Thread: The hypocrisy of repeating the 'w-word'

America has classes of people protected by law.
That means they can be offended, who defines that offense? They do.
Class protections in and of themselves is offensive.
Hopefully with more constructionist Jurists on the SCOTUS this perversion will finally after decades of imposed repression be corrected.

affirmative action

Affirmative action (or positive discrimination) is a policy or a program whose stated goal is to redress past or present discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, generally concerning education, employment or seats in parliament and/or government.[1]

Affirmative action began as a corrective measure[2] for governmental and social injustices against demographic groups that have been said to be subjected to discrimination in areas such as employment and education. The stated goal of affirmative action is to counteract past and present discrimination sufficiently that the power elite will reflect the demographics of society at large, at which point such a strategy will no longer be necessary.

Some groups who are targeted for affirmative action are characterized by race, gender, ethnicity, or disability status. In India, the focus has mostly been on undoing caste discrimination. In South Africa, the focus has been primarily race-based and, to a lesser extent, gender-based discrimination. When members of targeted groups are actively sought or preferred, the reason given is usually that this is necessary to compensate for advantages that other groups are said to have had (such as through institutional racism or institutional sexism or historical circumstances).

The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness or gender-blindness—or simply relying on elites to behave fairly—will not suffice to change the situation for several reasons.

* Discrimination practices of the past preclude the acquisition of 'merit' by limiting access to educational opportunities and job experiences.[3]
* Ostensible measures of 'merit' may well be biased toward the same groups who are already empowered.[4]
* Regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power are likely to hire people they already know, and/or people from similar backgrounds.[5]

Controversy

Proponents of affirmative action generally advocate it either as a means to address past discrimination or to enhance racial, ethnic, gender, or other diversity.[1] They may argue that the end result — a more diversified student body, police force or other group — justifies the means.

Opponents claim that it has undesirable side-effects and that it fails to achieve its goals. They argue that it is discrimination, perpetrates new wrongs to counter old ones, and instills a sense of victimhood in the majority. It may increase racial tension and benefit the more privileged people within minority groups (such as middle to upper-class blacks) at the expense of the disenfranchised within majority groups (such as lower-class whites). In the British 2001 Summer of Violence Riots in Oldham, Bradford, Leeds and Burnley, one of the major complaints voiced in poor white areas was alleged discrimination in council funding which favoured minority areas.

Some also claim that in college or professional admissions, it hurts those it intends to help, since it causes a "mismatch" effect by admitting minority students who are less qualified than their peers into more rigorous programs wherein they cannot keep up. UCLA School of Law professor Richard Sander wrote several papers on this occurring in both the law schools themselves and in law firms. [1] Supporters of affirmative action counter this by citing the connections that a minority student can obtain simply by being at a higher-ranked school, even if their class ranking is lower.

How the media portrays affirmative action and affirmative action cases plays a role in how the public responds to affirmative action. There are claims that the practice is itself racist and/or sexist, depending on how one defines those concepts. Others believe that programs may be motivated by political considerations. Some members of races 'assisted' by affirmative action feel that the program is an insult to them, because they feel that they are capable of becoming successful regardless of government's help. Finally, critics and supporters disagree on the economic effects of affirmative action. [citation needed]

http://www.answers.com/topic/affirmative-action

Since when are Americans denied the right to express an opinion?
What about the right to shun those who will cause them harm? Physical or monetary?

MountainDog Wrote:

it just depends on how you use it.

Actually, it depends on how it`s taken.

I don't even know what the 'w' word is...no clue.

People have always razzed each other with ethnic jokes as far back as I can remember. There are jokes about, Irish, Polish, Swedes Italians. Most of us either laugh or don't and move on.

I can see it now blonde sues for bumb blonde jolk.

Yes, but if they are going to start slinging the word racist around...

maybe they should look at themselves first!

I think it depends, I am hispanic and sometimes if I say "gringo" i dont mean it in a rascist way...I have tried to stop to say it for the same reasons of i dont want to be called a "wetback" becasue I am not one. I have been the vicitm of discrimination as everyone on this board...its a cycle, I have learned to ignore it...yes I'll defend myself but I am not gong to change a person who dislikes me for the color of my skin, I jsut try not to be like them. I am not going to judge every white person b/c of the ones who have discrimintated me. I have been discriminated even by hispanics, this whole race game is so stupid...I am just me there is no strings attached b/c of my ethnicity, race, color, religion etc...

Name calling just shows petty ignorance. I`m not offended that easy. I`ve been called every name in the book and every name that`s not in the book. It never bothered me. I just ignore the person(s) and go on with my life.

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

I've heard the word Gringo a lot and I've been called Gringo more than a few times and a very small percentage of it's use in my experience has been without prejudice.

Racist nationalism is alive and well in the US but the majority of it doesn't come from the natives.

Originally Posted by Aracely

I think it depends, I am hispanic and sometimes if I say "gringo" i dont mean it in a rascist way...I have tried to stop to say it for the same reasons of i dont want to be called a "R******R" becasue I am not one.

Well I grew up in a place where the majority of kids my age were hispanic. About half were Americans, half illegals. Gringo was an ugly term. The American kids finally stopped using it because they realized it was being used offensively by the illegals. Them saying gringo was not meant to be offensive, just like my grandmother meant no offense at using the "n-word" in her day. But when malice is used behind the word that's when it becomes ugly.
If all these people have are ugly words then we are in good shape.