What is an "Absolute Wrongen?"

"Thank you Mouse for the video and for calling out absolute wrongens xxx."

At first glance, it reads like a simple compliment. Look closer, however, and it raises a bigger question. What exactly is an "absolute wrongen"?

The term has no legal definition. You won't find it in legislation or criminal law. It is a piece of slang—a moral judgement wrapped in colourful language. To call someone a "wrongen" is to suggest they are deeply dishonest, immoral or objectionable. Add the word "absolute," and the criticism becomes even more emphatic.

But where should the line be drawn?

Most people would probably reserve such a label for individuals convicted of particularly serious offences—those serving lengthy prison sentences for crimes that society almost universally condemns. In those circumstances, the description reflects conduct that has been tested in court and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The internet, however, often works differently.

On  media and YouTube, labels are frequently attached without any judicial process. Someone may be called a "wrongen" because of a disagreement, an old controversy, an unpopular opinion, or simply because they have become the latest target of an online community. Once the label takes hold, it can become detached from evidence altogether.

That is where the danger lies.

If people begin describing others as "absolute wrongens" despite there being no criminal conviction—or no reliable evidence of serious wrongdoing—the phrase stops being a description and becomes an expression of personal belief. It tells us more about the speaker's opinion than it does about the person being described.

In the case of Mouse, as described here, videos from years ago are reportedly revisited and republished whenever fresh conflict presents itself. Whether this is genuine accountability or simply keeping old disputes alive is something viewers must judge for themselves. Online audiences often reward outrage with clicks, comments and shares, creating an incentive to recycle past controversies long after they might otherwise have faded.

Helen Janes' comment fits neatly into that culture. By thanking Mouse for "calling out absolute wrongens," she signals support for the narrative being presented. Yet the comment provides no explanation of what makes someone an "absolute wrongen." No evidence is offered. No standard is defined. The audience is simply invited to accept the label.

Psychologists sometimes refer to this as ingroup reinforcement. Members of a community adopt the language of the group, repeating emotionally charged labels until they become accepted shorthand. Over time, the words themselves can replace careful examination of facts.

This raises an uncomfortable question.

If the people being described have not been convicted of serious crimes, and if the accusations remain disputed or unproven, is "absolute wrongen" an accurate description? Or is it simply a reflection of Helen Janes' own perception?

That question matters because reputations are built—and destroyed—by words. Once a label becomes part of someone's online identity, it can persist indefinitely, regardless of whether it is justified.

Perhaps the better question is not, "Who is an absolute wrongen?" but, "What evidence justifies calling someone one?"

Without evidence, the phrase is little more than an opinion. And opinions, however strongly held, are not the same thing as established fact.