Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Recommended Posts

Well, I've been a fan of Hicks since about 1990, so I suppose I was more of an early-adopter rather than a follower.

But I tend to pick up on things earlier than most. It's a gift.

 

And I wasn't really asking you what you found funny, or didn't find funny. I don't fucking care. I'm not interested.

I was calling you humourless.

 

And by that I mean someone who isn't funny, and therefore doesn't find anything else funny. A po-faced dull twat, you might say. A boring, joyless uninteresting pedant.

 

I might be wrong. Like I say, I don't really care.

 

Oh, look. A comedy snob...

 

The likes of Jerry Sadowitz, Bill Hicks, Brendon Burns, Jim Jeffries and Doug Stanhope do "offensive" humour at a far higher level than Gervais could ever hope to reach in a million fucking years.

 

...a comedy snob who's never even heard of Louis C.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God I really hate when people go "well my *friend/family member* has *ailment* so I think this is disgusting"

 

Zzzz

 

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. It's not as if I'm telling you what or what not to do; what I am saying is that when you have a *friend/family member* who has *ailment* you perhaps see things in a different way. I didn't say anything was disgusting, just that Gervais's argument was weak.

 

Just so it's clear, if you had a close family member who had Down's Syndrome would you use the word "mong"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss

Sorry if it offends anyone but mong is probably one of my favourite words.

 

Funny though, when you use it here people think you're talking about the Hmongs. Gets a bit tricky then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me old fashioned but I think its short for 'mongoloid' meaning a 'Down's Syndrome' victim and highly offensive.

 

I also find it offensive the way 'spaz' for 'spastic' is used too.

Surely we have much better ways of expressing ourselves than resorting to mocking people who have been born less fortunate than a lot of us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
Call me old fashioned but I think its short for 'mongoloid' meaning a 'Down's Syndrome' victim and highly offensive.

 

I also find it offensive the way 'spaz' for 'spastic' is used too.

Surely we have much better ways of expressing ourselves than resorting to mocking people who have been born less fortunate than a lot of us?

 

spaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comedian Robin Ince's blog post about it.

 

“I thought I better warn you that I am not one of those politically correct comedians, but it turns out that also I’m not really that racist, homophobic or woman hating either, so you might not notice”

 

This is a reasonably ineffectual line I have occasionally opened with in the last month. These are times where it’s very easy to swipe at people who don’t possess furtive or ironic traditional group hate as “just being politically correct”, as if within us all is a burning desire to shout coon or dyke and we are only stopping ourselves due to a shallow liberalism. These are also time where irony can be draped over gags so that the audience and performer can pat themselves on the back for their sophistication while also enjoying a gypsy joke.

 

Comedy can be misconstrued in many ways and interpreted by individuals to suit their own ends and prejudices.

 

Another problem with gags can be forgetting that you are sometimes delivering them to many people. What can be an entertaining aside to a few friends who know each other well, can be disastrously misconstrued when told to many strangers.

 

Equally, it can be forgotten that not everyone knows the things you do an that can change meaning to. I once, and only once, had a joke about Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians. It was a joke about language and bigotry, but if the audience didn’t know it was first published as Ten Little Niggers, it turned out it was just a racist joke in most people’s ears. It got a big laugh the one time I used it and I realized it was for all the wrong reasons. Part of the joke was about how language changes, and this week what a word means or doesn’t mean has become a major talking point on inky pages and across the internet.

 

Before I continue I should make it clear that I know a few of the people involved in this story. Ricky Gervais is a friend and someone who I supported on two tours and Richard Herring is a comedian I have been on good terms with for some years, and Nicky Clark is a disability campaigner I occasionally bother when I want to know things.

 

The word that has caused such vitriolic and vicious debates, as well as some individual houndings, is ‘mong’.

 

Ricky started using in tweets. Some people picked him up on that declaring it was an offensive word due its history of being used to bully and demean people with Down’s syndrome . Ricky then declared that such people were fools as the dictionary definition of ‘mong’ means idiot, then it really kicked off creating the kind of storm the media love; very little research to be done, many morally forthright opinions to be spouted. I felt Ricky was bullish and cocksure in his position, and as Bertrand Russell warned us, “the idiots are cocksure, the intelligent are full of doubt”. To make it worse, he received some tweets that hoped he got cancer. Sometimes cruel jibes can make you feell you are even more right and that perhaps you have the moral high ground. Then some of his followers decided it was their duty to the illustrious leader to be as uncouth and bullying to anyone who disagreed with his dictionary definition. Richard Herring, a comedian who has spoken out about bullying language in the past, took him to task with a tweet which Ricky then RTed and it all became rather unpleasant for Herring for 48 hours. I hadn’t spoken to Ricky for a few days and frankly, I thought he was being a right arrogant bastard. On Thursday night I was in a dressing room with Richard Herring and Francesca Martinez (who appeared in Extras and has cerebral palsy) and the general feeling was that Hollywood had gone to his head and anyone who disagreed with him was a ‘hater’ who must be crushed.

