The term "Mong"

[Snowboy]

shakotan said:

Verbal abuse requires someone to be abused. If you're not upset, angered or otherwise affected negatively by the words, you are not being abused.

Of course you are.

If a black woman sirs with quiet dignity while a bunch if skinheads shout 'fking n....r' at her then she is being abused.

She may choose to ignore it, to forgive it, to let it wash by her.
But she is being abused.

The abuse is the act of giving abuse, not recieving.
(Although we're close to the realms of semantic sillyness and dictionary definitions here.)

Refusing to be hurt by words does not mean you can't recognise hatred and spite when you see it.

[9mm]

Gaspode said:

9mm said:

It seems banter is the last thing you're comfortable with, unless you're dictating the terms. It's strange that the guardians of our language seem to be the most vitriolic and venemous in their defence of its usage.

Are you familiar with the phrase 'Hoist with your own petard'? If you are going to have a go at me for typos, you'd better make sure your own text is perfect.

I can't see why you think I'm being aggressive? I think casual sexism, racism, and ableism are distasteful and offensive. You appear not to. I wonder why that is.

Do you genuinely not care whether you may cause offence to other people, or is it just that you really don't think about the consequences of your actions?

If I were being aggressive, I would be suggesting that you have thought about it and actually you deliberately set out to belittle people based on shared characteristics over which they have no control. But I won't.

Tit for tat mate. If you're going to start having a go at someone's comprehension, don't be surprised if people pick up on your spelling or other faults. Do note that it was you that started it and I'm quite happy to ignore spelling or other grammatical errors as long as people aren't trying to be clever.

There is no disagreement that I can see about the use of sexism, racism and ablemism. The problem seems to be in their definition and phrases and their use in conjunction with the preface 'casual' and you seem to be looking at things in simplistic black and white terms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the word 'mong' should never be used in conversation, banter or any other form of verbal communication?

Your final example is a great example of passive aggressive language. I'm surprised people haven't pointed out the trait to you before. Just say what you think instead of alluding to things and then ducking for cover or hiding behind a form of words.

[Gaspode]

9mm said:

Tit for tat mate. If you're going to start having a go at someone's comprehension, don't be surprised if people pick up on your spelling or other faults. Do note that it was you that started it and I'm quite happy to ignore spelling or other grammatical errors as long as people aren't trying to be clever.

There is no disagreement that I can see about the use of sexism, racism and ablemism. The problem seems to be in their definition and phrases and their use in conjunction with the preface 'casual' and you seem to be looking at things in simplistic black and white terms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the word 'mong' should never be used in conversation, banter or any other form of verbal communication?

Your final example is a great example of passive aggressive language. I'm surprised people haven't pointed out the trait to you before. Just say what you think instead of alluding to things and then ducking for cover or hiding behind a form of words.

I'm actually trying to take as charitable course as I can. You say there is nothing wrong with your reading comprehension. If I accept that, then I have to assume that you deliberately and wilfully misconstrued what I wrote in order to make a feeble point against Snowboy. To me, that seemed unlikely, so I assumed you hadn't understood.

I am not saying that the word Mong should never be used. Who am I to dictate what you or anyone should or should not be able to say? What I am saying is that if you are free to say what you like, then I am free to form my own opinion about you based on the impact your words have on me. Words and phrases that I consider to indicate a lack of sensitivity will lead me to a conclusion about you, it may be a conclusion you don't like. If you wish me to form a more positive conclusion about you, you are free to think more carefully about what you say. If, on the other hand, you don't give a toss, that's fair enough. I would suggest, however, that not giving a toss about what anyone thinks under any circumstance is not the sign of a healthy psyche.

And lastly I don't think I've been hiding behind words at all. I've been as plain as I can be. I think people who indulge in casual racism, sexism, or ableism are insensitive aholes. But as I also said, your mileage may vary. Which means I do not expect you to have the same opinions as me.

[9mm]

Gaspode said:

9mm said:

Tit for tat mate. If you're going to start having a go at someone's comprehension, don't be surprised if people pick up on your spelling or other faults. Do note that it was you that started it and I'm quite happy to ignore spelling or other grammatical errors as long as people aren't trying to be clever.

There is no disagreement that I can see about the use of sexism, racism and ablemism. The problem seems to be in their definition and phrases and their use in conjunction with the preface 'casual' and you seem to be looking at things in simplistic black and white terms. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that the word 'mong' should never be used in conversation, banter or any other form of verbal communication?

Your final example is a great example of passive aggressive language. I'm surprised people haven't pointed out the trait to you before. Just say what you think instead of alluding to things and then ducking for cover or hiding behind a form of words.

