Ricky Gervais: Humanity

[QDRPHNC]

Excellent.  I shall now "stop talking".

It was a subtle hint referring to the post you made where it looks like I'm using the n-word repeatedly.

[St_Eddie]

It was a subtle hint referring to the post you made where it looks like I'm using the n-word repeatedly.

It must have been very subtle because I don't know what you mean.

[Jumblegraws]

Source? OED says:

Hmm. Fair enough, the evidence is that "lame" as an adjective for humans and animals alike was contemporaneous. The idea that it was originally used exclusively to describe animals is likely something I dreamed up, although I think the thrust of my ramble is still in tact.

I'm not. You're very talented at reading things that nobody wrote.

Have to back up St Eddie here, if you aren't using "gay" as a pejorative in the example sentence you gave, the older use of the word as meaning "cheery" is really the only thing that makes sense (but in the context of the discussion it's still doubtful that that's what you meant). St Eddie wasn't putting words in your mouth, they were making a reasonable inference.

[Jockice]

I think 'lame' substitutes very well, and as someone with a gammy leg, I don't take the usage of the word 'lame' as offensive to me.

Gammy is a great word. One of the best words in the English language if you ask me. Which you didn't.

[marquis_de_sad]

I think the thrust of my ramble is still in tact.

Not sure I agree. Firstly, your whole argument about the difference between 'gay' and 'lame' depended upon that supposed distinction. But also, even if 'lame' meaning disabled was a derived meaning, I don't see what difference that would make. The important issue is usage, so while you're right that 'gay' clearly does still have the homophobic meaning — otherwise there would be no discussion about what Bill Burr means when he says something is 'gay' — that doesn't exist for 'lame', and so you're wrong that it's "inconsiderate". The word 'gay' could, like 'lame', become almost exclusively a slang pejorative that has little association with homosexuality, but it hasn't yet.

[Jumblegraws]

Not sure I agree. Firstly, your whole argument about the difference between 'gay' and 'lame' depended upon that supposed distinction. But also, even if 'lame' meaning disabled was a derived meaning, I don't see what difference that would make. The important issue is usage, so while you're right that 'gay' clearly does still have the homophobic meaning — otherwise there would be no discussion about what Bill Burr means when he says something is 'gay' — that doesn't exist for 'lame', and so you're wrong that it's "inconsiderate". The word 'gay' could, like 'lame', become almost exclusively a slang pejorative that has little association with homosexuality, but it hasn't yet.

I don't think my whole argument depended on the distinction. The main point was that the secondary definition of "lame" carried over the signified of something physically impaired into the connotation of something underwhelming. Like I said at the outset, a disabled person may understandably not feel dignified by all that, but I still think it's in stark contrast to use of the word "gay" as a pejorative, which owes its linguistic emergence entirely to homophobia. My misconception that the word was initially applied to animals used in manual labour before diverging to the "disabled person" and "something underwhelming" meanings bolstered that point, it wasn't crucial to it.

"The word 'gay' could, like 'lame', become almost exclusively a slang pejorative that has little association with homosexuality, but it hasn't yet" - since I don't believe the word "lame" has the same roots in contempt for other people that "gay" has, that argument doesn't have much force with me. Besides, it's not unheard of for people to push back against word usage with offensive origins that had for a time become seen as neutral, as evinced by articles like this https://www.rd.com/culture/words-with-offensive-origins/

In any case, they're both dodgy, easily-avoided usages. My initial post was just a long way of saying that it annoys me when someone comfronted over casual usage of a pejorative tries to change the subject with a "what about...?" argument.

[marquis_de_sad]

You and the article you link to are engaging in the root fallacy — the etymological origins of any word aren't necessarily relevant to their current usage. This is uncontroversial in linguistics.

Like I said at the outset, a disabled person may understandably not feel dignified by all that, but I still think it's in stark contrast to use of the word "gay" as a pejorative, which owes its linguistic emergence entirely to homophobia.

