As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."
I certainly agree with that sentiment. It's a bait and switch from where I stand.
I'd wager most people who hear "TEh pRezIDenT is A wHitE SupRemICAST" on social media don't have in mind the "sociological meaning" (that is, the meaning sociologists attached to an already existent description of hate groups).
You're right, they don't. But of course you are no longer talking about the book under consideration--you've switched.
Peace,
Michael
Well, I am talking about your description of what the book argues, to wit, that ...
She does use the term white supremacy, but she clearly distinguishes its sociological meaning from the popular consciousness that solely associates it with radical groups (p. 28). As she says, "Most white people do not identify with these images of white supremacists and so take great umbrage to the term being used more broadly."
Your response doesn't really seem to take counter-arguments to that concept seriously. I think you granted the book doesn't either, but that strikes me as a problem. Re-defining terms, especially terms that have a rightly pejorative gloss, strikes me as problematic.
It's as if the term is now re-defined and cannot be un-defined or even explained. Now that it is in popular use as a synonym for Klansmen and Neo-Nazis, we'll now just use it to describe broader concepts (like America), with no concern that the change in terms won't be well understood. Worse, we'll blame those subject to the new pejorative for not making the distinction and objecting to the characterization. Leftist thought policing tends to be a one-way ratchet that way, but those of us who find it dishonest aren't likely to simply concede the point, especially when the rhetoric is aimed in our direction.