It’s nothing new, and I don’t think the core origin is in Frankfurt either. Take the modern concept of white privilege. It’s a lift from Third Estate by Sieyes, who used similar linguistic ploys to provide philosophical and moral re-conceptualization for French Revolution movement. And he in turn likely lifted it from somewhere else.
Consider the following, and you will understand where Marx lifts his ideas from:
The pretended utility of a privileged order for the public service is nothing more than a chimera… All that which is burdensome in this service is performed by the Third Estate…
Who then shall dare to say that the Third Estate has not within itself all that is necessary for the formation of a complete nation? It is the strong and robust man who has one arm still shackled.
If the privileged order should be abolished, the nation would be nothing less, but something more. Therefore, what is the Third Estate? Everything; but an everything shackled and oppressed. What would it be without the privileged order? Everything, but an everything free and flourishing. Nothing can succeed without it, everything would be infinitely better without the others…
But, it shouldn’t really be surprising in the broader sense, since Politics has always been a game of conflation of semantic meaning.
Though, seriously: We would benefit, but so would you.
I have a good friend who says, “The way you do anything is the way you do everything.” If you became a better, more expressive, more clear writer, it would just be “for a discussion forum.” It would be for everything upon which you put your pen to paper.
Think about it.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…
a) See above.
b) I don’t know how to respond to incredulity. Incredulity is not an argument.
So, if what you’ve written is true, a) I now have heard what it is, and b) no, I still don’t care about it, despite your kind insistence.
No, it’s the only meaning of the term, racism, that’s obvious.
• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—that those white people who practice racism dominate all non-white people.
• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person has the last word on anything.
• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person can make a decision that cannot be overruled by one or more white people. The reverse is not true.
• It’s as obvious as the “racism discussion + potluck” analogy. Every time I bring this up, no one says, “Actually, that happens at our church every week.”
It doesn’t, because white supremacy is obvious. It’s only not obvious to “rainbow trout,” and/or people who are either misinterpreting what they see, or lying about it.
Racism is white supremacy. If it wasn’t, no one would be talking about it, because everyone would have supremacy.
Everything is made up, @Arkdrey. The entirety of Ukrainian culture is made-up. What: Do you think “Ukraine” is one of the nature’s four fundamental forces?
Here’s a chart, listing the seventeen known particles of the standard model. Point to the one marked “Ukraine.”
The fact that what I say is “made-up” is merely an observation. If it’s not eternal in the past, it’s made-up. In fact, that also includes the fundamental forces and their force carriers…except what I say is they were made-up by God.
To your credit, you have stayed away from emotion and frustration. Your flaw, though, is evidenced above, and below: You haven’t made coherent, meticulous arguments against my ideas.
Your counter-arguments are brobdingnagian, convoluted, tortured, and/or incomplete.
I said, “Get an editor.” You said, “Not for a discussion forum.”
OK. Suit yourself.
Do you remember this brief moment, from 1999’s The Matrix?:
I keep thinking of it as I read what you write!
I drafted and published 900 words about GeorgeTichy’s racial make-believe. I’m sure, to most people here, his nine words were innocuous. However, when I thought about them, just briefly, I immediately saw their problem, and why what they propose, in essence, is untenable.
In my response, I said that GeorgeTichy’s statement, and its implications, were false. I then argued that, much the way one must decide who is a polluter, based on a review of their activities and those activities’ effects, one must determine who a racist is in the same manner. In philosophy, this is called a “burden of proof.”
My position is that, because racism is widespread, diffused, and relatively unchallenged, it creates a high burden of proof for anyone [white] accused of it. (Three days after the 9/11 collapse, the stench of burning plastic reached Harlem, where I lived, near the other end of Manhattan. That’s because the smoke from the pit was widespread, diffused, and relatively unchallenged.)
COME ON!! HIT ME!! Give me a break and give me a fracture!!
You haven’t hit these arguments. You just keep teasing out these side issues; e.g., trying to charge me with practicing “Critical Race Theory,” because that’s despised by the right, these days.
Maybe your idea is that, if you attack one, presumably weak area of my concept, when it collapses, the whole thing will.
If so, I wish you luck. We’ve been doing this two years, now. It’s taking kinda long, and as you’ll see below, your arguments are getting slaughtered.
This is what I meant, above: “Come on, man. Come back to reality” is not an argument, @Arkdrey.
Great question! Finally: A direct response!
It really makes it so to me, because of a) what I observe, and b) the differentiations I’m making between what I see. The extant terms, and how they are used, don’t describe what I am seeing, or describing. So, I either use the term differently, or use another term.
