1. Discrimination is bad.

2. Minorities have faced discrimination the most.

3. Let's discriminate against Whites/Asians to correct #2, even though we accept the truth of #1.

I don't get this thought process at all..."lets fight discrimination with more discrimination!"

What's your proposal for a solution that doesn't discriminate? Do nothing?

Can you fix the existing imbalance without doing something?

What if the affirmative action were only temporary, and was designed to stop once balance is reached -- is it still discrimination?

The solution can't be to do nothing, doing nothing is why we are where we are, doing nothing is why discrimination exists. We need to fix #1 and #2 on your list before we can fix #3.

I would love to hear of an alternative thought process, please please suggest something better than affirmative action that might fix discrimination.

Punishing the grandchildren for the wrongdoings of the grandparents.

I though we left that behind a 100 years or more ago?

That's an ideal to strive for, but if society as a whole seems hellbent to keep punishing people who have neither themselves nor had their grandparents do anything wrong, then shifting it to people whose grandparents did can be a better solution than doing nothing.

Original sin is a heinous concept, and so are blood feuds, and this sounds like both. If your father was a violent degenerate and arsonist, would you comfortable paying society back for a portion of his crimes? It seems like that is what you are asking of people as 'better than nothing'. I'm not being hyperbolic either, your logic, applied to criminal law would condemn me to suffer due to the actions of a person I have ever met once.

You seem to be happy to ignore that the larger context is this:

Non-white people are discriminated against because society as a whole accuses their parents as a whole of being degenerates.

> If your father was a violent degenerate and arsonist, would you comfortable paying society back for a portion of his crimes?

I'm a german. Ask me about the amount of paying back my entire life has consisted of.

--

You're also veering very off-topic from the fact that op made the claim "more discrimination is being proposed as the solution" to which i replied by disagreeing that it is more, and claim it is the same amount of discrimination, just moved around.

> "...i replied by disagreeing that it is more, and claim it is the same amount of discrimination, just moved around."

How is this an acceptable solution??

So its more like "discrimination is bad, but only against some groups, if we discriminate against this other group though, its okay"...I still don't how this is "fair" or "just" in any sense

It is not acceptable in the sense of "ok, we can stop now."

It is however an improvement, unless you think it is fair to discriminate one group massively and one not at all.

I don't think it is fair to discriminate against anyone at all and certainly don't think that this "shifting discrimination around" game is going to work well at all in the long run...

I just wrote:

> It is not acceptable in the sense of "ok, we can stop now."

That means: It is not supposed to work well in the long run.

Just to be clear, holding modern Germans accountable for the actions of the third reich is also absurd, and and I would speak to defend you from those sorts of attacks.

The sins of the father should not condemn his children.

I appreciate the thought. However i do think that it has ultimately made germany as a whole a better country, so i don't entirely agree. Then again i also don't wholly disagree. There are plenty situations and cases where children absolutely should not suffer for parents' sins. I think it must be considered in each case, and especially so if the children derived benefits from the sins.