the black background/white writing. Makes my head hurt and my eyeballs feel like they have been removed, spun round 360 times and put back.
I think my head is going to explode.
Posted by Vicky | October 18, 2011, 10:47 amAm working on the white on black thing – am a moron when it comes to anything to do with computers.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 12:39 pmInteresting post.
I’d recommend you and anyone who reads this watches the episode of Stephen Fry’s programme on language that covers swearing. Interesting and on the similar topic of taking / giving offence.
Posted by Will | October 18, 2011, 11:01 amFeelings about words are shaped by our lived experiences of those words. You have no lived experience of Down’s Syndrome or, at a guess, any other facet of your body or live which means you are disadvantaged.
When I was growing up, my aunt with Down’s Syndrome lived with us (NB: She did not ‘suffer from’ it, it was just a part of her). You did not see people shout ‘mong’ and ‘spaz’ at her in the street. I did. You did not see her cry after being told she wasn’t wanted at a local group because of her DS. I did. You did not see the abuse she got every day because of those awful words. And because of this, you have no fucking right whatsoever to tell me that I should not be offended by Ricky Gervais telling 403000 people like you that it’s ‘not a problem’.
Discrimination is based on making a group seem ‘other’ or ‘not like us’. Insults based on something people can’t help, whether it’s a medical issue, or sexuality, or gender or whatever tell the person who is in that group that they are the worst thing it would be possible for someone to be.
Language is based on common understanding. It is why we standardise it by use of alphabets, etc. Neither Ricky Gervais or you can arbitrarily decide to change the meaning of the word. ‘Mong’ is still a horrible word used to perpetuate discrimination against people with disabilities.
There’s a post here about use of the word ‘retard’ which I think expresses what I want to say better than I could: http://www.schuylersmonsterblog.com/2011/05/just-word.html?m=1
“I’m sorry, I like you, but you don’t get to decide who is offended by a term like “retard”. You don’t get to decide if that awful word and the associations that accompany it are acceptable in a public discourse, about politics or anything else. You don’t get to decide if the families who face that kind of crap EVERY FUCKING DAY need to get over ourselves. You don’t get to decide that context makes it okay to use a word that gets thrown around in reference to kids who can’t even defend themselves as an insult to anyone. You don’t get to decide that my child and tens of thousands like her are acceptable as punchlines. If you don’t understand why YOU don’t get to make that decision, then I simply don’t know what to say. It’s not about politics or freedom of speech. It’s about being a goddamn decent human being.”
Now, if loving my aunt and not wanting my friend’s child with DS to grow up in a world where this abuse is acceptable because arseholes like you don’t understand how nasty it is makes me a fascist, I’m off to fire up the tanks and pay a visit to Poland.
Posted by Nat | October 18, 2011, 11:12 amI don’t disagree with any point you make here – my bugbear is with those who seek to determine a moral code for the whole of humanity. I was merely trying to say (and apparently failing in a spectacular fashion) that as an individual I reserve the right to make my own mind up.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 12:38 pmGood job on your first blogging. It was easy to read. I’m genuinely curious; what’s the reason you started this blog? what message do you hope to get out there?
Posted by Nesmorbutt (@Nesmorbutt) | October 18, 2011, 11:17 amI’m not sure I have any message to get across. Those who know me personally are used to the fact that I witter on about all kinds of shit, often with no clue as to what I am saying or why. For further info check the “about” thingie on the blog.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 12:37 pmInteresting theory that explains a few things – http://www.imdb.com/news/ni16146385/
People offended and people defending we are wll doing a marvelous job.
As these things are all about context, I genuinely believe Ricky is using all of us to fuel research for upcoming work. I am sure it will deal with prejudices and peoples reaction to the mentally disabled. If he can pull it off with a character to justify it then great. If he makes the mentally disabled person the target of prejudice rather than a vehicle in exposing peoples prejudice (which I think this whole twitter exercise has been about) then he will fail.
I see this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKSDFU-YZX4 – as a failure. Perhaps in understanding his audience through this twit storm he might do something better. Fingers crossed.
Posted by Interested in the debate not a trolling match. | October 18, 2011, 11:29 amThis was great but in response to people’s comments on calling others the ‘n’ word and appealing that ricky is use of the word ‘mong’ is on the same level, well it just is not. The fact of the matter is, ‘nigger’ is used as a derogatory term ONLY if it is used in reference to a black person. Ricky is NOT using the word ‘mong’ in reference to persons with down syndrome. I don’t see how a word can be offensive if the meaning you give it is unrelated to any offensive connotation.