A: They’re all sand. However, they’re all different types of sand, with different names.
The green one in the bottom right corner is olivine sand, and it’s found in Papakolea, HI.
The fine, orange-colored one above it is coral pink sand from the dunes of Utah.
Above that is quartz sand, but a kind containing green glauconite. It’s found in Estonia.
However, it’s all sand. But, if I said, “Give me some sand,” which one are you going to hand me?
Ideally, you’re going to hand me the one I mean.
However, suppose you hand me gravel? In a way, gravel is a kind of sand, in that it’s the same stuff, made the same way. However, it’s not sand, because sand is only erosive particles of a certain size.
You might say that sand is ultra-tiny gravel, in other words.
In a similar sense, racism is what we call mistreatment based on skin color differences when they become systemic. That’s why the suffix “ism” is on the word racism. That’s also why the term systemic racism is a superfluity; i.e., like saying “white racism.”
Put another way, “Hutu vs Tutsi” and white supremacy are both forms of mistreatment. But the former is sand, while the latter is boulders; not even gravel.
Not every cookie is NABISCO. Some cookies just don’t meet the NABISCO standard. One of the standards is a system. So, you can’t call them all “NABISCO,” even if you do make a delicious toll house.
If you feel I’m exercising the Force…well, I take that as a compliment.
An idiolect is the variety of language unique to an individual. This differs from a dialect, a common set of linguistic characteristics shared among some group of people.
So, as I said to @Danny a couple of years ago, I’m building an idiolect that I’m working to turn into a dialect.
Well, that’s a grammatical sentence, so, bravo, but the next part should be your explanation why.
Otherwise, all we’ve got is you saying, “No it’s not!”, and me saying, “Yes, it is!”, in a loop. Remember: Coherent, meticulous arguments.
However, the misconception is that there is something continuous between white racial mistreatment and those of other people. This is why some white people say, “Black, white, it doesn’t make a difference: It’s all racism.”
I understand why someone might say that, but it’s stupid. It shows that that person has not thought through the fact that what makes dominative systems significant is not the face they show, but the power behind them.
Some mistreatment is sand, and some is boulders. In fact, some is silt, and some is sheer granite cliff faces. (See the NABISCO analogy.)
It’s not dishonest, because it’s true, and the justification is the systematic nature of the mistreatment
As I said in “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa)”, a common characteristic of so-called “ethnic conflicts” is that they are typically of limited scope.
I think I am lemon-yellow winged racehorse.
Now, the next step is for me to prove it, by some effective action.
The difference between the system of white supremacy and the infantile Asian and Black people in your example is that when white people think they are superior on basis of their racial identity, they eventually convince everybody else they are, too.
That’s why Asian women whiten their skin, but white women don’t “yellow” theirs. That’s why Black women straighten their hair, and narrow their noses, but white women don’t widen their noses, or kink they’re hair.
That’s why non-white women of “African” descent catch flak for “unprofessional hairstyles,” but white women do not.
I could go on with this until Andromeda kisses the Milky Way. Anybody can imagine that they are anything. But, as a colleague once said, if white people decide, today, that sand is money, tomorrow, everybody will be at the beach…and, based on what I said before, a few will be at the gravel pit.
Wow: You’re just giving me more and more opportunities to demonstrate the coherence of my model.
It’s not merely a semantic re-assignment. I’m making the semantic change because it’s saying something truer about the world.
Saying white supremacy explains why in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—no non-white person can make a decision that cannot be overruled by one or more white people, but the reverse is not true.
If the reverse was true, I’d just be changing words around.
That is allowed. I could call racism “speckled blue woodchuck meat” and police “mashed potato broken gears.”
These mashed potato broken gears killings are nothing but speckled blue woodchuck meat.
The above statement is rational. It’s hard to understand. But it’s coherent.
However, it doesn’t say anything truer about the world…unless it’s never occurred to you that police killings can be racist.
By saying that racism is white supremacy, I’m not just “renaming” racism. I’m saying something about its internal structure, and, given that, something about what the world should look like IF what I’m saying is true; for example, the NABISCO analogy; the two-sentence “mugging” analogy; “Hutu vs Tutsi (and Twa)”; and, perhaps most recently and repeatedly, the “racism discussion + potluck”analogy.
I agree with that. I agree with what you’ve just said.
(1) The direct or indirect subjugation of all “non-white” people by white people, for the basic purpose of “pleasing” and/or serving any or all “white” persons, at all times, in all places, in all areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and War.
