With all possible -- all IMAGINABLE -- respect, Mr. Randi,

[Cactus Wren]

"gypsy" is still a word for an ethnic group, whether you think so or not. And using phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam", and "the gypsy trade" (meaning specifically illicit dealings), is an ethnic slur. I admire and respect you and would prefer to think better of you than this.

[Soapy Sam]

Hmm. It's not a label I ever heard a traveller use of himself.

To me "gypsy" used as an adjective means "here today , gone tomorrow", "fly by night".

I suspect in the circus / fairground / show world that Randi often refers to it has more specific meaning than it has for others.

There has to be tolerance (in the engineering sense) in word use as well as tolerance (in the moral / behavioural sense).

[Senor_Pointy]

Aren't the "gypsies" really the "Roma" anyway?

[Cactus Wren]

Professor Ian Hancock, author of The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution, calls himself a Gypsy (note capitalization). In his writings he uses "Roma/Romani" and "Gypsy" interchangeably.

[Slimething]

"gypsy" is still a word for an ethnic group, whether you think so or not. And using phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam", and "the gypsy trade" (meaning specifically illicit dealings), is an ethnic slur. I admire and respect you and would prefer to think better of you than this.

CW, there are several definitions of "gypsy" and you're writing about only one. See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gypsy.

Mr. Randi is using one definition correctly and it is obvious that he does not mean to impugn any specific group of people. I believe that one of the signs of wisdom is the ability to tell when you've been insulted and when you have not.

[kittynh]

well, I think Roma Awareness is a new thing. I have to admit one of the more recent "House" episodes showed a rather negative representaion of the Roma culture. I was watching it and thinking, "wow, the writer of this episode has something against gypsies."

Mind you, in the US we may not be as aware of this culture as in Europe. Sadly, where I lived in Belgium, the group most hated and indeed villified was the Gypsy group. I was giving a small sum of money to a begging child when I first moved to Brussels, and was told by many people to NOT give to the child as he was a "gypsy!". I was told NO child was starving enough to be begging in the streets in Belgium, and that this child faking his poverty was an insult to the good people of Belgium. Sadly, shortly after this, I saw the child eating lunch at a nice cafe (far too expensive for me to eat at) with his family! But to the family, they had found a way to make a good living, not pay taxes, have freedom, and people felt good when they gave money to the poor starving child.

In the Muslim neighborhood that was a few streets down, a Gypsy/Roma dare not even show his/her face! Life for them must be quite harsh, even today.

I soon gave my money to people that were obviously addicts or alcoholics, because no one ever stopped me from doing THAT! But if I dared open my wallet to a child or woman holding a baby... well forget it!! The hatred was quite open, in a rather shocking way.

My friend that lived in Milan said it was common for Italians to spit on begging Gypsies.

But, I think that perhaps the word "gypsy" has come to mean something beyond the people the word represents. For instance, many African Americans have trouble with things like "let's call a spade a spade" (I heard that on tv once and went, "oh my! That's awful!" only it was an African American man saying that!). Or, using the word "black" as a negative word (such as "Black Sunday").

[tkingdoll]

In the UK, there are only four 'official' ethnic minorities, and Romany Gypsy is one of them.

[baron]

"gypsy" is still a word for an ethnic group, whether you think so or not. And using phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam", and "the gypsy trade" (meaning specifically illicit dealings), is an ethnic slur.

So even though there's huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, nobody can make that association without being branded a racist?

What a patronising, idiotic post.

I don't know about Randi, but the day I personally withhold my opinion because someone threatens me with a racism label is the day I curl up and die.

[RationalReverend]

I had the same reaction as the person in the OP, having known a person of such ethnicity.

[RationalReverend]

So even though there's huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, nobody can make that association without being branded a racist?

What a patronising, idiotic post.

I don't know about Randi, but the day I personally withhold my opinion because someone threatens me with a racism label is the day I curl up and die.

So...if someone were to give statistical evidence that in ratio to population there are way more black people in prison than white people, would this a) prove that black people are criminals and b) make using Black in a similar fashion to gypsy acceptable? I don't think so.

[gnome]

Kittynh, I saw the House episode and I thought they were treated fairly respectfully. What part made you think the authors had a problem with them?

[mollyblack]

I know that when I worked in San Francisco for a company that did insurance claim adjustments, a large part of our work was figuring out who had legitimate claims and who didn't. And, this weirds me out to realize, a LARGE part of the car bunk claims were done by people who considered themselves Gypsies. I don't know if that was just in SF, just in car insurance fraud, or what, but it's what I saw first hand.

What that means I don't know. Part of why that's a better statistical group is because it's not racial profiling. You're in fact unaware of whom you're investigating until the whole process starts taking place. Rather than with, say, people getting pulled over because of how they look.

This was in 1994, so 13 years ago. Have things changed that much?

Am I prejudiced because of the fact that I saw all of that? It hasn't affected me in any way because I've not met many Gypsies in my life.

[kittynh]

Kittynh, I saw the House episode and I thought they were treated fairly respectfully. What part made you think the authors had a problem with them?

