You and others are providing a willfully ignorant and overly simplistic presentation of what affirmative action is. Your question is in bad faith.
I don’t agree with a lot of political opinions of others but I don’t try to pretend like I don’t understand where they are coming from. Requiring someone to explain something you already know is how you would keep people eternally occupied with meaningless work, not what you would do to have a fruitful conversation. What you’re doing here is one reason why no one ever makes any progress these days in resolving their differences.
I don't think the question was in bad faith. I don't understand why it would be seen that way.
Many people view affirmative action as racist.
I could even imagine there existing a proponent of affirmative action who says, "Yes, I concede it's racist, but it's racist for the sake of helping the downtrodden, not racist for the sake of hurting the downtrodden, so it's OK."
So if people want to argue against affirmative action, they probably need to say why it's bad specifically, not just that it's racist.
The Wikipedia page[1] on affirmative action says that it includes "promoting diversity", which means artificially adding diversity by discriminating against majorities, which is consistent with my personal experience and the way I've heard other people use the term, and is consistent with he argument that I was making.
Meanwhile, you didn't even attempt to provide nuance to my interpretation of "affirmative action", nor did you try to counter my argument in any way whatsoever. Seems more like you're in bad faith by trying to use a vague claim like "overly simplistic" without providing any sort of support.
In my extremely humble opinion this discussion would benefit if parent's question was given a benefit of doubt accompanied with a good, substantiated, logical answer.
Otherwise you are preaching to the choir, my friend.
Assuming the sale on your premises is solid rhetoric, but since this is meant to be a dialectical site your reply is a bit lacking. Why don't you state your unstated premises that you assume your interlocutor is knowingly ignoring to support your claim of bad faith?
I don’t agree with a lot of political opinions of others but I don’t try to pretend like I don’t understand where they are coming from. Requiring someone to explain something you already know is how you would keep people eternally occupied with meaningless work, not what you would do to have a fruitful conversation. What you’re doing here is one reason why no one ever makes any progress these days in resolving their differences.