No, that's not right at all. There are, objectively, patterns of usage that are common, and patterns of usage that are rare. You may or may not be personally aware of these patterns, but if you don't know about them it doesn't mean the pattern isn't there. And people will tend to respond in accord with the common pattern.
Also, while self-determination isn't the least bit controversial (I don't understand why you are spending so much effort on it), if the point of communicating is to, well, communicate, it's a partnership, not dueling display of self-determination. If it's a performative battle not intended to necessarily convey anything save dominance, do whatever.
Anyway, I think the caps suit you. Your content is also frequently shouty, not understated or measured. I only wanted to point out that it's your choice whether to invite misunderstanding, but given your "(like so many millions)" comment in addition to the above, you appear to know what you're doing. If that's how you want to roll, it's your call. Kujichagulia and all.
---------
You said, "the overwhelming majority of white folks in this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation-state, do NOT want to accept and/or integrate with us --- period!!!".
This is contrary to every poll I have ever seen in the United States conducted over the past forty years. It's contrary to repeatedly-stated ideals, it's contrary to both the message of the dominant religion and the dominant alternative to religion (an ill-defined form of humanism). There's a loud, aggressive, overly-impactful subset of people who do clearly have this position and need to be countered.
I don't think you know what you're talking about in this regard.
---------
You also said, "your original statement was NOT about "banding together for mutual aid." Instead, what you wrote, and what I questioned is the idea that "focusing on group identity is the most natural thing in the world,""
The coalition instinct ("tribalism") is trivial to induce, as documented by the links I gave you two answers ago. Identifying with group is observed to be natural. Its value in promoting mutual aid is thought to be the reason.
Mutual aid says nothing about whether the end result is nice or nasty to others not in the group. Usually it's not that nice, or the banding together wouldn't have been necessary. Regardless, that it's natural doesn't make it good or bad. Just natural.
Your claim was that it was somehow needing good sense. That's what I was disputing. It happens whether it's sensible or not. I think it should happen only when it makes sense.
The problem of racism is largely the problem of the majority identifying as their own group. It's not entirely, because you can have cases of majority facilitation that are simply matters of inattention but nonetheless are significant enough of a barrier to the non-majority that they need to be addressed (e.g. forgetting that some people are color-blind, some have physical disabilities, etc.). But that's not nearly as pernicious as intentionally self-favoring and other-excluding behavior. And that's not nearly as pernicious as when the group with power to self-favor isn't even the majority (not just because more people are left out, but also because to maintain the precarious position, the severity of the harms caused generally need to be higher).
---------
I understand that some people like to separate institutional and structural racism, but the boundary between the two is either poorly-defined, or both together fail to cover all the negative systemic impacts unless you just glom everything that doesn't fit into "institutional" even if the "institution" isn't like anything else we call an institution (or the "structure" isn't anything like we usually call a structure). So, yes, you can subdivide everything that is naturally subsumed in the term "systemic racism" into "institutional" + "structural", but then you either have terms that do poorly at communicating what they mean to non-experts (again, anyone is free to communicate badly--call it Kujichagulia if you wish--but that doesn't make it wise or effective), or you leave out important impacts like systemic failure of white people to reach out and mentor promising people of color.
Additionally, the reason that I think internalized racism is extremely important in the United States is that the number of actual, formal racial barriers are extremely few. Yes, there are some institutional and structural barriers, and some people are bigots, but these are mostly surmountable barriers. So you have to send out 20% more resumes? That's doable.
"That's not for me, I gotta stay in my lane" is not a surmountable barrier. Sending out 100% fewer resumes isn't getting you a job. You don't cross barriers if you aren't willing to try. "Everything is stacked against me, they all hate me, I can never succeed," is also not a surmountable barrier. Either way, it's the internal assessment of "I can't, because of my race" that can be the largest of the impediments.
But many, many black people succeed. They already have at basically everything there is to succeed at. Is it harder than it should be? Often yes. Is that okay? No. But it's way worse than it needs to be if the negative attitudes are internalized to the point where people stop themselves from succeeding. For instance, if you don't acknowledge internalized racism as important, the "role model who looks like me" argument is completely specious.
---------
You said, "RACISM AND PREJUDICE ARE NOT (AS YOU SEEM TO BE IMPLYING) SYNONYMS. PREJUDICE IS BASICALLY LIKE OR DISLIKE OF ONE PERSON OR TYPE OF PERSON OR THING OVER ANOTHER. IN ADDITION TO PEOPLE, PREJUDICE CAN REFER TO [...examples...] RACISM, AS WE KNOW IT, IS ALWAYS ABOUT PEOPLE."
But you quoted me as saying, "Individual racism is prejudice against people of other races, typically via negative stereotyping." (emphasis mine).
Obviously I wouldn't need to say "people of other races" if prejudice just mean racism.
---------
You say, "YOUR DEFINITION IS COMPLETELY NEBULOUS, AND DEFINITELY FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, RELATIVE TO THE IDEA THAT THE DEFINITION CAN CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT "some people additionally require.""
I am acknowledging that the definition is disputed to a sufficient extent that one has to be aware of both definitions. If you write a dictionary definition but don't cover differences in usage, you're not writing a very useful dictionary definition.
(Don't forget Kujichagulia when considering the intersubjective nature of language.)
---------
You failed to quote my carefully-stated caveat, and then complained, "YOU NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WITH THIS TYPE OF BROAD, GENERALIZED QUANTUM-"LOGIC"-LEAP TYPE STATEMENT."
I was careful. Go back and look. If you think I wasn't careful enough, you need to address how careful I actually was.
(Also, yes, white kids do sometimes report feeling intimidated and like they can't speak up in majority black classrooms. Also potentially internalized racism, again, if it's not a legitimate concern that to speak up would put them in physical or psychological danger.)
---------
You said, "we can define individual racism as the form in which one individual mistreats, abuses, discriminates against, exploits, and/or oppresses another individual (BASED SOLELY ON THE ARTIFICIAL/MANUFACTURED, OR MAN-MADE, YET VERY REAL PHENOMENON KNOWN AS RACE, AND OF COURSE, UNEQUAL POWER)".
Sure, that's not really different from what I said, if you unpack what prejudice against someone on the basis of race means, and only included the case where it's actualized, and adopt the necessity of power definition.
I do want to point out that one of the downsides of this sort of definition is that if a Hispanic man goes into a shooting range with a bunch of white patrons (meaning structurally, he has less power in the U.S., and individually he at least has no more power than the patrons) and guns down a dozen of them because he "hates white people", this is not an act of racism under your definition. It is a racial hate crime, but not an act of racism. This weird feature of the definition is why some people back off on the power requirement.
---------
You got implicit bias pretty much right. Your skepticism about whether it's actually explicit doesn't seem to be backed up by anything, though I agree that people could be less than forthright with their attitudes.
Note, however, that black people also exhibit implicit bias against black people, at least according to IATs. (The tests can be problematic. I wouldn't put much faith in any particular result without knowing the methodology; a lot of people set up the test in a way that guarantees a readout of "implicit bias" because bias is entangled with primacy, and everyone shows a primacy effect.) Caveats notwithstanding: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/black-on-black-racism-the-hazards-of-implicit-bias/384028/
---------
You're so far off on othering that I'm not even sure what to say. Classifying someone as "other" is the entire foundation of distinction on the basis of race.
See, for instance, https://www.otheringandbelonging.org/the-problem-of-othering/
You seem entirely uninterested in how, psychologically, this sort of thing manifests. It's the foundation for what you say you care about, and yet you completely dismiss it as "UTTER NONSENSE".
So, anyway, good luck! I hope you do more good than harm.