1a.  Why are you misreading what I am writing?!  I have explicitly acknowledged MULTIPLE TIMES that the parentheses apply to the first part of your sentence. 
You:  Everyone who is not white wants to play the victim (not literally everyone but you get it), and many whites want to pretend that racism is not a thing.
Me1:  Why did you generalize nonwhites more than whites in the first paragraph?  Compare (compare meaning "look at this juxtaposed with what you wrote; do you notice and object to whites being overgeneralized?):  all whites want to pretend that racism is not a thing (not literally, but you get it), and many non-whites want to play the victim.  You did basically take it back in parentheses, but why say it like that in the first place?
Me2:  You said "everyone who is not white wants to play the victim", generalizing that all non-whites do this.  Then you backtracked with your parenthetical statement, "(not literally everyone but you get it)".  This is in contrast to the second part of the sentence, "many whites want to pretend that racism is not a thing".

Examine the phrase "then you backtracked".  What could I possibly be talking about?  Obviously something preceding the parenthetical statement.  First one thing happens, then another thing happens.  What is under discussion that precedes the parenthetIcal statement?  Your statement about non-whites.  So no, I didn't misunderstand or misconstrue your sentence at all. 

Let me break it down AGAIN and I will try to be as clear as fucking possible. 

1b.  Everyone who is not white wants to play the victim (not literally everyone but you get it), and many whites want to pretend that racism is not a thing.

I will break this down into three parts. 
1:  "Everyone who is not white wants to play the victim"—this is a sweeping overgeneralization that says ALL non-whites are contributing to racial discord.
2:  "(not literally everyone but you get it)"—this is a partial take-back of the previous statement, changing it to mean that not all non-whites contribute to racial discord.  The "you get it" is especially vague:  it could be intended to mean that almost all non-whites are the problem, but there are a few that aren't; or it could mean 'oh, hey, sorry, I didn't mean all at all, I only meant a lot, like "everyone goes to Burger King", you know?'; frankly, I don't "get it". 
3:  "many whites want to pretend that racism is not a thing"—clear statement that many, but not all, whites contribute to racial discord. 

The reason I began talking about this in the first place was to wonder why the second half of your claim (part 3) was stated so clearly when the first half of your claim (parts 1 and 2) wavered between absolute overgeneralization and vague take-backs.  Specifically, to wonder if this was not due to a mental tendency to overgeneralize non-whites in general, which you recognize as wrong (thus the parentheses) but still have a tendency to do when you don't think about it in advance.  Alternatively, perhaps it is just bad writing:  at first you said "all", then realized it was wrong and added the parentheses, then mentally revised the statement to do better in the second half but didn't bother fixing the first half and just left it a mess; but that is becoming less and less likely as time goes on because I would think that you would have owned up to it by now if that was the case. 

2&3.  But if the mistreatment is happening at an institutional or systematic level, individual-level responses are insufficient.  You treat a flu epidemic differently than individual cases of the flu.  A regional or national problem warrants a national discussion. 

4.  For the record, in my first reply, what you thought was a misquote of you was actually intended as a test for you:  how did it make you feel to read it with whites in the more generalized part of the statement and non-whites in the more specific part?  Does it make you feel any differently from when it is the way that you wrote it? 

I don't feel anything as a white Irish man. I laugh at the people obsessing over tanning themselves to make themselves dark. Likewise black people trying to make themselves white.

Humans are so insecure and it seems too many are not happy the way they are born. Just accept it and move on. It's a non event. Do you think alien's will treat you differently over your colour when they invade us? No. Although they might eat the fake tan ladies first. Be like eating a rib in lovely barbecue sauce.

Shame, guilt and arousal

I am only going to answer 4 because it sums up the entire thing.

No it did not make me feel any different, I could care less as like I said in my second post it it was more of a way to not generalize all non-whites into a group.  I did not put it in whites because common sense should have told you that if I feel that way about non-whites, it should be the same for whites so I should not have to repeat myself with a second set of parentheses stating so.  Had it not been overanalysed, you would have figured that out.

What I was defending was that by switching the two and then saying I was generalizing non whites, you were implying that I was doing something that I was not.

My point is that we are all people and blowing things up is what breeds most of the hate to begin with.  And the thing is, nothing is at a national level.  If it is an employer, the authorities in THAT area should handle it.  If it is an individual, the parties involved should handle it as needed.  At no point has racism been at a national level in recent years like the media will have you believe.

Just because something happens in cali does not mean that people in PA should be up in arms for example.  All that does is create tension for everyone in PA when there was nothing wrong to begin with.  If there is a problem in Cali, let Cali handle it OR go to Cali yourself to show your support if you feel the need to.  Don't act like it is a nationwide problem just because something on the other side of the country ticks you off.

Not directed at you if course, just giving an example.

But your language WAS more generalized when speaking of non-whites than whites in that sentence.  It would have been worse without the parenthetical comment but it was present even with it.  "Overgeneralizing" isn't the same as "being KKK" to any person with at least a hint of common sense, so please don't think I'm trying to imply anything beyond an unconscious tendency to generalize about non-whites more than whites.  (Or possibly bad reading comprehension skills.)  I'm glad that having it reversed doesn't make you feel any differently.  If you felt very defensive of whites being spoken of in a way that you saw nothing wrong with blacks being spoken of, then it would suggest that you see whites and blacks differently. 

But as for people in PA not needing to butt into CA problems ... I just disagree, if the problem is one that CA society isn't handling well.  In the civil rights era of the 1960s the progress was largely made by a national response to a regional problem.  Not to say there weren't problems outside of the South but I think you know what I'm getting at.  A national discussion of a mostly regional problem, and other regions butting into it. 

I'm honestly surprised this thread hasn't been closed up yet.

They can feel pride but need to be aware of their privilege.

Yes, I done it 3 times already. I preffer to trust in my own capacity than in the hidden agendas of other individuals in the organizations. Do you trust your life to strangers?

I meant that I'm surprised that it has stayed civil  

How I already feel about you.