(2) The only functional Racism, in existence, among the people of the known universe, that is based on “color” and/or “anti-color” in the physical make-up or physical appearance of persons.
(3) Racism “for the sake of” Racism.
What you define as “racism” does not rank, in size, or scope, when compared to even one of the above links.
Yet, all of them, in toto, merely scratch the surface of what I mean by white supremacy.
This isn’t sand compared to gravel. This is talc compared to an asteroid.
The first illustration was to convey a population difference.
The other was to illustrate a power difference.
Think of apartheid-era South Africa: White people were the population minority, but the power majority.
I don’t see it as energy, but a insatable appitite to answer every jot and tittle directed his way, and shout down everyone else. His posts are way toooooo loooong here, and I would guess he’s just lost most readers. Carry on, those of you who want to stay on this unmerry-go-round of circular thinking. If Harry was a dairyman, his cows would have stopped producing milk a long time ago.
Out of curiosity I ran a word count app on that last post made above. 3,181 words.
@Harry_Allen - I appreciate both your participation, your passion, and I tend to agree with many of the points you make on this topic. Not all, of course, but many. If two people agree on everything only one of them is doing any thinking.
That said, you’ve lost me as a reader of your posts due to their cumbersome length. I realize the fact that I’m no longer likely to read means nothing to you and I’m okay with that.
Thank you, Harry. Sorry, couldn’t post any earlier.
Actually, you brought up this car analogy: “This started to confirm my suspicion that the term, white privilege , was, essentially, a racism “car seat.”” I just wanted to understand you and had to imagine the metaphor.
Interesting how you came to the realization of your concept of racism. Thanks for sharing. Experiences shape who we are, don’t they?
I cannot agree to all of your insights about generalizing whole segments of persons. This is not how I live my life. However, I agree that one should not underestimate white privilege. This is not a nice, neglectable phenomenon. It is injustice and as such part of the racist system. What practical anti-racist steps do you think should be done next?
Sex between races just does not compute in your thinking. Intercourse between racist and racee? How could that make any sense at all?? How could he (Tiger) choose that white woman and she him??? BETRAYAL!!
And yet it happens all the time, and in fact it seems the liberal press and corporations are celebrating it. (I see mixed couples portrayed all the time in ads). Perhaps everything does not fit into your neat little theories.
Maybe just maybe, you don’t have it all figured out yet.
Last thread, when I posted the facts about African Americans being the richest blacks on the planet, and the Africans in Africa wanting to come here, you said I should not speak about racism any more. Keep my mouth shut.
Now it seems that these same facts are irrelevant. And when Black American incomes are compared to that of other countries, the contrast is even starker. Blacks here make more than the average Brit, German, Japanese etc…
My problem here is that your friends in the BLM movement are attempting to murder the goose that laid the golden egg. The American system has created the richest most prosperous nation on earth. And the whites who invented it are not preventing the blacks from benefiting. They are so willing to let others share in the wealth that Asians here are richer than they are! It is hard to square that with “White Supremacy” that does not let others prosper.
But if you are going to loot and burn, and protest rather than go out and get a job, then there is not much to be done.
Some whites consider this a problem. You and others are even embarrassed by it.
But I would say this. When the black conferences and college want to join the white ones, they will tell us. Who are we to tell them what to do or when to join. They may have their own reasons for being separate. Let them be.
We can welcome them when they decide if they do. Otherwise it is their call, not ours.
I haven’t said anything about whether or not I’m a pedophile. I’ve not addressed the subject. I don’t even care about it, especially in this context.
You, on the other hand, said
In other words, what you’ve said is there is no evidence that you are a racist.
That is, unless you are saying that there is evidence that you are one.
Which is it?
See, above, you brought up the possibility of me being a pedophile.
I said, “I haven’t said anything about whether or not I’m a pedophile. I’ve not addressed the subject. I don’t even care about it, especially in this context.”
Few white people, however, would be so cavalier about the charge that they might be a racist, because, if only a little bit, many white people fear that they might be found out as one, particularly for things that they don’t think of as, or know are, racist.
I have no such fear of pedophilia. So, I have no problem with you raising such a serious crime per me.
Said another way, all things being equal, I’d subject myself to an exhaustive review as to whether I am a pedohpile.
However, I doubt most white people would take a similarly exhaustive test to determine if they are racist, specifically if racism is first defined as white supremacy.
