Racism and History with Carmen Lau — Adventist Voices

No, not at all.

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.

This is utterly relevant

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.

1 Like

You say that as if we don’t have work of our own to do. Coming together as one takes effort and sacrifice from all parties involved, not just one.

1 Like

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.

No. I’ve already expressed the core idea. I am now refining it; for example, through debates with you.

Or, I would, were you to pose better questions, or any, for that matter; everything you ask about is extraneia.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

That’s one of the DUMBEST things I’ve ever heard.

Do better, @Arkdrey!



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.

Again: This is all merely a summary of what was in the original post; #93.

That said, how would one answer this question?:

"Am I a racist?"

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. :smiley:

[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. :clap:t6:

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.

I’ll wait.


I say, to you, what I say to GeorgeTichy: Make better arguments.


I appreciate the kind words, @JohnCarson.

I write the posts the way I do in order to completely cover the relevant ideas, doing so a certain way.

If you are interested in my thoughts, I strongly suggest that you read shorter amounts of each post, over longer periods of time. This might aid the fatigue you describe.



[quote=“elmer_cupino, post:163, topic:20740, full:true”]

I have no doubt you can go on for another 4.5 billion years until when Andromeda collides with Milky Way. Where do you get your energy? Good luck…

We Finally Know When Our Milky Way Will Crash Into the Andromeda Galaxy | Space

From where do I get the energy?

I’d say it’s a combination of the Creator, strong mental focus, and racism itself.


1 Like

The above is rather ironic, given that I’m responding to probably the longest post on any forum I’ve ever read. :slight_smile:

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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

Racist =

(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.

Your support…

• 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? :slight_smile:

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.

1 Like

The following were my exact words, and the exact reasons I said them.

They have nothing to do with anything at all that I am talking about, or that I want to talk about. :slightly_smiling_face:

a) I don’t want to talk about the Black Lives Matter movement.

b) You may have more friends in the Ku Klux Klan than I do in the Black Lives Matter movement, Allen.

I actually mean this: If you recall one of our earliest correspondences, you may remember my brief history lesson on Northwest SDA Church in Crown Point IN.


I don’t care about any of this, Allen.

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.

What I care about is the argument I built in post #93 against GeorgeTichy’s call to interracial bonhomie.

That’s the one he was screaming about, and that @Arkdrey is so futilely trying to rebut…I think.

If you can specifically refute that, I’d love to hear your views. But naught else.

You seem to think the answer to every argument is a list of financial salary tables. This must drive the officers in your churches nuts.


I’m glad that you enjoyed it.

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. :smiley: 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.



And in doing so, you lose your target audience with the exception of a diehard or two who are also guilty of offensively long diatribes! LOL


Not at all. Good to see you writing.

More, I meant “car seat” in the sense of something for people who aren’t advanced enough to sit in the real seats cars possess; you might say a device that coddles such passengers.

Well, if they don’t, what does?

It may not be. But it is precisely how the racists live theirs.

“Generalizing whole segments of persons” is a very compact definition of racism.

I call such parallels proof of The Maximum Maxim: Any criticisms made of racism’s victims are usually best made of white supremacy, itself.

To me, it makes sense that, distasteful as it may be to many, any sufficiently repulsive force against white supremacy will mirror aspects of it in some way.

This is, perhaps, much the way that the basis of a snakebite antidote is often some form of that snake’s poison.

White privilege is merely the fruit on the tree of white supremacy.

White privilege is the reason white people practice white supremacy.

Said another way, if white supremacy didn’t produce white privilege, why would any white person care about white supremacy?

As such.

Thanks for the question.

• I think white people should adopt and follow the words of Bishop Dr Joe Aldred.

• I think non-white people should focus on building a counter-racist code of thought, speech, and action, akin to the one I’ve proposed on these boards.

I think we should work on this with the tenacity of a moonshot.



Those persons can read shorter amounts of each post, over longer periods of time.

Some things, @JohnCarson, disqualify would-be entrants by their very format.

What do you think of this idea?


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 :slight_smile:

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 :slight_smile:

So, just so you can swallow your laughter a bit … :slight_smile: 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 :slight_smile:

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.



I’m responding, @bigtomwoodcutter, because you raise an important issue I’ve not formally addressed.

I’ll keep this brief, not because my posts are too long :smiley:, but because I’d rather write about other things than how I write.

As one might expect, this is false.

• I respond to every question that’s asked of me because:

a) I want every question I ask to be answered. Thus, I do what I expect.

