GERVAIS
Written by James Ward
I liked The Office when it was on TV. I think possibly the writing on the American version was a bit sharper, but it always seemed a bit too glossy. I liked the slight grimness of the UK version. The footage of photocopiers. The sadness of it all.
Ricky Gervais has recently joined Twitter. Rejoined actually. He joined it originally last year and didn’t like it much. He said this about it:
I just don’t get it, I’m afraid. I’m sure it’s fun as a networking device for teenagers but there’s something a bit undignified about adults using it. Particularly celebrities who seem to be showing off by talking to each other in public.
If I want to tell a friend, famous or otherwise what I had to eat this morning, I’ll text them. And since I don’t need to make new virtual friends, it seemed a bit pointless to be honest.
But for whatever reason – and I’m sure it is nothing as “undignified” as him wanting to promote the second series of An Idiot Abroad or his new series, Life’s Too Short starring Warwick Davis – he recently decided to rejoin Twitter.
After returning to Twitter for just a few days, and despite only bothering to follow a handful of people, Gervais felt qualified to write an article for Wired about how brilliant Twitter was. Understandably, but also slightly shamefully, Wired published the article.
I’ve already discovered the best thing about Twitter too. Playing. Just mucking about for the hell of it. Although, I could technically count that as work. “Monging” about should be tax-deductible for me.
I use Twitter a lot, and as I read Gervais’ article, I couldn’t help but think that he wasn’t really talking about Twitter. The specific, brilliant qualities that I (and two hundred million other people) love about Twitter don’t get mentioned, and I think that’s because Gervais is either unwilling or unable to engage with Twitter on any useful or meaningful level.
Instead, he uses the article to talk about the relationship between art and critics:
There seems to be a real us and them battle with artist and critics. An artist moaning about critics is like a fisherman moaning about waves. Tough. They’re there. They’re there because artists are there. And in some cases vice versa. I think that’s because there’s limited space for successful creators.
Wait. “An artist moaning about critics is like a fisherman moaning about waves. Tough. They’re there.” OK. “They’re there because artists are there.” What? I thought the artists were the fishermen and the critics were the waves, right? So, hold on, now you’re claiming that waves are there because of the existence of fishermen? I thought it was, like, the moon which caused waves. You know, tides, and stuff. That’s caused by the moon, right? Not fishermen.
Ricky Gervais doesn’t get Twitter.
It’s become a horrible marketing cliché, but Twitter is about conversations. It’s about engaging with people. Instead, Gervais has used Twitter to fight a peculiar battle. He has apparently decided to take it upon himself to reclaim the word “mong”.
I’m not entirely sure why he has decided to fight this battle, particularly as it is obvious that he will never win. We’re living through a period of the largest and most visible displays of civil unease in decades. Cuts are causing immeasurable pain to families up and down the country, and it’s all being done so that the Government can maintain the lie that the current economic crisis was caused by people failing to pay their credit card bills rather than the reckless behaviour of a handful of city playboys drunk on their own power and immune to the consequences of their own behaviour. In this climate, Gervais, the multi-millionaire, has decided that of all people, it’s the mongs who are the most worthy targets of his satirical energy.
It all began a couple of weeks ago, when he started posting comments like this:
Some people evidently objected to his use of the word “mong”, but as he explains:
The meaning of words can change:
As far as he is concerned, the people offended by his language can only be motivated by jealousy:
If there were any truth to this, then surely Twitter would constantly be outraged at Harrison Ford, or JK Rowling, or Colin Firth, or the thousands of other people who are more successful than Ricky Gervais. But this isn’t the case, because no-one objects to the innocuous Ford or Firth. And the obvious reason for this is that it isn’t success we are objecting to. We are objecting to what he’s saying. His words are offensive.
And there’s something unspeakably horrid about the direction of his argument. “Those people aren’t really offended by the things I say – they are offended by my success.” In Gervais’ worldview, anyone criticising those above them are motivated by jealously and so should be dismissed without further thought. For him, the only legitimate targets therefore are the weak and unfortunate.
I have no idea why Gervais is doing this. Even with the most generous of explanations (that he is somehow challenging our attitude to disability), he comes across like a clumsy, clueless, insensitive prick. There is a word for someone who engages in this sort of behaviour online, that word is “troll”. I suggest a new word: “Gervais”. He can’t object, after all, it has a new meaning now.
JAMES WARD: I LIKE BORING THINGS 
What oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed.
Except that from what I understand, the jealousy remark was aimed at a couple of fellow comedians who were arguably looking for some publicity by wading into the fray on the side of “good”. He doesn’t think the entire world is jealous of his success.
Entirely irrelevant. Even if that were true (which it isn’t, in the case if Herring at least), it only narrows the focus of Gervais’ target. It doesn’t alter the direction (down).