I’d no more recommend “provisional trust” as a way of vetting persons per racism than I’d do so for alleged environmental spoilers, or for persons suspected to be stuffed full of COVID-19.
CORRECTION: That was the 2ND DUMBEST thing I’ve ever heard.
Let’s walk through this, instead of quickly moving on to the next point.
And I’m doing this because I have so little from you that attempts to refute the actual argument.
All you’ve mostly done is give knottily-worded complaints about why racism isn’t white supremacy, all of which are neatly swatted away.
Here we go:
How would you answer this question?:
"Am I polluting the environment?"
You’d answer it by, first, determining if you pollute. Should you do so, then you’d determine if any of it ends up in the environment.
And, re: that, you’d ask, “What is pollution, and does any of it come from me?”
The way you’d answer that question is by looking at all of your activities, and measuring them for their output, looking to see if any of it meets the common definition of “pollution,” and/or possible new ones, and then make sense of their negative impact on the environment.
My argument is you’d do, essentially, the same thing:
You’d answer it by determining if your thought, speech, or actions have a racist effect—a form of social pollution, if you will—in the larger world.
And, to do that, you’d ask, “What is racism, and does any of it come from me?”
And the way you’d answer that question is by looking at all of your activities, and measuring them for their output, looking to see if any of it meets the common definition of “racism,” and/or possible new ones, and then make sense of their negative impact on the larger world.
Now, you said:
Analogy only works with analogous concepts. Analogous… meaning similar-enough to justify shifting arguments and premises to claim that conclusion is equally valid.
That’s an argument.
So, here’s my question:
What part of this, above, is disanalogous?
Point to it, and say why you’re doing so, please.
You, presumably, would not.
To others, particularly an objective, qualified third party, I’d argue that, over the two-year period we have been in debate, I’ve made my case. I’ve done so at least as far as a) mounting a cohesive argument, and b) refuting your claims.
That third party would have to see whether that is actually the case or not; i.e., whether your arguments are more cohesive, or whether mine are. Until then, I hold that mire are, however.
That being the stated case, I feel quite free and empowered to advance concepts that illuminate how racism works.
One way racism works is it projects.
Many people have pointed out the incongruity of a president who has made a documented 20,000-plus “false or misleading statements” saying that the mass media is “fake,” meaning it is deceitful.
Others have noted, however, that it is highly common for flawed and duplicitous persons to accuse others of the failures they themselves bear.
This tendency is called projection. It is a technique of diversion, that enables the one using it to create confusion and move focus away from themselves and their defects.
White Supremacy projects.
That is why, so often, I can apply the Maximum Maxim. For example, when racist suspects say something like,
I can respond by saying that anything said about a victim of racism, under white supremacy, especially as it pertains to racism, is usually better said about the race system, itself.
In other words, it’s truer, and fits white supremacy better, than it does me, or anything I might do.
That’s why I said,
We’ve covered this elsewhere.
[quote=“Arkdrey, post:157, topic:20740”] Harry, again, why would I care about stuff you make up to make people jump through your semantic hoops? You think people will just say… yeah, we’ve had this reality-driven definition for over a century, but you know what… let’s just go with yours now? You can’t be that naive.
That’s a great question. It’s also written clearly.
Here’s your answer, and this should explain a lot of other objections:
What I’m seeking to do is formalize a system of counter-racist logic that is coherent and true.
My objective is for non-white people to adopt the same, on the basis of the idea that:
a) having such a system is a better way to exist in a world dominated by white supremacy than not having one, and
b) having one is going to be the basis of any walk that non-white people take toward justice.
So, the objective, as such, is not for you to care about stuff I make up to make people “jump through your semantic hoops.” That’s not my goal.
My goal is to make non-white people care enough, about the possible results of doing so; i.e., enough so that they put pressure on you to “jump through [my] semantic hoops”; whatever you call it.
Successfully implemented, this process would be called codification.
So, my goal is not for you to do anything.
My goal is to come up with a system of human interaction, for Black people, that is so compelling that you don’t do anything else but produce justice.
How clear am I?
To your last question, see above.
To your statement,
Prove this, to my satisfaction, if you, yourself are not a racist.
The above is rather ironic, given that I’m responding to probably the longest post on any forum I’ve ever read.
With that in mind, it makes little sense for me to go point by point given the limited time I have to do that. I’ll address your comments in a more comprehensive critique and objections to both your method and your assumptions. So, if your method is invalid, I think it’s safe to assume that your assumptions wouldn’t be either.
