...
Affirmative Action has been a big thing for over 50 years.
... even if what is on the table is outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups rather than direct discrimination against those who are in power, I do not agree with that sentiment as you should well realize by my postings in this thread alone.
Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student who applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
Your post sets up a dichotomy in which
either a white person is "in power" in critical economic situations,
or they are victims of "direct discrimination". There is no such dichotomy,
My post did not set up any such dichotomy. That is a figment of your imagination. Obviously some white people are both "in power" and discriminated against, obviously some are neither "in power" nor discriminated against, and obviously you will be unable to exhibit a logical derivation to the contrary from my post.
Your post set up an entirely different dichotomy between (1) Affirmative Action programs that are outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, and (2) Affirmative Action programs that are direct discrimination against those who are in power. In my first question I asked you why you set up that dichotomy. In my second question I asked you if you have any evidence to offer in defense of your dichotomy -- any evidence that the people discriminated against by the non-type-1 AA programs in fact really are in power. It appears on its face to be a patently false dichotomy -- plenty of Affirmative Action programs directly discriminate against people who are not in power.
because people are not, in the first place, owed special privileges just because they identify as white.
You are insinuating that I implied white people are owed special privileges and am in need of a lecture that they are not. I implied nothing of the sort, and was not in need of such a lecture. You did not have a reason to think I did, or was. For you to have taken such a sneering swipe at me without cause appears on its face to have been malicious. But I will keep Hanlon's Razor in mind.
Now, if you are asking whether a person is more or less likely to <ludicrous hypothesis snipped>
I asked you two questions. They were in plain* English. They were both questions
about you. You elected not to answer them. Instead you replied with a misrepresentation of my post, a nasty insinuation about my personal character, and a proposal that I meant to ask a question about somebody other than you. But that doesn't make my questions about you go away. Feel free to answer them now.
(* Sorry, I see there was a typo in my second question. That should have been:
Why do you describe those forms of affirmative action that are not outreach and empowerment of under-privileged groups, but are direct discrimination against white** people, as "direct discrimination against those who are in power"? Do you have any evidence that when an unemployed person applies for a job or a high-school student applies for a slot in a college's freshman class, if he or she is white then that means he or she is in power?
)
(** All this discussion leaves aside the subset of AA programs that are direct discrimination against Asians, since you and the other quoted posters appeared to already be leaving Asians aside.)