 

The next day I decided to email him two Guardian columns by disability campaigner Nicky Clark. In one she effusively praised the work of Stephen Merchant and him for creating disabled characters and what this had achieved. The second article, written this week, took him to task over the use of the word mong.

 

A few minutes after sending the email, we spoke. Rather than a bullish arrogant man on the end of the line, there was clearly someone who couldn’t quite understand what was going on. He didn’t even make the trademark screech that has dogged my life whenever I’ve been in his company. What had seemingly started as a petty feud over language with some of his traditional forthright pig-headedness had now opened up a very different debate. He was horrified to think that people in the street might really feel he looked on the disabled with disdain. I did explain that even I reckoned he’d come across like a bit of a twat.

 

I explained that though there might be a separate pitchfork mob awaiting him, but people like Nicky and Richard were not part of some Gervais hating campaign. They were people humanely concerned about the bullying of disabled people and the words that are thrown at them.

 

Unfortunately, the world of 140 characters, the easy access to celebrities and those who might criticize them, can lead to misunderstandings and stupidity traveling around the world faster and with less thought than anything with a stamp could.

 

On this occasion intention and outcome, as so often can happen on the internet, went their separate ways.

 

(It is important to remember that you should never follow an atheist unquestioningly.)

 

What this debacle seems to underline is that comfortable lives can sully empathy. If we live a nice life for long enough, it seems that imagining others less pleasant existence can become trickier.

 

I hope most people reading this have lives generally free from bullying apart from the occasional slights of drunks on a Friday train or if they tour with Golden globe winners. We can believe that the world is now free of homophobia, racism and misogyny because we don’t really see it where we live or perhaps we don’t notice. When AA Gill made some dyke jokes about Clare Balding and she took him upon it, she was characterized as ‘one of those humourless lesbians’ and Gill suggested that gays and lesbians are all happy now and live in the best of all possible worlds. It might be alright in our comfortable media enclave, you can even see some holding hands in public in London town nowadays, but that doesn’t mean that across the UK there are not people preaching against them, suggesting violence is the best option and thousands of people who may never come out and live agonizing existences in fear that the truth may ever out. Though quite a few people may know someone who is gay, far fewer of us know anyone who has cerebral palsy or downs syndrome or any other condition that marks them out outwardly and effects them inwardly. Most of us don’t know about the sort of staring, bullying and name calling that can blight their life. That is why Ricky was not stirring up hate, his position was one of ignorance and also informed by his being the cheeky shock comic who occasionally provokes the reaction of “ooh, should he say that?” He really believed mong was just a playground taunt, he didn’t know that sadly something he, and hopefully most of us, would consider archaic, was still in hurtful use. Unfortunately, some of his followers have demonstrated it’s thoroughly witless use across twitter. Should he be crucified over this, only if ignorance becomes a nailing offence and then we’re going to need a bigger Golgotha. This also demonstrates the danger of utter certainty, already playing the arrogant showman card on many occasions, for some people this was the point too far. Public humility was never a strong point. Since then, he has spoken to Nicky Clark and I believe heard a differing opinion on disability and abusive language. One thing that this debate has shown yet again is the incredible potency of language. Language took a long time to evolve, it shouldn’t be taken lightly.

 

Hopefully, what may come out of this after all the tuppenny moral outrage (mine isn’t tuppenny moral outrage, as I get no tuppenny for it) is a greater knowledge of the depth of bullying of the disabled and thoughtfulness over your choice of words while still saying what you mean.

 

Some commentators seem to feel this is a free speech issue, as if free use of the word mong is the most pressing issue Amnesty should be dealing with. I do not think any words should be banned, but I hope that a society can aspire to want more than a rapid response unit to defend playground taunts. When Frankie Boyle makes jokes about down’s syndrome I understand he has the right to say it, I just wonder why he wants to say it. If I look back at jokes I made nearly twenty years ago, I know there are some I would be appalled by, not just because they were awful , but because I was uncomfortable with their morality. That would be true of jokes I made five years ago, and will probably be true of jokes I make now. I do not mind offending people, I’d just like to think that if they cornered me in the bar I could explain the reason I was offensive before the punched me.