Well, many gypsies do accept medical help, and indeed have their own doctors that they like to see. The rejection of modern medical help at the peril of the health of their children is not a positive depiction. Now in the episode, the parents rejection just happens to be the correct treatment! Or rather non treatment was best. But, this stereotype that they reject modern medicine, and keep their children out of school, is responsible for recent attmepts by authorities to take children away from their families.

Also, many Gypsies live in homes, and do not travel. Some do travel, but it was one group of Gypsies depicted as if ALL followed this lifestyle. I was told treating all Gypsies the same would be like treating every kind of Native American tribe the same. We all know how different the Hopi and the Sioux were! Well, same with Gypsies. What I saw written was that the episode was a mixing of different Gypsy tribes beliefs into one group, in a way that would never occur. LIke having a Sioux raising sheep and building a totem pole.

[Soapy Sam]

I suspect tim has more contact with "travellers" or itinerant "travelling people" than most folk in the UK. My own experience is that none (ie zero) of the travellers I've spoken to in Scotland in the last thirty years consider themselves to be "gypsies". There may be several reasons for that , either historical or purely semantic.

[baron]

So...if someone were to give statistical evidence that in ratio to population there are way more black people in prison than white people, would this a) prove that black people are criminals

No, it would prove there are more black people in prison.

b) make using Black in a similar fashion to gypsy acceptable?

Since your original point is invalid then this is moot.

[gnome]

Well, many gypsies do accept medical help, and indeed have their own doctors that they like to see. The rejection of modern medical help at the peril of the health of their children is not a positive depiction. Now in the episode, the parents rejection just happens to be the correct treatment! Or rather non treatment was best. But, this stereotype that they reject modern medicine, and keep their children out of school, is responsible for recent attmepts by authorities to take children away from their families.

Also, many Gypsies live in homes, and do not travel. Some do travel, but it was one group of Gypsies depicted as if ALL followed this lifestyle. I was told treating all Gypsies the same would be like treating every kind of Native American tribe the same. We all know how different the Hopi and the Sioux were! Well, same with Gypsies. What I saw written was that the episode was a mixing of different Gypsy tribes beliefs into one group, in a way that would never occur. LIke having a Sioux raising sheep and building a totem pole.

I recall that they did in fact have homes, in fact they made a point of correcting the hospital staff on that point. But I did see the other items you mention and it's a good observation.

[RationalReverend]

No, it would prove there are more black people in prison.



Since your original point is invalid then this is moot.

Ok fine, then apply the same logic to your original claim that gypsy people are criminals. Back up your claim with something more than bigotry.

[SamanthaMc]

well, I think Roma Awareness is a new thing. I have to admit one of the more recent "House" episodes showed a rather negative representaion of the Roma culture. I was watching it and thinking, "wow, the writer of this episode has something against gypsies."



I had similar feelings about the episode but by the time it was over, I envied their cohesiveness as a family and as a culture. It was touching.

My response to the OP: I agree.


To me "gypsy" used as an adjective means "here today , gone tomorrow", "fly by night".

Yes. But when it also refers to a culture, maybe "fly by night" should be used rather than "gypsy."

When I was little, kids used phrases with the "N word" in them, and they became part of my vocabulary. I didn't associate those phrases with black people at all. Once I realized how offensive that word is, I replaced it with less insulting words and the meaning of the phrases remained the same.

I am not the queen of all political correctness by any means, but I do my best to not use offensive words or phrases. To me, it's just common courtesy. I think we could do with a little more of that in this world.

[kittynh]

I would also have to say that I know one of the writers of "House" (but I don't know if he worked on this episode). Since he is not a friend, but his daughter attends the school where I work and we have a professional parent/ teacher relationship, I don't feel I can just go up and ask him. But I will review the episode and if I see he wrote on this one, will ask next time I see him at a school social event.

It rather reminds me of the Hmong. There was a tv show that also showed them rejecting modern medicine. This was YEARS ago when I lived in Wisconsin. The funny thing is that my own family physician treated the Hmong community, and the only thing they rejected from him was an autopsy. He agreed to never order one, and they agreed to follow all his advice. The other doctors in town would not agree to the no autopsy rule, so the Hmong did not visit them. But they never rejected all modern medical care. They just found doctors they could trust to not violate a very important spiritual belief.

[baron]

Ok fine, then apply the same logic to your original claim that gypsy people are criminals.

Do you actually expect a response to your straw-man?

[SamanthaMc]

It rather reminds me of the Hmong. There was a tv show that also showed them rejecting modern medicine. This was YEARS ago when I lived in Wisconsin. The funny thing is that my own family physician treated the Hmong community, and the only thing they rejected from him was an autopsy. He agreed to never order one, and they agreed to follow all his advice. The other doctors in town would not agree to the no autopsy rule, so the Hmong did not visit them. But they never rejected all modern medical care. They just found doctors they could trust to not violate a very important spiritual belief.

TV shows often miss the mark even when I think they are trying to portray a certain group in a positive light. Even if an honest attempt at empathy is made, had they just checked with some real life members of that group they might have been able to portray things more accurately. But I don't suppose accuracy is what they are going for, huh? More like good TV drama.

