Ok, I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who am I turning the tables on and in what way?
The libs.
Whatever you keep finding funny (or stupid I guess) about adding or not adding African American to you application.
Who the fuck mentioned “libs” other than you? I’m a Liberal, what do “libs” have to do with anything?
I really don’t understand what you find confusing about this, but I’m happy to spell it out.
I could have had an advantage on my college application by putting down “African American”, but did not because I thought I would get in trouble for doing it. Now, years later, I’ve learned that not only would I not have been in trouble, the move is apparently endorsed by far left types. Although those same people get offended if someone refers to Elon Musk as African American. So who knows.
See it wasn’t that hard. Thank you.
‘Lib eggheads’? 
The proposed action is an attempt to cheat the system by getting an advantage that isn’t intended for you. If you are opposed to most racial preferences in hiring and admissions, as I am, then trying to subvert them may not strike you as particularly wrong (and indeed I don’t think it’s a big deal if Mamdani tried to do this). If you support them, then attempting to cheat in this way should presumably be more offensive to you.
Looking at the form again, there’s no section for ‘North African’ so it’s not obvious what Moroccan immigrants should select. They could write it in the ‘other’ section, I guess.
Maybe @Babale could have ticked ‘Middle Eastern’ since Israel is in the Middle East? I wonder whether the NYT would consider that cheating? 
No, I think people on your side are illiberal because they are trying to change the law and take away rights women have fought for in the past, while preventing them from even meeting to talk about what the impact might be, pointing out likely harms or unfairness, or advocating for the interests of cis women (and in a few cases men) when they are in conflict with those of trans people. (I don’t know if you personally support this or not.)
There is no live debate on white supremacy, or whatever other comparisons you might make - or if there is, it’s because certain people want to bring it back, and I fully support allowing anyone to speak in opposition to that!
Additionally, the idea that members of X group get to unilaterally decide what counts as prejudice against them is an illiberal one, and blatantly open to abuse. (I’m hoping some of the more dubious responses to the war in Gaza will help people realise that.) They should have a major input, but not carte blanche to declare any and all opposition to be prejudice.
Earlier you asked about negative results from left-wing policies. I was thinking about the 100,000,000 people killed by communism, and the sometimes dire results of electing socialist parties around the world. But Prohibition was supported by progressives, and that didn’t turn out too well. Eugenics was also supported by prominent progressives before the Second World War, while traditionalists like the Catholic Church opposed it. It’s harder to say definitively that recent progressive policies are having bad results, but there are plenty of plausible candidates, especially in California (imagine governing a state undergoing a tech boom, one so rich that the economy recently surpassed Japan’s, so badly that it actually loses population!) where they have been dumbing down education, failing to enforce laws against shoplifting, and allowing parts of major cities to be taken over by homeless encampments (despite spending $24 billion on homelessness initiatives over the past five years).
But there is a recent example from the UK of how fear of the consequences of speaking out about contentious topics can lead to harm, in the grooming gangs scandal:
No, I think people on your side are illiberal because they are trying to change the law and take away rights women have fought for in the past, while preventing them from even meeting to talk about what the impact might be, pointing out likely harms or unfairness, or advocating for the interests of cis women (and in a few cases men) when they are in conflict with those of trans people. (I don’t know if you personally support this or not.)
There is no live debate on white supremacy or whatever other comparisons you might make - or if there is, it’s because certain people want to bring it back, and I fully support allowing anyone to speak in opposition to that!
Additionally, the idea that only members of X group get to decide what counts as prejudice against them is an illiberal one, and blatantly open to abuse. (I’m hoping some of the more dubious responses to the war in Gaza will help people realise that.) They should have a major input, but not carte blanche to declare any and all opposition to be prejudice.
Earlier you asked about negative results from left-wing policies. I was thinking about the 100,000,000 people killed by communism, and the sometimes dire results of electing socialist parties around the world. But Prohibition was supported by progressives, and that didn’t turn out too well. Eugenics was also supported by prominent progressives before the Second World War, while traditionalists like the Catholic Church opposed it. It’s harder to say definitively that recent progressive policies are having bad results, but there are plenty of plausible candidates, especially in California (imagine governing a state undergoing a tech boom, one so rich that the economy recently surpassed Japan’s, so badly that it actually loses population!) where they have been dumbing down education, failing to enforce laws against shoplifting, and allowing parts of major cities to be taken over by homeless encampments (despite spending $24 billion on homelessness initiatives over the past five years).
There’s a recent example from the UK of how fear of the consequences of speaking out about contentious topics can lead to harm, in the form of the grooming gangs scandal, as detailed here:
ETA:
I didn’t think this needed pointing out, but maybe it does: I’m opposed to censorship and cancellations on a wide range of issues, as I’m sure other posters can confirm. It’s very far from the case that I single out prejudice against trans and queer people as being okay. Nor do I support right-wing censorship or cancellation campaigns. I believe current society does not do enough to support free speech, and is far too censorious in general.
Actually, if a white Ugandan had checked “African American”, “white”, and written in “Ugandan”, when he was a teen, on a college application to a school he hadn’t even been accepted to, yes, yes, i would think that was a nothingburger. Would you give a shit about it? Really?
No, they think it’s inaccurate. Because that’s actually not how we define the word “African American”. I’d also object if someone called Mamdani “African American” today, other than tongue in cheek. Object as in, “point out it’s wrong”, not as in, “assume the person saying that was evil”.
I shouldn’t have said ‘no one’, if only because Republicans are people too. 
I was thinking of something that blew up on Twitter a couple of years ago, where a survey showed an implausibly high number of white college applicants had claimed to be a different race on their applications (mostly Native American), and Ibram Kendi commented on it. This went viral because so many people considered that it contradicted his claims of systemic and widespread discrimination in favour of white people.
Kendi and his allies certainly disapproved of this deception, but there were plenty of critics whose attitude was basically “good on them” - they didn’t agree with racial preferences, so they approved of applicants subverting them.
You’re a reasonable person. But I know from extensive experience that there are plenty of unreasonable people on the left (and no, I’m not meaning to imply the right is any better). I’ve seen far too many people fired/blacklisted/abandoned by friends for things that I considered nothingburgers.