[Closed] Is the term "Jock" offensive or racist?

[quote=Drac ]

Context goes along to way to how a term is deemed offensive.
??

You bored Scotroutes.

Yes it depends on context, we all have probably called a friends a bunch of ****s when they've played a trick on us, it's not meant offensively. However, the word is still a swear word unlike Jock, a swear word which is on the swear filter so using characters to get around it is classed as swear filter avoidance which breaks the STW forum rules.

Of course you knew that.

Nationalists have used false propaganda to fool people into a resentment of the UK that I believe stops just short of Union Jack flag burning. As I already stated, I would not like to be a No canvaser next year wearing a rossette with a Union Jack on it.
I am concerned to the point where candidates for a No vote will not be safe campaigning in many areas next year.

I have read the above again and it still look like you are suggesting people who are campaigning for the Union are in danger of attack. I am still also waiting for you to provide evidence of this nationalist campaign that stops just short of flag burning(your words again)as others have asked you for.
Only one side is focusing on positives and it isn't the [s]bitter together[/s] unionists. Why don't you and our other colonial masters tell us why we would be better off with you,instead of as a free country. We have had 18 months of England redrawing maritime boundaries,and refusing to discuss any terms of indy, while all the time belittling the very idea of independence and warning us that we would be living in holes in the ground and eating our young. The SNP produced their blueprint yesterday,where is the Westminster counterpart? what exactly are the reasons that should convince us to stay? For 300 years we have had a government that has been overwhelmingly unrepresentative of the Scottish electorate,post devo we get a chance to start changing things,deal with it.
It is a fact that the Westminster scaremongering campaign will win (unlike last time when a majority voted yes) However please don't think the issue will go away. It will be close enough to raise the head of devo max, which Westminster is terrified of; the one clever move Cameron made was forcing yes or no and avoiding more devolved powers.
Wee point from a History and Modern Studies teacher; after the last vote, the Government made such cuts to funding in Scotland that the Sec State for Scotland had to go begging as the budget would not have been enough to keep the lights on. When the no vote wins,the backlash will start from Westminster.

BTW; Could Winston Dog please come up here and campaign for the union? May help to make up the minds of some of the undecided.

Sorry winston,

How have I offended you exactly?

Of course you knew that.

BTW; Could Winston Dog please come up here and campaign for the union? May help to make up the minds of some of the undecided.

Sorry I think the Scottish people should decide their own fate. Besides wrong thread.

How have I offended you exactly?

You haven't at all. I'm just not sure what World you live in.

I thought that the intent was a decider on moderation?
I remember it being explained by a moderator that words like "nob" and "cock" were permitted (or at least not wallopped) unless directed as an insult at a contributor.

No that would be for being offensive not the using the word itself. As the C word is so harsh it blocked with a few other swear words.

Why don't you and our other colonial masters

Nice stereotyping of English people there. Again - people claim independence has nothing to do with hating the English then rant on about how we're all bastards. 😕

that should convince us to stay? For 300 years we have had a government that has been overwhelmingly unrepresentative of the Scottish electorate,post devo we get a chance to start changing things,deal with it.

Try living in the north of England. You already get a much better deal than we do.

Woody
1 No one who called me 'Jock' has ever meant it in any way other than derogatory.
2 For what it's worth no one I know has ever called me a Jock
I haven't changed anything.
3 I was a student at the time we didn't have a tv in our flat My friend and I had gone to the halls of residence to watch the football. On the way home afterwards we were attacked out of the blue by 5 guys who had been walking down the street behind us.
4 Yes thanks for asking

Q: Is jock offensive?
A: some people are offended by it, so yes.
5 pages of people trying to justify it and ignoring answers they don't like to a question they asked.

As the user of a term, be it jock, **** or anything else, you don't get to decide if it's offensive or not to he person hearing it. As you've newly discovered that some/most don't like it the decent thing would be to hold tour hands up, admit you didn't realise and not use the term again. Entrenching your position in schoolboy excuses like "banter" and "having a laugh" doesn't reflect well on you at all.

