Although the OP fails to present a single valid idea, it is useful in presenting a nice list of the various ways that race baiters and members of the "It's always racism" faith, try to dismiss the reasonable objections to those seeking to gain political leverage by using every instance in which a minority suffers a negative outcome as evidence for their narrative, no matter how much unreason is required to force-fit those instances into that narrative.
1. Rejecting and Mocking Accepted Sociological Terminology. Although the study of racism and racial bigotry has been part of the social sciences for decades, Highly Affected Racialists either studiously ignore the accepted terminology, or pretend not to understand it. An example of this is the word “racism” itself, which is defined as power plus racial bigotry. Highly Affected racialists either ignore this definition or call it “ludicrous,” in spite of the fact that, once understood, the concept is self-evident.1 This allows for the strengthening of another habit:
The above is rubbish pseudo-science that cherry picks a definition specific to areas of social science focused upon societal level group interactions and ignores the field of psychology where racism is typically defined as psychological processes that any and all persons are capable of no matter their skin color or political power. Amusingly, the race baiters seek to define racism, a clearly undesirable quality, in a manner that makes it something that only certain racial groups can possess, and is thus itself a racist definition of racism.
2. Accuse Minorities of Racism. This is a classic “tu quoque” argument, known on playgrounds across the nation as “well, you do it too!,” sometimes known as the :he hit me back first!” defense. This ignores the fact that racism cannot be practiced by powerless minorities against powerful minorities.1
This suffers from the same cherry-picked and non-psychological definition of racism as #1. In addition, it willfully distorts the actual context and motives within which racism by members of minority groups is referred to, mischaracterizing them as a mere attempt to excuse majority racism. To the contrary, such observations are generally made to point to the underlying psychological nature of racism and its roots within individual psychology. In addition, racism discussions nearly always are used to cast ethical judgment upon persons. Whether one happens to be a member of conceptual abstraction such as a racial group is outside of any actual thoughts or actions outside the persons control. Thus, power differentials related to those racial categories have zero bearing on any ethical issue. The ethics lies within the thoughts, words, and deeds of individuals over which they have some control. Thus, the ethics related to racism lie entirely within the psychological aspects of racism that the evidence from psychological science shows can and does occur within people within all abstract categories. Thus, any sensible or practical discussion of racism must deeply consider racism in terms of the psychological processes themselves and not solely in terms of group level power differentials. Failing to recognize the actual psychological and individual-level roots of all social phenomena is pervasive problem among naive and sadly too many supposedly "expert" sociological theorists. This ignorance of psychology is the cause of inane notions, such as that racism only exists and/or is only a problem in terms of group level power differentials
3. Racism Denial. Highly Affected Racialists assert often, loudly, and confidently that racism is no longer a problem, and therefore cannot be at the root of any social ills in America. Whenever anything newsworthy occurs which appears to be steeped in racism, characterize it as an isolated incident. Individual racists may be admitted to exist, but the institution of racism must be assumed to have vanished completely at some vague, indeterminate time between the assassination of MLK Jr. and the election of President Obama.
This is just a strawman perversion, and not a view remotely held by 99.9% of the people the OP is trying to defame. Their actual view is merely that not every single instance of any minority person having a negative outcome is due primarily to racism by the people with the most direct impact on that outcome. They need to point this obvious fact out, because race-baiters leap to a conclusion of such racism in specific instances without a shred of evidence or even in the face of strong evidence of other causal factors. This leap of faith only can be a bridge of reason if one starts with the premise that all negative outcome to all racial minorities are due to racism. Racism is not denied . What is denied is that racism is always the only plausible explanation for every negative outcome for minorities. Sadly, race baiters don't understand the difference between these arguments that are
4. Appeal to (pseudo)Science. The attempt to “prove” scientifically and/or logically that minority races are inherently inferior goes back as far as racism itself. Despite the fact that every single scientific justification for racism has been debunked numerous times, Highly Affected Racialists continue to return to this well, press-ganging genetics, statistics, and anthropology (among others) into the service of their bankrupt worldview.
