So, two thoughts:

First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate.

Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.

> First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate.

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are.

> Second

You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required.

Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.

Honestly, nah.

Since we've already touched on the subject of "bad faith rhetorical tools," getting on other people's cases for acknowledging that the English language is soaked in polysemy isn't exactly an encouraging sign. It's difficult to have an enjoyable conversation with someone who's brandishing a cape.

No good faith conversations starts by redefining the other side as white supremacists. But I think you know that.

But no one's done that. You keep claiming the other side is doing that, but they keep disagreeing with you. You're ascribing actions that aren't done and proceeding to take offense.

From the comment I responded to:

> The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.

The terms don’t in the dictionary, so there’s no way to continue the discussion without debating what this commenter thinks these terms mean.

This isn’t my first rodeo, and we can all see what’s happening here.

The first step to knowing what someone else thinks is to ask. You seem to have skipped that step, and when they clarified, you disagreed. Who are you to say what they think?

Again this is all you projecting thoughts onto other people.

There's no value in debating bad faith personal redefinitions of words lobbed as insults.

If I called you a pedophile, I imagine you wouldn't be super expectant of a productive conversation about my unique definition of the word or how I think it applies to you. You wouldn't care what I thought, because if I cared what you thought, I wouldn't have smeared you as a pedophile.

You're begging the question. The entire point people have been making is that white supremacy as a socio-political concept is not the same as a white-supremacist in the nazi-saluting way that you seem to have in your head.

You're still mentally skipping the idea of systemic white supremacy and jumping straight from white supremacy to you are a nazi. But that jump comparison only works for white supremacist. There isn't a comparable systemic thing for pedophilia. We don't discuss systemic pedophilia and how society broadly favors pedophiles in the same way that we do talk about systemic favoritism of white people and culture (and even if you personally disagree that society does favor white people and culture, the conversation does happen). When the other person says white supremacy, this is what they mean: cultural systems and norms that favor white people and things associated with white people, often to the detriment of other cultures and peoples.

So again, you're presupposing someone is smearing you, when they've once again never claimed to have done that and further more actively claimed the opposite. And please note that now four different people have pointed out that no, this wasn't calling anyone a white supremacist. So perhaps it is simply you who is the one using a custom definition here.

Part of this seems to be that you keep insisting on making things about individuals, and not the company and systems itself. Consistently you've changed "the company's actions maintain white supremacy" to "the leaders of the company are white supremacists". That's two jumps: company and its actions to the leaders and then an ascription of intent. People can do things by mistake. Groups can do things unintentionally. You're assuming that everyone is presupposing fault and intent, and using that to ascribe nefarious motives to people who at no point appeared to ascribe fault or intent.

It's also totally unclear how

> * Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrendering decisions on anything an employee suggests might support white supremacy

makes sense. This is akin to saying "yes, we've made mistakes before". I don't see how that "surrenders decisions", I mean unless you mean that they're going to say this about certain decision but still assume they made the right decision (or maybe they did, but then they need to justify this).