> I hate how they lump "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" together, when they are fundamentally different things.
They aren't different different things -- one is a goal, one is a mechanism serving that goal. "Affirmative action" in employment refers specifically to affirmative action to achieve equality of opportunity -- the term and "equal employment opportunity" came into use in the US at the same time, from associated legal mandates in the 1960s; "Affirmative Action" in hiring, as a term, originates with a mandate in Executive Order 10925 (1961) requiring federal government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin" (nearly identical language -- differing from the quoted text from EO 10925 only in that "creed" is replaced with "religion" -- is in EO 11246, of 1965, which is still in effect) and was further used for remedial action that could be applied to address specific employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; see, particularly, 42 USC ch. 21, subch. VI -- titled "Equal Employment Opportunities" -- sec. 2000e-5(g).
> "Affirmative action" means we will give preference to candidates that aren't white or Asian males.
I believe broodbucket was using "equal opportunity" in the sense of "equal opportunity employer", which explicitly means that the employer does not discriminate (on protected classes). Affirmative action is would be the employer discriminating to the benefit of disadvantaged groups with the intent proving them equality in a broader sense, but it is still discrimination. Historically, one of the major legal hurdles to affirmative action has been that it is discriminatory.
"Equal opportunity" means we will hire the best candidate regardless of their race/religion/sex/etc.
"Affirmative action" means we will give preference to candidates that aren't white or Asian males.