I went to the Chinese chip shop yesterday.

Ah, but do you refer to that as the “Chinky nosh”?

Though I think you’re missing mike’s point – if I’ve understood correctly, he was pointing out that not all uses of the word “****” are offensive.

Wasn’t the name of the Mongolian delegate Downs? So, they named the syndrome after him.

Named after John Langdon-Downs who defined the condition and ran Normansfield Hospital in Teddington.

Langdon Down Museum

Coincidentally, stumbled across this just now…

http://www.viddler.com/explore/stevanhogg/videos/508

Not the funniest comedian in the world, but he’s got a bloody point.

The origin of Mong is really not that obvious today

You say that, but I’m genuinely surprised at how many people here have said they didn’t know what it meant. I guess it’s not that common a word, but I thought its meaning was pretty common knowledge.

My white mate [teacher in a primary school] working in Burnley is on a one man mission to reclaim it though…it has not worked yet.

I’d suggest that he’s on a hiding to nothing, and going to get into trouble. If he was Pakistani himself then I’d applaud him.

I’m actually expecting the British Pakistani community to retake ‘****’ at some point, in the same way that the gay community have retaken ‘gay’ (and a host of other words).

I do wonder if the problem isn’t the demographic in question (Pakistani / gay / whatever) taking offence per sé, but us automatically seeing it without looking at context / intent.

I went to the Chinese chip shop yesterday. At the weekend I might go for an Indian. Why aren’t these offensive terms when ‘**** shop’ is?

Because you are not using similar terms – Pakistani is the nationality. **** is a phrase used as a slur. The equivlent would be “chink” of “gook” for chinese

Why is one of those facts offensive and not the others?

I think this might be the reason

The problem stems from it being commonly preceded by “f—ing” and succeeded by “bastards” by racist halfwits in the 80s.

It was a term used by racists and still is.
I would rathe be a **** than a whomever the engerland are playing at football for example
EDL targetting these areas
Both quotes are yours so i dont really undersatnd why you are asking tbh.
It is not simply a [respectful] contraction as words have meaning based on their usage

EDIt : I miised your post posting mine

Yes it is not universally accpeted or praise dbut he argues they should take ownership and use it remove its power to insult like gays have. I see his argument and hope it works but it would be better done by a **** [ used in his way not the racist way]- he has a long way to go I am not comfortable writing that and even added a qualification which was probably not needed

Though I think you’re missing mike’s point – if I’ve understood correctly, he was pointing out that not all uses of the word “****” are offensive.

Ah, yes, I did.

And I’d agree with that, with a caveat. Not all uses of the word are intended to be offensive, but it’s almost universally accepted that “you can’t say that” because it is offensive.

Why are words more important than the meanings and intentions behind them?

they are not but it is impossible/ very difficult to seperate the two without a long conversation [ knowledge of the speaker] so you tend to assume the person knows what th word means and means what the word does.
It would be daft [ and time consuming] to assume they dont know the meaning of the words they use when conversing with someone.

Because you are not using similar terms – Pakistani is the nationality. **** is a phrase used as a slur. The equivlent would be “chink” of “gook” for chinese

Gook is hardly a contraction of Chinese. (It’s also nothing to do with the Chinese, it’s a Filipino slur). But, ok. Compare and contrast:

A guy hails from Pakistan. His nationality is Pakistani. Can we refer to him as a ****?

A guy hails from Turkey. His nationality is Turkish. Can we refer to him as a Turk?

A guy hails from Scotland. His nationality is Scottish. Can we refer to him as a Scot?

Cougar – Pak would be the contraction in that way- you cannot use “****” simply because of the way it has been used as a slur.

Myself I would prefer to use the names the peoples give to themselves – so in this instance it would be pakistani.

No, Yes, Yes

I don’t think that **** was used as an offensive term to start with but when it became so widely used in an aggressive way by the National Front and their like the meaning was permanently changed to being a racist term.

Myself I would prefer to use the names the peoples give to themselves – so in this instance it would be pakistani.

In Urdu is the word actually Pakistani?

“****” is a contraction of Pakistani, ie, someone from Pakistan. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s no more offensive in and of itself than calling someone from Scotland a “Scot.”

The problem stems from it being commonly preceded by “f—ing” and succeeded by “bastards” by racist halfwits in the 80s. So now it’s deemed to automatically be a racist slur, which is frankly bloody stupid.

Nope, you’re wrong. ‘****’ is offensive because it’s used out of the context of being a mere contraction of Pakistani. It’s used to desrcibe anyone from the sub continent, be they Indian, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan. I bet Turks, Iraqis and Arabs even get called it. That’s why it’s wrong.

It’s completely different to Scotty or Aussie.