FWIW, I don't have a particular problem with Jock, like others I just use it as shorthand to assume the person who said it is an arse. On the odd occasion abroad when I've been confused for English, on the other hand, I've been properly offended!

Why don't you and our other colonial masters

I say dissolve the lot. One out, all out.

unknown that's pretty well put some individuals find it offensive, if someone says they don't like it then apologise and stop using it their presence. Others don't find it offensive though so it could be used with them. Personally I never met a Scotsman who has been offended by it.

On the odd occasion abroad when I've been confused for English, on the other hand, I've been properly offended!

Why's that then? Wouldn't be anything to do with some kind of anti-English bigotry would it?

Y'know, i hear/see this term 'English colonialists' being mentioned and it raises a wry smile.
My personal condition is that of all the people i know who have spoken about this only two of them want Scotland to stay in the Union - and they are transposed Scots.
The rest are extremely in favour of Scottish Independence, so far from being colonialists it would seem many English are exactly the opposite when it comes to this subject. In fact, the one way the yes campaign could guarantee a win would be to include English voters in the referendum!

grum - Member

Why don't you and our other colonial masters

Nice stereotyping of English people there. Again - people claim independence has nothing to do with hating the English then rant on about how we're all bastards.

Scotland was treated as a resource of materials and labour for 300 years. Once heavy industry was finished and the oil had a shelf life, we are allowed the opp to leave.Oh,and show(feel free to quote) where I demonstrate that wanting self determination is a form of hating the English. Especially in the middle of a five page thread started on an abusive term for Scots.

You poor dear. Did you call the police to report the incident of inciting racial hatred?

No. But there's a way of shaking someone's hand while attacking a pressure point at the base of the thumb - do it hard enough and you can actually break their thumb. I didn't go that far.

It's not racist because being Scottish isn't a race. But it is annoying, lazy stereotyping, and a bit intimidating when surrounded by people doing it.

Scotland was treated as a resource of materials and labour for 300 years.

So was the NE, NW, Wales, the Black Country the list goes on.....

Even the vast majority Londoners have been exploited.

It's got nothing to do with being Scottish.

Personally I never met a Scotsman who has been offended by it.

Must be a lot of sensitive little flowers on STW.

Scotland was treated as a resource of materials and labour for 300 years. Once heavy industry was finished and the oil had a shelf life, we are allowed the opp to leave.Oh,and show(feel free to quote) where I demonstrate that wanting self determination is a form of hating the English. Especially in the middle of a five page thread started on an abusive term for Scots.

I'm not denying all sorts of legitimate grievances the Scottish might have including a pathetic no campaign - but referring to all English people as colonial masters is a bit of a weak and rude stereotype, as most of us have had precisely bugger all to do with it. Never mind that much of what gets blamed on the English was carried out with the full collusion of the Scottish great and good.

It's not racist because being Scottish isn't a race. But it is annoying, lazy stereotyping, and a bit intimidating when surrounded by people doing it.

I would argue it was probably intended in a friendlier/jokier manner than annoying, lazy stereotyping like calling English people 'colonial masters' which seems borne out of genuine bitterness.

winston_dog - Member

Scotland was treated as a resource of materials and labour for 300 years.

So was the NE, NW, Wales, the Black Country the list goes on.....

Even the vast majority Londoners have been exploited.

It's got nothing to do with being Scottish.

But we have an opportunity to do something about it.

But we have an opportunity to do something about it.

No you don't. The reality is that the vast majority are going to be exploited in a 21st Century style. The rich still get richer.

Unless Billy the Fish is going to create a workers utopia when he get's independence? Doesn't really tie in with reducing corporation tax does it?

But we have an opportunity to do something about it.

I'm genuinely pleased for you, and I am broadly in favour of independence despite some misgivings. However, why not stop with the 'us poor put upon Scots will finally be free of the evil English' routine, given that you're already in a better position than most people in England outside the SW?

[i]Personally I never met a Scotsman who has been offended by it.

Me neither......... until now!

Must be a lot of sensitive little flowers on STW.
[/i]

You can say that again!

