But if there are conflicting views about what a word should mean, isn't it a bit much to say "well your (accepted) version of the word means isn't what I meant, and therefor you're wrong"?

Let's take something (presumably) less polarizing: the word "Literally". To some people, it means "an event that actually is/has happened" but it can also be used as a synonym to the word "figuratively". This can create conflict or misunderstanding when 2 people have different expected definitions of a word. Both are accepted by large populations, and if you use one in a way that has not been accepted by the person you're speaking to, you're not "wrong" you're just having a misunderstanding.

You can argue the validity of each definition, but there's no objective right or wrong here. If I say "Black people can't be racist towards white people because they don't have the institutional power to do that", and you respond "anyone can be racist" we're not having the same argument. You're just arguing semantics while I'm trying to make a point about the world.

I think what people are truly angry about is when someone is racist (to be clear I'm using the definition involving prejudice based on race) towards someone who is of a generally privileged class (i.e. white) and when this is pointed out sometimes the answer is is that they're not being racist because their definition of it is also related to power. And so both parties are drawn into the argument over language semantics. However, it is the wrong argument to be involved in, because it is correct to point out the hypocrisy: it is not ok to be racist (using the definition without power) to anyone, regardless if in general they benefit from their race.

Racist jokes, are just that, jokes. IMO it's ok for anyone to make a joke against anyone else due to a joke's harmless nature. Although yes, someone who is a racist (i.e will deny you a job because of your race, or hold negative stereotypes about you to your detriment) is more likely to utter a racist joke, but the joke itself is the harmless act. However I'm not talking about jokes. I'm talking about racist actions that are actually negative to the person on the receiving end, you know, the things that actually matter -- not jokes. It's bad for anyone receiving it. Whether you are denied a job, or an opportunity due to your race it is bad. For example, read up on Asian-americans being the victims of positive discrimination and having to earn more marks to get in solely due to their race. Typically these people are affluent and definitely not powerless and probably are the most powerful in terms of getting a place at an Ivy, I'd argue they are at the receiving end of a policy that is racist. Also remember, power can be localised. For example is it impossible for a white person to be racist in South Africa, because they are in the minority? Yeah I'd say so. Thougu under your definition - I definitely can say we can have a debate on that. Is it impossible for a black person to be racist in South Africa? No, according to my definition of racism and also according to yours (though you may disagree depending on how you believe powet works); whilst I imagine the average white person in South Africa is richer than the average black person, they dont enjoy much political power nowadays and they are in the minority in terms of people.

My point is, don't let people commit racist actions (I don't care about jokes) because they may have 'less power' due to their race.

It's not just "the context of an academic specialty". Almost every non-white person I know uses this definition.

By contrast, the traditional definition of "racism" that so many are vociferously defending here is used almost exclusively by white people. Think about that.

> It's not just "the context of an academic specialty". Almost every non-white person I know uses this definition.

So people have self-serving definitions. Not a surprise.