Is the term "Jock" offensive or racist?

Viewing 26 posts - 201 through 226 (of 226 total)
  • Is the term "Jock" offensive or racist?
  • 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?

    bencooper
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon duckman
    Subscriber

    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.

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    …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 on a confidential basis.

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

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    We’re Aw Jock Tamson’s bairns

    πŸ˜€

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

    konabunny
    Member

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

    You need to MTFU, mate. Find some old Pakistani 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”. It might be the best gag they’ve heard all week.

    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)

    Well, quite. There’s no shortage of Scottish names on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_colonial_governors_and_administrators . Although you do have Sir Eustace Twisleton-Wykeham-Fiennes, which is probably worth five Camerons on its own!

    grum
    Member

    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. πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    @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 πŸ˜‰

    konabunny
    Member

    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.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    You need to MTFU, mate. Find some old Pakistani 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”.

    πŸ™„

    You seem to have confused the term “parallel” with the term “exactly equivalent”. 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.

    Premier Icon duckman
    Subscriber

    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! πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon duckman
    Subscriber

    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!

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    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.

    ransos
    Member

    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.

    bencooper
    Member

    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 πŸ˜‰

    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.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

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

    I hear ya. πŸ˜‰

    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?

    Swelper
    Member

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

    Shall I change his name, may confuse him though

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    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.

    vorlich
    Member

    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 πŸ™„

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

Viewing 26 posts - 201 through 226 (of 226 total)

The topic ‘Is the term "Jock" offensive or racist?’ is closed to new replies.