Why is the systematic definition worse than the traditional one? The only advantage I see to the traditional definition is that it is semantically nicer. The tr

Why is the systematic definition worse than the traditional one? The only advantage I see to the traditional definition is that it is semantically nicer. The traditional definition 'does what it says on the tin'. So sure, maybe we should use another word than racism. However, if this were a problem, I think the solution would be to change the wording of the policy to match the interpretation. Not change the policy to match the wording. When we say 'racism is a big problem to be solved' that big problem (in the west) is discrimination against non-white people. At least as seen by most people. This is why calling someone the N-word is a lot worse than calling a white person anything relating to their race. Because white people suffer a lot less from racism. That is not to say that racism against white people is totally okay, but the badness of it is on a totally different level than racism against e.g. black people. And to say that one form should be treated just like the other is ignoring a whole lot of context, just for the sake of semantics.