On the odd occasion abroad when I've been confused for English, on the other hand, I've been properly offended!

In a pub is Slovakia last year, me and a mate had a very large and very pissed Yugoslavian* gentleman chest-bumping us and shouting in our faces that we were [i]"inglishhh pig dog motherfrankers"[/i].

A trip to the local A&E looked inevitable.

Fortunately we pointed out to him that we were in fact Scottish and suddenly we were his best mates 😀

It's a useful tool to have. Far less messy than glassing someone.

.

* Yes I know Yugoslavia doesn't exist any more, but that was how he self-identified and I wasn't going to argue.

Must be a lot of sensitive little flowers on STW.
You can say that again!

People used to say that (and some still do) about the term "****".

I grew up in Scotland using that term in all innocence.
(Often compounding the offence by using it to describe people from India).

When I realised it caused offence I just stopped using it.
I didn't say [i]"Aren't the ****s sensitive little flowers"[/i], y'see?

Personally I never met a Scotsman who has been offended by it.

Me neither......... until now!

Must be a lot of sensitive little flowers on STW.

You can say that again!

Offended is probably the wrong term.

What [i]irritates[/i], is being forced to talk to an English person who thinks it's OK to call you a "jock" within moments of meeting you. We don't get offended, just want to get away from having to talk to you asap.

I'm not sensitive in the slightest, but I do have a low tolerance for dickheads.

You haven't at all. I'm just not sure what World you live in.

One where I need to get along with a more diverse range of people, clearly our life experiences are a bit different, but I can base my thoughts and opinions on my own life and not much else...

Your "Clare in the community" (outing you as an R4 listener) reference sort of indicates how you percieve "people like me" who just don't really [I]do[/I] casual racism as a matter of course, I can't help it if I was raised to be nice... Fine then I'm a pinko, lefty, hand wringer if that makes me easier to understand, I'm still not going to stride round the office calling the people I work with "Jock", "Paddy" or "Taffty", I'd be quietly taken to one side and given a talking to...

Initially I had sort of agreed with one of your points, in as much as using an ostensibly "Racist" term between mates in the right context as "Banter" is on occasion acceptable. But you seem so keen on vehemently defending your right to call people names, and determines to drag Scottish independance into the mix, that I'd rather not think of myself as sharing your ideas on just about anything TBH.

People used to say that (and some still do) about the term "****".

FFS are you seriously comparing the two? I have never heard of any Scots getting their windows smashed for living in England? Or organisations putting up posters and handing out leaflets to get them to "go home"?

How the Scots occasionally treat English north of the border on the other hand....

Aye all the english love the Scots and treat them with respect and dignity and always have - just check the national anthem for proof off that one 😉

Its nothing like the level of abuse in the term **** that is a certainty as well but it may not always be banter.
Yes some folks on both sides dont like the other - its neither a Scottish or an English issues but an asshat issue , both "tribes " have them

clearly our life experiences are a bit different,

Your probably right there.

Last little project I did at work involved a team of 5, 1 Englishman, 1 Spaniard, 1 Aussie, 1 Filipino and 1 Singaporean.

I regularly work overseas with a completely random mix of nationalities. I am happy to use the terms Yank, Aussie, Kiwi, Jock, Paddy, Yarpi and similar. IME these words are not used in a particularly nasty way and 99% of the time are taken in the spirit they are used.

I do not use the words **** or Flip Flop or any obviously racist terms.

(outing you as an R4 listener)

🙂

FFS are you seriously comparing the two?

Yes, yes I am. Can you [i]seriously[/i] not see any parallel?

My school age self meant no offence and nothing derogatory by the term "****".
Considered purely as a word it was, and still is, an entirely reasonable way to shorten "****stani".
It has been made offensive because people repeatedly used it when intending offence.

Similarly many people here claim no offence by the term "Jock", despite several "Jocks" saying they don't like the term because in their experience it is used by someone intending to cause offence.