Getting back to the House episode though: When I was watching it, I didn't blame the family for not trusting House. I even asked myself why I would trust him (because he's so cynical and HOT, I answered), and would I trust him if I had had the same experiences as that family? (Not sure, but probably, if he was still that cynical and that HOT.)

Overall, I didn't come away thinking that the writers had it in for the Roma. I thought the family's distrust of doctors they didn't know was explained rationally. As far as lumping all types of Roma/Gypsy people into the same category, yeah, that's TV for ya, and I am ignorant enough about that particular culture that I wouldn't know the difference.

Now, who wants to sing a little Cher with me?

[RationalReverend]

Do you actually expect a response to your straw-man?

No, but I expect you to look up the definition of straw man.

[CFLarsen]

The Danish term for "gypsy", "sigøjner", is used widely by the Danish media. They have also begun to use "Roma".

I don't see any problems with using "gypsy". Webster describes that N-word we can't use, "chink", "spic", and "wop" as "usually offensive", but makes no such note when it comes to "gypsy".

Since Webster describes usage and not definition, "gypsy" isn't used widely in an offensive manner.

[deBergerac]

I do not think that Randi wanted to say that all gypsy are conmen (and women). The intention is to discribe the history of the scam. There are con artists of all races and cultures. But some scams may have been more frequently used by certain groups of people.
Randi is not really talking about the Roma people, he is talking about a con.

[Brown]

Some good points have been made in this thread.

When one uses a word like "gypsy" in a negative context, one must be careful to make sure the context is clear. The term can be used in a number of senses that are not necessesarily ethnic ("gypsy cab" being perhaps the most well known).

A similar caution applies to the use of the word "bohemian," which can carry a negative connotation as that of a wacko nonconformist or bizarrely unconventional lifestyle. In a famous Iowa Supreme Court case about family law, a justice used the word "bohemian" to describe why a person was not a fit parent, outraging a substantial number of citizens of Czech ancestry.

[The Shank]

I somtimes think that some people WANT to be offended, thus giving them something to whine about.

[aggle-rithm]

I don't see any problems with using "gypsy". Webster describes that N-word we can't use, "chink", "spic", and "wop" as "usually offensive", but makes no such note when it comes to "gypsy".


I once worked with two black guys in their early twenties. On one occasion I told them about a secretary who referred to them as "two colored guys".

Their reaction was interesting. One of them became infuriated, the other one laughed.

It's all in how you choose to interpret it.

[RSLancastr]

But, I think that perhaps the word "gypsy" has come to mean something beyond the people the word represents. For instance, many African Americans have trouble with things like "let's call a spade a spade" (I heard that on tv once and went, "oh my! That's awful!" only it was an African American man saying that!). Or, using the word "black" as a negative word (such as "Black Sunday").For those who might not know, the phrase "to call a spade a spade" has nothing to do with racial slurs.

The phrase has been around in English since the 1500s (and in other languages far longer than that), whereas the racial slur usage of the word "spade" has only been around since the 1920s.

Of course, that doesn't keep some people from being offended by it. Nor, I suppose, does it keep some people from meaning it in a racially bigoted way. But both parties are ignorant of the phrase's origins.

Why do I know such incredibly boring things? Because I have been asked the question numerous times on my web site about unusual playing cards.

[RationalReverend]

For those who might not know, the phrase "to call a spade a spade" has nothing to do with racial slurs.

The phrase has been around in English since the 1500s (and in other languages far longer than that), whereas the racial slur usage of the word "spade" has only been around since the 1920s.

Of course, that doesn't keep some people from being offended by it. Nor, I suppose, does it keep some people from meaning it in a racially bigoted way. But both parties are ignorant of the phrase's origins.

Why do I know such incredibly boring things? Because I have been asked the question numerous times on my web site about unusual playing cards.

I was once admonished for using the figure of speech "pussy-footing around" because the other person supposed it was vulgar.

[CFLarsen]

A similar caution applies to the use of the word "bohemian," which can carry a negative connotation as that of a wacko nonconformist or bizarrely unconventional lifestyle. In a famous Iowa Supreme Court case about family law, a justice used the word "bohemian" to describe why a person was not a fit parent, outraging a substantial number of citizens of Czech ancestry.

Queen would not like that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_rhapsody)

I somtimes think that some people WANT to be offended, thus giving them something to whine about.

It's all in how you choose to interpret it.

Yeah. And how the rest of us choose to react to it.

[tracer]

I do not think that Randi wanted to say that all gypsy are conmen (and women). The intention is to discribe the history of the scam. There are con artists of all races and cultures. But some scams may have been more frequently used by certain groups of people.
Randi is not really talking about the Roma people, he is talking about a con.
This reminds me of a more recent scam perpetrated mostly via e-mail, which goes by the name of:

The Nigerian Scam

It's called this because most of the scam's perpetrators, at least in its earlier history, were from Nigeria. Is it a slur against all Nigerians to call this all-too-familiar scam "The Nigerian Scam"?

[kittynh]

Thanks, Robert! I didn't know that. I know calling a black man a "spade" is quite insulting!

