To actually clear this up:

Racists are calling themselves anti-racist.

It's branding, not an actual descriptor. It's an effective political technique to present it as the opposite.

> It is the one anti-racists are using, so if one is trying to understand the term, that's the right place to start.

Yeah totally agreed, it's important to call out the definitions of terms used in any context.

The main thrust of my post was similarly to point out that if you're using definition X, you may justify some action which doesn't conform to definition Y.

In the same vein as "Patriot Act" or "People's Republic", good branding on the part of "anti-racism" can help nip naysayers in the bud. (Are you anti-patriot? Are you against the people or democracy? Are you pro-racist?)

Knowing who means what when they use terms, and being willing to differ from someone else's definition clearly, is pretty much the only way I know of to have these deep conversations with civility.

For sure. And I think it's important to note that some of those definitions of racism are from people who others would see as beneficiaries of the system that the latter group sees as racist. That is to say, it shouldn't be surprising that as the power of whites declines, the definitions of racism they might prefer are coming under challenge.

Or in your terms of branding, it shouldn't be a shock that the dominant racial group would have established a definition of "racism" that is one more convenient to them than to the dominated groups, because that branding serves to prevent challenges to their power.

Totally agreed, every party in this whole debate definitely conforms to the idea that everyone's the protagonist in their own story.

Of course. In the same way as some people may use a definition that justifies discrimination.