Now was that so hard? That's all I've said all along. You just conceded, I accept your apology.
Actually I didn't concede, but I damn sure wasn't gonna chase a moving goal post any longer. Your philosophy is that if the person CEO, owner, founder, etc... of something then it is white supremacy.
My philosophy is that if you're not being stopped from doing something then white supremacy isn't holding you back. That's why I asked you ( which you couldn't hitch your definition of white supremacy to) what would stop YOU from doing something. You couldn't answer that and reverted to deflecting, because then you would have to remove yourself from this all encompassing definition of white supremacy. And would then make what I say correct in that it isn't all encompassing.
That's why you lose. You said that white supremacy allows some people to be successful, which is a blatant contradiction to your saying that white supremacy is all encompassing. You couldn't answer, because that would make you wrong. How ever, you threw in a little caveat and switched from individual to collective (the black community) when everything else failed you.
That again is why you lost. The more you talk, the more likely you'll say something to shoot down your argument. I can answer your question, give the answer you want to hear, and make you acknowledge falsehoods in your own premise.
You can't out-think me. It's not possible.
