Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Scrabble to ban the word "culchie" in America.

124

Comments

  • #152
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    No - I'm pointing out the irony in the scrabble guy's comment.

    If you accept culchie is an insult (which it's not), then ginger is an insult. There's more ginger-specific jokes than culchie-specific ones (here's one on the YLYL thread only yesterday in fact, and there was an entire South Park episode on ginger kids too)

    So you can't ban culchie and suggest that ginger is a suitable word for scrabble.

    Now my view is that neither is really a serious insult - hence no contradiction (it's at worst childish schoolyard slagging). I just wanted to point out the contradiction inherent in the scrabble guy's point.

    BTW, you as a redhead saying you don't feel offended by the word ginger isn't really a quorum. It's no different to me, as someone who lives outside Dublin, saying I don't feel offended by the word culchie)


  • #153
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    No - I'm pointing out the irony in the scrabble guy's comment.

    If you accept culchie is an insult (which it's not), then ginger is an insult. There's more ginger-specific jokes than culchie-specific ones (here's one on the YLYL thread only yesterday in fact, and there was an entire South Park episode on ginger kids too)

    So you can't ban culchie and suggest that ginger is a suitable word for scrabble.

    Now my view is that neither is really a serious insult - hence no contradiction (it's at worst childish schoolyard slagging). I just wanted to point out the contradiction inherent in the scrabble guy's point.

    You're logic is totally inconsistent, some of the time (here and in other posts) you're saying culchie is an insult albeit a small one then you're saying it's not.
    BTW, you as a redhead saying you don't feel offended by the word ginger isn't really a quorum. It's no different to me, as someone who lives outside Dublin, saying I don't feel offended by the word culchie)

    It's not a quorum but we're not at an AGM either. Also, being a redhead unquestionably makes me a ginger but you living outside Dublin or me being a ruralite (and from a farm to boot) doesn't necessarily make us culchies given a common definition is "an unsophisticated country person", however in my case at least it does give me some insight into what being called or considered a culchie feels like.
    .


  • #154
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Vita nova wrote: »
    You're logic is totally inconsistent, some of the time (here and in other posts) you're saying culchie is an insult albeit a small one then you're saying it's not.
    It really isn't.

    Look - your starting point was to say that "While culchie isn't necessarily used as an insult, it can definitely be used as one."

    Now first off, there's no way you can make that argument and yet deny that the same applies to "ginger". That makes no sense. I've shown that - particularly South Park taking it as a strong enough cultural reference to base an entire show on - and to say that "ginger" (particularly with a hard G at the start and rhyming with "singer") isn't "remotely as insulting" as culchie (about which you feel strongly enough to tell someone to "go jump in a lake" if they use it incorrectly) is to deny any sort of reality I think. I would argue they're on the same level - i.e. really not very.

    I've also pointed out the nature of the Irish insult, in that we often use insults as a way to bond - hence allowing the idea that an insult can actually often the exact opposite.

    On your side, your argument is based on an unclear etymology which assumes cultural biases from hundreds of years ago (and no reason given as to why they should still stand), and a suggestion that your hair colour makes you an authority on the term "ginger"

    I'm happy which is the stronger argument on this not-at-all important topic.


  • #155
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    It really isn't.

    Look - your starting point was to say that "While culchie isn't necessarily used as an insult, it can definitely be used as one."

    Now first off, there's no way you can make that argument and yet deny that the same applies to "ginger". That makes no sense. I've shown that - particularly South Park taking it as a strong enough cultural reference to base an entire show on - and to say that "ginger" (particularly with a hard G at the start and rhyming with "singer") isn't "remotely as insulting" as culchie (about which you feel strongly enough to tell someone to "go jump in a lake" if they use it incorrectly) is to deny any sort of reality I think. I would argue they're on the same level - i.e. really not very.

    I've also pointed out the nature of the Irish insult, in that we often use insults as a way to bond - hence allowing the idea that an insult can actually often the exact opposite.

    On your side, your argument is based on an unclear etymology which assumes cultural biases from hundreds of years ago (and no reason given as to why they should still stand), and a suggestion that your hair colour makes you an authority on the term "ginger"

    I'm happy which is the stronger argument on this not-at-all important topic.
    I don't agree with your interpretations of what I said, and it's clear that you don't agree with my interpretations of what you said, it's also clear that we're not converging on anything, so as we were I guess.