Using this logic, the word 'lame' as pejorative owes its linguistic emergence entirely to ableism. This is a circular argument. 'Gay' as referring to homosexuality was not originally derogatory, but was used by gay people euphemistically to refer to homosexual people or to a homosexual subculture. That isn't so different to 'lame', which originally was simply descriptive of a physical condition. Also, if you want to get into other meanings of the word 'gay', there are many examples of it being used in a derogatory manner which predate its association with homosexuality. Getting into etymology actually weakens the argument against using 'gay' as a derogatory term without homophobic connotations.

But the appeal to etymology by both sides in these debates is a waste of time. As I've said, when it comes to meaning, what's important is current usage. By your logic we should avoid the word 'nice', even though the original meaning of "a foolish or simple person" is completely obsolete.

[Bronzy]

Gammy is a great word. One of the best words in the English language if you ask me. Which you didn't.

I thought it meant getting a blowjob off somebody with no teeth

[marquis_de_sad]

I thought it meant getting a blowjob off somebody with no teeth

That's grammy.

[Jumblegraws]

You and the article you link to are engaging in the root fallacy — the etymological origins of any word aren't necessarily relevant to their current usage. This is uncontroversial in linguistics.

Using this logic, the word 'lame' as pejorative owes its linguistic emergence entirely to ableism. This is a circular argument. 'Gay' as referring to homosexuality was not originally derogatory, but was used by gay people euphemistically to refer to homosexual people or to a homosexual subculture. That isn't so different to 'lame', which originally was simply descriptive of a physical condition. Also, if you want to get into other meanings of the word 'gay', there are many examples of it being used in a derogatory manner which predate its association with homosexuality. Getting into etymology actually weakens the argument against using 'gay' as a derogatory term without homophobic connotations.

But the appeal to etymology by both sides in these debates is a waste of time. As I've said, when it comes to meaning, what's important is current usage. By your logic we should avoid the word 'nice', even though the original meaning of "a foolish or simple person" is completely obsolete.

I linked the article as an example of how the long-term neutral usage of a word doesn't guarantee the usage remaining uncontroversial (my assumption being that that judgement isn't reserved to linguistic descriptivists). It wasn't an endorsement of the article or the logic used therein.

I agree that appeals to etymology are ultimately a waste of time that detract from the main concern of whether or not, and to what extent, pejorative uses of words like "gay" perpetuate systems of oppression. My intention was to shine a light on a specific canard (lame vs gay) and demonstrate that its conclusion doesn't even hold up to the faulty logical standards of the person making the assertion. To that point, I still think my argument that the secondary definition of "lame" is value-neutral because it transposes "physical inpairment" into a figurative usage holds up. If you think that it's necessarily ableist, fair enough, we're at an impasse.

From your tone I feel like I've gotten on your nerves with these last few posts. If so, that wasn't my intention and I apologise.

[marquis_de_sad]

From your tone I feel like I've gotten on your nerves with these last few posts. If so, that wasn't my intention and I apologise.

I'm sorry if I've come across that way, there's no need to apologise.

[Jumblegraws]

I'm sorry if I've come across that way, there's no need to apologise.

Cool, in that case I retract my original apology and instead apologise for implying you were being antagonistic.

[marquis_de_sad]

timandericmindblown.gif

[Bronzy]

That's grammy.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zn9v2xRU19w

[worldsgreatestsinner]

Ha, yes. He's so super-creative he can't read a book without imagining a better story than the one he's reading. So he doesn't read books.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/apr/20/baftas2008.rickygervias

Was this in mind, Gervais is the guest on the new Book Shambles. That's a podcast devoted to people talking about what they read.

In an episode we actually recorded quite a while back, writer, performer and comedian Ricky Gervais joins Robin and Josie in the studio for this week's episode. After Robin starts by saying Ricky doesn't like to read, they chat about why that is and some of Ricky's favourite philosophy writers and science books.

I mean it sounds intolerable but I'm tempted to hate listen.

[RicoMNKN]

Was this in mind, Gervais is the guest on the new Book Shambles.

