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.

That totally makes sense.

You let every yahoo have an internet connection, and then they start complaining.

We never should have let the wimmins learn to read.

Wait.

The owners of Yahoo have an issue with you calling goofy (and/or ignorant people) "yahoos".

Wimmins - I have no issue with. Ha.

The owners of Yahoo have an issue with you calling goofy (and/or ignorant people) "yahoos".

Nah, I meant that the owners of Yahoo are goofy.

OR DID I?!?

Wimmins - I have no issue with. Ha.

Totally should never have taught us the alphabet. Or the cipherin'.

Cipherin' - that when ya git the gas from the tractor to the truck, right?

Funniest conversation I ever had? My cousins delineating the heirarchy (sp?) of redneck, hillbilly, hilljack, and white trash. My cousins put themselves firmly in the redneck category because while they may hunt and chew tobacco, they do not let any broken down vehicle sit on their land for more than the two days it might take to get the wrecker out to their place AND (this one killed me) - they let the dogs sleep indoors.