  • #156
    riclad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    culchie is not an insult, its a slang word ,like brummie is slang for a person from north england ,bermingham area, or maybe cockney is a word for someone from the east end of london.
    Theres plenty of irish slang words for people that are real insults like bogger If they want to ban them ,thats ok.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    riclad wrote: »
    culchie is not an insult, its a slang word ,like brummie is slang for a person from north england ,bermingham area, or maybe cockney is a word for someone from the east end of london.
    Theres plenty of irish slang words for people that are real insults like bogger If they want to ban them ,thats ok.

    I wouldn’t even consider “bogger” an insult. I’d know lads from the bog who’d call themselves “boggers”.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #158
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Vita nova wrote: »
    I don't agree with your interpretations of what I said, and it's clear that you don't agree with my interpretations of what you said, it's also clear that we're not converging on anything, so as we were I guess.
    That's fair enough. I'd have preferred if you had brought more to the discussion than "Culchie is an insult because it may have come from one of these four meanings a couple of hundred years ago", and "Ginger isn't an insult because I have red hair" though.


  • #159
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    riclad wrote: »
    culchie is not an insult, its a slang word ,like brummie is slang for a person from north england ,bermingham area, or maybe cockney is a word for someone from the east end of london.
    Theres plenty of irish slang words for people that are real insults like bogger If they want to ban them ,thats ok.

    It's very subjective, what's not an insult to you may be to someone else even if you just use it as a regional descriptor as you indicated. As for bogger or bogtrotter, I've always considered them too ridiculous to be taken as anything other than a joke.


  • #160
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    That's fair enough. I'd have preferred if you had brought more to the discussion than "Culchie is an insult because it may have come from one of these four meanings a couple of hundred years ago", and "Ginger isn't an insult because I have red hair" though.
    That's an even more ridiculous interpretation of what I said than your previous summation, it's farcical. It's also the incorrect use of quotes as I literally did not say any of those things.


  • #161
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    You didn't use those exact words, but you did make those exact points. Your exact words were "While culchie isn't necessarily used as an insult, it can definitely be used as one. [...] I'm aware of four possible etymologies for the word and only one of them is somewhat neutral; I'm not going to outline them here but they're easy to find on the web", which is all you really have to offer on the offensiveness of the term, and "Not even remotely! and I say that as a red haired ruralite", which was your entire counter-argument to my suggestion that "ginger" was on a par with "culchie" as a (very minor, often good-natured) insult.

    Anyways, I think there's general agreement on the thread (and on the Moncrieff show) that "culchie" isn't really a serious insult at all (once you get away from the fact that any word can be an insult if you want it to be)

    Edit - in fact, I see only a fortnight ago you were making the same anti-culchie argument on the "What words should be banned?" thread, again with almost everyone else disagreeing. And in a nice coincidence, the post immediately following yours is slagging gingers, though you didn't notice that.

    I think the term "culchie" is just something you have a bee in your bonnet over, tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    nthclare
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭nthclare


    I've been called a lot of things and seriously I couldn't give a toss.
    Slagging is ok slander and bullying is a different story.

    If someone is offended by someone calling them a bogger or culchie, jackeen what ever so what get over it.

    If I ever see someone slagging someone off I don't get offended by the banter or go all excited or white knight about it.

    It's a bit of a laugh.
    Validating myself on what people slag me off about is totally off my radar.
    I enjoy it, it's great.


  • #163
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    nthclare wrote: »
    I've been called a lot of things and seriously I couldn't give a toss.
    Slagging is ok slander and bullying is a different story.

    If someone is offended by someone calling them a bogger or culchie, jackeen what ever so what get over it.

    If I ever see someone slagging someone off I don't get offended by the banter or go all excited or white knight about it.

    It's a bit of a laugh.
    Validating myself on what people slag me off about is totally off my radar.
    I enjoy it, it's great.

    Swamp Donkey!







    ;)


  • #164
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    You didn't use those exact words, but you did make those exact points. Your exact words were "While culchie isn't necessarily used as an insult, it can definitely be used as one. [...] I'm aware of four possible etymologies for the word and only one of them is somewhat neutral; I'm not going to outline them here but they're easy to find on the web", which is all you really have to offer on the offensiveness of the term, and "Not even remotely! and I say that as a red haired ruralite", which was your entire counter-argument to my suggestion that "ginger" was on a par with "culchie" as a (very minor, often good-natured) insult.