1. Your triumphant declaration of victory via a Matrix analogy, and why it’s bogus.
Perhaps the biggest of your problem is with your misunderstanding about how formulate and test reliable conceptual relationships that we structure into trusted definitions. Likewise, you seem to misunderstand why changing certain definitions isn’t as simple as asserting conceptual equivalence and stringing together a new definition.
Consider the following re-definition :
*I define basketball as a game that only white people play, because that's the game they invented and only they can play it properly, in turn because they begin with teaching proper fundamentals that only they understand as inventors of the game. Without proper fundamentals, one can't play proper basketball.*
What’s the problem with the above redefinition?
It doesn’t really define precisely what that game is. It’s a very generic definition that doesn’t really help us to recognize the game when it’s played. Largely because it already assumes certain conceptual familiarity with the term.
It’s circular in how it injects support into the assertion itself. What are the proper fundamentals of basketball? It’s the only ones that white people teach. What is the only proper way to play basketball? The way white people play.
It attempts to piggy back on the established term in culture that carries some conceptual value, and keeps the wrapper that communicates existing value with all of the pre-existing relationships of how that term fits into overall conceptual framework with all of its emotional and broader concepts. So it bates with original meaning and its conceptual value, and then switches to the new one, asserting that it’s a more precise and better definition.
It injects some valid assertions in order to obscure the rest of the invalid or unsubstantiated assertions.
In short, it’s a dishonest way of simply defining white guys as a better basketball players by default.
I could object to the above, saying that one has to disprove the statement specifically in order to properly object to it, but it’s structured in a way in which you can’t “hit” anything but air when you attempt to swing, since there’s no conclusive way to prove such statement false. But, it’s not necessary. If the definition relies on fallacious and circular logic in order to assert the validity of the definition… that’s all one has to point out to show that it’s not reliable.
Let’s examine your definition of racist and racism, and justifications that you formulate for re-defining the existing term the way you do.
(1) A white person who, directly or indirectly, speaks and/or acts, in a manner that helps to establish, maintain, expand, and/or refine, the practice of White Supremacy (Racism), at any time, in any place, in any one or more areas of activity, including Economics, Education, Entertainment, Labor, Law, Politics, Religion, Sex, and/or War.
(2) A White Supremacist.
(3) A person [white] who practices White Supremacy (Racism).
(4) Any white person, who is mentally or physically able to speak, and/or act, to eliminate White Supremacy, but who does not do so.
• It’s obvious that in all nine areas of people activity—economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex, and/or war—that those white people who practice racism dominate all non-white people.
Racism is white supremacy. If it wasn’t, no one would be talking about it, because everyone would have supremacy.
So, first thing to show you is rather important, and I hope you are not going to ignore it or brush it aside.
There’s a reason why you are not making up a different term, and merely rehashing the term racism.
The term racism wasn’t defined as white supremacy. The term racism had a generic definition that communicated mental attitudes as opposed to some necessity for physical reality of some disparity of “power” for these mental attitudes to be viable. The term racism never constrained the viability of that term to a specific race, because it would become a paradox of “this statement is false” variety.
So it never actually had any of these constraints that you are bringing into that equation.
Question for you… why are you using the “conceptual shell” of the term, instead of inventing some other term?
Well, the answer is rather simple. You are trying to carry out a semantic fraud, stripping the skin of the pre-existing term that already has established semantic weight, and wrapping it around something else.
What is your justification for making “white” to be the exclusive color of racism? Well, you have none because you are running into a conceptual paradox of your own making. You see, in order to justify it in the first place, you have to reference original meaning. But the original meaning doesn’t allow for such strict definition. So, what do you do? You claim that there’s a better fitting definition, which is white supremacy… and yet you have to reference the original definition to claim that, and the original definition doesn’t allow for such semantic restriction.
So what are you left to fraudulently do? You simply erase the original definition and leave the word that you fill with a new one… but why would you do that conceptually?
So you see, I don’t really need to run around and disprove the unfalsifiable definitions that you structure. All I have to say is that what you define IS NOT RACISM… you are merely made up another definition and stole the label for it.
Please justify doing that - stealing a label from an existing term that you subsequently reference in its original meaning, in order to modify it. Ever heard of the grandfather paradox? Look it up. Your logic is self-negating.
Unless you’re competently computing reparations, to be paid to descendants of the American enslaved—and unless that number is above $19 trillion—I’m completely unimpressed by American wealth, or interested in talking with you about how dope it is.
Of course salaries here are great: These riches were built on the whipped backs of Black people. That’s all you’re actually celebrating.
