Well you would say that
get tae fuck. Jock is not a racist term 
The Official Scottish Rugby Thread
I think it is. It’s a low-level racial slur.
It might well be in pervasive use in the Army, but I really don’t think that proves it isn’t.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Likewise never had an issue with 'Jock', but given 'Sweaty' is short for 'Sweaty Cock' (hilarious rhythming slang) I have never liked it. But as Slick mentions, usually used by people who are themselves cocks so perhaps they are just to be pitied.
So I've been racially abusing one of my good mates all these years?
FFS get a grip and grow some skin
It's Sweaty Sock actually.
Ignorant and thin-skinned - what a combo.
It’s really not, and happily call myself a Sweaty, it’s more when that particular type of Englishman uses it thinking he’s a) hilarious, b) your mate, c) the mayor of banterbury. Other than that, not a thing.
The one that does annoy me though is Scotch.
Think it's sock but regardless its just shite banter.
I have definitely seen it used in the context of 'Sweaty Cock', but am prepared to stand corrected.Jock42 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:18 amThink it's sock but regardless its just shite banter.
Think you may have got mixed up with Toga
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Fuck off from our thread you cuntKawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:32 amTichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:52 amThose terms are not racist, but they are xenophobic.HKCJ wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:17 am I fully concur with the opinion that Toga should fcuk the fcuk off with his poor trolling but are we really saying Jock and Sweaty are racist terms now? I always took them as a compliment growing up (and I dare say as a child of Scottish parents in South London I heard it a lot more than those up here). If people are honestly taking offence at those terms then in the words of that mad old bastard Bulldog people really do need to grow a spine.
It takes a spine to say "No, I won't accept it", stand up to it, tell the people who put you down with those terms that it will not wash, they can fuck the fuck off.
The terms are not complimentary, they are only used to belittle, like Paddy, Taff, Paki... I could go on but it can only get worse from there
You were a winger weren't you.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
A marker off a day today .....after taking my kids to many games, my 21 year old daughter is off to the game with her new beau. He is supplying the tickets. She has been with the girlies but going to the game with a boy ... gulp, must be serious!!
Romans said ....Illegitimi non carborundum --- Today we say .. WTF
Yep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
. I’ve already considered this day with trepidation and my daughter is 3All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 amYep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
Is the Scottish 'race' a different 'race' to the English 'race'?
What about different counties?
So you're equating Jock with the use of the "n" word and equally unacceptable?Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 amYep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
FFS my mate's wife calls him Jock and he introduces himself as Jock
Get the fuck out of our thread and take your rancid bait with you.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:04 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 amYep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
Is the Scottish 'race' a different 'race' to the English 'race'?
What about different counties?
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
I’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:29 pmSo you're equating Jock with the use of the "n" word and equally unacceptable?Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 amYep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
FFS my mate's wife calls him Jock and he introduces himself as Jock
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
-
I like neeps
- Posts: 3585
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am
The guys who aren't stage 3 or super 6 starlet Duncan Munn appear in the premiership quite a bit. You'll see Scougall, Huddleston, Sinjin Broad on team sheets.
But no it seems to he even though most of them (only Cunningham, Townsend, Tait and Munn appeared much) weren't getting regular minutes the rules make it quite challenging for them to play premiership as there's draft mechanisms etc.
The Super6 was entertaining but it didn't really act as a development tool for the under20s as not many played nor did it act as a bridge as none of the better players ever play for the pro clubs. It's going to take a good few years before we see it come good if at all. And in that team we need to find ways for young guys to play we can't stake youth development on it working.
Last edited by I like neeps on Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fuck off from our thread you cuntKawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:04 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 amYep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
Is the Scottish 'race' a different 'race' to the English 'race'?
What about different counties?
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:44 pmI’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)SaintK wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:29 pmSo you're equating Jock with the use of the "n" word and equally unacceptable?Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 11:57 am
Yep - that’s exactly what they said about every single other racial epithet that has since become unacceptable. It’s banter. It’s harmless. It’s affectionate. They don’t mind.