However, I’m not from England and had never heard the word before I started reading Ricky’s blog, and therefore the word has absolutely no meaning to me outside of what Ricky has given it… Which I guess was somewhat what your blog was about.
Posted by booboo | October 18, 2011, 11:42 amHave you seen the faces he is pulling on his pictures? He is doing an impression of someone with Downs Syndrome, that’s the point, there is no ambiguous meaning if you do that too. If a celebrity decided that the word nigger meant something else and used it in a different context it would still carry it’s original meaning to the majority of people who would be offended. Thus my correlation.
Mong only means “Mongoloid” which is a term for Down Syndrome. Changing the context, which I don’t believe he really has, does not remove the stigma for a lot of people.
Posted by Interested in the debate not a trolling match. | October 18, 2011, 1:01 pmWhether or not Ricky chooses to use that word or any other offensive words (which someone else pointed out – most of us stopped using when we were 15) is his own business when he is in company of his friends who may also like to demean people with DS. However, using words like that in a public forum is unforgivable. He is someone that other people, for whatever reason, look up to and he has a responsibility not to use his power to normalise the abuse of people much less privileged than he. That is all..
Posted by Maryann O'Connor | October 18, 2011, 11:46 amThe problem is that Gervais is validating the beliefs of all the people who do use ‘mong’ to demean and abuse disabled people on a daily basis. I’m disabled, I’m abused regularly by complete strangers in the street, for no reason other than that I’m disabled. Mostly verbals, but on occasion stretching into physical violence. And my experiences are in no way unique. And even if they are only words they hurt far more than other insults because they are an attack on my identity, an attack on my status as an equal member of society, an explicit assertion that I am a less than human in their eyes, for no better reason than that I happen to be disabled.
“Right now children are being starved to death, tortured and mutilated”
You do understand that disability hate crime in recent years has seen some of the most horrific torture murders in British history? Disabled people have been, as you put it, ‘starved to death, tortured and mutilated’ for no other reason than their disability. And those crimes are simply the extreme end of the spectrum of hate that starts with the use of terms like ‘mong’. Think yourself lucky you’ve never faced the reality of disability hate crime, but disabled people don’t have that luxury.
With rights come responsibilities, Ricky Gervais may have the right to use ‘mong’, but he has the responsibility not to, because in using it he gives justification to those who use it as weapon on a daily basis. And that responsibility extends to everyone who tries to justify the use of any form of hate speech.
You tell us to ignore hate speech, but if we ignore it, how do we stop it? How do we stop the people who use it escalating up that cycle of hatred until another disabled person ends up a statistic in the hate crime figures?
Posted by DavidG | October 18, 2011, 12:45 pmMy intent in advising that we ignore hate speech was to point out that the morons who peddle genuine hate need a platform, and that to engage with them is to add fuel to their fire. Maybe I am misguided in this – I am always ready to have my opinions revised by those better-informed than myself and like to think that I remain open-minded to new ideas and perspectives. The point of the blog entry was to illustrate my feelings for those who form an opinion, stick to it rigidly and then attempt to impose it upon everybody else. If I have, in any way, come across as advocating the brainless abuse of disabled people or any other wrongly maligned section of society, then I apologise, for that was not my purpose. I DO stand by my belief that we should not allow idiots ownership of any part of our wonderful and varied language, and should attempt to reclaim such words from those that seek to use them to peddle hatred. I still do not think that Gervais was intending to spread such hate, but can understand why many would think otherwise. I am genuinely remorseful that I may have inadvertently offended ANYONE, but equally do not feel that it is the right of anyone else (ie the twitter moral indignation brigade) to decide for me how I should interpret something, or whether I should find offence in it.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 2:37 pm“If I have, in any way, come across as advocating the brainless abuse of disabled people or any other wrongly maligned section of society, then I apologise, for that was not my purpose”
If Gervaise tries to popularise ‘mong’ then he gives aid and succor to those who use it daily as a weapon to beat disabled people with. If you defend Gervaise…
“I DO stand by my belief that we should not allow idiots ownership of any part of our wonderful and varied language, and should attempt to reclaim such words from those that seek to use them to peddle hatred.”
Only the targeted group can reclaim language, anyone else is just using them as a platform to try and appear cool, and isn’t that just exploiting them by another name? Society doesn’t accept white people using the N-word, equally disabled society doesn’t accept other people using the terms of abuse used against us, we’ve reclaimed ‘Crip’ for internal use, that doesn’t mean we’ll accept non-disabled people using it, even if they are our supporters, and the same goes for ‘mong’ or any other term of disablist abuse.