Drac - Moderator
unknown that's pretty well put some individuals find it offensive, if someone says they don't like it then apologise and stop using it their presence. Others don't find it offensive though so it could be used with them. Personally I never met a Scotsman who has been offended by it.

Largely I agree, and I generally live my life that way, when dealing with reasonable people but there is a line where some people just get offended by everything so it then doesn't particularly apply as they are just taking the concept beyond the extreme. Particularly people getting offended when humour is involved in a fairly benign way.

Point in case is people getting offended by getting called a Jock, as technically I'm a Scotman(I don't put a lot of stock in nationalism in a person identity sense) and I know of no-one in 'real life' that would get offended by the comment either.

ps, re the use of **** understood, never knew that was frowned upon.

Putting arguments for and against Jock being perjorative aside for a moment, isn't it a bit, well, old fashioned? If I was introduced to someone, heard a Scottish accent, and said 'oh, you're a Jock!' I'd feel like a right bell-end

Putting arguments for and against Jock being perjorative aside for a moment, isn't it a bit, well, old fashioned? If I was introduced to someone, heard a Scottish accent, and said 'oh, you're a Jock!' I'd feel like a right bell-end

+1

The only thing I've noticed from this thread is that the Scottish don't like to be called Jocks, but seem to find it perfectly acceptable to slag the English off at every chance they get... How does that work...?

For what it's worth, I don't give a care in the world what anybody calls me, it's all down to how it's said. If they are a stranger or a friend, it's still down to the context...

And also, I have never called anyone a Jock with the intention of being offensive, and call me naive, but I didn't actually think the Scottish found that offensive. I stand corrected, and it's not something I will be doing again.

duckman - Member

Scotland was treated as a resource of materials and labour for 300 years.

samjgeorge86 - Member
The only thing I've noticed from this thread is that the Scottish don't like to be called Jocks, but seem to find it perfectly acceptable to slag the English off at every chance they get... How does that work...?

I am English and have lived in Glasgow for 14 years . When having a laugh with scotish friends I find referring to them as scotch gets a much better reaction than jock . For what it's worth I haven't noticed any rise in anti englishness recently . I have only ever had a couple of problems and to be honest most of them have been while alcohol and football have been involved

I know of no-one in 'real life' that would get offended by the comment either.

Offence has many degrees.

When a stranger calls me "a Jock" I don't run away crying or try to make something of it. I don't contact the local Race Relations department. I don't even write a stern letter to The Guardian.

I try to give them the benefit of the doubt and take it in good spirit.

But it's a mental mark in my book.

We're Aw Jock Tamson's bairns

seosamh77 - Member
works by you selectively reading only the bits you want to read in the thread!

Fair one, I gave up at by the middle of page 5. Still the same applies, the Scottish have their names for us that I'm sure are not meant in the nicest of manors, and seemingly, the term Jock is not seen as the politest of things. Why the need to bash each other along the way?

But it's a mental mark in my book.

This. There's a really nice regular who I've done quite a bit of work for over the years, always very friendly and chatty. But once he made a derogatory comment about a mutual acquaintance who was going through gender reassignment, so I now look at him a little differently.

However, why not stop with the 'us poor put upon Scots will finally be free of the evil English' routine, given that you're already in a better position than most people in England outside the SW?

Are you really that lazy Grum? I haven't done any of that,which is in contrast to your above post of how we are better off than lots of people (repeated by others above.) That doesn't matter,what matters is that we have a chance to decide if we want to stay in the UK. Rather than any hatred of the English,which is an accusation that has also been bandied about,I will be voting yes because I don't want my children to grow up in a country where a government without a single elected rep can introduce something like the poll tax up here first to test it out because nobody voted for them anyway.I also want Scotland to be in charge of it's own policies with regards to things like nuclear weapons,the Iraq war.If you define that as anything other than a desire to be governed by politicians who at least have to live here and so be slightly more accountable for their decisions,then you are way off the mark.
Oh and the colonial masters as defined in my first post that seems to have offended you so much,allow me to elaborate;for the purposes of this thread,Colonial masters; the Tory party,ruling from afar with no mandate at all from the Scottish people.