 

Freedom of speech is important, it is so important that there are countries that ban it and where men and women are executed for what they have said or written. When you are fortunate enough to have freedom of speech it becomes your duty to mull over the power of the words you have at your disposal. We are the only animal that has such a rich and varied vocabulary. As a speaking animal we should make use of our language beyond grunts, arse scratches and screams, we are more than a Macaque.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ShoePiss
Wouldn't it be mong?

 

I got called that a lot in primary school.

 

Never once was I offended.

 

I like to mix it up now and then.

 

Funnily enough, 'spaz' in America is a completely inoffensive word. Words eh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this is aimed at me. It's not as if I'm telling you what or what not to do; what I am saying is that when you have a *friend/family member* who has *ailment* you perhaps see things in a different way. I didn't say anything was disgusting, just that Gervais's argument was weak.

 

Just so it's clear, if you had a close family member who had Down's Syndrome would you use the word "mong"?

 

Yes, and i do.

 

The issue as always is the context of the word, and people being offended on behalf of other people.

You get to a point where people are being treated differently because of a disability / difference, which is discrimination is it not ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this has been an interesting debate, but my underlying point has really been about Gervais not having the fucking guts to admit what he means, and has meant, by the word 'mong'.

 

The Susan Boyle clip is the clincher. And anyone who thinks he meant she looks like an 'idiot' or 'div' is a clueless cunt.

 

He meant what he said. Now he's trying to pretend her meant something different.

 

And I'm not a hypocrite. I do use the word. I use the word 'flid' or 'spastic' as pejorative terms in common parlance. But I've never tried to obfuscate its true meaning with such a mealy-mouthed, pathetic defence.

 

And if you are a person of influence, with hundreds of thousands of people who are fans of your work, then you should have the humility and basic human decency to at least listen to them, rather than trying to bluster and bullshit your way through a media shitstorm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and i do.

 

The issue as always is the context of the word, and people being offended on behalf of other people.

You get to a point where people are being treated differently because of a disability / difference, which is discrimination is it not ?

 

Just to be clear - I am not offended (OK, I admit I was by Gervais's weak argument but that's because, unlike South Park, I don't see anything clever in what he was doing). I take your point on the context - in a family I could imagine the term might be used in a "you drive me nuts but I still love you" type of way. However, my personal choice is not to use the term because for me it has derogatory connotations.

 

It occurs to me that I do have a problem with your first point: if someone walked up to my brother-in-law in the street and called him a mong then I would be offended on his behalf because he might not understand that someone was being rude to him - so in this case am I wrong to react like this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It occurs to me that I do have a problem with your first point: if someone walked up to my brother-in-law in the street and called him a mong then I would be offended on his behalf because he might not understand that someone was being rude to him - so in this case am I wrong to react like this?

 

Offended?

 

Yes, you would be wrong to react like that.

 

You should smack them in the fucking mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear - I am not offended (OK, I admit I was by Gervais's weak argument but that's because, unlike South Park, I don't see anything clever in what he was doing). I take your point on the context - in a family I could imagine the term might be used in a "you drive me nuts but I still love you" type of way. However, my personal choice is not to use the term because for me it has derogatory connotations.

 

It occurs to me that I do have a problem with your first point: if someone walked up to my brother-in-law in the street and called him a mong then I would be offended on his behalf because he might not understand that someone was being rude to him - so in this case am I wrong to react like this?

 

Not at all, because that is directed personal insult, no different to walking up to say, an asian lad & calling him a p*ki. Different context again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, because that is directed personal insult, no different to walking up to say, an asian lad & calling him a p*ki. Different context again.

 

But it's not quite the same because, as I said, someone with Down's Syndrome might not fully get the insult. Returning to the original post, I don't imagine that many people with Down's Syndrome contacted Gervais and took him to task over his "the word's meaning has changed" argument. I think this is why in this particular case I don't have a problem with people being offended on behalf of another group.

 

I will confess that there are a few posters on the forums that use the term "turbomong" so effectively that I can't help but find it funny - this probably invalidates everything I've said on this thread but there you go - only human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a valid point. But he wasn't actually calling a disabled person a mong, that is why I think we differ in opinion, if he was I'd agree 100% with your stance. That and the fact that the media seem to create shit storms when there are more pressing issues in the world.

