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.

I use ethnicity as a modifier to mean ethnicity.

I can't believe you even brought it up, honestly. Too many black men are in prison, but what relevance does that have to characterising the ones that are not, or adopting the term "negro" as a criminal modifier? That would be incredibly offensive.

but what relevance does that have to characterising the ones that are not, or adopting the term "negro" as a criminal modifier? That would be incredibly offensive.

I don't think it maps the same way. I think the distinction would have to do with the culture rather than the ethnicity of the Rom.

You could be ethnically Rom, like the professor cited in the LA Times article and not participating in the bunco culture cited by the police.

If a group defined itself by its outside status and purposefully resisted integration into the mainstream culture and if their culture felt like it was perfectly ethical to fleece people who were not in their group then I would consider it perfectly okay to view that group with suspicion.

Not because of their ethnicity, but because of what they believe.

However, I do not have enough information to draw a conclusion about Rom or Irish Traveler culture. I will note that Travelers are ethnically Irish but culturally "gypsy." So I think there's some case to be made for looking it as a cultural issue rather than an ethnic one.

That's mighty white of you.

....which is fine to say, because it's positive!

Seriously, you're expending a whole lot of effort defending your right to say something that has a good chance of being offensive, depending on your audience.

Which, you know, is also your right. But I have no sympathy for it.

Are you arguing that it's not related to the Roma, but that if it is, they're criminal enough that it's okay, because they choose to be bad? Seriously? And the fact that Roma by blood are tarred with the same brush is completely irrelevant, even if your point stood?

I don't get it, but it's bold.