Of course I’m not saying you mean to racially abuse your mate. I’m sure you do mean it affectionately and I expect he doesn’t mind - though it’s worth pointing out that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t prefer it if you didn’t. But that’s not the point. All of the terms mentioned were considered acceptable once, but times move on and people start to realise that making fun of people based on their race really isn’t OK, even if it’s genuinely meant in jest. There are hundreds of terms that used to be commonplace but would jar horribly if used now - ‘spastic’ is a good example of a non-racial one.
Is ‘Jock’ a racial term? Yes, it is. Is it sometimes used affectionately? Yes. Is it always used affectionately? Hell no. Does it differ, in any of these characteristics, from any of the racial terms now considered offensive? No.
FFS my mate's wife calls him Jock and he introduces himself as Jock
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
You are absolutely clueless as to what racism is and how language etymology works.
Fuck off from our thread you cuntKawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:00 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:44 pmI’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
You are absolutely clueless as to what racism is and how language etymology works.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Nobody here has the slightest interest in what you think about this, or anything else. So fuck off.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:00 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:44 pmI’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
You are absolutely clueless as to what racism is and how language etymology works.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:06 pmNobody here has the slightest interest in what you think about this, or anything else. So fuck off.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:00 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:44 pm
I’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
You are absolutely clueless as to what racism is and how language etymology works.
Stay ignorant then, it's in your dna afterall.
-
Zapp Bannigan
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:09 am
enough with the rubbish noise on this thread, thread title is Scottish Rugby, stay on topic or i will be forced to wield the hammer
When I die, I want HUMBLE carved on the base of my statue.
It’s nice that there’s something we can all agree on
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
He’s the English Derwyn, a cancer so desperate for attention that he’d rather be known as a cunt than not known at all.Yr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:06 pmNobody here has the slightest interest in what you think about this, or anything else. So fuck off.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 1:00 pmYr Alban wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 12:44 pm
I’m saying it comes from exactly the same stable of words. The ‘n’ word was an acceptable usage once too. (Also worth observing that it seems to be used a lot WITHIN the black community, if films, TV and music are any guide, so your mate’s use of it could be said to be a different matter. Perhaps he got fed up being called Jock uninvited and adopted it as a badge of honour. He wouldn’t be the first if so. Have you ever asked him?)
The issue isn’t that everyone who uses any of these words means them badly. But some people do, and if they are considered acceptable descriptors for people, that makes it easier for these people to conceal their real racist attitudes under a blanket of ‘just banter’. And if you call it out, the immediate and invariable response is a variation on ‘can’t you take a joke?’ which has already cropped up a few times during this discussion.
The best response to your question is ‘why isn’t it, then?’ What is it that makes calling people ‘Jocks’ OK, when the n-word is anathema, ‘Pakis’ isn’t acceptable, and even ‘Frogs’ now marks the person using it as a bit tedious and casually racist?
You are absolutely clueless as to what racism is and how language etymology works.
-
Zapp Bannigan
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 11:09 am
enough, last warning, next one gets 24 hours in the cooler, no matter who they are
When I die, I want HUMBLE carved on the base of my statue.
They also inflict Shane Williams on us. He's beyond dull.
So I squares up, casual like.
-
sockwithaticket
- Posts: 8665
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am
I worry the deciding factor will be the advantages England have in Dombrandt, Ford and Nowell over the Scotish alternative. Bradbury has been better this year but Dombrandt is better.
I'm leaning towards England by 5 or 6. May just be pre match pessimism though.
I'm leaning towards England by 5 or 6. May just be pre match pessimism though.
I agree, i think the bench will be the differentialBig D wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 2:51 pm I worry the deciding factor will be the advantages England have in Dombrandt, Ford and Nowell over the Scotish alternative. Bradbury has been better this year but Dombrandt is better.
I'm leaning towards England by 5 or 6. May just be pre match pessimism though.