|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 15:04:02 GMT
I believe that people still joke about autism too. You know the one where someone pretends to mis-hear artistic as autistic?
Of course Gervais should know better. And he has a cruel sense of humour that works best when aimed at something worth shooting down but otherwise can be difficult to stomach. No one is required to like him or find him funny but nor should we crucify him for being no better than most of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 25, 2011 15:25:34 GMT
But "Good Monging" isn't much of a joke, is it? That was his reply joke, the defiance one, when (following the guardian article) he was bombarded by Twitter addicts telling him how disgusting he was etc etc. But he'd already said it before the Guardian article, because it was in there - unless of course '— but there's one great advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways.'
'I'm sure mine only works one way,' Alice remarked. 'I can't remember things before they happen.'
'It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,' the Queen remarked.
'What sort of things do you remember best?' Alice ventured to ask.
'Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. 'For instance, now,' she went on...'there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
'Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
'That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said...
Alice felt there was no denying that. 'Of course it would be all the better,' she said: 'but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished.'
'You're wrong there, at any rate,' said the Queen. 'Were you ever punished?'
'Only for faults,' said Alice.
'And you were all the better for it, I know!' the Queen said triumphantly.
'Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for,' said Alice: 'that makes all the difference.' (I just looked that up for another reason.) |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Oct 25, 2011 15:54:06 GMT
I believe that people still joke about autism too. You know the one where someone pretends to mis-hear artistic as autistic? Of course Gervais should know better. And he has a cruel sense of humour that works best when aimed at something worth shooting down but otherwise can be difficult to stomach. No one is required to like him or find him funny but nor should we crucify him for being no better than most of us. I'd draw the line at crucifixion, but he is a twat. Final answer?Final answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tarzanontarmazepam on Oct 25, 2011 16:26:11 GMT
I believe that people still joke about autism too. You know the one where someone pretends to mis-hear artistic as autistic? Of course Gervais should know better. And he has a cruel sense of humour that works best when aimed at something worth shooting down but otherwise can be difficult to stomach. No one is required to like him or find him funny but nor should we crucify him for being no better than most of us. I've seen many jokes about dyslexics, true...but even that isn't quite the same as poking fun at downs syndrome...in fact it doesn't come close. A dyslexic can fight for themselves, so can a ginger haired person with glasses, or an overweight guy. Some people will say it's 'political correctness' which is bollocks. It's simple decency, and protecting vulnerable people from great distress, abuse, hurt. Peter Cook is my hero. Yes, he sometimes offended, but it was always funny, but I can't remember him mocking the disabled. But it is a good debate this. And in some perverse way perhaps Gervais has inadvertently addressed a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Weyland on Oct 25, 2011 16:37:47 GMT
Dyslexics rule, KO!
(Sudbury Hill tube, circa 1976.)
|
|
|
|
Post by tarzanontarmazepam on Oct 25, 2011 16:38:21 GMT
Dyslexics rule, KO!(Sudbury Hill tube, circa 1976.)  |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 17:36:57 GMT
That was his reply joke, the defiance one, when (following the guardian article) he was bombarded by Twitter addicts telling him how disgusting he was etc etc. But he'd already said it before the Guardian article, because it was in there - unless of course '— but there's one great advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways.'
'I'm sure mine only works one way,' Alice remarked. 'I can't remember things before they happen.'
'It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,' the Queen remarked.
'What sort of things do you remember best?' Alice ventured to ask.
'Oh, things that happened the week after next,' the Queen replied in a careless tone. 'For instance, now,' she went on...'there's the King's Messenger. He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.'
'Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice.
'That would be all the better, wouldn't it?' the Queen said...
Alice felt there was no denying that. 'Of course it would be all the better,' she said: 'but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished.'
'You're wrong there, at any rate,' said the Queen. 'Were you ever punished?'
'Only for faults,' said Alice.
'And you were all the better for it, I know!' the Queen said triumphantly.
'Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for,' said Alice: 'that makes all the difference.' (I just looked that up for another reason.) Oh? My mistake then. The tweet I saw was a reaction to the hate but I hadn't realised it was a running gag. Well, even so... not sure its worthy of a hate crime etc. Anyway, that quotation's great. It goes along with the Tweedledee/dum one about 'it would be if it was but as it isn't it isn't' or something like that. (It's better than that.) And that's pertinent to the Gervais debacle. When you analyse 'mong' to excavate its true meaning, you can only conclude that it is derogatory and offensive to - and even mocking - people with Down's Syndrome. However, along the way there are a certain amount of people who are going to have picked it up as something different. Even if they realised that it began or ends in that offensive meaning, they have never intended to use it like that. Perhaps they were being at worst a bit stupid, in denial because they were having fun. Stupidity isn't a crime either. But I can live with people thinking he's a twat. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 17:57:49 GMT
But it is a good debate this. And in some perverse way perhaps Gervais has inadvertently addressed a problem. Yes. There's a thread on the Madrigal Cyber Lounge called ''Mundane Racism" about the effect of casual racism, and likewise there's that phrase ''the banality of evil'' often used about the Nazis. Similarly, I think we're talking about mundane, banal, casual cruelty. I think it's part of human nature. As Bonbon just pointed out, ''special'' is used as a slag despite it being an attempt to remove negativity from a person's circumstances. It's what we do. We laugh at other people. And it's not nice. We can't stop it. We can only draw lines and that always entails someone stepping over them. C'est la vie. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Oct 25, 2011 18:10:21 GMT
There's a thread on the Madrigal Cyber Lounge called ''Mundane Racism" about the effect of casual racism... Yes, and it's also got posters claiming that their own use of racist vocabulary isn't racist at all but is only there to bait the politically correct.And can't we say what we think when they do? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 18:16:55 GMT
I've seen many jokes about dyslexics, true...but even that isn't quite the same as poking fun at downs syndrome...in fact it doesn't come close. A dyslexic can fight for themselves, so can a ginger haired person with glasses, or an overweight guy. I wonder. It might be on the same spectrum, considering that someone is born with dyslexia or born with red hair. And people who are short-sighted or fat or ugly or hairy or bald or ... well, anything else that they theoretically could change about themselves so that we don't laugh at them... They may not be too mentally incapacitated to defend themselves but surely we're just kicking a dog when its down? Bullying them perhaps? That's ok, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 18:18:45 GMT
There's a thread on the Madrigal Cyber Lounge called ''Mundane Racism" about the effect of casual racism... Yes, and it's also got posters claiming that their own use of racist vocabulary isn't racist at all but is only there to bait the politically correct.And can't we say what we think when they do? someone saying you can't? |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 18:40:55 GMT
Peter Cook is my hero. Yes, he sometimes offended, but it was always funny, but I can't remember him mocking the disabled. Peter Cook is my hero too. Peter Cook: Now, Mr. Spiggott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan. Dudley Moore: Yes, right. Peter Cook: A role traditionally associated with a two-legged artiste. Dudley Moore: Yes, correct, yes, yes. Peter Cook: And yet you, a unidexter... are applying for the role. Dudley Moore: Yes, right, yes. Peter Cook: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement. Well, Mr. Spiggott, need I point out to you with overmuch emphasis where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role? Dudley Moore: Yes, I think you ought to. Peter Cook: Perhaps I ought, yes. Need I say with, uh, too much stress that it is in the, uh, leg division that you are deficient. Dudley Moore: The leg division? Peter Cook: The leg division, Mr. Spiggott. You are deficient in the leg division to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. It's a lovely leg for the role. As soon as I saw it come in, I said, "Hello! What a lovely leg for the role!" Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: I've got nothing against your right leg. Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: The trouble is -- neither have you. [delayed applause] You, uh, you fall down on the left. Dudley Moore: You mean it's inadequate? Peter Cook: It is inadequate, Mr. Spiggott. Dudley Moore: Mm. Peter Cook: In my view, the public is not yet ready ... Dudley Moore: No? Peter Cook: ... for the sight of a one-legged Tarzan swinging through the jungly tendrils, shouting "Hello, Jane." Dudley Moore: No. No, right. Peter Cook: But don't despair, Mr. Spiggott. I mean, after all, you score over a man with no legs at all. By one hundred percent. And of course, Pete & Dud never had to rely on the crass language and rude jokes that modern comedians like Derek & Clive do.  |
|
|
|
Post by tarzanontarmazepam on Oct 25, 2011 18:42:54 GMT
I've seen many jokes about dyslexics, true...but even that isn't quite the same as poking fun at downs syndrome...in fact it doesn't come close. A dyslexic can fight for themselves, so can a ginger haired person with glasses, or an overweight guy. I wonder. It might be on the same spectrum, considering that someone is born with dyslexia or born with red hair. And people who are short-sighted or fat or ugly or hairy or bald or ... well, anything else that they theoretically could change about themselves so that we don't laugh at them... They may not be too mentally incapacitated to defend themselves but surely we're just kicking a dog when its down? Bullying them perhaps? That's ok, is it? You raise interesting points, and perhaps it is in human nature to point a grubby little finger and perhaps make ourselves feel better or more superior to the stammerer, the spotty, the overweight,...which brings us back to Susan Boyle. I watched quite appalled on You Tube as this dumpy woman took to the stage and was being laughed at by the audience and the supposed panel of experts, before she even opened her mouth. An undulating callous tide of laughter, complete with obligatory mocking wolf whistles. It was disgraceful television and perhaps should never have been broadcast were it not for her triumphant victory over her tormentors. The media are mostly to blame for this cruelty that we see manifesting itself in our schools, on our streets, and even on prime time TV. Was Boyle fair game? And is it really normal human behaviour to laugh at someone because they are 'different'.? It's a very worrying trend. And I'm not sure it is 'normal' behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by tarzanontarmazepam on Oct 25, 2011 18:49:01 GMT
