system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Using "racism/racist" as a blanket term for all race related bigotry is fine and people who correct a majority person describing a time in which someone was racist to them are just being pedantic and contribute nothing to the conversation

I know this is very spicey topic adjacent. This CMV isn't about any of the spicey stuff surrounding the topic of racism like "is racism real" or "xyz isn't racist" or "who gets screwed by racism the most". This is entirely just about how the word "racism" is commonly "misused" as a blanket term for all race related bigotry and at this point I think it should be accepted as such. It's a pet peeve of mine on par with someone correcting another person on their usage of they're/there/their in the middle of a discussion.

The academic definition of "racism" is bias/oppression against some group of people *in a lower level of power* by people *in a higher level of power*. This gets brought up frequently when a white person relays a story about how someone was racist to them for being white. People are quick to point out that AKSHULLY that's technically not racism since they are in the more powerful group. That strikes me as extremely pedantic and I do not believe that the person correcting them was in any way confused about what the white person meant. The person was clearly just complaining that someone was being unfair to them due to their race. All correcting them does is derail the conversation and should be considered trolling. 

Imagine if someone used an ice pick to scratch up your car. You then go complain to some people about how shitty your day is because someone key scratched your car. Imagine they turn around and tell you "Well, since they used an ICE PICK, nobody key scratched your car. You shouldn't use the term key scratched when it wasn't specifically done with a key." That's what this feels like to me.

Outside of people who are frequently paying attention to race discussions or have been specifically corrected on it, most people would define racism as "bias against someone based on their race". Language is a medium of information exchange and if a lot of people are using a word in a certain way, regardless of what some dictionary or academic says, that's one of the definitions of the word now. It is an acceptable usage of the term alongside its original meaning.

I don't think that allowing for "racism" to be used in this way in any way detracts from discussions about systemic racism or could lead to any confusion about what someone is talking about in the same way that "literally" meaning both "the actual truth of the situation" and as an intensifier to something that is not actual truth might. "Is this person talking about a system of oppression against a disadvantaged race of people or are they talking about someone being a dick to them because of their race?" I think it's almost always clear from the context what that person is talking about. If all else fails specify which meaning you're using.

Is there some downside to letting "racism" be used in this way that I'm not seeing? I feel like every time I've seen it misused in this way everyone understood what they meant, so anyone coming in to correct their usage of the word is being obnoxious and actively lowering the quality of the conversation.
gpt
>The academic definition of "racism" is bias/oppression against some group of people in a lower level of power by people in a higher level of power.

Is it? Do you have a source for that? I've seen it defined that way, but what authority made it "the academic definition" and not just something some morons who read that "racism=prejudice+power" say because it's simple and it suits their needs?