>Presumably everyone would agree straight white males were given huge privileges in the long tail history of America. (That's a pretty easy reading of history.)

>Presumably everyone would agree straight white males were given huge privileges in the long tail history of America. (That's a pretty easy reading of history.) No, that's a biased, agendad reading of history which ignores that the vast majority of these unfairly privileged white males were competing with other males who shared the same privilege. It does not justify discrimination against individuals today. It also does not demonstrate how a 90% majority benefited from workplace discrimination against the minority. Those inconvenient details are handwaved away with accusations of bigotry. >So, if your claim is that they are now discriminated against- what was the inflection point where they were treated with no net bias? Given the rate with which this cultural shift has progressed, there may not have been an obvious inflection point. But that's irrelevant to my argument. In typical fashion you are simultaneously rationalizing discriminatory hiring practices (as though historic privilege requires modern correction) and denying that they are being mandated (as though D&I initiatives do not put implicit and explicit pressure against hiring white males). And the dishonesty is infuriating.