But fair play to you, each to their own and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In The Telegraph today:

 

...While many people were outraged by Gervais' comments, some fans said there was nothing wrong with his language.

One tweeted: "As the mother of a child with severe learning difficulties, I say mong all the time."

 

article here: Ricky Gervais under fire for 'mocking disabled' on Twitter - Telegraph

 

As do I.

 

My brother-in-law has Down's Syndrome. Like most people he annoys me occasionally but he does buy me the best Christmas presents. I don't use the word "mong" because ultimately I think I'd be perpetuating an unhelpful and unkind stereotype. I wonder whether Gervais would use the term so readily if someone in his family had Down's Syndrome?

 

"The modern use of the word mong means 'dopey' or 'ignorant'," said Gervais in a statement. "It's even in modern slang and urban dictionaries."

 

"Well done everyone who pointed out that Mong USED to be a derogatory term for DS [Down's Syndrome], Gay USED to mean happy. Words change. Get over it."

 

This is pathetic - obviously I missed the announcement when the meaning was changed. Is he saying that at some point in the past it was wrong to use "mong" but now it's ok because everyone has forgotten what it used to mean?

 

I don't like Gervais' comedy, it bores me. That said i do think it's been blown out of proportion and i do find myself saying i really can't be arsed. Downs syndrome and it's abnormalities vary from individual to individual. We often don't insult on physical characteristics these days, but the common factor is a lower then average IQ (which as pointed out is often higher then those that frequent the FF). We piss take all the time, we've all just got different levels on what is acceptable and whats not. Faux outrage from people who've no experience of living with disabilities annoys the fuck out of me, I reckon we bully gingers more then the disabled in our house. I'm sure that's bang out of order myself.

 

If Science hadn't have been on Channel 4 last Friday, nobody would have been arsed.

 

He clearly stated his use and the context before using it, and he's right Susan Boyle does look like an idiot.

 

Silverlining, you have actually got a cheek having a pop at him for the shite you have said to people over the years on here.

 

There was a woman on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday crying buckets saying "These people don't deserve this in life", just to point out again, he wasn't having a pop at anybody with Down Syndrome, he was having a pop at the dickheads and easily offended in this country. And he has been proved right.

 

'Mong' is not a nice word, but I think you would have to be completely stupid if you thought anybody using it as an insult towards anyone with Down Syndrome.

 

I have used it in the past for a lot of the idiots on the *F, the context is because they are fucking idiots, not because I reckon they have or should have Down Syndrome.

 

Spot on.

 

I agree with this. Although there are enough words in the English dictionary to describe someone as an idiot without referring to them as a mong.

 

I prefer the world pleb.

 

Except 'pleb' doesn't refer to stupidness.

 

Pleb is short for plebian, closer to calling someone underclass (?) i'd of thought these days.

 

Just so it's clear, if you had a close family member who had Down's Syndrome would you use the word "mong"?

 

My first daughter has Soto's syndrome and as a result has some facial abnormalities, that said - she's fucking stunningly pretty when she pulls her hair away from covering her face - the down slanty eyes are there, as is the larger forehead, the turn in her eye can be compensated for too. Her IQ as a child was below what some kids with Downs would have. It's levelled out now and is in the 'average' range.

 

My second child is in the process of being diagnosed with MS, she develops optic neuritis several times a year and loses her sight in one or both eyes.

 

Both get called mongs, retards, dickheads, planks and so on. Most of the time totally deserved.

 

In the short, they'll be called allot worse with venom out there, they're just massively desensitised to most insults.

 

 

Sorry if it offends anyone but mong is probably one of my favourite words.

 

Along with dicksplash for me.

 

Why?

 

I know this wasn't directed at me but i thought i'd put my penny worth in. For me it's because there's more to get het up about, and if they've got time to get pissed about this, then i'm totally jealous. Most people who have children/family members with disabilities are far too busy with more complicated matters such as juggling medical needs, school needs and that of the individual on top of other normal day to day life stuff. I want the time in my life to be able to display mocked outrage against knobs like Gervais too!

 

Yes, and i do.

 

The issue as always is the context of the word, and people being offended on behalf of other people.

You get to a point where people are being treated differently because of a disability / difference, which is discrimination is it not ?

 

I like this post. So much so i'm going to quote it again.

 

 

Yes, and i do.

 

The issue as always is the context of the word, and people being offended on behalf of other people.

You get to a point where people are being treated differently because of a disability / difference, which is discrimination is it not ?