[deBergerac]

It's called this because most of the scam's perpetrators, at least in its earlier history, were from Nigeria. Is it a slur against all Nigerians to call this all-too-familiar scam "The Nigerian Scam"?

This type of scam has actually been around for a very long time, even before the Internet. :) It is probably more correct to say that the scam has in its recent history been performed by people from Nigeria. "The Nigerian Scam" is a new name to an old con.

[Z]

My wife's former boss, a young angry black republican male, flew into an outright tantrum when her co-worker, a young nice black democrat female, mentioned going to a family picnic.

He believed the old urban legend that picnic stood for 'pick-a-n-----', and referred to the hanging of blacks.

Needless to say, the rest of the room just stood there agog at his ignorance.

[Zax63]

Anyone remember Omarosa from The Apprentice? Someone said to her "that's the pot calling the kettle black" and she reacted as if it was a racial slur.

[Almo]

I found the word "gypsy" to be used as a mild insult during my stay in the UK.

[ChrisJ]

I think there's probably a great deal of difference in how the word "gypsy" is perceived in different regions and by different age groups. I grew up in Wisconsin, and only heard of gypsies in children's stories, so used to think they were fictional. (Ironic, since some of my German ancestors carried the family name which meant "wanderer", and probably lived a gypsy-like lifestyle.) Even now, I don't usually associate gypsies with real groups of people.

So, what do you fine people think, is it a regional thing, an age thing, or am I just odd.

[CFLarsen]

My wife's former boss, a young angry black republican male, flew into an outright tantrum when her co-worker, a young nice black democrat female, mentioned going to a family picnic.

He believed the old urban legend that picnic stood for 'pick-a-n-----', and referred to the hanging of blacks.

Needless to say, the rest of the room just stood there agog at his ignorance.

That's downright ignorant alright.

Picnic comes from French:
pique-nique. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/P0288700.html)

[deBergerac]

Even now, I don't usually associate gypsies with real groups of people.

So, what do you fine people think, is it a regional thing, an age thing, or am I just odd.

I am quite sure that gypsies are not an imaginary people. At the moment I live in Prague and here we not only have a lot of those bohemians (see above) but we also have a lot of gypsies.

I often get uncomfortable when people I consider intelligent and well educated and over all decent, say things about gypsies. It is difficult to tell how much of the stories I here about gypsies that are fiction and how much that is true. Gypsies are considered to be second rate, so they may perhaps more often be in situations where stealing is a way of survival. Thus they are caught in a viscous circle.

Quite often though, I get the feeling that the verdict is in before any evidence is presented. If something is stolen it is assumed a gypsy took it.

This idea about gypsies stealing everything that is not nailed down and guarded, also exist in Sweden, thought there it is not met as frequently and is not as sincerely believed as here.

This is of course my personal impressions only and not the result of any kind of survey. And "gypsies" is what they are called here, nothing PC about it at all.

[lionking]

It's probably an inexact parallel, but when I was young the word "wog" was a grave insult to immigrants to Australia from Greece and Italy. This word is now used as a badge of honour of children of these immigrants. There are no doubt others examples of onetime insults being used this way. Perhaps "gypsy" will also go this way and other descriptions found for scam merchants and panhandlers.

[wahrheit]

A lot of speculation going on here, so I did the obvious, and asked a Gypsy.

Similar to most other terms referring to ethnicity, the use of the term depends on context and who uses it.

If I address the girl I just asked saying "Hey, Gitana, what's up?" (Gitano = Roma in Spain), that's perfectly okay. Because we are kind of friends. A stranger addressing her like that will get in big trouble, though.

What she said reminded me of what a black friend of mine recently explained to me, and you all know this already. Amongst themselves and with friends you can use whatever term you like; it's "outsiders" who need to be careful.

I don't have an opinion on Randi's use of the term, I'm not familiar enough with it's usage in the U.S.

[ChrisJ]

I don't have an opinion on Randi's use of the term, I'm not familiar enough with it's usage in the U.S.

It definitely looks like the US usage and European usage has different connotations, possibly because it is quite rare to encounter ethnic gypsies here. (I know I've never met one.)

I think in the US, gypsy is usually used to refer to a lifestyle choice rather than an ethnic group. We usually think of gypsies as wanderers and free spirits, and they are usually associated with travelling performers, especially the circus or carnivals. If you associate carnies and gypsies (probably Randi's usage), then some carnies may be thought of as dishonest because the games run in the carnival fairway are sometimes rigged in some subtle way to make them harder to win than they look, or impossible to win unless the carnie decides to let you win.

[CFLarsen]

What she said reminded me of what a black friend of mine recently explained to me, and you all know this already. Amongst themselves and with friends you can use whatever term you like; it's "outsiders" who need to be careful.

When are you an "insider"?

When are you an "outsider"?

[wahrheit]

When are you an "insider"?

I used the term friend, since I was speaking about two personal friends of mine in my previous post.

When are you an "outsider"?

Look it up in a lexicon, and you'll get

outsider
noun
a person who does not belong to a particular group.