    Anyways, I think there's general agreement on the thread (and on the Moncrieff show) that "culchie" isn't really a serious insult at all (once you get away from the fact that any word can be an insult if you want it to be)

    Edit - in fact, I see only a fortnight ago you were making the same anti-culchie argument on the "What words should be banned?" thread, again with almost everyone else disagreeing. And in a nice coincidence, the post immediately following yours is slagging gingers, though you didn't notice that.

    I think the term "culchie" is just something you have a bee in your bonnet over, tbh.
    Man oh man, just give it a rest, as I said previously, it's pretty obvious there won't be a meeting of minds on this subject. I'm sitting here drinking a glass of wine and watching an interesting programme on the origin of the universe... you should relax as well.

    Given that this post is written under the influence of alcohol, I may delete it tomorrow morning... just telling you in advance.


  • #165
    SlowMotion321
    Registered Users Posts: 415 ✭✭SlowMotion321


    Vita nova wrote: »
    Man oh man, just give it a rest, as I said previously, it's pretty obvious there won't be a meeting of minds on this subject. I'm sitting here drinking a glass of wine and watching an interesting programme on the origin of the universe... you should relax as well.

    Given that this post is written under the influence of alcohol, I may delete it tomorrow morning... just telling you in advance.

    For posterity! :D


  • #166
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    SlowMotion321 wrote: »
    For posterity! :D
    May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits.


  • #167
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Vita nova wrote: »
    Man oh man, just give it a rest, as I said previously, it's pretty obvious there won't be a meeting of minds on this subject.
    That's fine - but as I say, I'd just rather you'd brought even one valid point to the discussion is all.


  • #168
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    cdeb wrote: »
    That's fine - but as I say, I'd just rather you'd brought even one valid point to the discussion is all.

    The origin of culchie is an insult. It is a antagonising pejorative word. Just because it is used in jest, and often taken on the chin doesn't make it not an insult.

    Just because you decided it isn't, or because you don't consider it is. Doesn't make it less of an insult in reality.

    Comparing it to ginger is a non-runner also. Ginger is a ginger haired/skinned person. It's origin is not pejorative. Culchie is.

    EDIT: Also you keep saying the etymology is hundreds of years old. The term is from the 50s.


  • #169
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    siltirocker wrote: »
    The origin of culchie is an insult.
    But now we're going around in circles - because I already noted that (a) Vita Nova said there were four possible origins of the word, but wasn't sure which and (b) it doesn't matter what it meant a couple of hundred years ago; what matters is the current meaning.

    There was a debate on here a while ago about the use of the word "mongo", and it was agreed that while it had racist undertones (Mongoloid) 150 years ago when the term was coined, those undertones had long since vanished, and it made no sense to deem that people using the terms now were using it in the sense it was meant in 150 years ago.

    That's not me deciding what it is. That's me considering the reality of things and making a judgement from that. Which seems to be borne out by the majority on this thread, on the other thread I linked to (except one poster who bizarrely compared "culchie" to "******") and on the Moncrieff show linked where he asked in advance for people to object if they wanted, and not one person did.


  • #170
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    Honestly man, I worked in a sports programme which involved kids from the entire country converging on Dublin. And all the Dublin kids roared at the weaker lads from outside Dublin was 'culchie' this and 'culchie' that. And it was not in jest.

    I reprimanded a few kids, and asked them why they were calling the lads from outside Dublin 'culchies' as it was upsetting the kids. (The ones anyway, that didn't yell back 'jackeen' or 'west brits' anyway). And responses were things like "they can barely speak English", "they live in ditchs" "they are married to their sisters", "they can't read", etc.

    This happens every year, and has since 2002.

    The words origin is an insult. It is often used as insult. Just because the majority of people use it in jest, doesn't make it less so.

    If you think other wise, I wonder would you ever consider calling someone a culchie a compliment? And how do you think a derogatory word for a person outside the Dublin region isn't? It defies logic.


  • #171
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,585 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Pauliedragon wrote: »
    As the title says apparantly scrabble will ban culchie and other terms deemed offensive. How would yanks (maybe yank is now offensive sorry mods) know the word culchie or does it mean something different over there?
    #culchielivesmatter

    You can't say redneck anymore either apparently. One of the far right uber sensitive types on here was pulling me up on it the other day.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    I find this inane. If a black person told you to stop calling them the n-word, would you retort that no one uses it like its origins that much anymore. And reference its use in Afro-American kinship and hip-hop music?

    If someone finds a term, that by origin is, offensive. You don't get to repeatedly tell them it isn't.

