The thing about reverse discrimination that makes it particularly egregious is that on some level people view it as more socially acceptable than traditional discrimination. Discrimination based on superficial characteristics is always, and equally wrong in all cases. Furthermore, reverse discrimination actually perpetuates the very rift that its proponents decry.
I don't want to argue the merits, but I do want to point out where the argument is. What you consider "reverse discrimination" I consider attempts to change the result of centuries of oppression. Such attempts take many forms. I do not think such attempts perpetuates the problem, but rather are attempts to rectify it.
Again, I'm not trying to argue this on its merits. I just was surprised by your wording, because I got the impression that you took the matter as settled, when it is very contested.
what you fail to realize is that this is manifestly a contradiction: by definition if it were more socially acceptable to discriminate against "white males" then white males would be the marginalized class. that's why claims like this are farcical; of course more people are fine discriminating against black people and women!