Then, if you also look up the word group, you pretty much know what an "outsider" is.

[CFLarsen]

Pretty fuzzy terms, hm?

[Beleth]

"Friend" and "group"? No, not really.

But the evidence shows that explaining that to you is a waste of time.

[CFLarsen]

"Friend" and "group"? No, not really.

But the evidence shows that explaining that to you is a waste of time.

You know exactly who your friends are, and when you are part of a group and when you're not? Never a doubt in your mind?

It must be nice to live in a world like that.

[baron]

I often get uncomfortable when people I consider intelligent and well educated and over all decent, say things about gypsies.

Do you not ask these people if they have reason to say these things?

Gypsies are considered to be second rate, so they may perhaps more often be in situations where stealing is a way of survival.

I dare say that's true in some countries. In the UK, no way. Many travelling gypsy families are fabulously wealthy.

[HarryKeogh]

That thread title makes it seem like you're about to ask the leader of North Korea to free your husband from the work camp.

[BillyJoe]

When someone hits you with a racial slur, I suppose one solution is to turn it into a "badge of honour" - like the immigrants who turned the phrase "wog" ass about. It was an accomplishment that saved many a racial war. Italian comedians used to great affect here.

Sometimes there may be too much history associated with a particular word, as with the pejorative alternative to American negro. Still I wonder what affect it would have on negro sensibilities if Obama used the slogan "First ****** President of America" during his campaign.


edit: I forgot...the forum automatically censors that word.
Which reminds me: why can Randi use the word bu||$#!+ in his commentary?

[RSLancastr]

Which reminds me: why can Randi use the word bu||$#!+ in his commentary?Because nothing in the Commentary can violate forum rules.

[BillyJoe]

No. I mean he used the actual word in his commentary but, if we use it here, it appears as asterisks.
(I think he was actually quoting someone, but still..)

[jmercer]

So even though there's huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, nobody can make that association without being branded a racist?


So...if someone were to give statistical evidence that in ratio to population there are way more black people in prison than white people, would this a) prove that black people are criminals and b) make using Black in a similar fashion to gypsy acceptable? I don't think so.

No, it would prove there are more black people in prison.



Since your original point is invalid then this is moot.

Ok fine, then apply the same logic to your original claim that gypsy people are criminals. Back up your claim with something more than bigotry.

Do you actually expect a response to your straw-man?

Baron, you made a claim that there are "huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels". RR has asked you to back up that claim by producing (linking to or providing references to) that evidence. That's fairly routine here... if you make a claim, expect to be asked to produce evidence of that claim - especially in a skeptics forum.

The Gypsy/Black criminal argument is not a strawman argument at all, because all RR is doing is substituting one minority for another, while using your own logic to point out the fallacy of your position. Personally, I would have stuck with requiring you to produce proof, but approaches vary.

Speaking of evidence... keep in mind that statistics (when done properly) indicate trends. They don't necessarily point out root causes, although they may provide indicators of where to look for those causes. If elevated crime levels exist wherever there are supposedly concentrations of so-called gypsies, that indicates some kind of link between the cited presence of "gypsies" and crime levels - it doesn't suggest anything about the cause of the elevated crimes at all. And it's all too easy to just assume that the cause is due to the cultural practices of a given group, rather than other circumstances.

It's when you start to drill down that things become less clear. In example - what kind of crimes are elevated? Violence? Theft? Kidnapping? Extortion? Rape? And - since it appears that there is a lively and active cultural prejudice toward these "gypsies", how much of that crime is generated by the inevitable friction such ugliness generates?

Is there a possibility that the crimes cited are actually false actions by the local government and populace designed to drive these people away? (Historical examples of this kind of ugliness abound, even in recent years. What do you suppose Kosovo-based statistics would have shown about the groups they were persecuting? Or Nazi records, regarding the Jews?)

Or is it possible that the information that the statistics are based on is flawed? Could it be that significant numbers of crimes committed are attributed to Roma - when the ethnicity of the actual persons involved is different, and they just got "lumped in" with the rest?

Many years ago anyone in the US with brown skin (Mexicans, Indians and Blacks - and sometimes Asiatics as well) were not separated out as individual minorities... but instead were all lumped together. Statistics involving these groups all showed up as just "minority"... which was almost always interpreted as "Black" by prejudiced people. (In fact, organizations like the Klu Klux Klan didn't "interpret" this at all - they publicly and openly insisted these groups were all the same. And in the early days mentioned above, the KKK was an active and strong influence in local government... sometimes they were the government. Even today, Neo-Nazi groups often refer to other ethnicities as "mudbloods".)

Before you decide to dismiss my comments, it is exactly because of this kind of behavior that the USA has many laws to make actions like this punishable and illegal... and has changed the way information about crimes are collected, represented and interpreted.

So the challenge to your blanket, apparently unsupported claim - in my opinion - is not only a valid one, but a fair-minded one as well.

So, I'll call for it openly. Please provide links or references to this "huge amount of evidence" you cited.

[jmercer]

I don't have an opinion on Randi's use of the term, I'm not familiar enough with it's usage in the U.S.

