"White Supremacist" is a racial slur

Not every whitey thinks that whities should be supreme over the non whites though. White supremacy is not a race, it is an ideology.

"We've been through this already, although my examples were probably not thorough enough, so I'll do better this time.

Let's take for example "cotton picker". Let's say a White American used to this describe an African American -- this is a racial slur. However, it's possible that this White American doesn't believe *all* African Americans are "cotton pickers", BUT "cotton picker" remains a racial slur regardless of that fact. Again, you don't have to think that all African Americans are "cotton pickers" for "cotton picker" to be a racial slur -- your qualification/standard of 'you have to think all people of that race are the slur' isn't valid."

You've already conceded the argument with this statement because you described them as "white" people. If race had no bearing on this, then the (non-racial) slur would be "supremacist".

You've already conceded the argument with this statement because you described them as "white" people. If race had no bearing on this, then the (non-racial) slur would be "supremacist".

Humans can be divided into sub-species (races): The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis . I've posted this argument to you multiple times and you've failed to address it every time.

Seems to contradict,

Racism is a nonsense term: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .

Race =/= "racism". 

People should only be self-described.

Instead of trying to force a category on someone, you should ASK THEM if they identify with some proposed generalized type and or label.

Forcing a category on someone (that they do not personally self-describe as) is almost always an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

If you insist that labels can be used to people who self-describe, you'll get more grifters and liars who pretend to be something they're not. For example, if you don't go to church, and you don't believe in God, and you don't know anything about the Bible, chances are you're not a Christian, even if you describe yourself as such.

I agree that racial [skin-tone] discrimination has existed long before our time, and the overwhelming majority of humans don't discriminate due to loci/SNP data collections. I'm just arguing that these people are inadvertently correct about different people being genetically different [wtf], sometimes to the point of being a different race.

Show me a black Person who is not subject to the N word. I’ll wait.

Great. Now explain how black people who came over from Africa never hear themselves being called the n word.

Let's take for example "cotton picker". Let's say a White American used to this describe an African American -- this is a racial slur. However, it's possible that this White American doesn't believe *all* African Americans are "cotton pickers", BUT "cotton picker" remains a racial slur regardless of that fact. Again, you don't have to think that all African Americans are "cotton pickers" for "cotton picker" to be a racial slur -- your qualification/standard of 'you have to think all people of that race are the slur' isn't valid."

Black people use the N word towards black people more than any other race. 

And I was referring to people living in Africa. They don’t get called the N word.

First of all, the term “white supremecist” combines two words. Therefore, in order to qualify under this term *both* of the words must apply. So instead of demonstrating your fragility  over the first word, look at the second… “spremecist”. Notice how the second word has nothing to do with your race but is rather an ideology. That’s the part you need to focus on explaining if you are really trying to stick to this argument.

Second, “white” in this phrase isn’t even referring to the race of the of the ideology holder. It’s referring to the ideology itself. White supremacy means you believe white people are ultimately the superior race. Nothing about this precludes that you must be white to hold this attitude, as bizarre as would be for a non-white person to think this way, hence the David Chappell skit.

The slur in cotton picker comes from its historical connotation. What you fail to understand is that not all black people were forced to pick cotton, but those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black, so this absolutely was about their race.

White supremecists are not supremecists because they are white, they’re supremecists because they’re ignorant, assholes, or both.

I have said that a racial slur is a slur against a race and you have declared that definition invalid but not presented one of your own that I have seen (it is possible I have missed it, if that is the case then point it out).

A white supremacist is a person that thinks whites should be supreme.

A racial slur is a slur against a race.

You and the CRT folk are making this out to be much more complicated than it actually is

What do you call a person that wants whities to be supreme over the non-whites?

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as  "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) 

• ”Although she prefers to stay further away from the spotlight than her more flamboyantly racist colleagues, Gottfredson gained some degree of notoriety at the national level with the publication of her 1994 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Mainstream Science on Intelligence,” which was co-signed by 52 other scientists. “Mainstream Science” was Gottfredson’s contribution to the heated debate over the then-recent publication of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve, which used arguments recycled from eugenicists, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis to claim that social inequality is caused by black genetic inferiority, especially in intelligence.
  
• Gottfredson used “Mainstream Science” to make a variety of claims about the state of intelligence research and its relationship to racial policy. Among other things, Gottfredson stated that the intelligence of the average black adult in the United States was 85, one standard deviation below that of the average white adult. Two standard deviations, or IQ 70, is the general standard for mental retardation, which Gottfredson elsewhere ascribed to black Africans. According to Gottfredson, the difference between black Americans and black Africans would, presumably, be because “almost all Americans who identify themselves as black have white ancestors – the white admixture is about 20%.”
  

