The Internet In Black And White

Ricky Gervais has recently become a frequent ‘tweeter’ on Twitter. It may be assumed he has done so for reasons of self-publicizing. You may assume this because he frequently publicizes his products. As well he might; he’s part of the top band of famous people who can attract attention without needing to whore themselves around the junkets and talk shows answering the same questions over and over in between getting their plug in. He’s also made clear his dislike for journalists who will twist a quote to make up a juicier story, so one can understand why Twitter would be embraced as the author fully controls the message. However, you’ve got to be sure of what message you want to convey and how you convey it.

The message Gervais mainly wants to convey is that “mong” is a fun word to use as a synomym for “idiot” and is no longer associated with Down’s Syndrome.

For the purposes of people my age, whom I don’t think ever heard the word “mong” on the playground, perhaps substitute it in this debate for the word “spaz,” which similarly derives directly from a word for a disability, was generically used as a derogatory word to anybody at all, insultingly and hatefully towards anybody with a disability, and profane enough to know not to say it in front of authority figures.

Is Gervais’s use and definition of the word accurate, and even if it is does that necessarily make it right for him to be using and promoting it? I would say not, for no bigger reason than the benefits of using it do not outweigh the potential negative effects. As I posted recently about sick jokes (also prompted by something Gervais said), if you’re going to say something that may be taken with offence (even if you personally don’t find it offensive), you’d better be sure that it is thought out and that the risk of a negative response is worth taking for the best response it could get. With the point in case, there are no great benefits of being able to use the word “mong” in a way that won’t offend. It would just be one of many words we already use interchangably for “idiot,” many of which are fun and creative uses of language. We don’t desperately need another. Conversely, the potential negatives are that it adds or revives a word used hatefully and that it could bring a marginalized group into the focus of people who, seriously or not, will see fit to ridicule, abuse or discriminate against them. Of course, in most cases that might not be the case, but even if it’s only in a small few cases, that’s something we could have done without, and all just so others can say “mong” for their own amusement.

As I also said in the sick jokes post, I don’t usually find Gervais offensive because I understand that some of his jokes are not to be taken at face value. They are understood on the condition that he is a smart and thoughtful person and he says things that are not and are not supposed to be taken as his true views. David Brent’s views are not his own, nor are out-of-character moments in his stand-up or conversation. I’m quite sure we all do the same, making yourself out to be a fool or taking the mick out of someone with the explicit understanding that you are not being serious. However, when this comes from someone you have not encountered before, why should you assume that they are intelligent and good natured? Someone copying Gervais does not have the same benefit of the foundation he has, so you can receive the same message in different ways.

There is also the element of an audience who will be ignorant to this condition of reception and will take things said at face value and in seriousness. I believe this applies to many of those who proclaim Ricky Gervais to be out to shock and offend. Those people do not see the difference between Ricky Gervais and David Brent, and have not built any of their perceptions of him from listening to him speak in conversation. That’s fair enough, you can’t win them all. It’s a shame because they’re missing the fun that he can give them and the important things he addresses positively through comedy better than most do. However, there are others who are also missing the point but do like him, and laugh at the “offensive” things because they are aligned with their own views (despite not being Gervais’s.) People such as the one who said this, quoted by Richard Herring in his blog post on the subject: “Who the hell is Richard Herring? I’d call him a mong, but I don’t want to insult mongs!! ”

Gervais has said before how proud he is that he has intelligent fans who are willing and able to defend him against misguided outrage. But he also has fans without such intelligence, and he must be wary that they will follow his lead and go the wrong way. In this case, posting abuse instead of reasoning to those who disagree with him, and going ahead with using the word “mong” insultingly about (and inevitably, towards) disabled people, despite this being the definition Gervais said should not be used.

Gervais praises Twitter because he can’t be misquoted on it. That doesn’t mean he can’t be misunderstood. Having the best intentions is no reason to be immutably confident and ignorant to the unintended consequences.

See also:
Richard Herring (17/10)
James Ward (18/10)
Nicola Clark (19/10)
Robin Ince (21/10)

AD: I think this row has already been concluded.