Well, I don't know how Randi intended it, but in the US, Roma/Gypsy doesn't really hit the radar in terms of ethnicity or prejudice. AFAIK, the majority of information concerning Gypsies comes from ... well, literature and Disney. :D

[jmercer]

No. I mean he used the actual word in his commentary but, if we use it here, it appears as asterisks.
(I think he was actually quoting someone, but still..)

He's quoting himself. Yes, the auto censor here would have asterisked it, but only because it has no way to differentiate a quoted statement from a personal one. Randi was simply reporting (accurately and honestly) on his reply to this dude; I admire that.

Bottom line is the Commentary isn't the Forum, and vice-versa.

[BillyJoe]

Bottom line is the Commentary isn't the Forum, and vice-versa.Hmmm...you disagree with RSLancastr then...


Originally Posted by RSLancastr http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2373117#post2373117)
Which reminds me: why can Randi use the word bu||$#!+ in his commentary?
Because nothing in the Commentary can violate forum rules.

He's quoting himself. Yes, the auto censor here would have asterisked it, but only because it has no way to differentiate a quoted statement from a personal one. Randi was simply reporting (accurately and honestly) on his reply to this dude; I admire that.Yes, I had to read through it again to find it...


I promptly responded to this incredible tirade:
********! And you know it! You're either an idiot or a madman – that's not yet decided.
Hmmm...well, I guess you'll have to read the commentary (hint: ******** = bu||$#!+).
Thing is, I feel like saying that sometimes but all that appears is asterisks. I guess you won't get the chance to admire ME for that.

[Curnir]

Pretty fuzzy terms, hm?

no more fuzzy than:'uchi' and 'soto'

[baron]

Baron, you made a claim that there are "huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels". RR has asked you to back up that claim by producing (linking to or providing references to) that evidence. That's fairly routine here... if you make a claim, expect to be asked to produce evidence of that claim - especially in a skeptics forum.
The Gypsy/Black criminal argument is not a strawman argument at all, because all RR is doing is substituting one minority for another

After I said there was evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, RR asked me if a disproportionately large number of black people in prison would prove black people are criminals. I said it would not.

RR then claimed I had said "gypsies are criminals" and asked for evidence. Had I said this? No. So was it a straw man? Yes. Are you wrong when you say it was not a straw man? Yes, you are.

You are asking for evidence of my claim about elevated crime and talk at length and in a patronising manner about statistics. To answer, I will introduce you to a concept you appear not to be aware of - first hand evidence. I have lived in close proximity to gypsies and travellers for a a significant portion of my life. I have spoken to householders, farmers, landlords and police officers. I have seen and experienced gypsies and travellers first hand. I have seen the effect they can have and the chaos they leave behind when they move on. I have also done reasearch elsewhere, where possible.

Your evidence comes from the communities affected. Are there studies on the web? Almost certainly not, for the same reason you will not find detrimental statistics for any ethnic minority, right or wrong. Of course, in your eyes this will mean I have no evidence whatsoever. That's fine, it's your opinion, but bear in mind that finding evidence can occasionally take more effort than clicking on a hyperlink.

It's when you start to drill down that things become less clear. In example - what kind of crimes are elevated? Violence? Theft? Kidnapping? Extortion? Rape?

In my experience, threats of violence, intimidation, assault, theft, vandalism, fly tipping and, of course, obtaining money by deception.

I will always be on the back foot in an argument like this because any criticism of a racial minority is classed as racism. However, I speak as I find so I really do not care.

[jmercer]

After I said there was evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, RR asked me if a disproportionately large number of black people in prison would prove black people are criminals. I said it would not.


I won't quibble. You have claimed "huge amounts of evidence" are available. Very well - I am now challenging your claim, not RR. I would like to see these "huge amounts of evidence" you have claimed exist.


RR then claimed I had said "gypsies are criminals" and asked for evidence. Had I said this? No. So was it a straw man? Yes. Are you wrong when you say it was not a straw man? Yes, you are.


Very well. I'll drop this, since we simply see it differently.


You are asking for evidence of my claim about elevated crime and talk at length and in a patronising manner about statistics.

It wasn't my intention to be patronizing; merely clear. I apologize if you misunderstood my tone.


To answer, I will introduce you to a concept you appear not to be aware of - first hand evidence.

Ah. Now that's patronizing. :)


I have lived in close proximity to gypsies and travellers for a a significant portion of my life. I have spoken to householders, farmers, landlords and police officers. I have seen and experienced gypsies and travellers first hand. I have seen the effect they can have and the chaos they leave behind when they move on. I have also done reasearch elsewhere, where possible.


I understand what anecdotal evidence is. It is considered weak evidence by skeptics and scientists, and for good reason. No-one here is likely to accept that as useful and/or authoritative evidence... I know I certainly won't.


Your evidence comes from the communities affected. Are there studies on the web? Almost certainly not, for the same reason you will not find detrimental statistics for any ethnic minority, right or wrong. Of course, in your eyes this will mean I have no evidence whatsoever. That's fine, it's your opinion, but bear in mind that finding evidence can occasionally take more effort than clicking on a hyperlink.

