For anyone who hasn't been following the story, here's an outline:
Undeniably talented comedian Ricky Gervais has been using Twitter to post pictures of himself pulling faces and describing them as 'Mong'. A few people observed that this could be construed as offensive towards people with Down's syndrome.
For the record, I am not offended, but I am annoyed. While Ricky Gervais claims that the word no longer has the same meaning, it is clear that it does, otherwise there wouldn't be such a debate. Gervais has done much in his career to challenge perceptions of disability, from the Office through to his Government funded advertising about employing people with disabilities.
But while he may feel that there is some subtle nuance in the use of the word Mong, it is clear that many of his followers on Twitter do not grasp it. Instead of letting the issue die a natural death, Gervais has 'unleashed' his followers on anyone who disagrees with him. Some of the recipients of some of the quite nasty comments are people who have personal experience of Down's and of associated bullying.
I do believe in free speech. I do believe that comedy should be controversial and may even be offensive. But with the right to offend should come some responsibility, especially if you are someone as popular as Ricky Gervais. I imagine that many of his supporters would balk at the prospect of defending Jim Davidson's routines from the 1970's. It is perhaps unsurprising that Gervais is on record as saying that he would be uncomfortable with using the word nigger on stage. Why is this different?
To use the argument that anyone who disagrees is just jealous of his success is pathetic.
It is equally pathetic to claim that anyone who expresses a different opinion to Gervais is doing so only for reasons of self-promotion. It is insulting to accuse the mother of a disabled child of using their child's disability for self-promotion, just because they joined the debate.
To attack anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of the word Mong as being in favour of censorship is to completely miss the point. Surely that accusation is better aimed at anyone who shouts down dissenters.
If you ask me, I think it's time Ricky Gervais grew up and recognised the influence he holds. How he chooses to use that influence can have a profound impact on some of the most marginalised people in society.
He is not in the playground anymore. Words have consequences.
Undeniably talented comedian Ricky Gervais has been using Twitter to post pictures of himself pulling faces and describing them as 'Mong'. A few people observed that this could be construed as offensive towards people with Down's syndrome.
For the record, I am not offended, but I am annoyed. While Ricky Gervais claims that the word no longer has the same meaning, it is clear that it does, otherwise there wouldn't be such a debate. Gervais has done much in his career to challenge perceptions of disability, from the Office through to his Government funded advertising about employing people with disabilities.
But while he may feel that there is some subtle nuance in the use of the word Mong, it is clear that many of his followers on Twitter do not grasp it. Instead of letting the issue die a natural death, Gervais has 'unleashed' his followers on anyone who disagrees with him. Some of the recipients of some of the quite nasty comments are people who have personal experience of Down's and of associated bullying.
I do believe in free speech. I do believe that comedy should be controversial and may even be offensive. But with the right to offend should come some responsibility, especially if you are someone as popular as Ricky Gervais. I imagine that many of his supporters would balk at the prospect of defending Jim Davidson's routines from the 1970's. It is perhaps unsurprising that Gervais is on record as saying that he would be uncomfortable with using the word nigger on stage. Why is this different?
To use the argument that anyone who disagrees is just jealous of his success is pathetic.
It is equally pathetic to claim that anyone who expresses a different opinion to Gervais is doing so only for reasons of self-promotion. It is insulting to accuse the mother of a disabled child of using their child's disability for self-promotion, just because they joined the debate.
To attack anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of the word Mong as being in favour of censorship is to completely miss the point. Surely that accusation is better aimed at anyone who shouts down dissenters.
If you ask me, I think it's time Ricky Gervais grew up and recognised the influence he holds. How he chooses to use that influence can have a profound impact on some of the most marginalised people in society.
He is not in the playground anymore. Words have consequences.
Well said!
I, too, like controversial comedy/humour.
Check out the book: 'Should you be laughing at this?' if you haven't already.
A comedian certainly treads a fine line sometimes, but they do need to take on board feedback from society in general.