Could it be that all of this is an elaborate role-play? That in his championing of the word “mong” and his “jealous of my success” attribute, he is deliberately channelling David Brent?
It would be nice to think so.
But if that’s true, it would have been wiser to make an @DavidBrent account and use that for this.
I’m going to sound all srs business now, but my brother has Down’s Syndrome so I really can’t take what Gervais is saying lightly. I’m not jealous of his success. I don’t want to be Ricky Gervais, because I find him to be an irritating prick. No matter what he might think about the word “mong”, it’s something that I’ve had to live with, as someone with a family member who has a learning disability. “How’s your mongol brother?” is something I’ve had asked of me quite recently, by someone well-meaning but lacking in the updating of medical terminology.
I did a bit of reading up on this earlier and there was a piece on Digital Spy about it (I googled it – it’s not something I make a habit of reading). Firstly it talked about “Down’s Syndrome sufferers.” My brother doesn’t “suffer” from Down’s. He just happens to have it. Like people have asthma. Or big feet.
Then there were the comments left by readers. It was so utterly depressing to see how quick people were to bang on the tiresome “it’s political correctness gone mad!” drum. “I hate people who are offended on other people’s behalf – when someone with Down’s says they don’t like the word ‘mong’, I’ll stop using it.” Which completely ignores the fact that it’s a learning disability. My brother is quite good at using computers to do his school homework, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen people with Down’s using the internet. I suspect that when the day comes, they’ll tell everyone who thinks “mong” is funny and uses the expression “they look like they’ve got Down’s” to describe someone who’s not blessed in the looks department to fuck the fuck off. At least, I hope they will.
One commenter had said that people with learning difficulties, who he works with, say they find words like “mong” and “spacker” deeply hurtful. But none of the other commenters seemed to notice. “It’s political correctness gone mad!” “I use the word ‘mong’ all the time and I’m not referring to Down’s.” Mong is used to describe someone people stupid, and it comes from an outdated term for Down’s. The very history of the word makes it offensive and it’s incredibly that people can’t see that. Why is it so hard to slightly modify your language in order not to cause hurt to people?
Every tweet of Gervais’ that I saw (again, I don’t follow him, but I take a personal interest in disablist excuses) about ‘mongs’ I found very hurtful. Was I hurt on behalf of my brother? Yes. And I don’t see what’s wrong with that. I was also hurt on behalf of all the people who have Down’s and their families and friends who have to deal with all the crap that goes hand in hand with living with visible disability.
Don’t imagine the people of Mongolia are especially wild about it either, of course…..!
Thank you for going srs business. This stuff needs to be said. I don’t know what else to add as you’ve kind of said everything brilliantly.
Asthma IS something that people suffer and DIE from, so not a very helpful comparison there.
Was just thinking exactly that. I know I sure as hell SUFFER from it.
Julie, I’m really sorry – I wasn’t being very clear as I was writing in a rush. Please see my reply above to Firebird. I didn’t mean to imply that people with asthma don’t suffer at all, as I know only too well from the experiences of people close to me.
I’m really sorry that I wasn’t being very clear here – I wrote the comment in an impassioned hurry as the whole Gervais/mong issue has really upset and angered me.
I know very well that asthma causes suffering – one of my other brothers (I have many…) has nearly died twice from it (once when he was 3 and again when he was at school, playing rugby), and my boyfriend has it too. He had a very bad attack a couple of years ago and he had to crawl on his hands and knees to get to the doctor’s surgery.
There are times when Down’s causes suffering too – like the hearing impairments and glue ear that people with Down’s are susceptible to because of their narrow internal passages, the fact that hole-in-the-heart is more common in people with Down’s (and that they have very little hope of a heart transplant because they’re shunted constantly down the list, their lives being considered of less importance than others) or the abuse they face from the public, or the prejudice that has to be fought to get them into schools and to get them speech therapy and all the rest.
And I’ve got depression, and my god does that make me suffer! But I would far rather say that I *have* depression rather than I *suffer* from depression, and both my boyfriend and my brother refer to themselves as *having* asthma rather than *suffering* from asthma.
I just get a bit annoyed with what looks like laziness on behalf of the media with the use of the word “suffer”. “Down’s Syndrome sufferers” should really be “People who have Down’s Syndrome”. The other day at work, someone sent an email referring to “dyslexia sufferers” which was… well….
So I really didn’t mean to imply that people with asthma don’t suffer, but I wasn’t being very clear and had I taken more time to write my comment and tidy up what I was mentioning in an aside, I would’ve expressed that bit better. Sorry. :(
Holes in the heart for people with downs syndrome generally don’t require heart surgery, most kids in the UK and Ireland have surgery to repair the defects in the first months of life.
