&gt; I can&#x27;t. Totally cannot. 100% can&#x27;t deal with your argument.<p>I find it telling that you think it is my argument.  What I wrote is neither mine nor an argument.  It is a description of a theory.<p>&gt; Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.<p>Not all discriminations are equal.<p>To argue that all discrimination is discrimination is to give equivalence to police murdering for traffic violations and being denied the pole position on a job application.  Both are wrong, but there are quantitative differences – they can be measured.<p>&gt; How do we measure wrongs? How do we &quot;undo future wrongs&quot;?<p>We can measure the effect of discrimination by the number of people affected, and the impact a discrimination has on an individual.  It&#x27;s not an unknown problem; statisticians measure it on jobs, income, applications, promotions, employment types.  The data exists or can be gathered, and it can ascribed monetary value (&quot;damages&quot; in law).  No formula will be ideal in all cases, but that is not an excusable barrier.<p>Societies with affirmative action have in essence determined, whether founded or not, that the aggregate of prejudice against classes of victims outweighs the aggregate prejudice of attempting to correct it.<p>If you want to discredit the theory you must first understand that it is a widely published and peer reviewed theory of many facets of society and not just an argument from some guy on the internet.  The theory is founded in the philosophy of law, and touches on many other aspects ranging from the relationship between culture and economics through criminology.