the point is if you mock say Cameron it does no harm. If you mock the diabled it does. Children are not going to bully a powerful person because the mockery has made them less human. thats the point

At the risk of turning this into some sort of hideous middle aged northern bromance TJ, thanks for your kind words and support. I’m off to my bed now, got to be up bright and early to get outraged by something a total stranger said that may or may not cause me offence. Down with this sort of thing! 😉

erm, Mr Mungus, a few weeks ago you were making jokes about stephen hawkings’ disability and speech synthesiser, and now you’re the voice of justice and righteousness

No, i made a joke about his speech synthesiser, not his disabilty. Stop making stuff up.

I’m not a fan of the term “Political Correctness” because I think too many people use the “PC gone mad” cliche to justify lazy thinking and offensive behaviour.

Perhaps I’m a bit old fashioned, but I think it is a good thing to show a bit of respect towards other people. If a group don’t want to be referred to in a particular way because they find it offensive, I’m struggling to understand why we shouldn’t simply respect their wishes. What great principle is being defended by trying to justify the use of the term “****” when the people it is applied to find it derogatory?

As someone pointed out much earlier, referring to a person with Down’s Syndrome as a “Mong” is offensive because it uses a term of ridicule to define a person by one aspect of their existence. The language we use has a powerful influence on how we perceive other people, and the assumptions we make about them. People with Down’s Syndrome have fought a long battle to avoid being be sidelined as “Down’s sufferers”, and to get the same opportunities as anyone else in society. I can easily understand how someone could find it extremely offensive to have their individual achievements and character dismissed by someone lazily stereotyping them as a “Mong”, or perpetuating such stereotypes by using the word as a more general term of abuse.

You made a joke about his speech synthesiser? YOU WHAT? REALLY?

You [insert word likely to cause mild offence here]!

😛

Bedtime for me too…I should’ve known my post this morning would come to this 🙄

EDIT: kcr, we’ll have none of that kind of reasonable thinking here please. Away with you!

Bloody hell. This place reminds me of being in Islington in the ’80’s. 😯

yeah kcr that was way to sensible reasonable and well balanced for this parish

if people are still being offended by mere words uttered by complete strangers then they lead very sad lives indeed

this has hardly been a universally accepte maxim as

the pen is mightier than the sword

What about when someone said to dom jolly on twitter – i hope your kids die of cancer- still its just words so i suppose that ok then

Mates got a young bird, totally legal, we call him pedo,is this now offensive to all pedophiles? Get a life everyone,he didn’t call a downs a mong . Not a fan by the way, spoils a very good show at the moment.

What’s a downs?

Mates got a young bird, totally legal, we call him pedo,is this now offensive to all pedophiles? Get a life everyone,he didn’t call a downs a mong . Not a fan by the way, spoils a very good show at the moment.

Do you know what he did?

“a dwarfed and deformed idiot”

I think i need to change my username…

…how does MuddyCretin sound then? 😳

Did anyone see last weeks episode of Shameless on channel 4..?

plenty of instances of the use of the word mong there.. and biffa and retard.. and plenty of people with downs syndrome present amongst the cast.. what can this mean..?

(NSFW for the uninitiated amongst you)

You [insert word likely to cause mild offence here]!

You ricky?

Mates got a young bird, totally legal, we call him pedo,is this now offensive to all pedophiles? Get a life everyone,he didn’t call a downs a mong . Not a fan by the way, spoils a very good show at the moment.

It may be offensive to those who have been the victims of paedophiles.

There’s also a huge difference between banter between mates in private and the words voiced in public. In Gervais’ case, it’s the effect his words may have to the subsequent actions of his fans; in the same way that Clarkson’s comments about environmentalists and cyclists have an effect upon the behaviour and attitudes of Top gear viewers who don’t realise he’s portraying an exaggerated version of himself.

A lot of comedians portray a character. In some cases it’s obvious: when Steve Coogan is Alan Partridge, the butt of the joke is Partridge and those who share his opinions. Others slip across the boundary: when Al Murray started doing his pub landlord stuff, the humour was directed toward those who shared his opinions, but it seems to have slipped a bit recently.

Frankie Boyle did the same. To begin with, his ‘edgy’ stuff was directed in the right direction. By Tramadol Nights, he’d become a parody of himself. Gervais seems to have done the same.

I don’t know what annoys me more here, the ignorant dickheads who think it’s OK to say anything to anyone if you’re trying to be funny or the smartarses trying to intellectually challenge them.

What’s wrong with just being nice? That’s all it comes down to.