[Closed] Drinking With Racists

Has there ever been 'Jock Bashing' though?

[img] [/img]

Did Longshanks call them jocks?

Are you really this stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you intentionally only reading half of my post? Go read the first line again. It's a hypothetical question.

We are open about 'racist banter' with the Scottish or French because we don't have a recent history of widespread discrimination against them.

So what you're saying is, it's ok to be racist with some people but not others?

Names for groups of people I think are only bad if there are negative connotations attached to them. So the N word might be derived from the same route as 'black' and be etymologically benign, but it's the stigma attached to it by society. It's arbitrary, yes, but that's people for you.

I didn't think the word 'Jock' was considered offensive.. likewise I'm not aware of anyone resenting use of the term 'taff'. Are any of the Brits here offended by being called 'Rosbif' by the French?

I would argue it's different with the Irish because we do have more of a history of racism towards them.

Ok, here's two jokes.

How was copper wire invented? Two Scotsmen fighting over a penny.

Ireland's worst air disaster occurred early this morning when a small two-seater Cessna plane crashed into a cemetery. Irish search and rescue workers have recovered 1826 bodies so far and expect that number to climb as digging continues into the night.

By your argument, the first is fine and the second unacceptable, yes?

So what you're saying is, it's ok to be racist with some people but not others?

No, I'm saying it's best to avoid using words that will genuinely cause offence and upset - calling a Scottish person a jock is imo unlikely to do that, calling a black person a n*****r almost certainly will. It's pretty obvious really.

I didn't think the word 'Jock' was considered offensive.. likewise I'm not aware of anyone resenting use of the term 'taff'. Are any of the Brits here offended by being called 'Rosbif' by the French?

Same here, the only reference I have of using it is to a Scottish guy I went to school with. He was called Andrew but wanted to be called Jock, even by the teachers...

Are any of the Brits here offended by being called 'Rosbif' by the French?

I think I'd prefer that to "yorkshire pudding."

I didn't think the word 'Jock' was considered offensive..

By your argument, the first is fine and the second unacceptable, yes?

Pretty much yeah. The first one is based on a Scottish stereotype of being thrifty which has a basis in reality and is hardly a massive insult.

The second one is based on the stereotype of Irish people as being thick - we used to characterise them as sub-human. It's also not that long ago that there were 'no blacks, no dogs, no irish' signs in pubs. Maybe the joke is ok with your Irish mate in the pub if that's the kind of banter you have....

[img] [/img]

j_me - Member

"I didn't think the word 'Jock' was considered offensive.."

My gran thought it was fine to use the word ****

That's not evidence that jock is offensive though is it?

Perfectly willing to accept that it is offensive, but as I say the only context I've heard/used it in is a self-applied nickname by a school friend.

So what you're saying is, it's ok to be racist with some people but not others?

Generally it's more acceptable to be racist about the white folks than the darker ones.

For the record, I don't mind being called a Jock or being the butt of the many assorted jokes about being a tight-fisted, skirt-wearing, deep-fried-mars-bar-eating alcoholic with a heart condition.

Banter poking fun at perceived national stereotypes is fine by me (provided the poker doesn't mind being poked back of course).

🙄

calling a Scottish person a jock is imo unlikely to do that, calling a black person a n*****r almost certainly will. It's pretty obvious really.

Obvious? I wouldn't refer to a Scotsman as a 'jock' any more than I'd call people terms like nip, paddy, frog etc. unless it was someone I knew really well. It's disrespectful.

Why have one rule for one and another for another? The Scots let us get away with casual racism so that makes it ok?

Personally I find the term Jock no more offensive than the terms "paddy", "mick", "wop", "dego" or "ignorant English **** sucking ****er"

For the record, I don't mind being called a Jock or being the butt of the many assorted jokes about being a tight-fisted, skirt-wearing, deep-fried-mars-bar-eating alcoholic with a heart condition.

I find that deeply offensive. I can't stand mars bars, however they're presented

Obvious? I wouldn't refer to a Scotsman as a 'jock' any more than I'd call people terms like nip, paddy, frog etc. unless it was someone I knew really well. It's disrespectful.

Why have one rule for one and another for another? The Scots let us get away with casual racism so that makes it ok?

Nor would I, but I was trying to explain to you why one is generally considered much worse than the other - even though it's really ****ing obvious. 🙄

Generally it's more acceptable to be racist about the white folks than the darker ones.

Again, that's because white people have historically been the colonial masters exploiting/discriminating against just about every other race around the world for the last few hundred years. I'm genuinely amazed that people can't see the difference.

The first one is based on a Scottish stereotype of being thrifty which has a basis in reality and is hardly a massive insult.

The stereotype isn't "thrifty," the stereotype is penny-pinching and mean with their money. Of course it's an insult.

For balance though, here's an Irish joke that doesn't rely on stereotypes:

Did you know double-glazing was invented by an Irishman? Paddy O'Doors.