Yeah, but people with DS in the UK who require a heart transplant generally have a harder time getting a heart than someone who doesn’t have DS. The winner of the first Big Brother (Craig I think?) applied for the show with the hope of winning the money so a family friend (Joanne Harris) with DS could have a heart transplant in the US as she was turned down for a transplant in the UK because hearts should be reserved for ‘normal’ people.
I just read that she ended up not getting a heart transplant in the US as she wasn’t a suitable candidate (I assume this meant her health meant the heart wouldn’t do her much good, my sister died from DS in 1996 aged 17, she had two holes in her heart, my mother said that even if she had a heart transplant she wouldn’t survive the surgery)
Joanne ended up dying in 2008 when she was 24 from an infection
In other news, I liked your write up! :)
James, Mr Gervais is a bully; bullies demand attention. He is a small man who craves affirmation from those he perceives as his peers. I dislike his public persona and suspect it is not much different from his private one, his interpretation of Twitter suggests I am right. I don’t like him. He has a constant ‘no taboos in comedy’ mantra that he pukes out after every ham-fisted line he delivers from up Larry David’s ass. Wanker.
RE: ‘offended by my success; – i thought the phrase ‘troll’ meant deliberately writing contraversial stuff on the internet in order to wind people up. When Gervais says ‘people are just jealous of my success’ he is being a ‘troll’ – he doesn’t really think that, but he knows it will wind people up. It’s the same pseudo-boastful shick that he does at award ceremonies etc
So don’t fall for it!
As for the ‘mong’ stuff – if you’re offended by it, don’t follow him on twitter.
Whenever people get offended, i worry that they are not really offended, they just feel they should be. If you’re genuinally offended, I think you’d stop following him/watching his TV shows etc…
That’s not me defending anything Gervais has said. I don’t think he should keep saying ‘mong’ – I agree with Richard Herring comments. But am I offended by it? Honestly, no. But then I don’t know anyone with DS.
I totally agree about turning off and not watching or following things that offend you or you don’t like. The problem as I see it, however, is that he gives credibility and authority to these put-downs; put-downs that people who either have learning difficulties, or those who live/work with them, find so utterly offensive.
Because Ricky Gervais says it, it must be ok. He is a role model. Like it or not, he is.
So the next time a person or group of people tease someone who has, or appears to have, a learning difficulty and call them a ‘mong’ the ones doing the taunting will think it’s ok. A mainstream comic has sanctioned this word. They can use it.
This de-humanises people with learning difficulties and ultimately can lead to them being bullied, beaten up, exploited, enslaved, murdered. It happens. Here, in the UK. Recently.
There is a word for someone who engages in this sort of behaviour online, that word is “troll”. I suggest a new word: “Gervais”. He can’t object, after all, it has a new meaning now.
Hmmm. I kinda have some respect for trolls. They are part of the glorious spectrum of the internet. A good one (and admittedly that’s a small proportion) is a joy to behold.
So I don’t think I’ll join you in using the word ‘Gervais’ to describe internet trolls.
However I’ve already started reclaiming the word ‘Gervais’ in a slightly different way. I’ll be using the word Gervais to describe arrogant, self-satisfied cunts who have chased the sunshine so far they have disappeared up their own arseholes. I will be using it for vile bullies with no humanity who have lost the ability to empathise with others, if they ever had it. I will be using it for the ugliest people, inside and out, the selfish, the mean the cruel – as in ‘I saw a drunk last night who had puke down his shirt, piss all over his trousers and his cock hanging out his flies – what a total Gervais.’
I will also be using it as a noun to describe anything that is nauseatingly disgusting, loathsome, vile or rubbish, as in ‘ Jesus, what a pile of total Gervais.’
And when I do so on Twitter, I shall add a little hashtag: #justaword.
I’d invite you to do the same.
:-) Brilliant, Ally. I’ll take you up on that invitation.
I currently work with a 6 year old Downs girl. She’s bright, she’s funny, she’s sweet and she’s beautiful. She’s as far from being a Gervais as a human being can be.
I do largely agree, but I don’t agree with the contention that Gervais implied the waves were there because of the fishermen. The fishermen sail the sea, not the waves, hoping to catch a lot of fish for people that eat them, or use their by products in other industries. If the sea is low and there is little in the way of wavage then great, let’s go get ourselves some piscine delights. If the waves are high then not so good, unless you’re a mad-eyed crab fisherman, in which case you don’t seem to give a shit either way.
For whom is he ‘reclaiming’ mong? When ‘gay’ and ‘nigger’ were reclaimed, it was by the communities the words were used against. Ricky Gervais, as far as I’m aware, was not born with Down’s. Being a bellend isn’t a medical condition, he can’t stand In solidarity with his Down’s Syndrome brothers and sisters. What he ACTUALLY means is ‘I want to use this as an insult’.