...I have never called anyone a Jock with the intention of being offensive, and call me naive, but I didn't actually think the Scottish found that offensive. I stand corrected, and it's not something I will be doing again.

Then this thread has benefitted at least one person...

I tend to notice (going back to my own limited life experience again, sorry) that the sort of oafish, Bell-Ends that tend to try and trivialize peoples objections to the use of certain terms, admonish them for being "sensitive little flowers", accusing them of "Not living in the real world" or loudly proclaim that they've never had any complaints from their target group, always have their own little buttons.
More often than not its simply being challenged on their own bigotry...

Clearly some on here have a problem with being told that using certain terms is offensive to others, rather than accept that fact and consider moderating their own behaviour, they seem to default to defending it with the same standard lines... Draw whatever conclusions you like from that...

Its wonderful really isn't it, the internet, arguably the most "Multicultural forum" of all, where people of widely differing backgrounds can come together, and discuss which derogatory terms just about squeak through the current filter of social acceptability... Fills you with hope for the future of our species doesn't it.

I also want Scotland to be in charge of it's own policies with regards to things like nuclear weapons

I fully understand those sentiments Duckman. Not sure voting yes, gives you the answer though. In the "honesty" box yesterday...

Buried in the detail of 670-page white paper on independence, launched in Glasgow by the Scottish first minister Alex Salmond, it emerged that his government wants to qualify its staunch nuclear free policy by saying that nuclear-armed vessels from Nato countries would be free to use its ports [b]on a confidential basis[/b].

And the blokes in Westminster are devious???? Be careful what you wish/vote for!!!

We're Aw Jock Tamson's bairns

😀

Aye, we're all Jock's.
Even if we're not all Jocks.

Yes, yes I am. Can you seriously not see any parallel?

large parts of England were used exactly the same way. More a case of the rulers of the land taking the mickey out of the masses than any anti scottishness(there would have been plenty scots that got their fill of the profits of that)

Duckman - I essentially agree with you about independence, but I think claiming there's not a hefty smattering of anti-English rhetoric in your posts is a bit disingenuous. As many have pointed out (including some Scots), the issue of exploitation of Scottish people and resources is really about power and class not nationality (unless of course you want to claim that the lowland Scottish nobility aren't 'real Scots' as some highlanders/islanders do).

Trying to frame it as all the fault of the nasty English is a pretty common fallacy, IME.

Oh and the colonial masters as defined in my first post that seems to have offended you so much,allow me to elaborate;for the purposes of this thread,Colonial masters; the Tory party,ruling from afar with no mandate at all from the Scottish people.

Funny you never mentioned that little caveat until now. 😉

@THM- That's already been discussed and dismissed in the independence thread. This "Danish position" has been open Yes campaign policy for some time. They've been so secretive about it that Salmond discussed it on Newsnight last year. Don't believe everything you read, even when you want to 😉

Those sneaky independencers spelling out absolutely bloody everything in tedious depth over several hundred pages!

ton - Member
no more than 'fat' is.

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
scotroutes - Member
Yes

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
BoardinBob - Member
Probably no more offensive than the collective name us "Jocks" use for the English...

POSTED 1 DAY AGO # REPORT-POST
fasthaggis - Member
Never bothered me when I was doon sooth ,I always had plenty smart arse comments to throw back.

I think this post could of finished after those first four replies. Sums up the different viewpoints quite well.

It was a genuine question that has fell into an "iScotland", "put up on Scots" debate.

Never knew I was such a bigot.

You need to MTFU, mate. Find some old ****stani or Jamaican jakey and tell them you know exactly what it was like for them in the 70s with the NF because someone called you "Jock".

🙄

You seem to have confused the term [i]"parallel"[/i] with the term [i]"exactly equivalent"[/i]. I'm guessing geometry isn't a strong point.

Here is a line: __
Here is another line: _________________________________________________

They are "parallel", but not of the same magnitude. Understand?

And FWIW you don't have to look too many generations back in history to see some fairly nasty behaviour towards the Scots people.