Posted by DavidG | October 18, 2011, 6:39 pmI plainly have much to learn and a more thorough examination of the issues involved is required on my part. As a rational human being it is my hope that with intelligent debate I will continue to revise and amend my position on any number of subjects as I proceed through life. I do not, nor have I ever, claimed to be right about everything. It is my hope that others will remain open-minded enough to do the same, though I fear in many cases this is a forlorn hope.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 7:09 pmFunny how you shoot yourself in the foot by being offended by people being offended and telling them not to express themselves about being offended and then compare them to Hitler, for being expressive.
Also maybe some people were not really offended, majority probably wanted to point it out using this word might offend. I think it is debatable, but I also think Ricky has his right to use that word as he wants and he did not meant to refer to Down Syndrome, just idiocy in general. But he also has to face the music if he chooses to do so and not complain about it. I think material on his blog is hilarious. Comedy is a great art and those who are true artists are those who can make fun of people and let them laugh at themselves. But it is a fine line dancing on a tight rope. Taking a group of people and make others laugh at them is not art. It is bullying. Not saying that he does that. I am sure that he used the word mong as totally different meaning then its originality, but if its right that people have been bullied using that word then of course it can bring up emotional response and that might be the people you are calling brainless morons. Bullying has very serious consequences.
I myself is writing a script for a comedy where I take a group of certain people and make fun of them. I have to consider will I hurt, offend or both. I rather try to find a way to have this particular group laugh at themselves in general, it is to say if I manage to be funny. But I also realize that some might be offended and I have to respect that, it is to say if anyone will see it. I have also considered to use a word that is demeaning for them but I will only use it like having a character say that word and then something bad happens to that particular person. Words have power and emotional charge and if people have emotional response to it then they have all the right to express that response just as anyone has the right to use it. But telling someone that they are morons because of that, is aggressive, judgmental and dictatorial. I hope Ricky Gervais continues to be as he is. I am not fan of the office but the material on his blog is brilliant and I am really curios about his method and tactic and I am sure that I will learn something from him and not the least to be courage’s and be myself. But having said that I hope it is just not a self destructive behavior on his part because then I would feel cheated. I love pushing boundaries and love people who do that “but”…..and there are many but´s and those who do not realize the many but´s is a Mong.
Posted by Mikael Monk (@MikaelMonk) | October 18, 2011, 1:22 pmPlease refer to some of my replies to other comments posted here for more feeble and inadequate attempts to explain my position. I will attempt to find time to post a new blog entry that more clearly defines my argument ASAP but unfortunately I have two young children who also make demands of my time and warrant first refusal.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 2:44 pmOutraged “rant” was meant to be ironic poke at the outraged – Hitler reference was a wry nod to Godwin’s Law. It would seem I have failed to get my point across. See replies to other comments until next blog post which will attempt to clarify my postion, but which will probably merely offend more people unintentionally.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 2:49 pm“Hitler reference was a wry nod to Godwin’s Law. ”
You do know that disabled people were one of the first groups targeted by the Nazis (Aktion T4 specifically targetted disabled people for extermination, starting with children, and started a full two years in advance of the wider extermination programme) and that talking about disability hate crime implicity brings the Nazis into the discussion, just as a discussion of hate crime against Jewish groups would invoke the better known Holocaust? Disability Hate Crime is a subject where Godwin’s Law does not apply, and where to compare the disability lobby to the Nazis is incredibly offensive, see “Godwin’s Law Must Die – the problem when 1930s Germany really is the only good parallel” at http://wheresthebenefit.blogspot.com/2011/08/godwins-law-must-die-problem-when-1930s.html for a discussion of this.
Posted by DavidG | October 18, 2011, 6:30 pmI WAS aware of this, yes, though unfortunately did not make the connection when composing this post in the early hours. I shall try to be more measured in thought and word in future, though there will doubtless remain some issues on which my views remain unchanged, and for good reason. I am willing to admit that I have been a little hasty in throwing together this particular post and have been made aware of many things which, somewhat rashly, I had not considered. For the record, even if it hasn’t been immediately transparent in this case, I am a firm believer in promoting debate rather than hate. Again – it is not my intention to cause offence.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 7:14 pmYour blog post comes across as unfocussed. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. When specific examples of people being the victims of bullying are cited, your response is, “No, you’re right. That’s terrible. I would never agree with that.”
RG, on the other hand has made no such statement, but rather he has directed his ire (and his followers) after people, regardless of whether they are personally affected by the issue. I know for certain that some people who are directly affected have receive some very unpleasant attentions from some of his followers. Just because it’s online, doesn’t make it any less of a mob.
