My use of "consensus" in the OP comment seems to have been mistaken for approval a couple of times in this thread, so I should point out that this ^ comment exactly captures what I'm saying, as does my clarifying comment elsewhere in the thread.

> And these anti-White activists have extraordinary power in academia, politics, the press, etc.

They do have a lot of power, so aren't they capable of being racist against white people, even when racism is defined as power+prejudice?

There is literally nobody in this thread arguing that the redefinition is salutary, or even sane. I think that the idea that "racism" only applies to certain races isn't just foolish, it's evil. But one can describe the _existence_ of a phenomenon without endorsing it. The bubbles who subscribe to this definition are the relevant ones when discussing how Tiktok's content policy was written.

I'm not sure why you would take my comment (which was simply expanding on someone else's comment) as being directed at you or implying that you agree with the redefinition.

I'm just pointing out the obvious logical mistake being made by generally rational academics and textbook authors. Obviously we don't often see reason triumph over political advantage among politicians and the press, but without the support of educators that redefinition would have far less support.

Yes it is an unfortunately common definition among the groups you mentioned, but I still believe those people to be a minority relative to the population.

The dictionary.com definition for racism says nothing about power being a requirement:

A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.