 

 

 

It occurs to me that I do have a problem with your first point: if someone walked up to my brother-in-law in the street and called him a mong then I would be offended on his behalf because he might not understand that someone was being rude to him - so in this case am I wrong to react like this?

 

But that would of been intended offensiveness, the person could of just as easily called him a twat. In fact i'd probably be offended that someone didn't think harder regarding an insult.

 

 

 

In summary - Ricky Gervais is a total wanker and i wouldn't. Even with ski's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this wasn't directed at me but i thought i'd put my penny worth in. For me it's because there's more to get het up about, and if they've got time to get pissed about this, then i'm totally jealous. Most people who have children/family members with disabilities are far too busy with more complicated matters such as juggling medical needs, school needs and that of the individual on top of other normal day to day life stuff. I want the time in my life to be able to display mocked outrage against knobs like Gervais too!

 

Most people? Not sure that's true Sherry. The reason I asked is because my adult sister has/had huge issues with her self-image and self-esteem due to the way she was/is treated by others due to her disability. In short, the casual mocking of people with a disability legitimises a culture whereby we de-personalise the subjects of such humour and pretend that it's all innocent and has no effect. That is patently not true in at least some cases.

 

As her brother, I am uncomfortable (although I wouldn't use the words outraged or offended) with anything I perceive to be perpetuating the acceptability of such use of language. I want to see her happy and accepted. Clearly the end of mong gags won't achieve that, but it's all incremental, isn't it? The civil rights movement didn't end racism, but it moved things forward.

 

As I said above, I think the word mong is kind of funny in a playground sort of way and has become slightly removed from the DS connotations. That said, while some remain offended by it, I won't use it - as I found out on here a few years ago after using it a couple of times and having two long standing forumites privately pull me up on it due to the way it made them feel about their own family members.

 

For me the crux of the matter is that if what you say is personally painful to people then you shouldn't say it, by and large; certainly not casually so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people? Not sure that's true Sherry. The reason I asked is because my adult sister has/had huge issues with her self-image and self-esteem due to the way she was/is treated by others due to her disability. In short, the casual mocking of people with a disability legitimises a culture whereby we de-personalise the subjects of such humour and pretend that it's all innocent and has no effect. That is patently not true in at least some cases.

 

As her brother, I am uncomfortable (although I wouldn't use the words outraged or offended) with anything I perceive to be perpetuating the acceptability of such use of language. I want to see her happy and accepted. Clearly the end of mong gags won't achieve that, but it's all incremental, isn't it? The civil rights movement didn't end racism, but it moved things forward.

 

As I said above, I think the word mong is kind of funny in a playground sort of way and has become slightly removed from the DS connotations. That said, while some remain offended by it, I won't use it - as I found out on here a few years ago after using it a couple of times and having two long standing forumites privately pull me up on it due to the way it made them feel about their own family members.

 

For me the crux of the matter is that if what you say is personally painful to people then you shouldn't say it, by and large; certainly not casually so.

 

Paul puts it more eloquently than I can. The last paragraph sums up the matter for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the Susan Boyle joke, it is pretty horrible thing to say. People with friends and family who suffer may use the word 'mong' but I bet they don't use it in the personal, dismissive and aggressive manner Gervais did there. In general though, he is right.

 

I quite like Gervais and find a lot of what he does funny and entertaining. The Extras finale was one of the best pieces of pathos on TV in recent years and the Office was obviously genius. I've enjoyed much of what he has done more recently too (even if Karl is the funny one while Ricky screeches in the background), I even enjoyed Ghost Town.

 

Stanhope is also genius and downright hilarious, his comedy is an extension of his individual-anarchist persona. He casts every issue he comes near in a perspective that is both hilarious and provocative (as in provoking questions rather than ire - the only bit that truly left me offended was a bit about an African mother who had lost five children to malnutrition. He called her a child abuser and said if she even threatened to have another child Unicef should kick the kid back up her ****. The language did shock and did appal, but it also did raise the question on why she was still having children when her situation clearly did not support it. That question itself is a horrible moral dilemma and contains a pretty haunting implicit indictment of the west), he puts logic to moralistic reactionary views and then pulls those morals apart (arguing for a zero censorship world he reacts to people saying "you can't allow child porn on TV", he says "of course not, it would never get the sponsorship", all of a sudden US network capitalism is recast as moral protectors). He does it all drunk and while trying to shock and appal as many people as possible because he finds it funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...