Accepted by some sociologists who tend to be on the Left.
No, accepted by all sociologists.
You also have not dealt with power held by blacks and other minorities.
Because it's a red herring. If you want to discuss it, kindly start a thread.
That's why I used the word "racialist" rather than "racist," and why I provided a definition of the word "racism" in the OP. That definition is what I'm talking about.
And you are also claiming that anyone disputing your preferred definition is a "racialist".
No, I'm not. But if the shoe fits...
To clarify, I am stating that denial of the accepted sociological definition of "racism" is
one of the habits that Highly Affected racialists have. That is NOT the same as claiming that all people who engage in this behavior are necessarily racialists. They may merely be ignorant.
By the way, the term "racism" existed long before Pat Bidot came up with the "bigotry plus power" definition, which by definition makes it a redefinition of the term.
Pat Bidot did not come up with that definition. She merely used it in the article i linked to. In reality, the sociological definition of racism is quite a bit more complicated and nuanced than that. I use it here for the sake of simplification.
So no, nobody is 'redefining" the word, any more than Biologists are 'redefining" the word "theory" by using it in it's scientific sense. Lots of words have more than one definition. That's why it's important to define your terms.
BTW, you're doing a wonderful job of Hyperfocusing on Minutiae. Keep it up!
You can start your own thread if you want to discuss racial bigotry. You can even define "racism" as "racial bigotry alone" for the purposes of discussion in your thread, if you like.
Or I can critique what you write in your thread.
If you want to show your ass, sure.
Perhaps you should read up on the concept of defining your terms.
Where does it say that defining terms can't open one to criticism?
Where is it written that such critics actually have a leg to stand on? Either you don't understand what it means to define one's terms for the sake of discussion, or you are merely thrashing about ineffectually in an attempt to muddy the waters. Either way, your point is moot.