Peter Cook is my hero. Yes, he sometimes offended, but it was always funny, but I can't remember him mocking the disabled. Peter Cook is my hero too. Peter Cook: Now, Mr. Spiggott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan. Dudley Moore: Yes, right. Peter Cook: A role traditionally associated with a two-legged artiste. Dudley Moore: Yes, correct, yes, yes. Peter Cook: And yet you, a unidexter... are applying for the role. Dudley Moore: Yes, right, yes. Peter Cook: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement. Well, Mr. Spiggott, need I point out to you with overmuch emphasis where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role? Dudley Moore: Yes, I think you ought to. Peter Cook: Perhaps I ought, yes. Need I say with, uh, too much stress that it is in the, uh, leg division that you are deficient. Dudley Moore: The leg division? Peter Cook: The leg division, Mr. Spiggott. You are deficient in the leg division to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. It's a lovely leg for the role. As soon as I saw it come in, I said, "Hello! What a lovely leg for the role!" Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: I've got nothing against your right leg. Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: The trouble is -- neither have you. [delayed applause] You, uh, you fall down on the left. Dudley Moore: You mean it's inadequate? Peter Cook: It is inadequate, Mr. Spiggott. Dudley Moore: Mm. Peter Cook: In my view, the public is not yet ready ... Dudley Moore: No? Peter Cook: ... for the sight of a one-legged Tarzan swinging through the jungly tendrils, shouting "Hello, Jane." Dudley Moore: No. No, right. Peter Cook: But don't despair, Mr. Spiggott. I mean, after all, you score over a man with no legs at all. By one hundred percent. And of course, Pete & Dud never had to rely on the crass language and rude jokes that modern comedians like Derek & Clive do. The difference being that even a one legged man would find that hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Oct 25, 2011 18:57:53 GMT
Yep. I'm not really suggesting otherwise. Just being a smart alec. And maybe adding another layer to the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Oct 25, 2011 19:41:35 GMT
My cousin was a mongol.
Yup, that's what the doctors called him: Downs Syndrome wasn't a phrase in use then.
I gather the term "Mongoloid " was dropped after Mongolian people objected to it.
Just thought I'd mention that.
|
|
|
|
Post by everso on Oct 25, 2011 20:42:32 GMT
Peter Cook is my hero too. Peter Cook: Now, Mr. Spiggott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan. Dudley Moore: Yes, right. Peter Cook: A role traditionally associated with a two-legged artiste. Dudley Moore: Yes, correct, yes, yes. Peter Cook: And yet you, a unidexter... are applying for the role. Dudley Moore: Yes, right, yes. Peter Cook: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement. Well, Mr. Spiggott, need I point out to you with overmuch emphasis where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role? Dudley Moore: Yes, I think you ought to. Peter Cook: Perhaps I ought, yes. Need I say with, uh, too much stress that it is in the, uh, leg division that you are deficient. Dudley Moore: The leg division? Peter Cook: The leg division, Mr. Spiggott. You are deficient in the leg division to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. It's a lovely leg for the role. As soon as I saw it come in, I said, "Hello! What a lovely leg for the role!" Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: I've got nothing against your right leg. Dudley Moore: Ah! Peter Cook: The trouble is -- neither have you. [delayed applause] You, uh, you fall down on the left. Dudley Moore: You mean it's inadequate? Peter Cook: It is inadequate, Mr. Spiggott. Dudley Moore: Mm. Peter Cook: In my view, the public is not yet ready ... Dudley Moore: No? Peter Cook: ... for the sight of a one-legged Tarzan swinging through the jungly tendrils, shouting "Hello, Jane." Dudley Moore: No. No, right. Peter Cook: But don't despair, Mr. Spiggott. I mean, after all, you score over a man with no legs at all. By one hundred percent. And of course, Pete & Dud never had to rely on the crass language and rude jokes that modern comedians like Derek & Clive do. The difference being that even a one legged man would find that hilarious. If I only had one leg I wouldn't find that in the least bit hilarious. As I have two legs, I did find it funny - in fact I remember seeing it on t.v. years ago and crying with laughter. But I don't see how a one legged man would find it funny really. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Oct 25, 2011 20:46:56 GMT
Oh and another thing. You know how there are lots of jokes (esp. the Stevie Wonder kind) about blind people? Well, I don't find them funny because someone very dear to me is totally blind and she really can't help it - much the same as a DS person or a wheelchair-bound person can't help their predicament.
But I don't wish that the people who tell those jokes would die.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarzanontarmazepam on Oct 25, 2011 21:15:57 GMT
The difference being that even a one legged man would find that hilarious. If I only had one leg I wouldn't find that in the least bit hilarious. As I have two legs, I did find it funny - in fact I remember seeing it on t.v. years ago and crying with laughter. But I don't see how a one legged man would find it funny really. My mother has one leg and still finds it funny. A world away from the nastiness of laughing at the mentally disabled or people with learning difficulties. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Oct 25, 2011 21:53:31 GMT
Are you sure it's not just because you like Peter Cook so you'll forgive him anything?
I think a lot of the anger against Ricky Gervais is maybe because those people didn't care for him in the first place.
|
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