I listened to this yesterday (as I like Book Shambles, rather than a hate listen).  Even by his standards, he's on arrogant form - says that he could teach himself any university course from home, that fiction is purely for entertainment, and makes out that he was going around as a young man demanding people cut to the facts because he needed MORE INPUT.

[worldsgreatestsinner]

Fucking hell. Do you think he actually believes the shit he says?

I used to listen to Book Shambles when it first started but quickly found if I wasn't already a fan of the guest it became tiresome. Robin tended to dominate the show and I found the book lists for each episode misleading. There were a few times Robert Aickman was mentioned and when I listened to the show it was literally "Have you read Robert Aickman?" and then the conversation went someplace else. So I dropped from listening to every one to just listening to people I liked to not listening at all. Robin Ince is surprisingly thin-skinned about criticism too. I think this happened on Twitter but someone said it'd be nice to hear about the books Josie likes for once and he went off on one.

[yesitsme]

Isn't his favourite philosphers Beefy Botham?

[marquis_de_sad]

How can someone who did a philosophy degree only care about "the facts"?

[yesitsme]

How can someone who did a philosophy degree only care about "the facts"?

To that I would say 'I've got shoes on my feet but I'm not walking. Aaaaahhhhhhh.'

[Ferris]

How can someone who did a philosophy degree only care about "the facts"?

I have a philosophy degree and do numbers and spreadsheets and that. Remember what that desperate corduroy lecturer told you on open day - philosophy can take you anywhere! In Gervais' case, it can even take you up your own arse/Hollywood.

[newbridge]

I had in my mind that Gervais was proud of the fact that he had only ever read a single book (The Phantom Tollbooth), but I'm mixing him up with Loveline-era Adam Carolla. Still, it seems plausible, doesn't it?

[Old Gold Tooth]

Gervais did used to claim/boast that he'd only ever read one whole book but it was Catcher in the Rye.

He also said he couldn't stand reading books because his brain always suggested other directions for the plots and he wouldn't be able to resist making up his own stories for the characters.

Ricky Gervais - too imaginative to read books.

[phes]

Yes I think this stuff has been discussed a few posts ago. Gervais is an astonishing chancer and ignormaus, powered by hubris. But he's just too big to fail and nobody with any weight behind them is ever prepared to pull him up on his bulshit.

[St_Eddie]

I once had sex with Gervais up in the bum bum.  He enjoyed it, almost as much as I did.  He was sat on the cock of a gay that day, I can tell you.  Phone me, Ricky.  You're a fine lover, I'll grant you that but quite disparaging by nature.  You said that my brown hole was a fine sight and yet you can't take two minutes to ring my ring piece.  For shame.

[Sin Agog]

Just watched that clip of Frankie Boyle on Room 101 roasting celebrity atheists, but basically just Ricky Gervais.  Was particularly funny seeing Diane Morgan sitting next to him, who's been sucked into Gervais' magnetic field since.  Loved her nervous laughter.  People should spam his twitter with that clip until he finally sees himself for what he is, a pea-brained parrot with a human complex.

[chrispmartha]

https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/990511867050196993?s=21


Such a modest man

[Cuellar]

Love all the replies, clearly from fans of Gervais, saying 'yeah it's OK but not as good as x. Sorry!'

Ooofff he'll be raging

[c]

Love all the replies, clearly from fans of Gervais, saying 'yeah it's OK but not as good as x. Sorry!'

Ooofff he'll be raging

Wow, I've got quite far down and the comments are almost universally negative. Is the whiff of truth finally reaching the Gervais faithful?

[Noodle Lizard]

It must kill him to see multiple people saying "I like you, but that Greg Davies special was better!"

He actively courted an easily-pleased fanbase for years via Twitter and Derek, and now he's having to watch them tell him they prefer their "plebby" stuff to his genius.  Going out of their way to do so, in fact, since he gave no option to say Humanity was anything other than a triumph.  At worst it's the best comedy of the year.

(NB: nothing against Greg Davies, but is he doing particularly "incisive" and "challenging" stuff like Gervais thinks he's doing?)