A guy hails from Scotland. His nationality is Scottish. Can we refer to him as a Scot?

No because the correct term is “Jock” 😈

‘****’ is offensive because it’s used out of the context of being a mere contraction of Pakistani. It’s used to desrcibe anyone from the sub continent, be they Indian, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan. I bet Turks, Iraqis and Arabs even get called it. That’s why it’s wrong.

Absolutely correct IMO.

Gervais is an amateurish **** who has been told by unknowing hollywood types and the media that he’s a genius. Far from it, he just got lucky.

I wonder if Gervais would use the term in front someone with Down’s Syndrome, it would be pretty presumtive to assume that the person would find it funny and see the ‘irony’ in its use, as it would calling, for example, a Chinese person a Chink.

Oh the genius in his irony, only those on a higher plain of understanding can appreciate the hilarity.

Gervais is more like David Brent than he likes to admit, maybe that’s how he played the character so well.

Can’t really argue with that, tbh.

I’ve found some of Gervais’ stuff very funny, well, The Office, but that was co-written by Stephen Merchant and had some very talented people in it too, so not just Gervais. Their combined talents made it work, not just Gervais, although he’s taken most of the credit for it. And yes, he does seem to come across as David Brent most of the time, in everything he does in fact. Pretty one-dimensional.

Oh, and as for ‘****’; being braahyn, I’ve bin called it many, many more times than I can remember. And I find it offensive, so I dan’t appreciate people using the term, no matter how ‘funny’ or ‘ironic’ or whatever they think they’re being.

‘Oh come on I’m only having a laugh’

Ok, I enjoy violence; can I give you a good kicking? After all, it’s ‘only a laugh’, in’t it?

It would be daft [ and time consuming] to assume they dont know the meaning of the words they use when conversing with someone.

Oh, absolutely. Where I’m going with this has no real practical solution. We have to make concessions when communicating, it just saddens me that the default assumption is that we’re all bigoted thugs until proven otherwise. It makes conversation difficult because the goalposts keep changing.

The guy who owns the shop is from India, by the way. You all assumed he was from Pakistan, based on the colour of his skin and the fact he was wearing a turban.

There are only 50000 Sikhs in Pakistan. There are 19 million in India and 750000 in the UK.

😉

Cougar – Pak would be the contraction in that way-

Excellent. I’ll start referring to my neighbours as Paks, see how far I get.

you cannot use “****” simply because of the way it has been used as a slur.

I’m well aware of this. I just wanted to provoke some thought and discussion.

It’s used to desrcibe anyone from the sub continent, be they Indian, Bangladeshi, Sri Lankan. I bet Turks, Iraqis and Arabs even get called it. That’s why it’s wrong.

Well, that’s a different issue, isn’t it. By that argument it’s ok to refer to someone from Pakistan as a ‘****’ but not someone from India. The bigger issue there is pig ignorance on the part of the speaker; it’d be like referring to the nice lady at the Chinese take-away as a Jap.

It’s not the main reason why it’s wrong (though it doesn’t help). It’s wrong because the mouth-breathers have adopted it as their own.

I am quite heavily dyslexic, I re-read my posts at least 3 times before hitting send just to see if they make sense, words leave the pages of books before my very eyes, I have been called a mong/spaz/Joey by classmates all my juniour years. never bothered me because A. I was bigger than most of them and B. as i got more help than them, my education was far better. I now hold down a decent Job.

Although my experience was not a bad one its not really acceptable, not in teh public domain, between mates down teh pub or whatever that is as it is between mates.

How many of you call your mates bent or gay when they won’t comne out to ride?

The guy who owns the shop is from India, by the way. You all assumed he was from Pakistan, based on the colour of his skin and the fact he was wearing a turban.

I assumed he was from Pakistan due to the leading question (otherwise it doesn’t make sense) and (honestly!) assumed the turban reference was just a generalisation / mistake on your part.

If it was deliberate to prove just that point, then fair play. (-:

Just as an aside (and getting back to the original topic), there’s an interesting wikipedia article about the use of spaz in the UK and the US.

How many of you call your mates bent or gay when they won’t comne out to ride?

only my gay mates

Oh, and as for ‘****’; being braahyn, I’ve bin called it many, many more times than I can remember. And I find it offensive, so I dan’t appreciate people using the term, no matter how ‘funny’ or ‘ironic’ or whatever they think they’re being.

this is the most important bit. If RG wants to use the term mong amongst his friends, on the phone or whatever there isn’t an issue. Using it on twitter is naive at best because you don’t know who you’re saying it to and who is going to retweet it to an even wider audience. RG is right that the term has changed in use over time and no longer is just an insult to people with Downs Syndrome…in the wider society. It remains an insult to people with DS.