    It's the equivalent of punching someone on the arm, and them saying it hurts. You saying it doesn't because you didn't mean it in any harmful nature and it was friendly, does not mean it didn't hurt.


    Person 1: "Person 2, you're a culchie."

    Person 2: "I find that term insulting. It implies I'm uncivilised."

    Person 1: "No it doesn't. It doesn't mean that anymore."

    Person 2: "Well it's often leveled at me as an insult, and I am not aware of any other meaning to the word. So yes, it is insulting."

    Person 1: "No it isn't".

    And around and around in circles.


  • #173
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    cdeb wrote: »
    There was a debate on here a while ago about the use of the word "mongo", and it was agreed that while it had racist undertones (Mongoloid) 150 years ago when the term was coined, those undertones had long since vanished, and it made no sense to deem that people using the terms now were using it in the sense it was meant in 150 years ago.

    Also, are you serious???? What a catastrophically bad comparison. You can't call someone a mong these days! It's as offensive as ever and even more prevalent now.

    A abusive term implying that someone has down's syndrome. (Implying their heavy set eyes make them look like a person of mongoloid characteristics).

    Level the term 'mong' and 'mongo' at someone in a DSI centre and see how long they agree that it isn't an insult. You'll be thrown out the door, before a fist could reach your face.


  • #174
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    So first off - yes, I have referred to people as culchies as a complement (to mean very traditionally Irish). No issues. To be honest, the kids you mention just sounds a general bunch of knackers - nothing to do with the word "culchie" specifically.

    Secondly, there is absolutely no way you can make the point you've made about culchie as a term of abuse and then say that "ginger" just means red hair. None at all.

    Thirdly - I don't think anyone from outside Dublin has actually said they are from outside Dublin and find the term "culchie" personally insulting. People are falling over themselves these days to be offended on behalf of someone else; you seem to be the latest.

    And finally - yes, I am serious about mongo. I'm not in a DSI centre, so that's irrelevant. It's no different to moron or idiot, which have similarly derogatory origins.


  • #175
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    cdeb wrote: »
    So first off - yes, I have referred to people as culchies as a complement (to mean very traditionally Irish). No issues. To be honest, the kids you mention just sounds a general bunch of knackers - nothing to do with the word "culchie" specifically.

    Secondly, there is absolutely no way you can make the point you've made about culchie as a term of abuse and then say that "ginger" just means red hair. None at all.

    Thirdly - I don't think anyone from outside Dublin has actually said they are from outside Dublin and find the term "culchie" personally insulting. People are falling over themselves these days to be offended on behalf of someone else; you seem to be the latest.

    And finally - yes, I am serious about mongo. I'm not in a DSI centre, so that's irrelevant. It's no different to moron or idiot, which have similarly derogatory origins.

    Mother of god. This is just inane.

    Okey dokey so.

    Enjoy the week.


  • #176
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    But now we're going around in circles - because I already noted that (a) Vita Nova said there were four possible origins of the word, but wasn't sure which... .
    I didn't intend coming back into this discussion but you are bringing up my name and IMO you are misrepresenting or misinterpreting what I said. Here's what I actually said, we know your interpretation but let others make theirs based on what I actually said.
    Vita nova wrote: »
    Disagree, the meaning is in the word and that can be aquired meaning through usage or inherent/inherited meaning based on etymology. I'm aware of four possible etymologies for the word and only one of them is somewhat neutral; I'm not going to outline them here but they're easy to find on the web...

    Also, you actually misquoted me in the post below but had no choice to admit you were wrong because what I actually said was a matter of record.
    cdeb wrote: »
    That's fair enough. I'd have preferred if you had brought more to the discussion than "Culchie is an insult because it may have come from one of these four meanings a couple of hundred years ago", and "Ginger isn't an insult because I have red hair" though.
    As I said before, I literally said none of those things that you have in quotes and IMO I didn't say something with exactly the same meaning either.


  • #177
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    siltirocker wrote: »
    Mother of god. This is just inane.

    Okey dokey so.

    Enjoy the week.
    A good point well made there.
    Vita nova wrote: »
    As I said before, I literally said none of those things that you have in quotes and IMO I didn't say something with exactly the same meaning either.
    You're very quick to say you didn't say something, but not so quick to try clarify what you did say.

    The bits in quotes are me paraphrasing you. (Otherwise I'd have quoted you , like above) I think they're valid paraphrases. Certainly I don't see you showing why they're wrong.


  • #178
    siltirocker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭siltirocker


    cdeb wrote: »
    A good point well made there.


