Well, there's only one definition for racist
There are only a couple of things you could mean by this, and neither really makes sense to me. Dictionary.com has one entry for "racism," but it's "the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others," so it doesn't jibe with the meaning you advanced. And if you want to say your version is simply more commonly used (I'm fairly certain it isn't, but we'll say it is for the sake of argument), then invoking usage at all means acknowledging the possibility of it being used differently, in which case "define your terms" is clearly applicable.
And really, how the person you're talking to is using the word should matter to you if you simply care about communicating with them at all, even if you think they're using a word wrongly (which they don't appear to be).
Rather that we, as an enlightened and educated society, are more adept at recognizing that systems of power we support are extensions of ourselves. So it's not so much that the term has been expanded but that what we once found as innocuous ideas are now easily recognizable as racist.
See above, and my previous post for that matter, where I specifically mention "malice" and "prejudice." I did this specifically to preempt this kind of response.
I'm aware of the arguments here: the position is that power structures can have systemic racial bias, and obviously societies are in some way (directly or indirectly) responsible for those structures. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the word "racist" should be applied to indirect expressions like this. Saying it shouldn't in no way implies that we should not be "recognizing" the implications or effects of our systems.
I would only ask have you ever had to contend with your race being a factor that has limited you?
I reject the implied relevance of the question, but I'll answer it anyway: yeah, mostly because I've lived in overwhelmingly minority neighborhoods most of my life (and live in one right now). And just as I don't think it would matter if my answer was no, I don't expect any extra deference just because the answer is yes.
Or has your race been brought up in conversation as a way to compliment your normalcy?
Not that I can recall, no.
You and I just cannot speak to these things because we are white.
Which things? None of the things I'm trying to speak to require me to know what it's like to be a minority, something which I obviously cannot know and can never fully appreciate or relate to.
Our systems of power favor our whiteness, and thus we have free access to said power. It's precisely why you can't have "reverse racism" because racism is a matter of an imbalance of power. And since we come from a place where the power resides we cannot not be racist.
I think making power an
inherent part of racism, rather than just a
potential component of it, is totally untenable, since it creates a situation where a minority can literally say "I hate everyone who isn't of my race" and it would still not make them "racist." Which is obviously absurd.
Anyway, none of this is really about what the term "racist" means or how it ought to be used. You're simply arguing that these other things should be factored in cultural/political debates about race, which is certainly true, but orthogonal to the application of the term itself. You can (and should!) believe most of the things above even if you were to adopt a different usage of the term.