IF we were arguing about "white and supremacist", what you are saying here is correct, but we are arguing about the latter, so your distinction doesn't apply.

If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism?

How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism?

If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist?

I'm not sure if you intentionally did this, but you've changed your argument to be the same as mine, and now you are framing your argument (which is mine) as the one I'm arguing against.

It's been my contention all along that you don't have to think *all* people of a certain race are a slur, in order for the slur to be a slur. Moreover, you don't have to think *all* white people are white supremacists, in order for white supremacist to be a slur.

OXFORD:

su·prem·a·cist [noun]

1. a person who believes that a particular group, especially one determined by race, religion, or sex, is superior and should therefore dominate society.
   

WIKIPEDIA:

Supremacism is "the belief that a certain group of people is superior to all others.  The supposed superior people can be defined by age, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, language, social class, ideology, nation, culture, or species, or belong to any other part of a particular population."

"White", in this context, is modifying the type of supremacist rather than modifying the supremacist's race.  You can and do have white supremacists who are black, male supremacists who are women, etc. I don't agree that the term white supremacist is typically used to characterize all white people, rather to indicate that subset of people who are deluded about the supremacy of whites.

If you are right that the popular use of the term is intentional abuse than how do we explain Trump's statement last Fall, "I condemn all white supremacists"  You're saying that the correct interpretation of Trump's statement was a slur against all white people?  How does that make any sense for Trump?  If yours was a normal or popular interpretation, then Trump would have been criticized for slurring white people.

FBI Director Wray testified under oath this spring that racially motivated violent extremism, specifically violent white supremacy, is the biggest chunk of the FBI’s domestic terrorism case portfolio. [...] groups or individuals who facilitate or engage in acts of violence directed at the Federal Government, ethnic majorities or Jewish persons in support of their belief that Caucasians are intellectually and morally superior to other races.

Also there are people who openly advocate the superiority of European or Caucasian ancestry who have no reason to mind being called white supremacists as the most apt label.

Why did Oromagi attempt to rebut Linda Gottfredson's work, which had nothing to do with race, as  "white supremacist?" Imgur: The magic of the Internet IQ is a Valid Metric (debateart.com) 

• that link is wrong.  here's the link:
  

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6468/post-links/279261

• My post shows 
  
• I did not try to rebut Gottfredson.  In fact, Mesmer specifically asked me what I thought of his sources and I replied that his sources sucked.  One of several reasons given was that the SPLC condemns Gottfredson as white supremacist in ideology.
  

• To say that those numbers had nothing to do with race is also false.  Gottfredson's public defense of those numbers was specifically racist in conclusion.
  

• [quotes about what Gottfredson apparently said]
  
• [more quotes about what Gottfredson apparently said]

• Whatever the quality of the evidence, one can't deny that claiming that it is the very nature of African blacks to be mentally retarded and that the only reason African-Americans enjoy better intelligence than Africans is due the benefit of white rape is a fairly white supremacist statement.  If Gottfredson thinks that the average black person is actually disabled in intelligence by definition than one can't really wonder if Gottfredson thinks that group can rule their own affairs.
  

• Let's note that the DebateArt.com CODE of CONDUCT uses SPLC as the standard for evaluating hate groups.
  
• Advocacy in favor of terrorism and/or violent extremism, especially as related to hate groups as generally defined by the SPLC, is likewise prohibited.
  
• Generally yes, if the SPLC calls somebody a white supremacist, I'm going to feel free to use that term.  Not as an insult but as the most matter of fact way of describing aa long standing and sometimes popular ideology and political movement.
  

Nonsense. Combining two words doesn’t create a whole new concept, it just combines the concepts within those two words.  If I gave you hot chocolate served cold, it’s not hot chocolate. Nor would it be hot chocolate if there was no chocolate. You need both for the phrase to apply. That’s English 101.

If it was just about ideology, then why is black nationalism not considered black supremacist, whilst white nationalism is considered white supremacism?

If a black person believes black people are the superior race then that by definition would make them a black supremecist. Which BTW, would not be a racial slur.

How could whites wanting to form white groups, without any reference to supremacism, be considered to be supremacist, especially when blacks do the same and that's *not* considered supremacism?

Because we live in a country dominated by white people. Black people forming an all black group is a response to their status as ethnic minorities and the discrimination that comes along with it. White people forming an all white group is a response to nothing.