    You're very quick to say you didn't say something, but not so quick to try clarify what you did say.

    The bits in quotes are me paraphrasing you. (Otherwise I'd have quoted you , like above) I think they're valid paraphrases. Certainly I don't see you showing why they're wrong.

    He says in one post there is 4 potential origins for culchie, only 1 is neutral.

    You quoted him as saying "Only 1 in 4 potential origins are insulting".

    You're blinded pal.


  • #179
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Time for a poll, lads. Only way to solve it.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #180
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    siltirocker wrote: »
    You quoted him as saying "Only 1 in 4 potential origins are insulting".
    Where did I say that?

    What I said was that Vita Nova said the word came from one of four possible origins. It can't have come from all of them. Therefore his point is it must have come from one of the four - but he doesn't know which.

    The point being that if you don't even know what the etymology is, how can you use it to back up your argument?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    mikemac2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,972 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    crazy Yanks

    First they ban Kinder Surprise eggs and now this ??

    Land of freedom howareya! :rolleyes:


  • #182
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,762 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Howareya, that's another one...,


  • #183
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    The bits in quotes are me paraphrasing you. (Otherwise I'd have quoted you , like above) I think they're valid paraphrases. Certainly I don't see you showing why they're wrong.

    No you shouldn't put a paraphrase in quotes and if you do you should at least make it clear that you're paraphrasing. Here's a good point from Wikipedia on the subject:
    Quotation marks are not used for indirect speech. This is because indirect speech can be a paraphrase; it is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is just giving content, which may be paraphrased, and which could be open to interpretation.

    For example, if Hal says: "All systems are functional", then, in indirect speech:

    Incorrect: Hal said that “everything was going extremely well”.
    Correct: Hal said that everything was going extremely well.

    Also you're contradicting yourself or else lying because you have used quotation marks for what I actually said (that's a matter of record) rather than using the Boards' quote function.
    .


  • #184
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    cdeb wrote: »
    ...
    What I said was that Vita Nova said the word came from one of four possible origins. It can't have come from all of them. Therefore his point is it must have come from one of the four - but he doesn't know which.

    The point being that if you don't even know what the etymology is, how can you use it to back up your argument?

    Again that is your interpretation of what I said. What I actually said was, "I'm aware of four possible etymologies" - there could be more that I don't know of, I certainly didn't limit it to 4 as you say. Also I did not say I didn't know which, as it could be none of them or it could have multiple origins. Again, here's what I actually said:

    Vita nova wrote: »
    Disagree, the meaning is in the word and that can be aquired meaning through usage or inherent/inherited meaning based on etymology. I'm aware of four possible etymologies for the word and only one of them is somewhat neutral; I'm not going to outline them here but they're easy to find on the web.


  • #185
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Grand. I mean, I was expecting you to point out that I'd taken you completely out of context, but quibbling over "4" or "at least 4" is a really minor point. What still remains is that your only argument is that the etymology - which you don't even know - defines it, and you allow no space there for the current meaning.

    That doesn't make sense.

    siltirocker is, it seems, correct to note that the term actually dates from the 50s - my bad there - but the point still holds that you can't expect viewpoints from a different time to not be overwritten by more current times. As has happened with lots of other words.


  • #186
    Ush1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,476 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    siltirocker wrote: »
    Honestly man, I worked in a sports programme which involved kids from the entire country converging on Dublin. And all the Dublin kids roared at the weaker lads from outside Dublin was 'culchie' this and 'culchie' that. And it was not in jest.

    I reprimanded a few kids, and asked them why they were calling the lads from outside Dublin 'culchies' as it was upsetting the kids. (The ones anyway, that didn't yell back 'jackeen' or 'west brits' anyway). And responses were things like "they can barely speak English", "they live in ditchs" "they are married to their sisters", "they can't read", etc.

    This happens every year, and has since 2002.

    The words origin is an insult. It is often used as insult. Just because the majority of people use it in jest, doesn't make it less so.

    If you think other wise, I wonder would you ever consider calling someone a culchie a compliment? And how do you think a derogatory word for a person outside the Dublin region isn't? It defies logic.

    Did you correct them that they won't marry their sisters for a few years yet? Silly jackeen kids.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    MOH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭MOH


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    Amounts to the same thing, really

    Not really. It clearly highlights the hypocrisy and pointlessness of the whole exercise.

    This change will only affect the miniscule fraction of Scrabble games which are held under North American tournament rules.

