It's an analogy: you said that DEI supporters want to "discriminate actively against races/genders/orientations that haven't been discriminated against in the same way." (Let's call this "reverse discrimination" just for brevity)

I figured if you can understand that "alms for the poor" isn't an example of "reverse discrimination", then you can also understand that there are also ways to support historically-discriminated-against groups without reverse discrimination.

If you can make that leap, there's a whole dialog on whether current methods are reverse-discrimination or something else. If you can't make that leap, then there's not really a conversation to be had - our perspectives diverge too much to be mutually comprehensible.