You created a non-standard definition and used that to make your argument. Then you refuse to allow anyone to object to your basis of argument, and imply that any further corrections likely stem from a fallacy on my side. How bloody convenient for you.

Nobody except you said there was a threat of violence. The original article even compared the violence of the Jim Crow South with "the Californian way [which] worked tacitly through housing, jobs and education policies. On top of racially restrictive covenants, realtors around the San Francisco Bay Area were engaged in a practice called blockbusting."

This isn't violence. Restricted covenants have been unenforceable by the government since Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, so it's not like there's even any threat of government force to back up a covenant through the civil courts.

The comment by enlightenedfool are personal, but don't reflect the law. It is illegal to discriminate based on national origin just like it's illegal to discriminate based on race. Both have been illegal since the Civil Rights Act of 1968/Fair Housing Act. Currently the only legally accepted threat of violence, for those who hold that government force is backed by a threat of violence, is against those who use discriminatory practices.

In any case, enlightenedfool was not talking about violence either. ("And that's not because of violence.") Neither was yzzxy, who referred to the housing discrimination in Chicago, which were very similar to the non-violent way of California.

For your statement to make sense means (I believe) that you inferred that yzzxy's reference to "separate but equal" was a statement that equated enlightenedfool's beliefs on "own kind" as identical to the specific government practices ruled illegal in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and that you believe laws are only possible via the threat of violence by the government, and therefore yzzxy must mean that enlightenedfool also want coercive violence.

This is a stretch. It's much easier to believe that yzzxy uses it as a short-hand for the thinking behind the separate but equal doctrine rather than specific implementation points. For one, Brown v. Board of Education was not about private discrimination in the housing market but about government discrimination. For another, the theory of "laws backed by threat of violence" is extremely tenuous here. Redlining occurred through mortgage discrimination, via the National Housing Act of 1934, where banks ended up denying mortgage capital to high-risk/strongly minority areas. Where is the violence in "we will not give federal mortgage insurance to houses in this neighborhood"? For a third, if anything, it is yzzxy who supports government-backed violence as a way to prevent further segregation.

The only way I could understand your conclusion required an implicit acceptance of an incorrect definition - that 'housing segregation uses threats of force to live separately.' It seemed easier to first start with that wrong statement, as it would otherwise be impossible to address your other substantive points.

Instead you ended by asserting that any definition arguments are pointless - quite odd from someone who asked "What does "systemic" mean?" on this very thread? If you really believe that definition arguments are meaningless, why do you get into them?

You say you are "trying to understand", and yet reject as meaningless anything which might lead to a change in your understanding.

How disingenuous. And yes, I'm using my own private definition that you can't respond to because I haven't told you what it means.