8 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/us/kendi-book-anti-racist-blake/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
That's the three most prominent results that aren't buried under a mountain of repeat articles about "whites are always racist against non-whites".
That's not actually answering what I'm asking, though. You may notice literally nobody said that racial supremacy movements don't exist outside of white people. I should know, I listened to a black woman rant about Mexicans being literal vermin a few years ago when I was working in LA.
But you may notice that the groups you've placed here almost universally hate LGBT people, Jewish people, and religions other than their own. And oops, guess that doesn't really place them in-line with the "SJW" menace, does it? Even if you disingenuously pretend that "white people bad" is what any meaningful part of your opposition believes, I sure am not seeing a lot of consistency between that ideology and the one you're claiming is calling you racist.
7 hours ago, Im_CIA said:
Same deal here, basically. The Yale one is a little more legitimate, so I'll give you that. But besides that, we have one school listing ways to be less shitty, and because anti-racism itself can't be critiqued, everyone focuses on the (admittedly poor) language. The second one is literally just agenda-pushing using what is clearly a mentally-ill person as a prop. Even if these weren't cherry-picked, they're not in any way damning of anti-racist rhetoric, just assigning a "believes what my opposition believes" role to whatever person is most convenient for you to attack. See how this rhetoric fails?
All of this is to say, this is a question of degree, not of kind. You could find a group of fascists who want to enforce beehive haircuts on everyone, but they're not gonna have the kind of clout or be the kind of threat that can be equated with white supremacy. And even if you did that, your so-called essjaydabyews would be against them anyway, which you only don't believe because "SJW" is a label invented so you don't have to listen to any opinions but your own.
7 hours ago, Im_CIA said:I'm not claiming that they're the real racists, I'm saying they are just as racist for swinging the pendulum too far the other way
The pendulum hasn't swung. It's debatably not even moved. If it had, wealth, governments and military power would be more equally distributed in...literally any way whatsoever.
Also, if it's "too far the other way", then you absolutely are claiming that they're the "real" racists when compared to white racism, because you're saying one is a "real" problem and the other isn't.
7 hours ago, Im_CIA said:and that's far more dangerous because it's tantamount to religious fanaticism. That's how we get actually dangerous mindsets like critical race theory opposed to a bbq peanut gallery.
So, leaving aside "believing white supremacy still exists institutionally = religious fanaticism" as the rock fucking stupid take that it is, you know that most racial supremacy groups already are religious fanatics, right? How does that make people you accuse of religious fanaticism (and that, shocker, the other group calls atheist supremacists attacking their religion, but I'm sure you're just extra right about all this) a bigger threat? You're the one getting angry at people for pointing out racism, but you're still here saying that actually, racism DOES matter, but only when it's against white people.
Also, what do you think "critical race theory" actually is without looking it up? Bonus points if you don't regurgitate fascist talking points when describing it.