Mr Man wrote:
And yet you have still not bothered to provide a clear definition of the term.
Hello Mr Man!
Mr Man wrote:Seems fairly clear to me.
The definition seems intentionally open to a lot of interpretation:
"used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets"
Those key tenets say quite different things which taken as categorical statements are unreasonable, and taken each in isolation could come from quite different mindsets. They are all unreasonable generalizations, yet some could make partial sense in restricted circumstances. They seem to be laid out intentionally in that way, so as to be able to put people easily into that category who only argue for one point or the other in a more restricted and non-categorical manner.
I will try and give my take on each of those statements so that we can see if I'm a white supremacist:
1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist;
Whoever is best in whatever field should dominate. If it so happens that in certain societal setups those who are most capable or resourceful (whether "justly" or "unjustly", due to exploitation or their ancestors' merit) are mostly whites, then so be it. => Maybe I am a white supremacist by that statement.
2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society;
Especially wherever there is racial strife and tribalist tendencies in whatever community, segregation is only reasonable and happens naturally anyway to such a degree. I could actually imagine "black supremacists" arguing that way, or whatever cultural or racial group that happens to be at odds with another group, even without any supremacy-think. "We should go our seperate ways." In some circumstances that makes sense. I don't think that this makes much sense in our modern western world for the most part, though. We simply live too densely and interconnected for that, and tribalist tendencies are bound to end in failure or bloodbaths and are mostly to be seen as dangerous when they arise here among us, in my opinion.
3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures;
There are many white and non-white and mixed cultures and subcultures, and cultures emerge and mix and interact with each other. It is not even clear where the boundaries of any given "culture" are for a large part. Yet many "cultural accomplishments" come from certain roots in history where there were more racially separate actually different cultures. By and large, the foundations of our "modern western culture" are built on the accomplishments of white Europeans. They happened to be the ones who subjugated most of the world and enforced the establishment of "their culture" wherever they went. In certain aspects (technological and scientifical advancements) that culture has certainly come out superior in a very worldly sense. How white supremacist is that?
4) white people are genetically superior to other people
I believe those IQ differences that everyone is talking about are based on mostly trustworthy science. => How white supremacist to come to such conclusions.
Mr Man wrote:And how exactly you jump to the conclusion that Santi253 is a white supremacist from finding the definition supplied unclear is beyond me.
That was sarcasm.
Santi said: "The definition of white supremacist is pretty cut and dried, unless
one happens to be a white supremacist.", which in this case of course, was implying that I am a white supremacist, since I don't get it.
Mr Man wrote:Is there a point you are trying to make that is somehow not coming across?
Yes, my point is that "white supremacist" is used inflationary as a slur without much felt need for substantiation or clear definition or qualification of what exactly is "supremacist" about this or that person or statement or direction of thought etc.