> not skipping 2/3 of the meaning

No, I picked the third definition entry. You have to give me a better reason to prefer than "it's got a lower number in Merriam Webster's". More importantly, affirmative actions essentially posits that black people cannot get ahead because of an inherent characteristic - skin color. It says that race effectively determines the capacity of a black without other intervention. It's demeaning.

> Labor force participation != gender equality. If women want to stay home, it's their choice. Wage equality is a bogus measurement, especially considering that men move more, stay overtime (including unpaid) more, die more on the job, work outside more, work more hours, etc. Same goes for estimated earned income. Gender ratio of bureaucrats is inconsequential; fewer women run. Again, their choice. Professional and technical workers again bogus; their choice. Literacy is fine in a nation where every one is supposed to be literate (such as America), but college and post-grad are again choices and therefore bogus. Life expectancy is bogus; women live longer and so that can't be counted. Women in parliament is bogus; not all nations have those. Also, again, people choose to run or not run for office; fewer women run in America. Ministerial positions are what, exactly? This is clearly written for commonwealth nations and those set up according to the English prototype. America is not, therefore she is not easily compared in this area. Years with female head of state is bogus. Individual choices.

It is discrimination and prejudice when you down-weight the application of a more-qualified asian to a less-qualified black. That is definitionally discriminatory and prejudicial, as you are attempting to select more blacks at the expense of others because of race.

> Affirmative action's aim is meant to compensate for the effects of discrimination and prejudice, and it's based on the belief that races are equal. The opposite of racism, not the definition of racism.

What discrimination? What prejudice? Blacks are equal. Can you quantify any?

> But if you want to ignore those important facts, and contradict the actual meaning of both the dictionary and wikipedia definitions of racism, in order to cling to Eric Raymond's conveniently simplistic mis-definition of racism, which is based on his mistaken beliefs that races are not equal, go knock yourself out. When you lay down with the dogs, you get up with fleas.

I'm not sticking with Eric Raymond's definition, I'm using the one which I believe to be correct. You can't use yours, other wise saying blacks can't vote would technically not be racist (by your definition only) if you didn't believe they were inferior but did so for purposes of politics. Your definition takes the issue to one of belief (which cannot be quantified), whereas mine deals with concrete actions.

That said, the burden to prove your definition is still on you, and you haven't actually defended the substance of the definition based on its merits. You've just said "mine's got a higher number in the dictionary".

> Are you going to whine about "reverse discrimination" next?

Depends on the definition, again. By my definition, [0] qualifies (music festival tried to charge whites double). By yours, it wasn't based on a belief of superiority and so didn't qualify. However, I don't believe there is significant racism on either side.

[0] https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/festival-white-people-...