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.

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.

First of all, it *does* offend people. Your "might" doesn't apply. So the question is, knowing that is *does* offend people, how much does that matter to you?

And the "you" is both general, to everyone, since "gyp" is apparently a word that not a lot of people associate with racial stereotypes, AND it's specific to you, Hec. You've talked before how you don't want to hobble your available language based on the reactions of other people (if other people don't remember it, I do). And I get that. But I'm wondering what your personal metric is. How important is it to you as a communicator to have "gyp" in your vocabulary, knowing it offends people and perpetuates a stereotype, when, in fact, there really are words that work just as well.

In this specific instance, I don't actually think there's any stunningly subtle gradation of meaning to "gyp" that can't be conveyed by "swindle," "cheat," or "con."

I don't generally use the word "niggardly" for the reasons Vortex cites.

So, wait. "Niggardly" literally doesn't have any racial associations, but you avoid it anyway? And "gyp" is still on the table?

That makes no sense, frankly.

That's mighty white of you.

Oooh. Which is what I was going to say, but then I didn't want to oppress myself.

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.

And is also what I was going to say. It makes it look like you value a dictionary above human interaction, frankly.

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.

I guess I don't really have anything else to say on the issue.

I tried to discuss it without rancor and articulate my process and concerns with culling language.

For you it's simply a matter of whether the word might be offensive and that's enough. For me that's not the end of the argument, but I don't need to pursue it further.