How do you feel about that one? Acceptable?

Why not stop all the pointless bickering and just follow this link https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ then we'll all know who's a rampant bigot and whos a doyen of polite society

Even if it is an insult it's a pretty mild one - and again, it doesn't tie in to a history of dehumanising the Scots.

CBA explaining this any further. I suspect you're just trolling tbh.

Nor would I, but I was trying to explain to you why one is generally considered much worse than the other - even though it's really ****ing obvious.

I'm well aware of what is and isn't obvious, thanks. I'm not looking for a history lesson, I'm trying to get to the nub of what everyone else thinks.

Again, that's because white people have historically been the colonial masters exploiting/discriminating against just about every other race around the world for the last few hundred years. I'm genuinely amazed that people can't see the difference.

..and that makes it ok to be racist about Poles and Germans?

Only challenged it once! In a pub near my local town, had caught the bus after an early few in derby. Went into pub, 2 couples in there, two bar staff and one complete piss head. Lewis Hamilton was second in the grand prix where he won the world title on the last corner or whatever it was. Said piss head was screaming at the telly die you black ****, aaaah your not good enough you black this that and the other!! I just couldn't stand by any longer because it was so vile so I ripped into the ****. The mrs sat there in stoney silence as I tore into him, normally she would be telling me to shut up etc!! It made me feel very uneasy for a long while after knowing people thought like that but most of all were happy to shout it in public!!

I suspect you're just trolling tbh.

I'm not trolling, it's called "having a discussion," I thought it would be interesting to explore (as I've said three times now). Radical concept I know, but if you can't debate your opinion without it having to be an argument then the failing there isn't mine.

I'm not looking for a history lesson

You mean 'I'm not looking to actually understand the issues and how we got to where we are'

..and that makes it ok to be racist about Poles and Germans?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing. 🙄

By the way, seeing as they are the same race as us it's not racism, it's xenophobia.

Even if it is an insult it's a pretty mild one

So it's ok to be [i]mildly [/i]racist. Ok then.

it doesn't tie in to a history of dehumanising

That may be true; but how far back are we talking now? That poster back there was from the 1800's. I've lived on this Earth for nearly 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen any actual genuine racism from the English directed towards the Irish, Scottish or Welsh. I've seen plenty of banter, and believe me they give at least as good as they get, but our lot really have nothing against the rest of the UK in my experience. Anecdotal I know.

..and that makes it ok to be racist about Poles and Germans?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm arguing

Isn't that what the BNP are arguing as well now?

I did that harvard racism test:

Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between European American and African American.

Get in! I'm really a liberal after all! 🙂

I don't think I've ever seen any actual genuine racism from the English directed towards the Irish, Scottish or Welsh

Mmm, but you are English aren't you? There's a line between banter and abuse, and from many English people the line is crossed constantly. When challenged they roll out the 'I was only joking' defence, which is pretty poor imo.

You mean 'I'm not looking to actually understand the issues and how we got to where we are'

You're assuming I have a lack of understanding. Again, this is your mistake, not mine. I don't believe I've actually mentioned my own personal views once yet.

seeing as they are the same race as us it's not racism, it's xenophobia.

You're not xenophobic if you hate the Polish, you're xenophobic if you hate everyone that's different from you.

Isn't that what the BNP are arguing as well now?

Do I really have to explain that I was being sarcastic?

I've lived on this Earth for nearly 40 years and I don't think I've ever seen any actual genuine racism from the English directed towards the Irish, Scottish or Welsh.

You should try reading some of the comments on Daily Mail articles about the Irish bailout. Also, No Blacks No Dogs No Irish signs outside pubs were still around in the early 80s I believe.

You're assuming I have a lack of understanding. Again, this is your mistake, not mine. I don't believe I've actually mentioned my own personal views once yet.

I haven't assumed anything - I've taken it from your posts which are asking daft questions and your attempts to claim that historical context is irrelevant.

cougar what are you doing here ?this is more of an excercise in you asking questions to someone answering them..it is a simple philosphical technique as ultimately there are more questions than answers.

You debated this on the other thread as well this are you still confused? Surely you get it by now as it is not hard now you may disagree but surely you can see the reason why words mean different things

Again, that's because white people have historically been the colonial masters exploiting/discriminating against just about every other race around the world for the last few hundred years.

And because of this, they have no right to feel offended?
Because some people who I've never met, am not related to and have nothing in common with did some bad things a very long time ago, I have to tolerate intolerance?

you are English aren't you? There's a line between banter and abuse

I am, and yes, I agree.

Are you talking about the terraces here? Generally, I find football fans to be a subspecies of their own rather than representative of people as a whole. (-:

And because of this, they have no right to feel offended?
Because some people who I've never met, am not related to and have nothing in common with did some bad things a very long time ago, I have to tolerate intolerance?

