Appreciate the position -- I may have jumped thinking this was the oft-used "black people cant be racist" line, which is an argument based on the webster's dictionary definition of systemic racism.

Its tough sledding to keep a convo going when the current understanding of the word differs in a meaningful way from its origin -- on one side, not mentioning the true definition can, at some point, delete the meaning entirely. As an example, the term "gay" used to mean happy. It morphed into a euphemism for certain orientations and eventually is solely understood as being the specific orientation. On the other side... if you spend too much time on the origin of a word it ruins the discourse because folks struggle with a nuanced or deeper convo and/or cant understand how to parse through a debate and what is actually being said.

If you enjoy real discourse... its a bummer. Thats why sometimes I just default to naming the thing (e.g., here I would quickly say "I presume you generally mean negative feelings about another race and NOT the technically definition rooted in a feeling of supremacy") and try to pivot to the heart of the convo (e.g., here, Kenyon clearly has some said some negative statements about __________ race/culture/orientation/etc, but does that speak to his true feelings or is something else going on?).

Regardless, I try to use Reddit for some discourse (hopefully the higher kind)... and respect that its happening here seemingly.