Well grum; again, please show my anti English rhetoric,I thought I had clarified my reasons for wanting independence As for exploitation of all; at least (some) people in England vote for the Tories.BTW In my Scotopia the North of England is welcome. You all have the same DNA thanks to the Border Reivers anyway.

fairly nasty behaviour towards the Irish people by the Scots people.

FTFY

Northwind - Member
@THM- That's already been discussed and dismissed in the independence thread. This "Danish position" has been open Yes campaign policy for some time. They've been so secretive about it that Salmond discussed it on Newsnight last year. Don't believe everything you read, even when you want to

see other thread! 😉

winston_dog - Member

fairly nasty behaviour towards the Irish people by the Scots people.

FTFY

Tannoy; S77 to the forum please! s77 to the forum please!

fairly nasty behaviour towards the Irish people by the Scots people.
FTFY

Indeed.

The difference is that I don't call an Irish man "Paddy" and I wouldn't think he was a "sensitive flower" for taking some offence if I did.

The difference is that I don't call an Irish man "Paddy" and I wouldn't think he was a "sensitive flower" for taking some offence if I did.

However, he may well refer to himself as such and often will. The same is true with the word Jock. Being the person that created the furore, I have to admit that in retrospect it wasn't good use of language in an online context. Ultimately there are two elements, that make a word perjorative. One being the intent, and the other being the offence caused by its use. As I discovered yesterday, it is possible for the latter to occur without the former, and for that reason I have apologised, and will think twice before using it again. In my household it has always been a term of endearment and absolutely not an insult. That however, does not make it so everywhere else, and thats the point.

If it offends its offensive. Simple really.

As I discovered yesterday, it is possible for the latter to occur without the former, and for that reason I have apologised, and will think twice before using it again.

I suggest that's because you're not a dick.

If it offends its offensive. Simple really.

In some ways, though, I have a problem with this - because some people are delicate flowers and take offense at anything 😉

What I mean is that just because one person or group finds something offensive doesn't automatically make it offensive. The test really is would an impartial observer (if you can find one) say that it is offensive, and for that I think intent has to come into it in some way.

I don't find "jock" offensive, by the way - I actually don't find much of anything offensive. It might colour my perception of you if you were to use it to my face, but I wouldn't be offended.

However, he may well refer to himself as such and often will. The same is true with the word Jock.

[img] [/img]

I hear ya. 😉

If it offends its offensive. Simple really.

But this thread shows it's anything but simple.

I fully understand that some people will take offence when others don't expect them to and that words can be dangerous and harmful. Context is key.

However, there is always someone somewhere who is offended or looking to note their disgust and upset, Daily Wail anyone?

My Jack Russell is called Jock, and yes he's Scottish

Shall I change his name, may confuse him though

My Jack Russell is called Jock, and yes he's Scottish

Nothing wrong with that IMO.
Jock is a name. A traditional Scottish one at that.

It's the equivalent of calling your dog John.

The difference is that I don't call an Irish man "Paddy" and I wouldn't think he was a "sensitive flower" for taking some offence if I did.

However, he may well refer to himself as such and often will. The same is true with the word Jock. Being the person that created the furore, I have to admit that in retrospect it wasn't good use of language in an online context. Ultimately there are two elements, that make a word perjorative. One being the intent, and the other being the offence caused by its use. As I discovered yesterday, it is possible for the latter to occur without the former, and for that reason I have apologised, and will think twice before using it again. In my household it has always been a term of endearment and absolutely not an insult. That however, does not make it so everywhere else, and thats the point.

If it offends its offensive. Simple really.

And as it was me who made the initial complaint, it's only fair I say to Berm Bandit: thanks and respect.

My initial description of it as 'offensive' was probably overstating it somewhat, 'derogatory' would probably have been a better choice of word. I won't go into how the word makes me feel personally, but I was nodding in agreement reading Peterfile's posts earlier in the thread.

Some folk do seem to be spectacularly missing the point though, re folk actually called John/Jock 🙄

FWIW, any Scot given to calling the English names isn't worthy of my time/respect either. Mutual respect ++.