Well, I do enjoy Wagonwright's comparison that your rules as you explicitly stated, which you intend to operate without racial bias, would defend nazis. It's a very direct and clear criticism of the structures you've built.

Our entire society has a racial bias, heavily in favour of white people, n'est pas? Do you claim to be separate from the trappings of this society? What we perceive 'normal' and 'neutral' is shaped by the cultural norms around us, by definition of the concept of cultural norms, which, as noted by the first question, are racist in nature.

(And also, I might note, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, etc. etc.)

If you intend only to be neutral, you will be racist as a result of that decision. The very tools that society creates to be neutral are tools that uphold the status quo to a lesser or greater degree, as a consequence of perceiving the status quo, to a lesser or greater degree, to be neutral. That's Wagonwright's commentary, in an academic shell, of the tools you built. That you choose to selectively engage them does not make that better. As you will note by the above, it makes it much worse.

Let us examine, for example, your assertion that 'white egotistical fart balloon', among others, is a racial slur. (I rather like that one)

Other posters in the subreddit noted 'white devil' with humour and acceptance, but the defence of calling the collective settlers white devils by examining the collective & continuing actions was deleted, not the other comments. Why was that comment viewed as more inflammatory and solely deserving of deletion?

And then, is calling, say, Ted Bundy a murderer, an insult? A thief a thief? A slaver a slaver?

To reword one of the statements in the original post, have you ever considered the number of random murders per day that would be required to bring down the average life expectancy of the average American or Canadian to lower than 40?

(The stat itself is 40 at 20, meaning, once you've reached 20, you can expect to live to 40. So the average life expectancy is lower).

Effectively, this is murder that all white Canadians and Americans collectively participate in. Unless you'd like also to say that very similar albeit accelerated circumstances of poverty, disease, & starvation also did not make anyone guilty of killing people in Dachau, because it wasn't a death camp, not like the ones outside of Germany. A lot of people happened to die there, that's all. (I decided to keep with the nazi theme). These things can only happen on a societal scale, are only encouraged to happen on a societal scale, in a society that shows collective approval for these actions.

(And while I'm on about that, sidenote: consider that neutrality in Canada and the US was turning away the St. Louis. That accepting it was viewed as a slight against the German people)

Do, put simply, you disagree that white people, collectively, are murderers? It IS normal to say no to that question. Is it neutral to say no to that question? By what standards?

But then also, I was talking about today to defend terminology specifically used to describe the first settlers, via examination of structures where limitless proof can be collected right now of their existence and the structures are easily seen as coming from the settler's actions. Do you disagree that the settlers were slavers, or genocidal supremacists? (Should we examine Columbus's slaughter of Haiti? Or, y'know, chattel slavery?)

With that in mind, is 'white egotistical fart balloons', more or less damning than something that captures the truth of the settlers, (murder, theft, rape, enslavement, genocide, etc.)? How about 'Incompetent tenants'?

Further, should we look at the continuing actions of today, which are still recognized by the UN as ongoing genocide, (Hey, guess which countries have the longest running refusals to allow the 'UN inspector generals for indigenous people' access?), and excuse white people for continuing to benefit from, encourage, and elect officials to continue it? At what point should I view someone living in this system, accepting this system, benefiting from this system, encouraging this system, as innocent? Should I view white people as innocent angels until they are shown what happens as a result of their systemic racism AND they then embrace it or refuse to fight it? (Because that still means I shouldn't view people involved here as innocent, their actions being dismissive of viewing the oppressive structures they still benefit from as existing).

And then your rules, as explicitly stated, do not punish dismissiveness, which I might note is all that is needed to maintain status quo -ie: racism-, but are biased against the inverted power structures that can deconstruct it? That are necessary to deconstruct it given that there is an imbalance of social power, (Ie: the definition of a social minority), and that the default action is to deny the dominant power structures exist, or worse, and that the default action carries more power, by aforementioned definition?

After all, normally people would read 'egotistical fart balloons' or 'incompetent tenants' in a list of cruel activities that people DO literally perform, (as established in the post, which you've noted you agree with, applies collectively to white people), as humour. "Murder, arson, and jaywalking", if you want the trope name.

Mmm, but while I have much more to say, I'll cut it short here.

I don't particularly care to attack you or even talk to you, since you are, to me, a known racist by dint of the posts you choose to censor. Which is why I advised wagonwright to 'leave it'. Nothing to gain. Who to convince? The person known not to be receptive. Even when you directly addressed me, in response I was merely looking for an explicit statement that would cast your reply as less neutral that it seems on the surface, (which is why Wagonwright's commentary was unappreciated then but seen as an accurate criticism now). (and I got that screenshot, so I was correct in my judgment). Instead you dug yourself quite a bit deeper before the cap end came up.

Have you ever considered what an actively non-racist's reaction to criticism would be? Do you think it would be hurt feelings? Or do you think the world is literally divided into 'good guys' and 'bad guys' as one of your posts here implies?

And yes, I will documenting your reaction to this post and adding it to the collection.

Always continue learning, and have a good day.