Nice try. Yes, a false argument can be valid by the rules of logic. But it is still false if the premises are false. I can say that "Vaccines make you sterile." That would allow me to decline to be vaccinated because I want children. But it would be false, because the premise is false.

So you then say "If Society is founded on white supremacy, then all Action undertaken by white people within that society reinforces the supremacy of white people over BIPOC." Then you use that and your second premise as justification for your conclusion.

But I contend that, working backward, the premise of the second argument is unsupported. First, you need to define society. Do you mean American society? Or European society? Certainly not world society. Then you need to define White. All White, mixed White? There is substantial discussion in scientific circles that casts doubt about the entire term. And what do you mean by "founded"? Do you mean in the middle ages? Or just the American revolution? Or maybe the Civil War?

But then, even if you could take the second premise as sound, your first premise is also not sound. Even if society was founded on White supremacy, it does not necessarily follow that all actions by White people reinforce that supremacy. People change, societies change. You admit such in both your text and in your second example. If this were true, then Barack Obama's mother was reinforcing White supremacy when she married his Black father.

So the first premise contains an unsupported argument, and so does the second premise. The first is flat wrong in my opinion. And the second is also neither true nor sound. Therefore the conclusion cannot be true. If you want to focus on the semantics around logic, you are free to do so, but it is not enough to make your case.

There has been a major trend this past year and a half or so to target all White people for derision or blame. A major guilt-tripping exercise. With Marley K. as the head of the spear. And the tools are a whole new lexicon invented by the writers, a self-assigned refinement of current terminology, and a generous use of logical fallacies and false comparisons. You can't get away with that without pushback.

And, no, we don't "usually" use the term "strawperson". I don't expect that you invented it, but that is actually the first time I have heard the term, and I study logic, including discussions on logic forums. And it is absurd. Maybe in today's academic theater of suppressed thought. The terms roots were in the scarecrows built on farms. These were built to represent fake men, so they have always been called strawmen, and it morphed over to represent false targets in logical arguments. They are dummies, statues, they have no gender. Calling them "strawpersons" is taking PC wokeness to an extreme and silly level.