How do you pronounce "gyros"?

yee-ros.

There are a lot of places in Chicagoland that serve burgers, hot dogs, Italian Beef, and gyros under the same roof, and most if not all Chicagoans of all ethnicities pronouce it "yee-ros," not "jai-ros."

A longish but interesting article about police bunco investigations targeting Roma groups. Interesting because the article tries to parse the issue of racial profiling as well as a longstanding presumption (in the culture at large, but especially here with the police) that Roma are culturally predisposed to swindling as a way of life.

A Georgia Consumer Affairs warning specifically citing Irish Travelers for a tradition of fraud.

The article is from 2006 and the Georgia warning is from 2007 so these are still fairly recent.

I am not making a case here against the Rom or Travelers, but presenting information about the association of gypsy cultures and swindling, which is still very ingrained and not solely as ethnic prejudice but as matters addressed by police investigators and consumer affairs offices. (Of course the police would never indulge in racial profiling.)

Hec, what point are you trying to make about the appropriateness or not of the word "gypped"?

Looks like ethnic profiling to me, but I may have a hair trigger.

Hec, what point are you trying to make about the appropriateness or not of the word "gypped"?

The issue is murky to me in a variety of ways. I'm disinclined to excise a word from my use because it might offend somebody. That's not the principle I would apply to my language use.

I have to understand each word's etymology, it's history as a force of oppression, it's sort of "shadow meaning" or the connotations that trail along with it, it's derivation. I treat each one as a separate case. As a writer I'm not keen to constrain my language particularly if the biggest issue is somebody else's ignorance.

I don't generally use the word "niggardly" for the reasons Vortex cites. The potential for mishearing and causing offense is there. I might use the word in writing in a way I would never use it as spoken language because in a context where I knew it would be properly understood I wouldn't have that mis-hearing issue.

However, I disagree with Vortex's argument that there's always another word that could do the job. Every word carries a lot of shading of both meaning and its sound component which is something I'm conscious of as a writer.

There was an infamous political smear campaign in the South back in the twenties with posters everywhere noting that a certain candidate's sister was an avowed "thespian." It was successful because ignorant people confused "thespian" with "lesbian."

I cite this fairly outrageous example just to note that I'm not willing to hem my language in constantly to accommodate ignorance. I'm also very conscious of Orwell's example of limiting language to control dialogue, discussion and thought.

So my first impulse is not to cull words. I have exactly two taboo words in my vocabulary that I never use, and a longer list of words that I use rarely or not at all and always try to use carefully in context.

So when I told ita I hadn't culled "gypped" from my vocabulary yet, I was saying "I am and have been thinking about that issue but have not come to a conclusion."

Looks like ethnic profiling to me, but I may have a hair trigger.

It's unquestionably ethnic profiling. But so are most RICO investigations of the Mafia.

As far as I'm concerned, the %age of Roma that may be involved in crime is entirely irrelevant to the propriety of using the word "gyp" if it's derived from Gypsy. Completely irrelevant.

As far as I'm concerned, the %age of Roma that may be involved in crime is entirely irrelevant to the propriety of using the word "gyp" if it's derived from Gypsy. Completely irrelevant.

Really? Even if you could say with absolute certainty that it was 100%?

I guess I'm saying I understand the principle if you're arguing that even if 99% of Roma were swindlers the other 1% should not be tarred with that association. But 100% is a percentage and is exactly coeval so that being Roma would by definition mean swindler.

The only reason I'm thought-experimenting through that is because I probably do have a percentage where it would matter to me. I'm just not sure where it is. At some point if the %age were low enough I'd say, "Well, that association is unfair. That's probably the criminal component of any group." But if it were particularly high, if 80% of all Roma were engaged in some form of swindling then I'd think that was part of their cultural identity.

Of course, we don't know any of the numbers and the danger would be in presuming you know. Well, not a danger for you since the %age is irrelevant.