Another strawman that applies to almost no one the OP is trying to defame. Of the thousands of posts challenging the "it's always racism" religion on these boards, somewhere between 0% to 1% say anything that implies that "minority races are inherently inferior". Such a misrepresentation is rooted in the demonstrated ignorance of the difference between an assertion of empirical fact and a proposed causal claim to explain those facts. What is actually asserted is typically empirically verified differences between specific sub-populations within larger racial groups (such as blacks and whites within the US), such as rates of criminal behavior or difference in general intellectual aptitudes, supported by science that is far more valid and rigorous the softest of the mush sort of post-modern politicized racial sociology that race-baiters put their faith in. Those differences in no way imply inherent or genetic differences and typically not differences at the level of racial groups but rather between sub-set of racial groups within particular contexts. The differences fully allow for the influence of contextual, historical, and cultural factors, but since those differences have causal impacts themselves on other outcome disparities, they often easily explain other outcome differences with greater scientific validity and support than presumption of racism by whites directly involved in that particular situation (e.g., cops, admissions boards, etc..). Since race baiters loathe the possibility that anything but the direct impact of racism could be responsible for any disparities, they irrationally deny factual empirical differences likely to produce disparities and misrepresent them as implying inherent genetic deficiencies in an effort to make emotional/moral appeals to reject these empirical realities.
5. Hyperfocus on Minutiae actual facts, evidence, logic, and reason. Whenever a newsworthy race-related atrocity hits the media, Highly Affected Racialists Critics of race baiters spring into action to deflect direct the conversation away from the dangerous ground of mindless emotional reactionary ideologies about societal wrongs, and onto the irrelevant “facts of the case.” This allows them to ignore attend to objective causes of the incidents rather than just the way that these incidents fit into the larger context ideological narrative of institutionalized racism, thus avoiding any allowing for potential learning opportunities. Instead of misrepresenting the actual incidents in order to fit that narrative talking about how White America interacts with the Darker Nation , honest and rational people can argue for hours, even days, about attend to the facts of the incident, such as whether the policeman in question has a history of racism; whether the dead or injured black male was acting in a threatening manner; whether the DNA in the lab fits the witness reports, and on and on. Having zero regard for facts and reasoned thought, race baiters ridicule focus on actual facts as "Hyperfocus on Minutiae"
#5 was close to being true and revealing the ideological objectives that create such a disdain for actual facts among race baiters. I just edited it a bit to make it accurate.
6. The “Not All X” Defense. This is another tactic for deflecting the conversation away from the very real problem of racism in America. Any time that widespread racism is brought up, the Highly Affected Racialist can be heard to say “that’s not fair, not all white people are racist,” or “not all police are racist,” or some similar sentiment. This is a strawman argument, since nobody is actually arguing that all of any group are racist. This technique can be found in other arguments by bigots, in forms such as “not all men are rapists.” “not all rich business owners are greedy assholes,” “not all conservatives are misogynists,” and so on.
Critics of Race Baiters are sadly sometimes forces to point out that not all X are racists, due to their inherent assumption underlying all race baiter arguments that all X are racists. Given the typical total lack of evidence that the people involved in an incident are racist and the typical evidence favoring other explanations, the race baiters insistence of racism as the explanation is highly irrational, unless they presume a priori that all X are racist and thus there is no need to have any evidence about that specific person. Explicitly pointng out the wrongness of such an assumption is valid method of exposing the irrationality of the race baiters arguments and conclusions.
7.
Redefining Racism. This is an ironic habit, and one which many Highly Affected Racialists no doubt find hilarious. At the same time that the accepted sociological definition of racism is tossed aside as “too narrow” or simply “ludicrous,” Highly Affected racialists will tell you that, since they never ever use the “n-word,” and they don’t “hate” minorities, therefore they cannot be racists. Never mind that they regularly utilize every single one of these 7 habits; never mind that they ‘wouldn’t want their sister to marry one,” they don’t hate, tell racist jokes, or use slurs. All they want is to be left alone.
Like #1 and #2, this one is rooted in false claims about "the definition" of racism. In addition, it is another strawman inventing things that critics of race baiters "will tell you" and inventing feelings they have about their sister's mates.
