There is a great misunderstanding of what I wrote.

> I agree that that using destructive blanket terms for groups and making caricatures of people is not novel ...

You are agreeing with something I didn't say. I said: "we both know we are engaging in an old debate about double-standards and 'reverse discrimination'. Let's not pretend it's some novel thing we're proposing"

Also, you keep using the world 'subjective' like it is disqualifying. You can see my GP post for why.

The idea that we don't know about many vulnerable groups in our society is absurd and theoretical; there is plenty of objective evidence and it's obvious who they are. I'm not even sure what you wrote really says anything to the contrary.

It would have been great to have a genuine conversation.