"It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide":
A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc."
In his defense, it's difficult to want to waste time debating with this line of reasoning. There are some huge unfounded assumptions being made right here in a well thought out way. A nugget of possible truth, mixed with a lot of personal opinion. With that said, doesnt seem like it would lead to a productive conversation.
I'm not sure why the need to insert white males into the equation. That argument is based on you believing there is a secret organized attack against white men going on. I think thats open to interpretation depending on who you are. If anything, I, as a minority, see a balancing of power. Im also aware that whitw males still dominate the economical and political spectrum, so its even harder to agree with this logic. Is thus attack being perpetuated by other white males? To what gain? It seems to me that it appears as an attack on white males, when white males are no longer allowed to dominate culturally, economically, or in numbers in certain areas. They arent being excluded, others are being allowed to the table. That means more chairs need to be pulled up and you cant have the entire meal to yourself. I can't call that "cultural genocide". The role of white male in society remains much the same. This argument makes me think of the people who complain about AA hires, while ignoring the fact that the company is comprised of 85% white hires.