This kind of broad definition I find fairly incoherent, because it mixes an emotionally neutral situation(e.g. "black people eat a lot of chicken", which requir

This kind of broad definition I find fairly incoherent, because it mixes an emotionally neutral situation(e.g. "black people eat a lot of chicken", which requires context to get any positivity or negativity from) with very emotionally charged situations("especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"). It's the difference between "the japanese eat a lot of fish, which is peculiar" - a very natural determination for humans to make, owing to our base pattern matching capabilities and curiosity, and "the japanese untermensch feed on garbage from the sea", which is an emotionally charged condemnation of the nationality. Mixing definitions this way allows activists to declare almost everything racist, which people immediately associate with the worst possible situation. This gives them power over conversations via a motte and bailey tactic - they will demand that their opponents and critics are racist, invoking terrible imagery in neutral observers; once the critics question this, they will retreat to their motte, qualifying their statements were just following the dictionary definition; when the critics are no longer there to rebut the statement, they will dive back to the bailey of claiming "racism" without the qualifications evoked.