    The words have already been censored from the official scrabble dictionary for a quarter of a century, and clearly haven't resulted in a massive uptick in everyone's quality of life or we wouldn't be in the current mess.

    It's yet another pointless token gesture that does less than zero good


  • #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    siltirocker wrote: »
    Honestly man, I worked in a sports programme which involved kids from the entire country converging on Dublin. And all the Dublin kids roared at the weaker lads from outside Dublin was 'culchie' this and 'culchie' that. And it was not in jest.
    I'd say it was the 'this' and 'that' elements of his vocabulary that were offensive?

    "You culchie!" is a term of endearment, often said in jest.


    "U tick culchie bollix" or "some fcukin' culchie gard arrested me" are examples of expressions where the word assumes the more obnoxious quality; these are slurs.


  • #189
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Yo, check this out. Culchies drive a car like this.
    Yeah, but Jackeens, see, they drive a car like this.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #190
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Yo, check this out. Culchies drive a car like this.
    Yeah, but Jackeens, see, they drive a car like this.
    And how do those of us that are neither "culchies" nor "jackeens", i.e. the vast majority of the Irish population drive?


  • #191
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Vita nova wrote: »
    And how do those of us that are neither "culchies" nor "jackeens", i.e. the vast majority of the Irish population drive?

    Nordies? Probably boiling with rage, gripping the wheel tightly but never letting anyone see.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    Nordies? Probably boiling with rage, gripping the wheel tightly but never letting anyone see.
    Not just Northerners, they're obviously not the "vast majority of the Irish population" are they?


  • #193
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Vita nova wrote: »
    Not just Northerners, they're obviously not the "vast majority of the Irish population" are they?

    No, I thought that was “odd” enough. I don’t really see how you’re still arguing that there aren’t three “types” of people in this country, Culchies, Dubs and Nordies.

    To be honest, if you’d take them, I’d consider anyone outside the M50 and north of, say, Howth a Culchie.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #194
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    No, I thought that was “odd” enough. I don’t really see how you’re still arguing that there aren’t three “types” of people in this country, Culchies, Dubs and Nordies.

    To be honest, if you’d take them, I’d consider anyone outside the M50 and north of, say, Howth a Culchie.

    There are numerous "types" of Irish people like most countries, urban, rural, Northern, Eastern, Western, Southern folk, the new Irish, Travellers etc. and the vast majority are neither "culchies" nor "jackeens".


  • #195
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Vita nova wrote: »
    There are numerous "types" of Irish people like most countries, urban, rural, Northern, Eastern, Western, Southern folk, the new Irish, Travellers etc. and the vast majority are neither "culchies" nor "jackeens".

    Outside Dublin, south of the Border, Culchies.
    Inside Dublin, south of the Border, Jackeens.
    Outside Dublin, north of the Border, Nordies.

    That’s how it works. Can’t make it any simpler for you with drawing a “diagram”. Hope it helps either way.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #196
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,762 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    Ah, there's townies as well to be fair...


  • #197
    EmmetSpiceland
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,024 ✭✭✭✭EmmetSpiceland


    Quantum Erasure wrote: »
    Ah, there's townies as well to be fair...

    A “subset” of Culchies, Q.

    dubliners-map-of-ireland-hi.png

    This should help anyone still unsure of whether they are a Culchie, or not. Close enough, anyway.

    “It is not blood that makes you Irish but a willingness to be part of the Irish nation” - Thomas Davis



  • #198
    Vita nova
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭Vita nova


    Funny, I haven't seen that map from the OSI or in any Government publication, maybe that's because it only exists in the minds of narrow-minded little individuals who can't recognize the diversity of the country in which they live.


  • #199
    Bass Reeves
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,968 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    EmmetSpiceland wrote: »
    A “subset” of Culchies, Q.

    dubliners-map-of-ireland-hi.png

    This should help anyone still unsure of whether they are a Culchie, or not. Close enough, anyway.

    From the tip of the Shannon to midpoint in the North should be a section, west of it culchies/sheep shaggers and east of it culchies only

    Slava Ukrainii



  • #200
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Yeah, not sure about that one Emmet. Where's the bogballers and the stickfighters?

    (We are allowed to refer to bogballers and stickfighters, yeah?)


  • #201
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Vita nova wrote: »
    Funny, I haven't seen that map from the OSI or in any Government publication, maybe that's because it only exists in the minds of narrow-minded little individuals who can't recognize the diversity of the country in which they live.
    Have you no sense of humour whatsoever at all?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement