Cycling UK Forum

pete75 wrote:

Cugel wrote:

pete75 wrote:
Yeah but if deriding a group such as cyclists was to be made illegal or non grata the same might well apply to deriding "motrons" as a group.
There's some hypocrisy in this thread about derision of cyclists when a poster uses terms of abuse like Ned(Glaswegian for chav) and Jakey - an abusive Scottish term analogous to the English Pikey but directed against people even lower down the social order. I guess there's also hypocrisy from those who deride motorists here when they are themselves car owners. I don't share their anti car prejudice but if I did wouldn't have a car and adapt life accordingly.

A Ned is any person who .... behaves like a Ned. The status is voluntary and therefore a legitimate state for mockery should one find Ned behaviours egregious. Anyone can be a Ned or not-be a Ned.

"Jakey" is Weegie for "a habitually drunken person actually or bordering on being an alcoholic, with associated egregious behaviours resultant" and nothing to do with that other unpleasant term you mentioned. Again, the choice is made by that person, who may choose the alternative and thus become not-a-jakey.

Motons are not so much car owners as those who drive them like morons - another definition based on egregious and highly dangerous behaviour, not some involuntary condition; or even the voluntary condition of owning and driving a car (which may be done considerately and carefully).

***********

I feel you need to get a better grasp of these taxonomies and nomenclatures so that you can differentiate those that are defined by voluntarily bad behaviour from those that refer to involuntary conditions such as sexual orientation or skin colour. They are not the same sort of names and they are not used to express the same sort of derision or disapproval.

So there.

Cugel

I was unaware what teh term jakey meant so I looked it up. According to the Oxford living dictionary a jakey is a homeless person or tramp especially one who habitually drinks large quantities of alcohol. As I said someone even lower down the scale than those some call a pikey. They may drink a lot which may well be a result of their living conditions. You really think many homeless people choose to be so.
The same source describes a Ned as a stupid or loutish boy or man. People have no choice over either their birth sex or level of intelligence.
Both are derogatory terms used to describe certain groups of people.
Using your definition of choice it would be fine to use the term pikey as applied to travellers. That lifestyle is a choice is it not?

It's an interesting point, isn't it, as to whether we have free will or not; whether we can choose or not to behave this way or that. I admit to an inclination to see we humans as not nearly so able to choose as we believe. We are indeed driven by dark inner forces that often overwhelm the small control of ourselves we seem to have.

Nevertheless, our whole society and it's modes of interaction, co-operation, control and other features necessary for living together in an association that's in some fashion civilised is based on the idea that we do have some degree of choice and therefore some degree of responsibility for our actions. Moreover, even if we don't have as much as we think, that doesn't necessarily remove the usefulness of controls like mockery-by-name-calling for changing the behaviour of those who are a serious nuisance or worse.

The Weegie notion of a jakey is not so much about being homeless as being a drunkard. The sometimes-homelessness is regarded as possibly one consequence of being a drunkard - along with the other consequences such as being pestilential to everyone else. It doesn't refer to people who are homeless but sober. It doesn't refer to what used to be known as tramps. Jakey is a term of disapprobation reserved for the habitually drunken who go about committing minor crimes to get their grog-money; who perform low-level abuse or assault on passers-by; who cost the rest of society not because they've also become homeless but because they are drunks.

Did they choose to be drunks or is that outside their human apparatus of self-control? That's a good question with a difficult and partial set of answers - which might be wrong. In all events, mocking their behaviour is one potential method of persuading them to change. It would be preferable if the mockery were also accompanied by practical help and means to change. But don't dismiss the power of mockery.

You raise a straw man with your "pikey" comment. That's a term applied to travellers of any and every sort by those who enjoy stereotyping groups they have made pariah or scapegoat for some angst they suffer. Travellers, like the rest of us, come in all kinds and are not really a group except in their inclination to be peripatetic. There are some very nice ones about - I know because I have various relationships with various people who you might call "pikey". There are some nasty ones too. There are nasty folk (some very nasty) who look the epitome of "respectability".

And whilst I'm here ... As you have now noted yourself, a Ned is not the same thing as "chav" - another derogatory term used by Daily Hate Mail readers and their ilk to demonise those who have been degraded and abandoned by our current socio-economic hegemony. "Chav" generally equates to a combination of "the underclass" and those who dress in a certain crude fashion. Of themselves they are not a nuisance to the rest of us even if their shell suit and inclination to talk loudly is distasteful.

A Ned is a young hooligan who delights in small crimes (sometimes large ones) against all and sundry, especially the weak and defenceless of their own community or locale. A bit like that "journalist" with his cyclist-hating article.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:You raise a straw man with your "pikey" comment. That's a term applied to travellers of any and every sort by those who enjoy stereotyping groups they have made pariah or scapegoat for some angst they suffer. Travellers, like the rest of us, come in all kinds and are not really a group except in their inclination to be peripatetic. There are some very nice ones about - I know because I have various relationships with various people who you might call "pikey". There are some nasty ones too. There are nasty folk (some very nasty) who look the epitome of "respectability".

And whilst I'm here ... As you have now noted yourself, a Ned is not the same thing as "chav" - another derogatory term used by Daily Hate Mail readers and their ilk to demonise those who have been degraded and abandoned by our current socio-economic hegemony. "Chav" generally equates to a combination of "the underclass" and those who dress in a certain crude fashion. Of themselves they are not a nuisance to the rest of us even if their shell suit and inclination to talk loudly is distasteful.

A Ned is a young hooligan who delights in small crimes (sometimes large ones) against all and sundry, especially the weak and defenceless of their own community or locale. A bit like that "journalist" with his cyclist-hating article.

Cugel

The only thing that makes the pikey comment straw man is you calling it one - in other words it isn't. There is a type of traveller called a did(short for diddecoy) in these parts . They're people who choose to live like gypsies but aren't. Using your logic that it's ok to deride people for a lifestyle or whatever that's their own choice then it's ok to call dids pikeys but wrong to call gypsies teh same because they have no choice about their Romany heritage.

I didn't say a Ned is not the same thing as a Chav. They're virtually identical.
From https://wikidiff.com/ned/chav

'As nouns the difference between ned and chav is that ned is (scotland|slang|pejorative|offensive) a person, usually a youth, of low social standing and education, a violent disposition and with a particular style of dress (typically sportswear or burberry), speech and behaviour while chav is (uk|pejorative|offensive) a working-class youth, especially one associated with aggression, poor education, and a perceived "common" taste in clothing and lifestyle. '

pete75 wrote:

Cugel wrote:You raise a straw man with your "pikey" comment. That's a term applied to travellers of any and every sort by those who enjoy stereotyping groups they have made pariah or scapegoat for some angst they suffer. Travellers, like the rest of us, come in all kinds and are not really a group except in their inclination to be peripatetic. There are some very nice ones about - I know because I have various relationships with various people who you might call "pikey". There are some nasty ones too. There are nasty folk (some very nasty) who look the epitome of "respectability".

And whilst I'm here ... As you have now noted yourself, a Ned is not the same thing as "chav" - another derogatory term used by Daily Hate Mail readers and their ilk to demonise those who have been degraded and abandoned by our current socio-economic hegemony. "Chav" generally equates to a combination of "the underclass" and those who dress in a certain crude fashion. Of themselves they are not a nuisance to the rest of us even if their shell suit and inclination to talk loudly is distasteful.

A Ned is a young hooligan who delights in small crimes (sometimes large ones) against all and sundry, especially the weak and defenceless of their own community or locale. A bit like that "journalist" with his cyclist-hating article.

Cugel

The only thing that makes the pikey comment straw man is you calling it one - in other words it isn't. There is a type of traveller called a did(short for diddecoy) in these parts . They're people who choose to live like gypsies but aren't. Using your logic that it's ok to deride people for a lifestyle or whatever that's their own choice then it's ok to call dids pikeys but wrong to call gypsies teh same because they have no choice about their Romany heritage.

I didn't say a Ned is not the same thing as a Chav. They're virtually identical.
From https://wikidiff.com/ned/chav

'As nouns the difference between ned and chav is that ned is (scotland|slang|pejorative|offensive) a person, usually a youth, of low social standing and education, a violent disposition and with a particular style of dress (typically sportswear or burberry), speech and behaviour while chav is (uk|pejorative|offensive) a working-class youth, especially one associated with aggression, poor education, and a perceived "common" taste in clothing and lifestyle. '

I didn't argue that it's OK to deride people for "a lifestyle" I suggested that egregious and damaging behaviours to others can (and should) be mocked and called into question by employing a pejorative term for their egregious behaviour. Personally I am a rabid multiculturalist avidly in favour of difference - as long as the difference doesn't destroy the opportunities and lifestyles of others. Put another way, I am intolerant of the intolerant - a paradox, I realise.

Your definition found for "chav" and for "Ned" is incorrect. Many of those styled chav are innocuous and merely adopt a certain lifestyle, generally no harm to the lifestyles of others except intolerant fashionistas and the sorts who believe their own lifestyle is the only legitimate choice. A Ned is, by definition, defined by his male, youthful, criminalistics behaviour towards others. The dress style and other aspects are co-incidental.

You need to bone-up on your Weegie.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

pete75 wrote:
I didn't say a Ned is not the same thing as a Chav. They're virtually identical.
From https://wikidiff.com/ned/chav

'As nouns the difference between ned and chav is that ned is (scotland|slang|pejorative|offensive) a person, usually a youth, of low social standing and education, a violent disposition and with a particular style of dress (typically sportswear or burberry), speech and behaviour while chav is (uk|pejorative|offensive) a working-class youth, especially one associated with aggression, poor education, and a perceived "common" taste in clothing and lifestyle. '

Your definition found for "chav" and for "Ned" is incorrect. Many of those styled chav are innocuous and merely adopt a certain lifestyle, generally no harm to the lifestyles of others except intolerant fashionistas and the sorts who believe their own lifestyle is the only legitimate choice. A Ned is, by definition, defined by his male, youthful, criminalistics behaviour towards others. The dress style and other aspects are co-incidental.

You need to bone-up on your Weegie.

Cugel

You're Humpty Dumpty and I claim my five pounds.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

mjr wrote:Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

Who has the authority to decide what is right or wrong? This isnt Germany with a Duden, so you can authoritatively say that something is right or wrong because the Duden says so.
In the absence of such an authoritative book the OED is as valid a determination as anything else.
They think that they are that authoritative source.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10416612/

It should be said that the Sunday Herald has a steadily diminishing readership. I have not bought it for years now and how much longer it can continue is open to question. The readership are probably all dropping off due to old age.

mjr wrote:Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

duplicate post

mjr wrote:Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

Give some examples please. It gives comprehensive reference to the earliest known usages of words and examples of their usage since first used. This seems a good way of showing their meaning - backed up with evidence from literature etc.

Meanings, usages, interpretations can change quite quickly

meic wrote:

mjr wrote:Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

Who has the authority to decide what is right or wrong? This isnt Germany with a Duden, so you can authoritatively say that something is right or wrong because the Duden says so.
In the absence of such an authoritative book the OED is as valid a determination as anything else.
They think that they are that authoritative source.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/10416612/

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

I agree with the first half of the post: this isn't France with the Academie française. English belongs to its speakers not its lexicographers and there is no single authoritative book.

I disagree with the second half: OED has been wrong far too often to be trusted and isn't authoritative just because it asserts the claim. English has no single authoritative dictionary, fortunately.

pete75 wrote:

mjr wrote:Not entirely. Oxford dictionaries are often wrong and should not be trusted IMO.

Give some examples please. It gives comprehensive reference to the earliest known usages of words and examples of their usage since first used. This seems a good way of showing their meaning - backed up with evidence from literature etc.

The most recent one I was reminded of was "staycation" which OED incorrectly defined as broadly the same as domestic-country tourism, rather than its 2005 first use to mean home-based vacations (for which the OED seems to have no word?).

mjr wrote:The most recent one I was reminded of was "staycation" which OED incorrectly defined as broadly the same as domestic-country tourism, rather than its 2005 first use to mean home-based vacations (for which the OED seems to have no word?).

I've heard staycation used most often using the first definition eg travelling to somewhere here like Skeg for a holiday instead of going abroad. The words for your second definition of staying at home for your holiday are time off work or even we're not going on holiday this year.

Both are true

pete75 wrote:

mjr wrote:The most recent one I was reminded of was "staycation" which OED incorrectly defined as broadly the same as domestic-country tourism, rather than its 2005 first use to mean home-based vacations (for which the OED seems to have no word?).

I've heard staycation used most often using the first definition eg travelling to somewhere here like Skeg for a holiday instead of going abroad. The words for your second definition of staying at home for your holiday are time off work or even we're not going on holiday this year.

Of course you'll hear the incorrect usage in this country because the OED has been spreading it! How do they justify that in your version with "comprehensive references"? The free version cites no sources for its definition.

mjr wrote:

pete75 wrote:

mjr wrote:The most recent one I was reminded of was "staycation" which OED incorrectly defined as broadly the same as domestic-country tourism, rather than its 2005 first use to mean home-based vacations (for which the OED seems to have no word?).

I've heard staycation used most often using the first definition eg travelling to somewhere here like Skeg for a holiday instead of going abroad. The words for your second definition of staying at home for your holiday are time off work or even we're not going on holiday this year.

Of course you'll hear the incorrect usage in this country because the OED has been spreading it! How do they justify that in your version with "comprehensive references"? The free version cites no sources for its definition.

You need to look at the full version for the full range of sources and references.
.
What the free online OED actually says is "A holiday spent in one's home country rather than abroad, or one spent at home and involving day trips to local attractions." so you're wrong when you say the OED has no word for home based vacations, it has - staycation.

Who has decided the correct version - you?