No, sorry, what he ACTUALLY actually means is ‘Look at me! Look at me! Mong! Hahaha! Buy my DVD! PAY ATTENTION TO GERVAIS!’, and I’m deeply sorry to have done so. Balls.
Yes, this is totally right – the only people who can reclaim a word are the people the word was being used against. Gervais doesn’t have Down’s so he has no right to reclaim the word. And yes, he’s certainly a bellend.
Perhaps he can reclaim ‘bellend’ to mean, exclusively, him.
There’s a cause we can all get behind! ;D
Being a bellend isn’t a medical condition
That may be the funniest thing I’ve heard in ages. MrMoth, I hereby proclaim a far, far greater man than Ricky Gervais. Not that that’s hard, but still.
I just unfollowed him because he was boring. It was pretty easy.
He’s a horrible little man. Ill-spirited in every sense.
Worth coming here just to read Helen Highwater’s superb comment.
“Why is it so hard to slightly modify your language in order not to cause hurt to people?”
This should be tattooed on the face of anyone who moans about ‘political correctness’.
Can I volunteer to do the tattooing?!
Bit disappointed by this post because from the title I expected you to reclaim the word Gervais for its rightful owners.
I think you are choosing to be upset about what is clearly a joke. The man writes quite eloquently elsewhere about many issues, not least in his critique of religious dogma and the constraints it places on living a fulfilled life. It is clear to me that he is taking a comedic stance against the many (many many) people who choose to take up arms against an acknowledged master of the art. Twitter is very dull; it’s a marketing tool – I found your blog post via Twitter, and these ‘conversations’ you talk about sound as meaningful as something from Seth’s blog. It’s all marketing – and we’re all contributing to Mr Gervais’ show,bright here, right now. By the way, I don’t own a TV and have seen only bits of his shows, which I’ve enjoyed. All those millions of people seem to think he’s pretty funny. As for words and meaning, I’m afraid you all sound like my grand-parents, and no doubt your grand-parents. If you don’t find hm funny it doesn’t mean he isn’t funny.
So….. what IS the joke?
Posting a picture of himself doing a “Joey Deacon” face and using the word mong? Is that it?
I’m hoping there will be a big reveal soon and it will be to do with the sycophancy of twitter or something. I’m not expectig it, but hoping…
I’m a fan of all of Ricky’s TV work. Office and Extras did some great and very funny work on disabled issues. But what the hell is going on now?
Excellent James
I’m not sure exactly how to articulate this, but it has been striking me over the last few days that this whole argument is far more complex than most people have branded it – I don’t agree with Gervais (or Herring, actually), but it’s not a clean cut right/wrong thing.
Firstly, people have clearly been honestly upset and offended by it, there’s no getting away from that. So, whilst what I’m going to say could be taken as a justification, it is not intended to trivialise or disagree with that reaction. There are certain subjects that bring that out in me far more than this one, and I know what it can feel like.
The main thing that I think it is worth mentioning, and quite a few people have pointed this out, is that a great deal of people have been using the word ‘mong’ for years, without any idea of its connotations – I certainly used to at college. ‘Monged out’ and other similar uses just meant tired or stoned or unfocussed. It’s also worth mentioning that quite a few people have used the expression on Twitter without anyone passing comment. This doesn’t make it right, of course, and ignorance doesn’t mean something can’t offend. However, at least among a certain part of society, the word has truly been re-appropriated.
I think the main problem with Gervais is that he has been completely ungracious about the whole thing. Personally (and I get the feeling that this might be the same for a lot of people) my problem with him is that he’s just been a dick. Very insistent and confrontational. He certainly hasn’t ‘got’ Twitter yet, although as James said, this is almost certainly just a promotional exercise. And boy, is it working.
I’m not really trying to come down on one side of the argument, but as with most Twitter OUTRAGE! stories, I think there’s more here than quite a lot of people are giving thought to. I refer you to my first rule of arguing on the internet:
Just because you are arguing against something that is wrong, it does not make you right.
Sorry, that was a bit longer than I intended.
His name is “Rick” with a silent “P”.
Any time I hear that phrase “political correctness gone mad” I think of this great point by Stewart Lee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE
though he does seem to take a different view from this blog on Ricky Gervais in this Guardian article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2007/jan/03/comedy.television.
Personally I’m not a fan of Gervais’s comedy or persona but following the comments by his writing partner Stephen Merchant I’m unsure if this is as clear cut as it initially seems.
What are others thoughts after reading this?
Here is a better version of the Stewart Lee clip in stand up form rather than audio only http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=hmkHLiZMJeU
I think everyone needs to calm down about this.He used the word mong.Using the word mong is not an illegal act so what’s the problem.People from the the oh so trendy right on classes happily use words like fuck and latterly, cunt,all the time but refer to nigger,another offensive word as the N word.You’re all mad and I don’t understand you.