I suggest that the federal government of the United States is a credible source for crime statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm). You will note that hate crimes - which include crimes of race - are included. Crime is something studied by most governments. Note that this study is by the national government... not by the local communities, although the data is derived from those as well.


In my experience, threats of violence, intimidation, assault, theft, vandalism, fly tipping and, of course, obtaining money by deception.

Your direct experiences are subjective, just like mine are; and therefore is inadmissible in a debate.


I will always be on the back foot in an argument like this because any criticism of a racial minority is classed as racism. However, I speak as I find so I really do not care.

I see. Well, this pretty much concludes any hope of an objective discussion on the topic, I suppose.

[baron]

I understand what anecdotal evidence is. It is considered weak evidence by skeptics and scientists, and for good reason. No-one here is likely to accept that as useful and/or authoritative evidence... I know I certainly won't.

It's anecdotal to you, not to me. To me, it's first-hand objective evidence - the best evidence that can possibly be obtained.

I stated that there was evidence, and I am correct.

You do not see this evidence and therefore you dispute its existence. As I said, that's fine, but it by no means invalidates my claim.

None of this precludes you doing your own investigations of affected communities and forming your opinions in this manner.

[Darth Rotor]

Which reminds me: why can Randi use the word bu||$#!+ in his commentary?
1. It's his site, in the sense that JREF is his creation.
2. It's great to be the King.
3. After all he's done for fraud detection, is there not room to work here?
4. I'll offer that your being anal about an occasional J Randi B bomb, particularly when it was a very well timed and appropriate usage of the term during the exchange in question, is not a gracious way of appreciating his body of work against fraud.

DR

[BillyJoe]

1. It's his site, in the sense that JREF is his creation.
2. It's great to be the King.
3. After all he's done for fraud detection, is there not room to work here?
4. I'll offer that your being anal about an occasional J Randi B bomb, particularly when it was a very well timed and appropriate usage of the term during the exchange in question, is not a gracious way of appreciating his body of work against fraud. Not sure who's being anal here. ;)

[RSLancastr]

Hmmm...you disagree with RSLancastr then...No, he is saying the same thing as I did, just more clearly.

When I said that nothing in the commentary can violate forum rules, I meant that, by definition, nothing in the commentary can violate forum rules, because those rules don't apply to the commentary.

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I probably should have been less subtle, and simply said "Because the commentary is not in the forum."

[gnome]

It's anecdotal to you, not to me. To me, it's first-hand objective evidence - the best evidence that can possibly be obtained.

I think it is safe to say that the best evidence that can possibly be obtained is such that is demonstrable to all, not just individually from personal experience.

In fact, even personal experience can fail, witness the known phenomena of self-revised memories, optical illusions, selection bias, etc.

[largeprimenumber]

"gypsy" is still a word for an ethnic group, whether you think so or not. And using phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam", and "the gypsy trade" (meaning specifically illicit dealings), is an ethnic slur. I admire and respect you and would prefer to think better of you than this.
You're misquoting Randi. He enclosed "gypsy" in quotes, so he was denoting that it was someone else's usage. As far as "gypsy trade" goes, I don't see anything intrinsically racist in the phrase--like it or not, "gypsy" still has non-ethnic connotations, whereas a word like the n-word does not.

[BillyJoe]

When I said that nothing in the commentary can violate forum rules, I meant that, by definition, nothing in the commentary can violate forum rules, because those rules don't apply to the commentary.Oh, okay then.

Seems a little unfair though....that we can't use the word bu||$#!+.

[Gravy]

Here's an interesting article about the relationship between some of the Rom and bunco detectives. http://www.nabihq.org/en-us/News/la_times_2006-01-30.php?sf_ses=j5ncn59j0kaluntbd3uq2q7t03

That site also has god descriptions of common cons and scams.

[Darth Rotor]

"gypsy" is still a word for an ethnic group, whether you think so or not. And using phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam", and "the gypsy trade" (meaning specifically illicit dealings), is an ethnic slur. I admire and respect you and would prefer to think better of you than this.
An oversensitive cactus. How droll. :)

DR

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree, it's an ethnic slur.

In Polish, my first language, the word for gypsy "cygan" mkeans a scammer and liar but it's still an ethnic slur. The phrase "cyganic mnie" means "lying to me/ swindling me" similar to "gyp me" in English but it's still an ethnic slur.

Would Randi use "Jew" or "Jew me"? Never. So he shouldn't use "gypsy".

[Morrigan]

So much time wasted on political correctness, it's embarassing.

[Starrman]

Baron,

I am merely an observer - but was curious if you really think that:

huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels...

is the equivalent of this:

To me, it's first-hand objective evidence - the best evidence that can possibly be obtained. I stated that there was evidence, and I am correct.

I see a vast difference between huge amounts of linking evidence and your personal experience.

[volatile]

It's anecdotal to you, not to me.

Eh? That's a pretty strange leap of logic.

Surely that same "argument" can be made by anyone "cured" by homeopathy, or whose dead uncle gave them the lottery results?

Where's this "huge amount of evidence"?

