Do you think this is racist and offensive?

[weirstrass]

It is racist and offensive, but gypsies are certanly no saints.
Here in Croatia, they behave like savage niggers and feral shiptars.
Simply put, they don't want to be integrated.
There are however exceptions that prove the rule, but they are, well... exceptions.

I agree gypsies shouldn't be living in Croatia (or Serbia). But Yugoslavs shouldn't be immigrating to the USA either, to be honest. They are unwanted and some behave like feral niggers too.

[Hermit]

it's like saying blacks are a problem because they are 12% of the American population but 90% of prisoners.

at first that looks like blacks are a real liability and a drag on our resources but you must realize whites probably would not be much better if they were that poor.

being poor is not a license to commit crime.

[Anthropos]

It doesn't matter to me if it's racist or not, I'll start out that way. Because in recent years, none of the talk about racism makes sense anyway. Even the meaning of the term, as listed in dictionaries, is not very helpful, in my opinion. It is in fact easy to use it to escape any charges of racism, but I'm not taking the easy way out of this because it's an important question deserving a better answer.

But is it wrong in any way to say what he said? No, it isn't. If you start out pretending that everyone is the same in everything, so that you can't talk about any ethnic group and their good and bad sides, and so on, then you aren't going to make sense out of diverse societies. What we have in this case is the normative morality of anti-racism versus a fact-based discussion. Because some people are saying or implying that singling any one ethnicity out is racist, making the whole thing a moral issue, pretending that morality is so much more important than the fact-based discussion. That approach will of course make it impossible to discuss any problem in society from an ethnological point of view. Not even in the politically correct sciences of today are the narratives that narrow minded, so I don't see why political discussions should be. There is no justification for it.

Death to thought crime. Let's obliterate it from the face of Europe.

[Mortimer]

It doesn't matter to me if it's racist or not, I'll start out that way. Because in recent years, none of the talk about racism makes sense anyway. Even the meaning of the term, as listed in dictionaries, is not very helpful, in my opinion. It is in fact easy to use it to escape any charges of racism, but I'm not taking the easy way out of this because it's an important question deserving a better answer.

But is it wrong in any way to say what he said? No, it isn't. If you start out pretending that everyone is the same in everything, so that you can't talk about any ethnic group and their good and bad sides, and so on, then you aren't going to make sense out of diverse societies. What we have in this case is the normative morality of anti-racism versus a fact-based discussion. Because some people are saying or implying that singling any one ethnicity out is racist, making the whole thing a moral issue, pretending that morality is so much more important than the fact-based discussion. That approach will of course make it impossible to discuss any problem in society from an ethnological point of view. Not even in the politically correct sciences of today are the narratives that narrow minded, so I don't see why political discussions should be. There is no justification for it.

Death to thought crime. Let's obliterate it from the face of Europe.

facts discussion is ok to me, also saying that a ethnic group is problematic. but i think this slogan is hate loaded, you say racism is not bad, but usually racism is hate and discrimination and taking away rights from others, thats why people agree usually that its bad.

[JohnSmith]

Seem Racist to me Austria is known I thought for being a very racist country. But they now have a Green Party President.

[Mortimer]

Seem Racist to me Austria is known I thought for being a very racist country. But they now have a Green Party President.

this is not in austria though bro, it is in germany. it is one party, but they are not a majority party.

[wvwvw]

The poster says "Is it possible that we have a zigeunerproblem (gypsy problem).Here are many racialists, pan-european nationalists, ethnic nationalists etc. (or how they prefer to call themselfes "insert") and many dont like roma so probably many will think its good but to me its offensive and racist. Also "Zigeuner" is very offensive associated, and like how they phrase it its very racist its similar as to saying "jwe have again a jew problem" and this is also very offensive considering the history and context. it would the same just to give you a example to better understand.

Not unless he is proposing a final solution.

[JohnSmith]

Not unless he is proposing a final solution.

For what and to do what??? Do not be silly Europe does not need this shit happening again.

[Bobby Martnen]

1.gypsy/zigeuner has very negative connotation maybe not racial slur per se, but historically and in context very negative
2.if someone would say "there is a negroe problem" "there is a muslim problem" "there is a jew problem" you would know its offensive and dont question it, almost no one would dare to say that like that.

I think it's offensive to say "There is a Gypsy problem" when the vast majority of Gypsies are peaceful and law-abiding. It's unfair to judge them all based on what a few of them do. That said, "Gypsy" doesn't have a negative/offensive connotation in American English, and is the standard word for Roma/Gypsies here. A fair number of British Romanichals seem to call themselves "Gypsies" as well. "Zigeuner" is probably offensive and borderline racist in German (I speak it very poorly), but the English word "Gypsy" isn't comparable.

I guess it's sort of like how "Oriental" is an offensive way to describe East Asians in America, but it is the common/unoffensive way to describe them in the UK.

[Odin]

Nope.