I do wish the Political Correctness’s noble desire to avoid casually causing unnecessary offence extended to the use of these other words as well. Really, is it so hard to moderate our language for the benefit of others?
That is because you are illiterate, as demonstrated by your comment.
People are upset about the word mong because it’s used to describe someone as stupid, based on it being an abusive term based on the word “mongol” which was the medical term for people who have Down’s. In fact, some people still use the term mongol.
Fuck is a word meaning “to have sex”, from a German word for sex or breeding (the German surname Fokker has the same root).
Cunt is a word for female reproductive organs.
The n-word was used to dehumanise black people.
Neither fuck nor cunt are based on medical terms for people with learning disabilities or has a basis in racism. People may find fuck and cunt offensive words, because they’re expletives after all and hardly polite, but terms like ‘mong’ and the n-word have very unpleasant histories behind them both. That’s why people are upset. I don’t quite see how you are unable to understand this, unless you are a gervais.
Am I alone in wondering when this whole “King’s New Clothes” attitude to Gervais’ alleged “talent” will come to an end? He is not funny, he never has been funny and moreover he never will be funny. His attempts at humour are always predicated on the actions of a playground bully. He is NOT a comic and even fails to be comical, the act of laughing at him seems somehow dirty.
I’ve blocked him. Felt very satisfying. After all, that’s what you do on Twitter to rude, offensive, inappropriate people that you don’t like…
I know it’s not really the point of the article but tides and waves are different. TIdes are caused by the moon and the sun and other large bodies near the earth (relatively). They are then influenced by other factors including the spinning of the earth and the local air pressure. Waves are caused by wind and surface friction.
Please check your facts before publishing. Tides are caused by the moon’s gravitational pull. Waves are caused by fishermen.
I see what Dan Beames is trying to say here, and I agree that in many cases people – esp those of us on Twitter – can get up and arms because others are getting up and arms and will leap into the argument before being completely sure of what we are offended by. However, I for one think the comments are in poor taste; the word “Mong”, as Helen Highwater pointed out, is used to describe someone stupid – or in Beame’s case, stoned or unfocussed, which falls into the same category – which all stems from its original use as an offensive name for someone with Down’s. Language always develops from somewhere and it’s easy to see the short development chain of the word “mong” as an insult. It hasn’t come far and it’s still strongly tied to its original use.
I also think that in Gervais’ case, and in the case of those who also use the word lightly, they’ve never really considered this meaning of “mong”, and therefore believe that because they meant no offense by it, they’re not being offensive. (The same way that kids say something is “gay” when they think it’s dumb or uncool.) But the problem with using words like this, and the problem with Gervais defending his use of it despite offending people, is that it gives strength to the light use of what is still an unkind word. And more to the point, Gervais has had people react to this word and rather than consider that it might be worth using another word, or being more decent about the whole thing, he’s acted like a arrogant cock.
I don’t follow Gervais anyway and am not about to – especially as he’s clearly using Twitter because someone said “It’ll be a good way to promote your show” and not because he understands the nature of it.
I’d like to hope that people who use the word without understanding its origins will, on realising what it means, stop using it.
Take my other brother (I have 3, it could get confusing). When he was about 11, he was using gay as an insult and then I explained to him… “you know my friend Joel? He’s gay. So when you use gay as an insult, you’re insulting my friend.” He looked horrified and said he didn’t realise, and that he’d stop saying it as an insult, and would tell his friends off for saying it too!
Sadly, people point out the hurt and offensive that the word causes and even after explaining *why* the word causes hurt, people wank on about “political correctness gone mad.” The other irony of course is that if they really want to take the pee, they should say “This is political correctness with mental health issues!” Oh, how we would all laugh…. Someone tell Gervais, I’ve got a new joke for him.
The thing is, people with disabilities (physical, mental, learning, etc) are easy targets. It’s harder for them to defend themselves. In a way, Gervais’ total disregard for people with Down’s feeds into the current climate where everyone on disability benefits is a scrounger who should get a job. We live in disabilist times, and Gervais is a very good example of it.
I agree – the newer usage probably does stem from the original one, but there a lot of people don’t know that. As I said, that doesn’t make it inoffensive to other people, but it does mean the word has another meaning for some people.
I think this article is quite disingenuous on several fronts. Firstly he has a point about the evolution of words, the example he gave validates the point. If I read him correctly he’s actually saying that words designed for hate or ridicule only gains power when used as part of hate and ridicule. If e distort them or reclaim them then they lose their power.
I’d be surprised to know how many people actually even knew that the word mong derived from a derogatory shortening to describe the condition. In fact by using it as it’s now accepted even offers the chance of empowering the people it once disparaged. If we say that even with full functionality we waste those abilities through laziness then we are exactly the people those bigots once envisaged. Then we realise that the people who were mocked were and are actually better than us a lot of the time. It’s taking the idea of what people consider disabled people to be and twisting it back to show that ‘able’ people are usually more often guilty of this imaginary persona than disabled people ever were or will be.