Getting the answers to my questions is a way acquiring knowledge, and of deflecting the secondary racist weapon, secrecy.

b) I’m working to show non-white people that white people’s questions can all be answered, even if that answer is merely, “I don’t know.”

• I comment on almost every statement that’s made to me, because I seek to build a catalog of responses to white racial objections.

This is part of the process of developing a counter-racist logic system. So, perhaps as you surmise, “most readers” are not my audience.

Also, I nearly missed this. You said:

You may not actually know the definition of a circular argument.

If you do, I’d challenge you to find one, in what must, by now, be hundreds of thousands of words I’ve written on Spectrum.


  1. Do white people have power over you?

  2. So, when Tiger married a white woman, it increased whites power over you?

And if you think that this is so, and the society is favoring it, it seems that it is not my ideas that are becoming irrelevant, but yours.

Part of your problem is the idea that you are being over powered by whites. You’re not. I think you can do more or less anything you please, buy a house anywhere buy, a car, marry anyone you can persuade, get a job, write on Spectrum for hours, days… What is it that you think whites are preventing you from doing?

Of course if you think they are, as they say, perception is reality.

By definition: That’s what white supremacy means: White power over non-white people.

When Tiger Woods engaged in sexual intercourse and sexual play with a white woman, in increased the sum total power of white people over non-white people.

It did so because it increased the sum total power that this white woman, or those white women, had over him.

That’s certainly one way to look at it. :smiley: I mean, it really depends on the “idea” upon which you’re focusing.

Another way to look at it is that white supremacy is becoming more refined, refinement being the fourth stage of white supremacy.

I’ve been saying that this is happening, and would continue to, for, at this point, decades.

That you are observing it now, then, could be interpreted as meaning my ideas are becoming more futuristic than ever.

I’d say a huge part of my problem is I am a victim of white supremacy.


White supremacy means that 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, no non-white person has the last word on anything.

One of the implications of this is, for example, is that no non-white person can make a decision that can’t be overruled by one or more white people.

The reverse is not true.

So, answer your own question:

a) Name something that a non-white person can do, in any of these nine areas, that one or more white people would be unable to overrule,


b) Give the reason(s) that one or more white people would be unable to do so.


I asked you this question:

You did not answer it.

There were a bunch of white people that did not want Obama to be president, but they could not prevent it from happening. Hillary with her machine could not even prevent him from becoming the Dem’s choice. There are a bunch of black mayors that were not especially favored by whites. Chicago is one place this happened. So, just quit asserting an idea that is false.

They had power over him?? and that meant you were affected? Come on, Harry. Race does not determine all things.

So you are actually like Liberty University, no mixed dating? I think they got dinged for that.

I ask again, what are whites preventing you from doing?

1 Like

That’ll be the day. I find a lot I can disagree with you, but I’ll defend your right to say it, and say it, and say it, ad nauseaum, till you are left with an audience of only one–yourself.
This blog ends shortly, thank goodness, but I’m sure you will find another blog to hop on. Don’t ever go in the dairy business. Your cows will never come home, I assure you. LOL


Harry, again… you just keep going and going an going with this atrociously poor reasoning.

  1. Someone potential to do something against you doesn’t constitute a crime or oppression.

  2. If Shaq and I get stuck on a desert Island, there’s no decision I can make which Shaq couldn’t override. Your assertion only works if you approach “the world” as a concept that you parse in a way in which your imagination lacks realistic constraints. Americans were embarrassingly chased out of Vietnam. They couldn’t control Mujaheddin in Afganistan with all of the local culture we find oppressive, especially on women. There’s a vast scope of human existence and culture which is nearly impossible to override. White people are jailed in North Korea for stealing posters. No one was able to override that, because Korea has nukes and no one is going to war over individual dum dum to risk nuclear conflict.

You are really not thinking this through hard-enough.


You might want to slip an English theory class in there, too: Obviously, you do not know the meaning of the word “irony.” :smile:

Actually, that doesn’t follow.

I might have incorrect methods, yet, somehow, come up with correct conclusions.

Said another way, you can’t criticize my conclusions based on my methods. Doing so is to perpetrate the genetic fallacy.

This is probably not going to work.

I understand.

I understand.

This is unintelligible. You should give an example of what you mean, as in the previous problems.

Again, you should supply examples, as before, in order to make your point clear.

I understand.

I understand.

A protest:

I’m fairly sure that the above is my definition, and that I’ve written those quoted statements.