Your point about people setting themselves up as moral arbiters for the rest of the population. Do you know how many people who were offended or annoyed (a different matter) are actually affected personally by the issue of bullying?
I was annoyed, not offended by RG’s mong routine. It is clearly aimed at people with down’s, as evidenced by the face pulling. He is on record as saying that he would not be comfortable using the word nigger in his routines, and I see little difference.
This is not a case of someone being prevented from expressing an opinion. It is a very successful comedian using a public forum to goad other people. You may feel that he is aiming at the Daily Mail disgusted of Tunbridge Wells brigade, others may feel he is aiming at people with Down’s Syndrome. Unfortunately, many of those who read it may not pick up the nuances of the ‘free speech/it doesn’t mean that anymore’ argument.
With freedom should come responsibility. We should not tell other people how to live their lives. Or should we? In fact, we do. When someone’s behaviour is judged to be sufficiently anti-social or dangerous, all societies reserve to right to sanction against such activities. Violence is an obvious example. Words can, like it or not, lead to violence. In many cases, the victims are people less able to defend themselves. All the suffering in the world that you rightly point out is of greater importance can be demonstrated to have words involved somewhere. They influence people and the decisions they make, whether it be blowing up a bus full of people or taking a back-hander to sell food aid to mercenaries.
Freedom of speech is important. But this is about a juvenile little man indulging in primary school teasing, with little thought for the unintended consequence.
You are right to go into bat for the right to express opinion. But this isn’t what RG is doing. He’s just saying, “let’s go and laugh at the mongoloids.”
Posted by @TRushbyS | October 18, 2011, 6:45 pmI do not cling desperately to any belief if someone is able to convince me that I hold it in error or have made a serious misjudgement. I have learned much from the mostly very intelligent debate that this post has elicited, and am at this moment in time processing and evaluating all of the comments that have been made. I have already admitted on twitter that much of what I wrote was naive and that I missed my intended target by some margin. This is due entirely to a lack of forethought and thorough examination of the issues on my part, along with some ill-considered choice of language and terminology,and I apologise for this, for there is no excuse for going off half-cocked. I still think however, that to have instigated a discussion about the power and use of language and its abuses has been a useful and enlightening exercise, at least for me. I hope that you will find my next post more thoughtful and considered, and that your opinion of this one will not deter you from reading it.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 18, 2011, 7:06 pmTried to answer much of this in ‘a revision’ post – which I am hoping (as many) people take the time to read as they did the original ‘rant’ post, though unfortunately this may be unrealistic. As for face-pulling, think it’s possible this is Gervais’ way of pre-promoting new Derek Noakes material, supposedly forthcoming.
Posted by bingobumfudge | October 19, 2011, 7:45 pmBut see… your qualifications in the comments section — specifically, your acknowledgment that certain words are inevitably hateful and harmful *even when there is no “intent” to be harmful* (for instance, a clueless granddad who still refers to black people as “n-word”, but genuinely believes he is not being racist) — demonstrates that what you say in the post above, that responsibility for “offense” belongs only to the listener, is obviously incorrect.
The meaning of words is decided neither by the speaker *nor* the listener. The meaning of a word is an effect of the historical, linguistic and contextual environment in which the word is spoken.
That said, I genuinely don’t know how to evaluate the term “mong” as Ricky uses it. It doesn’t get used much in the U.S., and I’m unfamiliar with its history in the U.K. But it may be a little disingenuous to say, “my use of the term is OK, because everybody knows my heart is in the right place.” I happen to think Ricky’s heart *is* in the right place. But I know plenty of people who make the exact same argument about their favorite racist jokes. You may “intend” no harm, but such jokes still spread racist attitudes about.
Just remember that when you speak or write, you don’t have the power to control the meaning of the utterance. You can control things somewhat with the context in which you present it — but especially in a forum like twitter, in which there *is* no ameliorating context, you have to take the responsibility to assume that your statement will be read in the quite random and uncontrollable context in which you unleashed it.
When Ricky’s “The Office” highlighted a racist joke about the Queen and a breadbox in one episode, it was clearly not racist; because the context of the scenario made clear that the idiot was Brent, the guy telling the joke. The scene made it clear that his idiocy was the point of that scenario.
But things are very different on twitter. It’s just sentences going out to take on a life of their own. Ricky’s history and his personality do *not* travel along with that transmission to give it context. So he needs to expect and take responsibility for the fact that a random reader might have nothing else to go on except those words in front of him. The responsibility for *that* fact belongs to Ricky, not the reader.
Posted by Brian | October 18, 2011, 8:45 pm