Also on the point of him choosing false battles in a time or social war I think you are also guilty of the same. Firstly there are no right or wrong battles only worthy ones. We shouldn’t pick and choose what we or others find necessary to fight no matter how much needs sorting out. If we al concentrate on the big battles the smaller ones will fail and so will the casualties we leave behind.
A cursory look around you blog (excuse me if I have indeed overlooked any of these points) didn’t throw up any mention of the constant attacks on the disabled through the right wing and often mainstream media. I didn’t find any anger towards the government’s atatc on hundreds of thousands of disabled people through their draconian and flawed ESA testing. Nor indeed the proposed transition from DLA to PIP that will result in the severing of social inclusion and even employment of disabled people up and down this country.
If you want to point fingers toward the causes of disability hate crime then look at the stories produced in most newspapers in the same weeks as any new government policy announcement. Look at the tirade of accusatory stories form the media and government that claims most disabled people on benefits are lazy, liars and defrauding the nation. Even to the point of Ian Duncan Smith accusing people on Incapacity Benefit being responsible in part for the recession we now face. It’s not even the people in power. It’s other comedians from Russell Hound on a Channel 4 show claiming all people on disability benefits are lying so they can be lazy and screw the tax payer. Its people like Jeremy Vine on Radio Two, it’s people like Richard Little John and so many other Daily Mail editorials.
Sure Gervais may have used a word some people feel is wrong. But t’s just a word and one he is trying to diffuse to hopefully help disabled people from being hounded. There are so many others who actually put the ammunition in the hands of haters and abusers. Maybe you should be looking out for them and reporting their actions.
Because remember a word only has power once we charge it.
Cowin, you are mistaken for one simple reason. If Gervais calls uses a word that some people find offensive, then it is those people who are offended. It’s not for Gervais, or anyone else, to tell them “you are not really offended”, or “you are not ALLOWED to be offended”. They are. So don’t use the word. Simple. What does it cost you? Nothing.
Anyone’s allowed to make a mistake. Using a word that others find offensive is not a hanging matter. The real issue is that once the problem was pointed out to him, he upped the arrogance rather than just dropping the word. Not impressed.
Oh I understand that but there are so many things and so many words that will or I should say, could offend us all. Being offended is a choice. We make the decision to let it effect us and in doing so give it, and the speaker the only power the word could have had. If we took all the people who are offended in this world every day and addressed their problems personally then nothing would get done on this planet.
Being offended isn’t a reason for us to get angry or create allegiance. Being offended is a personal choice. Hate is always the problem and the only reason for us to stand up against the aggressor. All being offended does is build walls around you and soon your voice will be silenced. It’s a minor and pointless pursuit. If you need proof of this look at some of the comments here on this thread. How many of them are derogatory and contain personal attacks against Gervias? Don’t you find that ironic?
Refraining from using terminology that others find offensive does not preclude other forms of engagement — maybe more significant forms — as well. But it yields a significant benefit at zero cost. Which is why that’s how civilised people behave. It’s just elementary courtesy.
I agree but the onus isn’t upon those using the words, rather those being upset by them. I know that seems like skewed logic but it’s true. If you allow a word to upset you then the person directing it has won. If you ignore the word then you have won. Which of those scenarios would you rather be in?
I’m not for one moment excusing any hate language or even giving a pass to people who are so socially inept they use words they know may cause offence. But when it comes right down to it it’s just a word and the only reason words sometimes do cause offence is due to the fact they have historically been used though hatred. If we diffuse that vitriol and erase the history then it reverts back to simply being a collection of letters. Unless its a metal signage falling from a store front I can’t really see what physical damage those letters will cause.
“I agree but the onus isn’t upon those using the words, rather those being upset by them.”
Sorry, but this is CLASSIC victim-blaming. Won’t do.
Strongly agree with Mike – if you think being offended is a choice, I suppose you’ve never been offended before?
There’s a huge difference between the people who write letters to the BBC saying they were ‘offended’ by things and someone who has watched their own children be abused by hateful language.
To tell someone it’s their own fault is far more offensive than any misdemeanor Gervais has made. I’d have a serious look at your points again and think about the kind of behavior you’re potentially advocating.
I don’t see it as victim blaming but reality. Even the word victim is distorted here. I think Dan’s comment ironically proves my point- “here’s a huge difference between the people who write letters to the BBC saying they were ‘offended’ by things and someone who has watched their own children be abused by hateful language.”
This is exactly like that. A comedian used a social network and used a word that some people may or may not find offence with. It wasn’t directed toward an individual and wasn’t used as hate language. So it’s exactly like a moaning letter to a paper or the BBC. That’s why I’m trying to make the distinction between hate language directed towards individuals or even vulnerable groups and this example.
