You came up with some vague "hypotheticals", kept throwing more "hypothetical claims" around and now you pretend like you "won" some discussion by treating my explanation as a concession. That is exactly the kind of dishonest argumentative pattern i'm talking about.

Here's some dude who shared some of the usual comments that come up in many European reddit subs, once the word "roma" is mentioned: https://piefed.social/post/2439917#comment_13134574

Maybe that'll help you to understand why your "hypothetical" nonsense sounds like a bunch of dogwhistles.