Folks, this is not difficult to understand unless you're deliberately being obtuse.

There's legal and illegal discrimination.

Some forms of legal discrimination do amount to discrimination against White people.

When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.

Just crying out that "But.... but you said discrimination is wrong!" really isn't the 'argument' you think it is.

Many don’t even acknowledge that their policies are discriminatory.

But it’s still a good argument to point out that discriminatory diversity policies are discriminatory. Because that forces those that advocate for them to lay out their justifications and also at what point the policy is no longer needed.

I’m not against affirmative action where it makes sense, but it’s a heavy handed policy and as such needs very good justification and constant re-evaluation.

Affirmative action is bigotry of low expectations by another name.

Imagine if I were a minority doctor who benefited from this, my patients will always wonder if I'm less-than. Nobody wants to go to a cardiologist that was bottom of their class, so why instill that doubt and call it a leg up?

Sure, but it’s usually not like that though. All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard.

Like I said, this can be an overall good. For example, let’s say I run a small software shop where everybody is male. Now, it’s not likely that a woman would accept a job offer because of the environment. So if I were the boss I’d hold off on hiring until I can get three people at the same time and work hard to make all of them women, to the point I wouldn’t look at male applicants. After that the workplace would hopefully be more balanced and for the next hire gender wouldn’t matter.

Is this unfair towards the men applying? It absolutely is, and that’s why I would only consider this as a one-time thing for a clear and specific goal.

This is in the context of a small private company, I believe nationwide policies need specific goals and targets infinitely more.

> All the people who get into med-school are talented even though the selection process was unfair in this regard

Be that as it may, a reasonable person given the choice will not want the least of the smart people working on their heart. This is a scenario where someone can be the smartest person in all racial categories but the stigma will still exist because race X is known to be favored over race Y for reasons not pertaining to skill, merit, or knowledge.

Nha I would look at the doctor and think , word for word, “good shit nigga” [Note I am black :)]

Affirmative action is heavy handed when it involves hard quotas. There's nothing wrong with an affirmative action policy that sets a goal to be more inclusive by reaching out to other groups yet does not require limits strictly on the basis of skin color.

How about just taking the best candidate, and be done with it?

I live in a former socialist state, and a combination of grades and standardized testing is calculated into a score in that score determines if you get accepted to a college or not. Colleges have no idea who you are, until you get an e-mail that you're accepted and come to sign in.

Good idea! It's just so crazy, it might work!

“Don’t you know we moved the goal posts?” Isn’t the argument you think it is

You seem to be confused. There is zero doubt that the two parents understand that one is legal and the other illegal, hence they are quite clearly discussing the topic from a moral standpoint.

Anyway, surely you don't think legal discrimination necessarily moral discrimination? After all, Jim Crow was perfectly legal.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is morally acceptable. Slavery was once perfectly legal, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong.

> When we say "Discrimination is wrong" we are almost always talking about illegal discrimination.

What I'm hearing from you, dendriti, is that slavery wasn't wrong when it was legal.

That definitely seems a hot take in 2022.

you can discrimnate against anyone and you do it every day.

When you choose your gf you discriminated another girl that liked you.

When you choose another coffee brand also.

When you hire someone also.

Ppl who pay the cost should be able to choose.

Any solution forcing the party paying to choose what you would like them to choose without you paying the cost is, IMHO , plain wrong.

Discrimination at least in this case means attributing value to a person (seemingly) belonging to a certain group. The word you're describing is called choice.

When you choose something or someone you are assessing a value to it... that is the whole point.

You do not date X bc you prefer Y (higher value). You do it with everything... we do it. It is just how things are... that you choose one over the other makes the other the not chosen side of the thing. So yes, in some way you can see that as discrimination (even if we do not give it political meaning, it is still)