[baron]

I see a vast difference between huge amounts of linking evidence and your personal experience.

I was simply stating that I have experience and have also seen the evidence. Therefore I know the evidence exists. Someone posting on these boards may not have easy access to the evidence. That's unfortunate but it does not change my position. I wasn't actually seeking a debate about this because I recognise I am not providing the necessary proof on which discussion can be based. Again, that doesn't change my stand on the matter. If it would make people happier, I will rephrase the "There is huge amounts of evidence..." to "I have witnessed huge amounts of evidence..."

[wolfgirl]

I found the word "gypsy" to be used as a mild insult during my stay in the UK.In my travels to the UK, it seemed that the term "gypo" was prevalent. It was used in a more derogatory manner than "gypsy." We were in a pub one night, and one of the back exits was locked. The bartender told us they had trouble with "gypos" sneaking in through the back door.

[largeprimenumber]

Is it politically correct to use the term "gypped"?

[BillyJoe]

Why is it that n***** is banned on this forum but "abbo" is not?

[jmercer]

Why is it that n***** is banned on this forum but "abbo" is not?

Well... for one thing, this is the first time I've ever read it. And I have no idea what it means, but I'm assuming it's either a racial or ethnic slur, probably unique to some specific region. :)

Feel free to PM Darat or Terry - or report a post with "abbo" in it - and give a reason why it should be auto-censored.

[Moochie]

Far as I know, "Abbo" is a mildly derogatory term for an Australian Aborigine, unless spoken by one abbo to another. "Boong" is probably far more insulting.

M.

[BillyJoe]

Moochie is correct but wrong as well...he shouldn't have used that term! ;)

[Moochie]

Moochie is correct but wrong as well...he shouldn't have used that term! ;)

I'm allowed to -- I'm 15 shades of bastard :D

M.

[grunion]

Is it politically correct to use the term "gypped"?
Far be it from me to judge "political correctness" as I make no claim to be a thought policeman. But the term "gypped" is indeed a very offensive one. When my father was a young man he worked as a laborer with some Roma men in upstate New York and they made it clear to him how painful it was to them to hear children conflate their culture with cheating and scamming, without even knowing they were doing it. I was banned from using that word and I still cringe when I hear it in normal, polite conversation.

Just because it has passed into common usage doesn't make it any less of a slur. I recall when Polish jokes were all in vogue (sometime in the 70's) and you couldn't turn on the TV or walk into a bookstore without being bombarded with them. "Polish" became a synonym for "dumb" (kind of like "blonde" is today, like when a woman says "I had a blonde moment there" when she makes a dumb mistake.) The jokes truly had an impact on people's attitude towards Poland and Polish people. I'm glad the jokes seem to have gone out of fashion.

I agree with the opening post. Even Randi could stand a little enlightenment once in awhile.

[BillyJoe]

You should hear some b**** jokes, they're positively attrocious (sic). ;)

:D

[Slimething]

Just because it has passed into common usage doesn't make it any less of a slur.

I'm not sure if I agree with this statement. If a slur originally meant to do harm to a specific population is then generalized with its meaning intact but the link to the population broken, is it still a slur? I don't think so. My opinion is that you've only been insulted if someone means to insult you. You might be offended by something but being insulted is more personal than that.

I recall when Polish jokes were all in vogue (sometime in the 70's) and you couldn't turn on the TV or walk into a bookstore without being bombarded with them. "Polish" became a synonym for "dumb" (kind of like "blonde" is today, like when a woman says "I had a blonde moment there" when she makes a dumb mistake.) The jokes truly had an impact on people's attitude towards Poland and Polish people.

Actually, "pollack" jokes became popular in the sixties. IIRC, Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In started the vogue, or at least continued it. They were a hit at my grade school and I have to admit that I told a few. However, I can't recall anyone substituting the word "Polish" for "Pollack" at any time or anyone casting aspersions on the Polish because of this. That is, I disagree that these jokes were really connected as illustrative of Poles in the general culture. As a matter of fact, any time someone would say anything about Poland, a pall would descend as most people could only feel empathy for those under the Soviet yoke.

Perhaps you and I have different philosophies of life but I try not to be insulted unless I have been insulted. I get offended easily but insulted hardly ever.

[Bri]

So even though there's huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels, nobody can make that association without being branded a racist?

What a patronising, idiotic post.

I don't know about Randi, but the day I personally withhold my opinion because someone threatens me with a racism label is the day I curl up and die.

Baron, I think the point that BB and others were trying to make is that since Gypsies are an ethnic group, there are likely people who consider themselves Gypsies but don't routinely commit crimes. Therefore, even if we accept your statement "there's huge amounts of evidence linking gypsies to elevated crime levels" as true, the point made by the OP seems to have some merit. Phrases such as "gypsy sort of scam" might be insulting to some Gypsies. The implication of such phrases is that a behavior is inherent to a race, which would be both racist and entirely without merit.

Now, it's possible that Randy meant that a particular scam was similar to scams that are known to be specific to certain Gypsies (I don't know the context of his use of the phrase), in which case he should be careful to make it clear exactly what he meant.

-Bri