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.

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

Defending your right to be deeply offensive in calm tones doesn't mean you're not, you know, deeply offensive.

Man, if only we had a word that meant "gyp" pretty much exactly, and didn't tie back even theoretically to negative ethnic stereotypes. If only.

English is so synonym poor.

I have to admit, I don't necessarily like the *idea* of coming at language from a *might* offend someone standpoint, however two things:

a) I am coming at that from a place of privelege of being white, middle class, and American. So while I may not like it, there is, for me, a certain responsibility I have to be more cognizant of the words I choose.

b) self-editing specific words to err on the side of not offending is, again - just to me, on the same level of not discussing certain topics with certain people because I know that there is a sensitivity, an opposing viewpoint (if past experience has shown neither side can argue logically and openly about it), etc.

But I do wonder if sometimes we (the general "we") can look for offensive meanings and/or place offense on words that mightn't have been there or not currently there in the word's common usage?

But I do wonder if sometimes we (the general "we") can look for offensive meanings and/or place offense on words that mightn't have been there or not currently there in the word's common usage?

I think that happens. But I also think what's happening is that marginalized groups have been speaking up more, to say, Hey, you know what? Using this term that applies to us as a pejorative to mean "bad" (like "lame") isn't really cool. I think that the existence of the Interwebs, for one thing, allows for more communication on things like that (marginalized groups speaking up), and so it can seem like suddenly everyone has an objection. But really, the objection was probably always there, just never voiced in such a widespread way.