Your definitions are off and your analysis is hopelessly collectivist. You analysis group versus group as opposed to individual versus individual. You also use lots of left wing New Speak. Actual definitions will follow. If you looked up discrimination or prejudice or any of their forms or manifestations in a dictionary or encyclopedia, you’d find that they are things individuals do to other individuals on the basis of the group an individual belongs to or is seen as belonging too. Majority and minority status don’t factor into it. Also, I speak as a black pansexual genderfluid genderqueer person agh bottom of the so-called privilege point system. New Speak is the leftist tendency to ignore the actual definition of words in the English language in favor of one’s they want to replace it with. A good example is on taxation. Rate of taxation is dividing the tax by base of taxation. If that rate of taxation is constant, it’s a proportional tax. If it increase with base, it’s progressive. If it decrease while base increases, its regressive. In lefty speak tax rate is dividing tax by income (which leads to issues with taxes that aren’t income taxes). I was debating sales tax with a lefty and they said sales taxes were regressive and I pointed out sales taxes are proportional by definition. They said that was the old definition. I said it was the current definition despite the failed lefty attempt to replace it. Lefties aren’t using an honest campaign to get rid off all non income taxes, but using a New Speak language tactic. This leads back to only oppressed groups can be discriminated against and only oppressors can discriminate arguments, oppression is nowhere in the actual definition of discrimination. This is another example of lefty New Speak again.
Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit. This includes treatment of an individual or group, based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or social category, “in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated”. It involves the group’s initial reaction or interaction going on to influence the individual’s actual behavior towards the group leader or the group, restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to another group, leading to the exclusion of the individual or entities based on logical or irrational decision making. Discriminatory traditions, policies, ideas, practices, and laws exist in many countries and institutions in every part of the world, even in ones where discrimination is generally looked down upon. In some places, controversial attempts such as quotas have been used to benefit those believed to be current or past victims of discrimination — but have sometimes been called reverse discrimination. In the USA, a government policy known as affirmative action was instituted to encourage employers and universities to seek out and accept groups such as African Americans and women, who have been subject to discrimination for a long time. Some attempts at antidiscrimination have been criticized as reverse discrimination. In particular, minority quotas (for example, affirmative action) may discriminate against members of a dominant or majority group or other minority groups. In its opposition to race preferences, the American Civil Rights Institute’s Ward Connerly stated, “There is nothing positive, affirmative, or equal about ‘affirmative action’ programs that give preference to some groups based on race.” Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of race, gender, ethnicity, or other factors. This discrimination may seek to redress social inequalities under which minority groups have had less access to privileges enjoyed by the majority group. In such cases it is intended to remove discrimination that minority groups may already face. The label reverse discrimination may also be used to highlight the discrimination inherent in affirmative action programs. Reverse discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities. Conceptualizing affirmative action efforts as reverse discrimination began to become popular in the early- to mid-1970s, a time period that focused on underrepresentation and action policies intended to remedy the effects of past discrimination in both government and the business world. The concept of reverse discrimination has two different meanings. In the broadest sense, it refers to discrimination against Whites or males in any area of life, including employment and education. In a narrower sense, it refers to the specific negative impacts Whites or males may experience because of affirmative action policies. The two meanings are often conflated, which leads to confusion and misinformation. The law in some countries, such as the UK, draws a distinction between “equality of provision” and “equality of outcome”, based on the idea that identical treatment may sometimes act to preserve inequality rather than eliminate it. Opponents of this distinction may label it as an example of reverse discrimination.