I only used that word because you did. Of course, people's personal experiences, beliefs, etc. color their perceptions. But when millions of people all have the exact same "perceptions", based on their personal experiences and the personal experiences of everyone they know (back to the red-haired man analogy) it's not just a "perception." It's a reality. When, in addition, those "perceptions" can be verified with statistics, data, logical conclusions, etc., you don't have confirmation bias, you have cofirmation.
And yet you and others like you, who have no expertise in anything related to being able to reasonably acurately assess those statistics, data, or logical conclusions, (much less the personal experiences of living with it day in and day out), feels just fine about dismissing them out of hand with no standing to do so and declaring that it's all overblown, not really so bad, or whatever else you have repeatedly said based on absolutely nothing other than your desire for that to be the case. You've hunted for evidence, to be sure, but you've never really found anything substantive that counters what is factual or real.
People see systemic racism everywhere they look becuase it is EVERYWHERE, not because they are a person with a hammer. It is objectively so by a wide variety of quantifiable metrics. The fact that you've created an "alternate" definition of that word that makes you feel better about yourself doesn't change that. Here's just a smattering of the reality of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
You being called names and having things thrown at you is not racism. It's predjudice, but it lacks the power differential to be actual racism. Individually, you didn't have a lot of power, but it was still functionally impossible for you to be subjected to racism. Racism is an institutionalized power differential that is expressed in a wide variety of overt and subtle, even unconscious ways. And that's what you keep failing to accept. Individual actions matter, but they are nothing in comparison to institutionalized power differentials. Which is why a fight between two men who come from different places of historical and current societal power is almost certainly going to have an element of that differential as a part of the conflict. Have I truly been talking into a void all this time? Why is that so hard to understand? This is what the dominance hierarchy is - an institutionalized power differential - between Whites and Blacks, between men and women, between straights and gays, between rich and poor, between abled and disabled, etc., etc., etc.
You can't show the truth of your views because there isn't any to show. There is nothing of any substance that supports it. It's all just venal posturing. And I think you're better than that.
What I have written about is that worldviews come from deeply held subconscious places, but that most of the ones on the Strict Father (dominance hierarchy) side of things fly in the face of actual science or logic. They are deeply held, to be sure, but not because they are just as subjective as those on the Nurturant parent side. For example, Strict Father types overwhelmingly support corporal punishment and things like "spanking a child until their will is broken." This is despite the fact that there are no reputable studies that indicate that is a healthy or productive way to parent a child and that all reputable research points to that as being incredibly destructive to both the child and the parent/child relationship.
So no, it's not that we're all immersed in our own views, and so they really are all just as valid as each other. Some things are objectively wrong, or harmful, or dishonest. There are some things that are up for debate or interpretation, but not nearly as many as you want to believe because it lets you off the hook for not having to deal with things that you don't want to have to be vulnerable about.
