OK, I still think you're missing the point. All I was trying to do was correct your use of language and create a distinction between an ideology and a movement. Just to be clear, I'm using ideology to refer to a group of ideas informed by a person's worldview, and movement to mean a physical manifestation of an ideology in the form of a pressure group.

The definition of white supremacy: the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society.

Yeah, that's a pretty good definition, let's roll with that.

I don't agree with that viewpoint. I'm not that much of a moron. I pretty firmly believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity in society to do whatever the fuck they want to do, but I digress.

The definition above does not directly insinuate that violence is necessary. It is perfectly possible to imagine a white supremacist movement that didn't use violence to "control" black people. It could happen through more covert means, like media control or something similar.

Racism, colonialism, slavery: all of these things are the outcomes of white supremacy. How are these things not inherently violent?

I never claimed that they weren't, or that real-world white supremacist movements aren't inherently violent. The kkk clearly were an inherently violent group. But to then immediately jump to the conclusion that supremacy is violent is just not a valid step.

To give an analogy: it's like saying that Christianity is a violent religion because religious denominations have committed atrocious acts in its name. It's not inherently violent, in fact most of its tenets are arguably very peaceful and reasonable.

domination itself is based on violence and subjugation.

I agree with this to an extent, this is probably more your point. It's definitely based on subjugation, almost tautologically. I'd argue there is a distinction between an ideology being violent, and its intended consequences having violent repercussions, but it's debatable certainly. If a white supremacist group decided to deport all black people, white people would certainly dominate society, and it wouldn't necessarily be violent.

And I'm sick and tired of the fallacy fallacy constantly expressed by Redditors.

Based on what you wrote, it was fallacious to be fair. You've expanded the argument below though, so problem solved.

Compare the history of white supremacy and feminism.

No. You cannot compare movements in order to compare ideologies. That's my point.

The other thing to consider is that the history of a movement does not validate the need for that movement in the future. What rights are left for feminism to grant? That's what the need for an ideology should be judged on.