Gervais comes out of this looking like an ignorant, self absorbed titty suckler. Which is probably what he is.

there’s an interesting wikipedia article about the use of spaz in the UK and the US.

That is interesting, I never knew that (about the US version).

That might explain this, then.

You can get them with 25″ wheels. New niche?

if you have to retrospectively explain no intent to offend behind your use of a certain word, then perhaps you should consider not using that word at all?

my sister has Down’s Syndrome (not “Down Syndrome”, nor is she “a Downs”; that’s lazy and ignorant); I’m not offended by what Gervais said but i do think he’s being a total prick.
i’ve never used the word in question, and i never will.

and the stewart lee quote earlier in the thread is absolutely spot on.

if you have to retrospectively explain no intent to offend behind your use of a certain word, then perhaps you should consider not using that word at all?

Good guideline. If you have to glance around to see who’s nearby before using a term or telling a ‘joke’, that’s probably a good guideline too.

I assumed he was from Pakistan due to the leading question (otherwise it doesn’t make sense) and (honestly!) assumed the turban reference was just a generalisation / mistake on your part.

If it was deliberate to prove just that point, then fair play. (-:

Just making the point about assumptions, stereotypes, etc.

Around here, the “Indian” restaurants/take-aways are generally owned and run by Bangladeshis.

what?
Gervais can say what he likes, he is God.

non-believers… 🙄

Around here, the “Indian” restaurants/take-aways are generally owned and run by Bangladeshis.

Indeed, however the food remains ‘Indian’
(As you are no doubt aware, Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of India)

Same with the adjective ‘Chinese’ as a general term for the cuisine.

Read a bit of Gervais’ twitter about this yesterday, depressingly he sees it as a campaign by the PC brigade and the jealous losers. I’m starting to think he’s actually a modern day Bernard Manning. I’m starting to think that Gervais was nothing but a mouthpiece for Karl Pilkington.

Coincidentally, has anybody noticed that he has TWO tv shows coming out in the next couple of weeks. You could almost be forgiven for thinking that he’s deliberately stirring up a load of $hit to get himself in the papers and generate publicity for his new televisual pap.

Have to say I’m a bit libertarian on the use of language. What irks me is that he’s getting a cheap laugh from idiots. This is compounded by the fact that he is incredibly rich and powerful. If there was some moral or philosophical point to it then it could be justified, but I don’t think thats the case.

“Going a bit mental” – a phrase often used…. is it offensive to people who have mental health issues?

I loved The Office and loved some of Extras. However I caught some of RG on telly the other day and in between the effing and jeffing I struggled to find a joke. What I find offensive is that this guy is making so much money as a comedian when he’s actually not very funny anymore.

Now Alan Partridge’s use of ‘mentalist’ was funny.

A guy hails from Pakistan. His nationality is Pakistani. Can we refer to him as a ****?

A guy hails from Turkey. His nationality is Turkish. Can we refer to him as a Turk?

A guy hails from Scotland. His nationality is Scottish. Can we refer to him as a Scot?

I guess the straightforward test here is to try it out in a crowd of guys from that nation – if you walk into a pub full of Scots and refer to them as such, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. I’d not be so confident about the result if you stood ink a crowded room of Pakistanis and referred to them as ‘****’.

Gentlemen, are we still so naive?

The correct title for any of these groups is “Stills“

😈

If he’d used the word “mong” in his stand up routine, no one would have batted an eyelid. Why are people complaining because he used it on twitter?

Off the top of my head, he’s mentioned the following in his stand up

Bestiality
Nazi/ Jew jokes
Dwarves
Homosexual animals
etc

Where were you all when he was laughing at the above?

I guess the straightforward test here is to try it out in a crowd of guys from that nation – if you walk into a pub full of Scots and refer to them as such, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid. I’d not be so confident about the result if you stood ink a crowded room of Pakistanis and referred to them as ‘****’.

I don’t disagree. That wasn’t really what I was getting at; I’m not disputing that it’s assumed to be pejorative irrespective of context, I’m trying to demonstrate that it’s ridiculous that it is.

I’ve tried to make this point before and was met with scorn. I’m not saying “hey, lets call everyone with a tan a ‘****’ and if they don’t like it that’s their failing!” I’m not stupid, I just find it all so terribly interesting.

Words become symbols. The swastika was a symbol of good luck for millennia before Adolf got his grubby mits on it. Now, everyone associates it with the Third Reich, but it’s still a Buddhist symbol; are all Buddhists secretly genocidal xenophobes?

are all Buddhists secretly genocidal xenophobes?

Don’t get me started on Buddhists; I’m a terrible zenophobe.