Hate crimes don’t come from a comedian opening up a debate about certain words on places like Twitter. They are formed from news stories and government policies that distort and brainwash idiots into believing a person or a group is a threat to them.
Sorry I can’t see the comparison with that and this Gervias thing.
p.s apologise Dan if you feel I’ve taken your quote out of context in that use.
Aaaaalllll right. I’m done here.
Hmmm… I don’t remember deciding to feel offended by Gervais. I *was* offended. I was also hurt and angered. I didn’t choose to be hurt or angered, I just was, because the guy’s an insensitive git.
He sounds like a most impossibly smug self satisfied little man. I’ve never seen anything of his work, so I can’t judge his talent, but as someone said, there are hundreds of thousands of people far more successful that him, and who, if I may add, are not fat and blading and ugly with it.
*balding*
My 11 month old baby boy has down’s syndrome. The day we found out was one of the hardest days of my life.
I am offended by Gervais inciting people to use the word mong. It’s not a personal choice to be offended, believe me. I look at my beautiful son right now and I struggle to understand why he would take such pleasure in this word that for many people is a term for insulting a person with down’s syndrome. Gervais knows what it means and he knows what he is doing.
I don’t find it funny. I find it cruel. I’m not being PC, I’m just being truthful.
For those that say it isn’t offensive or it doesn’t mean a person with DS and that everyone should just lighten up – step into my shoes for a day. See how you feel then.
Some excellent, well considered, rhetoric, which unfortunately cannot be married with insightful, and painful, observations in these comments, without a hint of trolling.
Some good comments here, but I subscribe to the “intent is everything” school of thought when it comes to “offensive” words. I personally choose not to use words that have been used as derogatory, but try as I might, my choice of words has still on occasion led to people being offended…what can I do? I will offer a fleeting and only partially genuine apology to the offended party/parties, and then shrug it off. I *usually* don’t set out to say offensive things, so I feel only minimal obligation to “make things right” if someone’s too uptight to handle my use of 4-letter words and dogma-bashing.
I really think some people make mountains out of molehills with perceived “issues” like offensive language. If you’re offended by someone’s language, get away from them/”block” them/don’t watch them. Bitching about it on the interwebz is about as effective at affecting change as signing online petitions.
Er, Ricky, you’re behind the times, now ‘Gay’ means anything or any deed or person deemed weak and pathetic. Research image posting sites if you don’t believe me. Gay=Happy->Gay=Homosexual->Gay=weak/pathetic (disparaging homosexuals in the process, obviously). So, as gay=weak is homophobic, mong=stupid is disparaging to those with Downs Syndrome. It’s not rocket science to see this truth. You conveniently ignore the latest usage of the word ‘gay’ even though you’re a heavy internet user apparently… and so must have noticed it. Or maybe you’re a bit slow and unobservant – what should a cool word for that be?
YOU’RE behind the times (and behind the intellectual pace, whatever your bullshit excuses are they only make you look arrogant, not CLEVER AND arrogant, mate, there’s a difference). Grow up, and man up. Oh, and some genuinely-funny comedy might be a good idea too, but that’s not the issue, just trying to help you find something better to do than be ignorant in public.
Previous posters who have advised that anyone who has ever been offended by a perjorative comment about their race, disability, sexuality etc (RGs use of the odious word “mong” being one such example)choose to be so offended as “its only words” fail to acknowledge the power that language has to damage individuals in those targetted groups. Legally it is not the intention of the offender that counts but the effect of the offended. So, in law at least, saying “I meant no harm” is no defence. I cannot help but think that RG has directed his so called humour at the most vulnerable in society. He knew what he was doing and I guess his deliberate aim was to “fire up” publicity. His unrepentant stance disgusts me – he should have been man enough to acknowledge the hurt he has caused. How likely is he to openly or inadvertently offend a minority group with the ability to fight back? Not very – he has shown himself to be both a coward and a bully. Go on Gervais I dare you to offend a racial or religious minority and let’s see how well you sleep at night f
It cannot be long before rickyhollywood reclaims the ‘N’ word surely…..
I just don’t get it, I’m afraid. I’m sure it’s fun as a networking device for teenagers but there’s something a bit undignified about adults using it. Particularly celebrities who seem to be showing off by talking to each other in public.
Like thos quote..
Well written piece (not read many comments here so apologies if this is repetition…) but the sad fact is Gervais has become a name – in a similar way to Peter Kay – of being a one-joke carthorse.
The Office wasn’t delivered on the success of David Brent, it was the skills of Martin Freeman, Lucy Davis and the others who portrayed pathos with humour. Gervais never seemed to do that: he was the only one who was so visibly trying to impress. He also never struck me as having the talent to be sophisticated enough to caricature Brent purely because Brent is intrinsically part of Gervais, so Mike Taylor’s comment here is redundant: Gervais IS Brent and vice versa: there’s no talent in being who you actually are. Indeed, any time he’s appeared on film or stage or anything, Gervais is playing the same routine minus the beard.