Interesting words you've put in my mouth there. I never suggested anyone should tolerate intolerance, I was just trying to explain for the hard of thinking why some words are generally considered worse than others. Life isn't black and white (no pun intended!) - everything is nuanced and often complicated which is why understanding the cultural/historical context is important. Some people seem to really struggle with that.

What are you offended by backhander?

You should try reading some of the comments on Daily Mail articles

If that's where they hang out then that would explain why I've never come across them.

it is a simple philosphical technique as ultimately there are more questions than answers.

Exactly. Which it's why I find it interesting to discuss. I'm not looking for answers due to a lack of understanding, I'm throwing out a few Devil's Advocate questions to see what people do with them. Which is hardly unusual on here, I'm just a bit more up front about it than most (or at least, I thought I was, people read what they want to read I guess).

surely you can see the reason why words mean different things

Of course. But don't you think that's [i]fascinating?[/i] I know I do.

The Daily Mail is the most read newspaper in the country - I'd wager you know quite a few people that read it, even if they don't admit to it. I find it [i]fascinating[/i].

I'm throwing out a few Devil's Advocate questions

AKA trolling.

Thought it was the sun not the mail??

I'd wager you know quite a few people that read it

I don't know any that frequent its message boards, which is what you said.

AKA trolling.

Are you new to the Internet? You know you can look up these difficult and confusing new terms and find out what they mean, yes?

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth Grum.
I do disagree that some have an entitlement to feel more offended than others based upon distant history which most of us had nothing to do with.
I've been offended at being called a saes by the welsh when I worked there for a few years. The word is pretty innocuous, the intent certainly wasn't. Retrospectively I'm pleased that I didn't lower myself to petty racism in return. I used good old fashioned swearwords instead 😀
I'm fortunate in that none of my friends are racist in the slightest (probably because we're not all white!), unfortunately some of my work colleagues are which is even more difficult to deal with.

Exactly. Which it's why I find it interesting to discuss. I'm not looking for answers due to a lack of understanding, I'm throwing out a few Devil's Advocate questions to see what people do with them

[i]Maybe not, but the reality is that it is an insidious process which starts with small issues and eventually ends up in things like ethnic cleansing.[/i]

That's one of the funniest things I've read on here! We're talking about a 50-odd year old working class Geordie, not Adolph bloody Hitler!!

Shibboleth sort of has a point here though- not that small things like this [i]lead[/i] to things like ethnic cleansing, but that small things have an insidious effect that can persist in a sort of 'everybody knows' way if left unchallenged. If they become widespread enough people just accept them rather than thinking about them, in the same way that 'everybody knows' that lemmings jump of cliffs and drivers pay road tax. So a sort of communal subconcious belief that all Muslims are terrorists, all Jews are moneygrabbers, etc etc can persist. Then given the right circumstances like in the Balkans, Rwanda etc. these things can be exploited.

Clearly it's a long way from some BS in a pub to ethnic cleanising but still, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that casual, unthinking views like that can have some power.

Thing about racism, some people don't fully realise what they are doing.

I was approached by an acquaintance at work once asking whether I fancied joining the BNP. I replied 'You're joking right?'. He wasn't. Had that 'doh' look when I reminded him that my partner of the time (who he actually knew and liked) was from the Dominican Republic!

as I said, we're talking about the North East of England, and I doubt our 50-odd your old beer fan is planning a military coup any time soon!

Someone earlier hit the nail on the head - this is a remnant attitude of a previous generation and it's best ignored

1) well, quite, I doubt he is plotting a military coup (there was no military coup in Yugoslavia, btw). That's why he's of second tier ilk. Yer man isn't going to leave the pub to organise the lynch mob but he's probably likely to bring a pitchfork if he heard one was going on. Hitler's Willing Executioners, the Banality of Evil, blah di blah. The leaders of fascist and extremist movements are frequently not very ideological. That's what's surprising about Hitler in a way - that he actually believed in all that shit!

2) A previous generation? A 50 year old would have been 8 years old when the Rivers of Blood speech was made (its contentiousness shows that racism was an active political issue) and hitting 20 years old by 1980 - he can hardly have noticed that casual (or genuine) racism was a hot topic!

you can only discuss if you give your view genuinely held

That's demonstrably not true.

otherwise you are just trolling/anatgonising/provoking etc.

"Provoking" I'll grant you. I don't think that encouraging healthy debate, or making people stop and think, are bad things though.

Trolling, no. I'm not looking to make people angry, misrepresenting myself, laughing at others' expense, winding people up, any of that. If I thought for a second that that was actually happening, I'd be mortified.

If you're going to get angry at something you've actually misunderstood then I'm sorry. I do try very hard to be as clear as possible but the nature of communicating solely in a written medium means that it's easy to be taken the wrong way.

That said, there are better things to get angry about than the undisclosed opinions of someone you don't know on the Internet. For instance, the last thing that made me really angry was Brain Gym, which is a far more deserving target for sheer blinding rage.