Hacker News Reader

Comment by JabavuAdams | Hacker News Reader

FYI "jipped" is actually spelled "gypped", which is a slur against Gypsies. I only raise this because I used to say it a lot, and was unaware of its etymology and connotations.

View on HN

And "Gypsies", describing the Romani people, is sometimes considered derogatory because of its negative connotations, and because it is reflective of the mistaken belief that they were itinerant Egyptians.

Interesting. I'd never heard the Egyptian part before.

They were probably originated from India.

Sorry, I had no idea where this word came from (or was spelled!). I should have just said "ripped off". In the states, the word has completely lost its original context (and more so in China).

Many people don't

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/30/242429836/...

>"I encounter a lot of people who tell me that they never knew the word 'gypped' had anything to do with gypsies, or that it's offensive — especially when the word is heard not read," says University of Texas at Austin professor Ian Hancock, who was born in Britain to Romani parents. "My response to them is, That's okay. You didn't know but now you do. So stop using it. It may mean nothing to you, but when we hear it, it still hurts."

I'm in favor of re-spelling it as jipped, and removing the old connotation, because most people don't know that and it is a pretty common word now.

Changing the spelling doesn't help. It's a pretty ugly word that I definitely used a lot as a child, and it took a while to get out of my vocabulary.

edit: I also used to say "jewed down" as a kid. There's stuff that's better just to get rid of.

edit 2: I've actually had people passionately explain to me why saying "nigger-rigged" was not a problem.

Not sure it works like that - you don't clean context just by changing the spelling.

You do if people also don't jump at the chance to tie it to the old concept.

Perhaps if you live in an area where the word "gypsy" isn't well-known - but it would be in most of Europe at least. And given the history of abuse and oppression (eg: forced sterilization, even before the nazi concentration camps) it's not really a word that should be forgotten - in the sense that forgetting history is a great way to later repeat the same mistakes, and commit similar abuse.

I don't really see how "jipped" doesn't end up pronounced as "gypped" - so the connotation remains. FWIW the Moby Thesaurus lists a long litany of synonyms along the lines of "con man" and "cheat" for the term "gypper".

Then let's also prohibit the word 'slave' which originates from 'slav', because many slavs were sold into slavery in the middle ages. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slave

Words do lose their negative connotations, especially with different spelling.

Slav and slave have different pronunciation, not just different spelling (and actually, 'slav' in the meaning of slavic people was also spelled 'slave' - not sure if that was with a silent 'e' on the end or not). It's also as I understand it a name given to the slavic people by themselves: "Slav \Slav\ (sl[aum]v or sl[a^]v), n.; pl. {Slavs}. [A word originally meaning, intelligible, and used to contrast the people so called with foreigners who spoke languages unintelligible to the Slavs; akin to OSlav. slovo a word, slava fame, Skr. [,c]ru to hear. Cf. {Loud}.] (Ethnol.) One of a race of people occupying a large part of Eastern and Northern Europe, including the Russians, Bulgarians, Roumanians, Servo-Croats, Slovenes, Poles, Czechs, Wends or Sorbs, Slovaks, etc. [Written also {Slave}, and {Sclav}.] [1913 Webster]"

I'm reminded of a quote about what if the German army named their machines of war after the people they tried to exterminate, like the Apache helicopter etc.

I'm not saying we should "prohibit" words, I'm just saying I don't quite see how one could make much of a case for "gypping" being a word that isn't steeped in history of abuse of and discrimination against the Roma people. As recent as the 70s and 80s (and even to this day) for most of Europe. Eg, to quote song "Magnificent Seven" by the Clash: "What Do We Have For Entertainment? / Cops Kickin' Gypsies On The Pavement". (I never interpreted the song any other way than as a critique of systematic abuse by the police, and callousness of mass media - not as a slur by the Clash against "gypsies").

Just because "nigger" is derived from "negro" and means "black" doesn't automatically mean we can choose to pretend black people hasn't been and still are victim of racism, and decide that "nigger is now ok to use".

Because the American speakers who use it don't have a history of discriminating and abusing Roma people? There are barely any Roma people in America to abuse. Certainly in much of Europe Roma people have been treated very badly.

It's certainly true that many portrayals of black people in continental Europe often look very odd or offensive to American eyes.

I'm not sure that makes much sense. By that logic I should be fine using "indian" rather than Native American or First Nation, because it's been a thousand years since Norwegian Vikings first killed Native Americans? (Which makes doubly no sense, as there were a number of Norwegians in the early settlements of the west, and I'm sure there are a few tales of horrors to be told about some of their exploits).

As for Roma in the USA, it appears that their invisibility is more the result of an almost complete eradication of their culture, more than anything else: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/22/american-gy...

There's plenty of racism in Europe - that doesn't mean it's ok or should be accepted.

To clarify, I didn't mean that the discrimination/abuse of the Roma happened a long time ago. I meant that most discrimination/abuse of the Roma has happened in Europe, not in the US. Anti-Roma racism in Europe is obvious, ugly, and contemporary. In Europe, Roma people are a coherent social group of millions of people; in the US, without mass immigration, they are a scattered minority so small that the only thing most Americans "know" about them comes from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". With nothing to refer to, the word has been bleached of reference to Roma people in American use.

Or dig deep into English vocabulary and select a more appropriate synonym without the unwanted association: hustled, conned, swindled, scammed, deceived, ripped off, tricked, cheated, flimflammed, bamboozled, bilked, duped, hornswoggled, rooked, fleeced, burned, chiseled, snowed, fast talked, screwed, shafted, bled, suckered, stiffed, milked, gouged, overcharged... there are probably more. Some of them are shaded according to the intent of the other party and how you felt about it.

But I'm not sure any of these apply to the practice under consideration, which is selling substandard produce to people who haven't properly calibrated their expectations.

Semantic bleaching is common enough in word change. Words change enough over time that the actual origin of words can become very obscure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization#Semantic_bl...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com