If IQ researchers conclude that Asians/Jews have the highest IQ, why are they called white supremacists? Surely, if Lynn argues that Asians are doing best in IQ tests, why isn't Richard Lynn called an Asian supremacist?

Researching IQ scores is not “supremacy”. It’s the intent of the research that matters. IQ scores do not measure genetics or cognitive potential, they measure current ability. That ability can be cultivated and improved just like any other. It’s when one for example tries to use the research to justify inequality as a means to stop helping those in need that out crosses into suprematist territory.

Believing that one race is superior is the literal definition, but that’s not the focus of the phrase white supremecist. The focus is really more about entitlement. Any white person who tells a minority to go back to their country for example, I would argue is a white supremecist. What gives them the right to declare this “their country” to be telling someone else to leave it? What makes them think they are more entitled to this country than any other human being?

It’s that mentality that those who tend to use the phrase are pointing to. Jan 6th is another example. It is not credible to argue that the people who stormed the Capitol were doing so based on facts and reason. They did so because they couldn’t accept that the votes of people who don’t look like them were a legitimate catalyst to remove their President. The Capitol belonged to them and they had to take it back. That’s white supremacy.

So can this apply to other races? Of course it can. It’s just that the phrase black supremecist or Asian supremecist carries no connotation because it’s a useless thing to even talk about in a country dominated by white people.

You argued that a word does not have to apply to everyone in a race in order to be a racial slur

used cotton picker as an example. I then went on to explain why you’re wrong. I wasn’t explaining why cotton picker doesn’t apply to all black people, I was explaining how it does. Once again, those who were forced to pick cotton were so because they were black. The term is an attempt to dehumanize the individual by reminding them of a time when they would have been reduced to less than a human being because of their skin color. That is entirely about their race.

Read the title to your own thread; “White Supremacist" is a racial slur

Any word can be a slur to any one, if we’re talking about racial slurs then we’re talking about a slur directed at ones race. You cannot then argue that the word does not apply to others of that same race.

This entire thread is a series of grasping at straws.

I'm not sure why it's even getting attention, it's so obviously nonsense that it needn't be addressed.

'white supremacist' actually refers to the race being held supreme, it is only a coincidence that the white supremacist happens to themselves be 'white'.

That alone destroys your entire case, literally. Your case relies on the 'white' referring to the race of the supremacist but it is in fact referring to the race/appearance that the supremacists holds as supreme.

Then your argument defeats itself because combining "white" and "supremacist" doesn't create a whole new concept. Instead, white refers to the white race, and supremacist as someone who thinks they're/their group is the best

My point was that black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists and Chinese nationalists aren't labelled as supremacist, yet white nationalists are. Do you see now how whites are being slurred for their nationalism, yet all the other racial groups aren't?

If I walk into China and start DEMANDING that they build churches and white only spaces for me, are they "entitled" for denying me that?

You do understand that you agreed with this, right? You do understand that if you no longer agree with this, you've changed your argument, right?

The point before I made was this: you previously said "white supremacist" doesn't apply to all white people. Furthermore, "white supremacist" DOES refer to race. Similarly, "cotton picker" doesn't apply to all black people. Furthermore, "cotton picker" DOES refer to race. Your logic is inconsistent because you think the first example is NOT an example of a racial slur, whilst the latter IS.

but if you want to single out white people for wanting white groups as being "entitled" or "white supremacist", and totally be fine with all other races wanting their own racial groups and NOT being labelled as "entitled" or "[insert race] supremacist", then you're racially biased against white people.

-->@oromagi

A literal interpretation of "white supremacist" is not sufficient to explain its usage. Your definitions don't make sense without this non-literal meaning, especially when I've directly quoted you using this non-literal meaning (shown below):

"The term has non-literal meaning....

Verb[edit]

explode (third-person singular simple present explodes, present participle exploding, simple past and past participle exploded)

1. (transitive) To destroy with an explosion.Synonyms: blow up, blow, blast, burst
   
   The assassin exploded the car by means of a car bomb.
   
2. (transitive) To destroy violently or abruptly.
   
   They sought to explode the myth.
   
3. (transitive) To create an exploded view of.
   
   Explode the assembly drawing so that all the fasteners are visible.
   
4. (transitive, archaic) To disprove or debunk. quotations ▼
   
5. (intransitive) To blast, to blow up, to burst, to detonate, to go off.
   
   The bomb explodes.
   
6. (figuratively, intransitive) To make a violent or emotional outburst. quotations ▼Synonym: blow up
   
   She exploded when I criticized her hat.
   