I'm actually trying to take as charitable course as I can. You say there is nothing wrong with your reading comprehension. If I accept that, then I have to assume that you deliberately and wilfully misconstrued what I wrote in order to make a feeble point against Snowboy. To me, that seemed unlikely, so I assumed you hadn't understood.

I am not saying that the word Mong should never be used. Who am I to dictate what you or anyone should or should not be able to say? What I am saying is that if you are free to say what you like, then I am free to form my own opinion about you based on the impact your words have on me. Words and phrases that I consider to indicate a lack of sensitivity will lead me to a conclusion about you, it may be a conclusion you don't like. If you wish me to form a more positive conclusion about you, you are free to think more carefully about what you say. If, on the other hand, you don't give a toss, that's fair enough. I would suggest, however, that not giving a toss about what anyone thinks under any circumstance is not the sign of a healthy psyche.

And lastly I don't think I've been hiding behind words at all. I've been as plain as I can be. I think people who indulge in casual racism, sexism, or ableism are insensitive aholes. But as I also said, your mileage may vary. Which means I do not expect you to have the same opinions as me.

Are you unable to think of things in anything other than binary terms? If someone doesn't agree with you, it does not automatically follow that there are two explanations - he doesn't comprehend or he is a troll. How about the message was flawed, it was expressed poorly, something got in the way, etc, etc?

It goes on. If comprehension is good, then I must have wilfully and deliberately misconstrued what you said. No other reasons? Just a 0 or 1 or black versus white. Such a line of line of thinking is intellectually bankrupt.

I'm glad we're getting somewhere with language control. Can you clarify what in contexts and environments 'mong' may be used without you judging that the user is "an insensitive ahole". While we''re at it, where do you stand on the terms 'nutter' and ahole'. Do they say anything about the user?

Edited by 9mm on Friday 18th July 14:32

Edited by 9mm on Friday 18th July 14:33

[Snowboy]

There are a few people putting forward some interesting ideas for discussion.

There are also a few obvious trolls.
Remember kids; don't feed the trolls.


..
At all.

Edited by Snowboy on Friday 18th July 14:43

[Gaspode]

9mm said:

Are you unable to think of things in anything other than binary terms? If someone doesn't agree with you, it does not automatically follow that there are two explanations - he doesn't comprehend or he is a troll. How about the message was flawed, it was expressed poorly, something got in the way, etc, etc?

It goes on. If comprehension is good, then I must have wilfully and deliberately misconstrued what you said. No other reasons? Just a 0 or 1 or black versus white. Such a line of line of think is intellectually bankrupt.

I'm glad we're getting somewhere with language control. Can you clarify what contexts it may be used in without you judging that the user is "an insensitive ahole". While we''re at it, where do you stand on the terms 'nutter' and ahole'. Do they say anything about the user?

Only you can tell me what the truth is. Did you understand what was written? Did you deliberately misconstrue? Or what did you think?

Haven't you asked for clarification before as to context? If a term is used in a context which I consider to show a use of casual ( in the sense of thoughtless) sexism, racism, or ableism I would probably form a negative judgement about the person. I almost certainly wouldn't challenge them on it, they are free to say what they like. But I probably wouldn't rush to join their social circle.

If you are asking whether I personally find the words ahole and nutter offensive, I would say not. But others might. If you were to use those words in their presence, they might get offended, but by and large, I personally think you would be pretty safe. As I have already said, there are hundreds of words which convey a non-aggressive jokey epithet to describe daft behaviour, words which can be used safely without fear of upsetting large groups of society. Why not use them instead if one is concerned? And if one is not concerned about it, then carry on.

[9mm]

One man's ahole is clearly another man's mong.

[Gaspode]

9mm said:

One man's ahole is clearly another man's mong.

Are you saying you find my use of the word ahole to be offensive even when not directed at you?

[s3fella]

Flids, the lot of you.

[MKnight702]

I think that this "discussion" has diverted somewhat.

In my opinion the OP is getting a little het up about nothing. Language changes over time and the current generally accepted interpretation of "Mong" is someone who has done something stupid. It did originated as a short form of "mongoloid" but that is no longer the generally accepted meaning. If you ask 100 people about the meaning and derivation of the word "Mong" I bet only a handful would say that it is a slang term for a person with Downs.

These days, if I trip over spilling my fresh pint all over my new trousers then I am a mong, I've just done something incredibly stupid. Sorry, nothing to see here, nothing to be offended about.

If, however, I was to specifically point to a person with Downs and shout "There's a mong" going back to the original meaning of the word then, yes, you would be perfectly within your rights to be offended.

[lord trumpton]

I find it offensive.