The sop of trying to not be the character you are at heart means he ends up the same person in everything. And sadly (again) Hollywood swallowed that, as was proven with Night At The Museum where he was – again – David Brent…
Thus, no-one should be surprised he’s used the language he has and the vacuous argument to defend himself. It all should be expected from someone who doesn’t actually appear to deserve that success. It’s easy for me to say that as, despite not being famous or a comedian, I’m a consumer and choose to regard his stuff as dross due to a quite shocking lack of talent and only exhibiting simple business sense.
Therefore, the success he’s had without working as hard to get it as those who can churn out material regularly (Tim Vine…?) or with flexibility (Lee Evans: Funny Bones…?) means he appears to have become a victim of his own black hole. The comment to disregard those who don’t like him due to his success shows an appalling lack of insight and the self-awareness needed to be someone worthy of success.
So he’s just not worthy.
So why am I writing…
Sorry, everyone…
…as you were…
(ahem)
An Open Letter to British Comedians Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington: Please Stop the Tasteless Anne Frank Jokes and Here’s Why…
Dear Ricky Gervais and Karl Pilkington,
Can you guys maybe start to leave Anne Frank out of your comedy routines? Okay, some of your fans
are laughing, but I’m not: why did the Holocaust diarist become a subject for mirth?
Yes, that Anne Frank, the teenage girl who became a symbol of the Holocaust. The claustrophobic years in hiding. The terrible mystery of betrayal, the horrific last weeks, dying of typhoid in a concentration camp. The poignant way in which her diary was found, its restoration to her father, all that was left of a sensitive, intelligent talented child, all that remained of his entire family.
Good subject for a joke, eh, Ricky and Karl?
As you might know, and if you don’t, let me remind you and your agents: In 2009, the BBC received complaints about a quip by the comedian David Mitchell. “What was the last entry in Anne Frank’s diary?” he asked on a Radio Four game show. “It’s my birthday and dad bought me a drum kit.”
Funny? You guys probably thought so.
Ricky, you got your own Anne Frank gag now, too; anyone can view it on YouTube. The Nazis were rubbish, you says, not to think of looking upstairs. They mistook Anne’s typewriter for rats. “She had time to write a novel, mind you, it ends a bit abruptly. No sequel. Lazy.”
Why Anne? What makes comedians like you guys in Britain feel she is an acceptable subject? Why does a BBC producer decide to broadcast Mr Mitchell’s witticism when presumably they would censor a more obvious genocide gag?
According to British writer Keren David, it’s ”because Anne Frank’s story has become the accessible face of the Holocaust. Her diary lacks its true ending. Had she written about the reality of the camps, the starvation, cruelty and disease, she would have a different place in the culture, and most probably her book would not have been so successful. ”
Mrs David, a fellow Brit I might add, adds: ”When people think of Anne Frank, they think of attics, and hiding. They remember her as a teenager who hid away and wrote a book. Quite a funny book, with farts and toilets and kisses. They don’t always remember her wretched death. When they compose a quick tweet about attics and hiding, she’s the girl who comes to mind. The context falls away, because the associations — the attic, the diary — are stronger.”
She notes,a nd she wrote this in 2009, mind you, [and in 2012, you guys are still doing your sick sick schtick]: “And then there’s the comedian’s instinct which draws him to Anne. A safe way to tell jokes about the piles of corpses. Why would they want to do that? ‘
Keren says: “Maybe because telling jokes is a way of mastering the things which scare us. Watch Ricky Gervais’s body language on YouTube. His flippant voice tells one story, his hunched shoulders and cringing demeanour tells another. He’s not laughing at Anne. He’s laughing at prats who think they can tell jokes about the Holocaust.”
”Laughter defuses the horror, but it also brings us closer. The cleverest jokes make us very uneasy as we laugh. It’s an extremely subtle paradox — very easy to get wrong….”
The fine line between funny and offensive is one that TV comedy show producers should be able to judge. It seems though that they sometimes put as much thought into matters of taste and context as a Twittering teenager.
So Ricky and Karl, enough already. It’s time to grow up and throw your genteel British antisemitic snark away. In the gutter. Where it belongs.
Okay?
Sincerely,
Danny Bloom
Humorist without Portfolio
http://www.jewishboston.com/danbloom/blogs/3437-antisemitic-jokes-by-british-hate-mongers-ricky-gervais-and-karl-pilkington-about-anne-frank-family-fuel-tv-boycott-campaign
He’s trying to be hated. That has always been the point.
Oh, by the way. My name is also James Ward. I’m drunk and watching Loius CK.