But I’ve never said that those statements are “justifications that [I] formulate for re-defining the existing term the way [I] do.”

So, before I go any further, I need to say:

Except for the already noted portions, this post is much better written than many, or most, of your previous ones, with attention to clarity and the comprehension of the reader.

I thank you for this.

Also, thank you for this really good question. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked this, this way, before. So, I will do my best to respond.

One answer to the question you’ve asked might be, “To make the word more precise, and thus, useful, to more people.”

Another could be, “To particularly draw attention to white supremacy as a unique phenomenon.”

That is, when a certain kind of thinking is applied to the common definition of the word, “racism,” one could say, "This includes a lot of things that are similar, because they are all forms of mistreatment.

“But at least one of them is particularly, uniquely noxious, potent, widespread, and detrimental. And, in fact, it has a unique relationship to all these other phenomena we are calling ‘racism.’”

In one way, this might be illustrated is by our recent discussion of “vehicles.”

Suppose the local town car wash said, “Bring your vehicle down, Friday at noon, and get a wash for a dollar!”

If Mr Belaz lived in town, and brought down his seven Belaz 75710’s, that car wash would soon have to put some kind of qualifier on the word “vehicles,” so as not to go bankrupt.

However, suppose the town magistrate said, “Nope: By the common definition of the word ‘vehicle’, the Belaz 75710 is a ‘vehicle.’ So, you either have to to wash it, or use a different word.”

The car wash might then say, “Bring your car down to the car wash.” In fact, what they might say is, “Cars, $1, other vehicles, $2500.” So, if Mr. Belaz brings his seven vehicles down, he knows he’s going to have to pay more, appropriately.

Another example: At one time, when people used the word “universe,” they meant the totality of stars, planets, galaxies, dust clouds, black holes, etc., etc.; what scientists call “baryonic matter.”

Today, however, scientists say the universe is only 4% baryonic matter. The rest, 96%, is a) dark matter, and b) dark energy.

In this case, they kept the word “universe.” But if you say, “The universe is stars, planets, black holes and galaxies,” a scientist, so inclined, might say, “No: It’s ‘dark supremacy.’”

Sometimes, the idea you want to convey is so radically different that one needs a new word. For example, “multiverse” vs. “universe.”

Sometimes, to use a new word would be of less use than to say, “It’s the same idea—mistreatment based on skin color. However, when you look at it, there’s only one kind that has any significant mass.”

Here’s what’s fascinating:

I stopped reading, after I got to your bolded question. I answered it, in total.

Then, I scrolled down and read the next paragraph, above.

Hilarious. :smiley:

I guess what you should do is say if what I’ve described, above, is “semantic fraud,” or, perhaps, maybe a disinterested 3rd party is required!

Yes; race.

No, it actually does, as I’ve said.

I think it’s what I said about the universe: When you inspect what you’re describing, you see it has more parts, in different quantities, than you thought.

That is, to answer your question:

White is the exclusive color of racism because white people started race. The first racism is white people mistreating on the basis of skin color. There was no other kind. Because white people had an enormous head start, too, it’s also the most massive part of it, today. Think NABISCO.

You might say, in other words, what I’ve recognized is, over time, the definition has been gummed up by people using it for everything.

I saw an episode of Wheeler Deelers the other day, where they bought a Mazda RX-7 to restore then sell. The car was in pretty good condition.

But one of the things they had to do to actually make the car salable was take off a lot of the aftermarket crap the seller had attached to the car—removable “sport” steering wheel, performance pedals, dash tachometer, one-push button starter, etc.

They made a lot about this part of the conversion, so derisively speaking about these add-ons that I actually wondered how the guy who’d sold the car would feel when seeing the episode. :grimacing:

That’s kind of what I’m doing. I’m pulling off all the aftermarket crap that people have attached to the word racism, over time, in order to restore it…and to do all of the other things I named, above.

I trust you’ll allow that what you are saying, here, is ahistorical.

To reference my earlier example, you’re talking like a person who only knows cars in the highly-modified, aftermarket form used for pro drifting.

To a person whose never seen a Nissan Silvia except in the heavily modified form, above, the white, top car might not only seem boring, but inauthentic; a “fraud.”

However, as they did on Wheeler Deelers, if you want the car to reach the maximum number of people in its true, most useful form, you’d have to take off all the crud that the car has accumulated over time, in order to restore it to its original power.

If you catch my, ahem, drift….

That was fun, @Arkdrey! I look forward to your next one!