I have a son with cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. He had an IVH in his brain because he was born prematurely. You have no idea how hard it can be to watch your child struggle. Especially when they had no part to play in gaining their issues other than being born and a problem occurring.

To see people casually using terms like this to imply that their intended target is stupid - just like a mentally handicapped person is upsetting.

In a world where we are learning to avoid using racist terms to avoid offence, it is surprising how this sort of st is condoned or not to be flagged up as being offensive.

To all those who think it's OK to use the terms should maybe come with me when I take my son to school - That way you will get to witness a huge number a wonderful children who are struggling through life with a disability of some form. To see the little faces is enough to make the hardest of men feel like crying I'll tell you.

[Mr.Chips]

I find it offensive. It is quite interesting to see some people on here apologising for using certain terms, but then quite happily using the word mong.
Over the years I have met a number of people with Down's syndrome, two of my extended family members have Down's. Does that affect my feelings? Hell yes, but I like to think that I would still find the term offensive, just the same as any term based on things that a person cannot possibly be responsible for. If I refer to someone as an ahole, it is inevitably because of their actions, not the fact that they look like an Anus.

[9mm]

MKnight702 said:

I think that this "discussion" has diverted somewhat.

In my opinion the OP is getting a little het up about nothing. Language changes over time and the current generally accepted interpretation of "Mong" is someone who has done something stupid. It did originated as a short form of "mongoloid" but that is no longer the generally accepted meaning. If you ask 100 people about the meaning and derivation of the word "Mong" I bet only a handful would say that it is a slang term for a person with Downs.

These days, if I trip over spilling my fresh pint all over my new trousers then I am a mong, I've just done something incredibly stupid. Sorry, nothing to see here, nothing to be offended about.

If, however, I was to specifically point to a person with Downs and shout "There's a mong" going back to the original meaning of the word then, yes, you would be perfectly within your rights to be offended.

I agree. The only people who would know the origins of mong would be over 40's.

[9mm]

Gaspode said:

9mm said:

One man's ahole is clearly another man's mong.

Are you saying you find my use of the word ahole to be offensive even when not directed at you?

No, I just don't see any difference between the two. If you were able bodied and without any obvious mentally disability I might call you either if I felt your actions merited it and depending on what you had done. The main reason for this is that I simply don't accept that there is any longer a substantive association with mong and someone with Downs.

[Old Git]

Can't be bothered to read whole thread but I wonder how many people who object to terms such as mong, spazz etc would quite happily and laughingly call someone (to their face) a 'berk'.......

[Captain Muppet]

Snowboy said:

stitchface said:

Can I remark that a male throws like a girl? Is this sexist? What if there are no females around? What if there are, but they find it funny?

As you ask, my opinion is;
"Throw like a girl" is one of those phrases that has become a joke in itself.

I've said it myself, but it's intended to wind-up the one throwing and any nearby females.
I am deliberately being sexist by way of parody and humour.
I'm making myself a target.
I would say it amongst friends where context and intent was fully understood.

I wouldn't say it loudly in public to insult someone.

The IAAF segregate women from men in competition because girls throw less well than men.

Is segregation based on gender OK? Clearly it's sexist, but it seems to be socially acceptable. And also unacceptably offensive, depending on context. The context in this case seeming to be based on how likely it is that a girl wins a medal.

[wildcat45]

Old Git said:

Can't be bothered to read whole thread but I wonder how many people who object to terms such as mong, spazz etc would quite happily and laughingly call someone (to their face) a 'berk'.......

Calling someone a , tt wker, cock, tool etc is not the same.

[Captain Muppet]

wildcat45 said:

Old Git said:

Can't be bothered to read whole thread but I wonder how many people who object to terms such as mong, spazz etc would quite happily and laughingly call someone (to their face) a 'berk'.......

Calling someone a , tt wker, cock, tool etc is not the same.

"wker" is* hugely offensive to catholics, because it's forbidden by God and they don't do it because it's a sin.

Unless you meant to leave out the comma and you really mean "tt wker" in which case it's fine because no sperm die as a result of that particular act.




* I say, "is", I've got no idea, but technically it's possible that some of them could find it hugely offensive so the term should have a blanket ban regardless of context.

[Old Git]

wildcat45 said:

Calling someone a , tt wker, cock, tool etc is not the same.

Technically it's still rather offensive/abusive though, but nevertheless has entered into common usage. And of course if you are calling a person who is a genuine , a , then you are being ist are you not?!!

[Roverload]

I've never used mong in a nasty way, usually used as a term for being baked these days "I'm off for a joing and mong out in front of the tele" think it's just the older generation that see it as a derogatory term. I could be wrong though...