No, clearly it does. That’s why when you asked your question, I had an answer.
Well, it wasn’t that white woman. It was about 14 Denny’s waitresses.
But, seriously: I think that as long as racism is dominant, non-white people should be doing all we can to reduce the power of white people have over us, not increase it.
These, above, affect my ideas about race less than your writing does.
What do you mean?
I guess that depends on what you mean by “it.”
If you mean I haven’t figured out how to eliminate racism, and replace it with justice, I’d agree.
Even though that’s what I desire, I only have hypothetical ideas about how this should work; ones that I seek to refine. That’s what I’m doing, here.
If you mean I don’t know how to respond to “interracial sex,” I’m not clear why. You asked me a question as to what I thought Black and white people should do in this area, and I answered the question.
This is odd. You’re fairly clear on stuff I care nothing about.
Yet, on this question, your response reads like you fell asleep in the middle of it.
Again, you are unleashing a sea of false and yet impudently triumphant logic that I don’t really want to spend hours deconstructing, as you keep multiplying it via evasive maneuvering. I’m addressing specific problems with your logic that you keep repeating.
Here’s a shining example.
You didn’t try to understand why I was pointing it out, even though I actually explained it. All of this is in context of you saying that you never see any evidence of the contrary that all white people are not racists, and unless they conclusively demonstrate it by essentially following your prescription, they are justifiably a suspect.
You wouldn’t need to bring up pedophilia for me to show you that it, along with 100s of other labels could be invoked as a claim that you are potentially ALL OF THOSE, unless you demonstrate otherwise.
Ok, I really think you are either trolling, or you are unable to grasp the basic principles behind structuring valid arguments. Are you really saying that because we social-distance during a pandemic… therefore we should similarly suspect other people being a racist?
And you are accusing me of emotional outbursts of denial
I’ve explained what part is not analogous, and you shifted analogy to the dimentionality tangent as opposed to the context of similarity of what we are really measuring. You laughing at it and calling it dumb without even attempt to pause and understand what I’m talking … is not a good look for you
So, just so you can swallow your laughter a bit … I’ll explain the difference once again:
Pollution is an outcome measurable by objective factors that can’t be formulated as something else based on intent. Whether intent to pollute is present or not, you are still a polluter. Racism can’t exist without conceptual dependence on intent that assumes superiority, and thus justifies whatever mistreatment follows.
In fact, it’s meaningless to define racism apart from attitudes that structure intent as a core reason behind certain detrimental action directed at other races. Otherwise you are running to an absurd extreme of saying that if a black guy punches another black guy … it’s due to generic situation of two men fighting, but if a white guy punches a black guy… then it must be due to racism solely because he’s white. It makes no difference even the white guy is blind and has no clue who he is fighting.
You can’t separate racism from intent. You can’t define racism apart from intent.
So, these are not conceptually analogous, no matter how much begin to define some dimensional measurements. One is fairly objective. And the other is very much subjective.
And that’s really the pitfall of your core definition, because it never actually able to delineates between the two. It assumes that any supremacy of white people is racist, no matter whether it’s due to mere competence, or even contractual agreement
This is yet another shining example that @elmer_cupino and @GeorgeTichy should have some kick out of. It seems like you just browsing internet, compounding various pieces and then just try to fit these as a puzzle in the increasingly incoherent model of yours, without actually checking if these are even valid before you integrate these into your model.
None of these findings links seeing the trait in others to denying it in oneself, and so they fall short of the more rigorous definition of projection. Given the failure to show that projective responses can function to conceal one’s own bad traits, Holmes (1968, 1978, 1981) concluded that defensive projection should be regarded as a myth. In retrospect, it was never clear how seeing another person as dishonest (for example) would enable the individual to avoid recognizing his or her own dishonesty. The notion that projection would effectively mask one’s own bad traits was perhaps incoherent.
Yet are using unsubstantiated nonsense in order to say things like:
I should really stop here, because I doubt you will look at the above and think… hmm, maybe I was wrong on this one. Maybe the method I use to formulate and test my assertions isn’t as reliable as I think it is. Maybe I should get back to the drawing board and start over with a more robust understanding of validity and reliability.
But, I don’t think this will happen. The likely outcome is you making another series of claims in order to help you forget whatever someone pointed out as invalid… comment on how it’s “the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard”, and then move on repeating this nonsense as your personal religion.
I’m sure that you we could hang out and talk on a multitude of subjects, but I’m not sure you are capable to discuss this one honestly.