7. (figuratively, intransitive) To increase suddenly. quotations ▼Synonym: blow up
   
8. (computing, programming, PHP) To break (a delimited string of text) into several smaller strings by removing the separators. quotations ▼
   
9. (transitive, computing) To decompress (data) that was previously imploded. quotations ▼Synonym: unstring
   
10. (transitive) To open all doors and hatches on an automobile.
    

Noun

white supremacist (plural white supremacists)

1. An advocate of white supremacy, a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races.
   

white supremacy

 noun

Save Word

Definition of white supremacy

1: the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other racesThe alt-right is a reactionary conservative movement … . It is characterized by an embrace of fascism, white supremacy, and misogyny …— Constance Grady

2: the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races… [William] Kelley turned his considerable intellect and imagination to the question of what it is like to be white in this country, and what it is like, for all Americans, to live under the conditions of white supremacy …

white supremacy

NOUN

• The belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people.
  

  ‘The cry for war is the cry for domination, white supremacy and death.’
  

Using your literal definition, none of these scenarios make any sense, so the term "white supremacist" can't be a purely literal one. Sure, if someone is saying "white people are superior to everyone else", by all means does your literal definition apply, but not all usages of the word are using this literal definition, as seen above.

• Instead, "white supremacist" is a non-literal racial attack against white people forming groups and conducting research.
  

Then your argument defeats itself because combining "white" and "supremacist" doesn't create a whole new concept. Instead, white refers to the white race, and supremacist as someone who thinks they're/their group is the best

I’ve already explained this to you as have others in this thread. You are clearly just going to believe whatever you want so I’ll just leave you with the dictionary…

[lots of definitions from different dictionaries/websites]

Notice how not one of these definitions begins with “a white person”.

I don’t have service where I’m typing this so if you’d like to verify the definitions feel free to Google them yourself, you might learn something.

My point was that black nationalists, Hispanic nationalists and Chinese nationalists aren't labelled as supremacist, yet white nationalists are. Do you see now how whites are being slurred for their nationalism, yet all the other racial groups aren't?

Nationalism and supremacy are not the same thing. Nationalism is about supporting a particular race, supremacy is about believing one race is better than the rest and should therefore dominate them.

The latter applied to any other race is nonsensical in today’s society. White people are clearly the current dominate race, so the idea that any other race will become the dominate race in the near future is not realistic. Conversely, the former is nonsensical for white people. Because white people are the dominate race, there is nothing to be in support of. How do you move up when you’re already on top? White nationalism is often used as a false label for white supremacy, apparently to the point where people like you really buy into the propaganda thinking they mean the same thing.

If I walk into China and start DEMANDING that they build churches and white only spaces for me, are they "entitled" for denying me that?

No one is demanding that the US government build spaces for black people only. This statement has nothing to do with this conversation or reality.

But I will that say you’d be on far more reasonable grounds to make that demand of the Chinese if the reason you were in China was because they dragged your ancestors here so they could enslave them for 400 years and build the country’s wealth on their free labor, then once finally freed gave your people nothing to compensate them for it.

No, because you’re just wrong. ‘White supremacist’ points to a person’s ideology, not their race.

And even if it was referring to that persons race, it still would not be a racial slur because in that definition the race of the person is merely a descriptor. Your argument is like saying that calling someone a male whore is a slur against all males.

You also completely twist my argument on cotton picker. I explained to you, twice now, how it does apply to all black people. What is the problem here? Why can you not absorb this point?

Other groups are fighting for equality, white groups are fighting for dominance. Those are not the same thing.

[Quoting Wiktionary and other definitions. Also demonstrating that dictionaries will sometimes account for figurative definitions.]

• False.  All three examples- Lynn, Rushton, Gottfredson are clearly identified by SPLC as white supremacists in the literal, whites-are-superior sense, which is the only sense of that term.
  

• There is no double-secret non-literal non-dictionary sense of the term WHITE SUPREMACIST that supports Mesmer's claim of secret attack.
  
• Sorry, that is just pure bullshit (in the figurative sense)
  
• [...]

Because there's no such thing a secret, non-literal meaning of "white supremacist"

• Mesmer thinks that Trump was deliberately trying to insult all Caucasians just before the election last fall by condemning White Supremacy in its secret, non-literal sense. Mesmer likewise claims that FBI Director Wray was just trolling white people generally he warned of the rise in White Supremacist terrorism this spring.
  
• Does such a claim make any sense to anybody else or is Mesmer here living is his own super secret bubble of special pleading?
  

White people have become so disenfranchised in western countries,

false

and also plagued by white people who have white out-group bias

false

 speaking out against injustices against white people is considered "racist" or "bigoted".

false

It's super sinister

false