I hate it when people abuse the word and call someone racist because they can’t rebuttal an argument, but that doesn’t mean racism is still a major threat in society

'Anti-semitic' is a lot more specific. Why is there a specific term for racism against Jews?

I think we've got SOOooo many new groups of precious fragile people that racism is just one of too many things for people to bleat about. Harden up, peeps - life is hard, very hard. If you choose to make it harder for yourself by inventing a new race, gender, affliction or whatever to stand out from the maddening crowd, then you'll just have to suck it up as the price of being "special". If you can't handle it, then just merge back into the crowd with the rest of the unexeptional unwashed masses.

It definitely depends on context, as the term racist is being thrown out there as a blanket comeback instead of discussing a point. Personally, I enjoy doing my homework and researching topics beforehand; but it appears most would rather listen to respond. If you point out something they don’t like or presumably agree with, they’ll pull the racist card or my personal favourite, victim points. I thought it was all a joke; “people aren’t really that self absorbed...?” My brother introduced me to some UTube videos where, yes, this seems to be a trend.
I don’t think myself a racist, life isn’t a competition, nobody wins from tearing others down.

Keep using it but use it where ever it applies. The word "racist" today actually means "white racist" because of the "liberal" double standard that only whites can be racist when it is the blacks who are the most virulent, violent racists against whites.

Calling someone ‘Racist’ is now used as a form of intimidation being applied by particular sections of the community to anyone whose view varies from their own. In the current climate of political correctness and so called diversity it is viewed by such people as the ultimate insult. It also implies that your opinion or action is driven by ‘racism’ regardless of what your actual motives may be. The fact that the term is used by bigots who cannot see the irony in their comments displays the level of their stupidity.
Banning the word is not practicable but even if it was it would serve little purpose because some other term would be equally misused to replace it.

The leftists have no replacement word to try and cause a defensive reaction from those they view as their enemies. So don't look for an end to its use anytime soon. That being said don't tell them we've become desensitized to it and are pretty much ignoring them.

The thing about racism is people are over-using the word, expanding or rewriting the definition of the word to the point where it becomes overly vague, contradictory, and confusing, and applying the word to people who generally don't deserve it as an intellectually lazy political smear.

It's been repeated so often, and to so many people who don't deserve it, we've basically reached the point where the child has cried wolf too many times when there was no wolf, and now when someone cries wolf and there actually is a wolf, nobody believes them.

You also approach semantic satiation after a point. For those who aren't too familiar with linguistics, semantic satiation is what happens when a term gets repeated so often it essentially becomes meaningless.

I do my best to ignore any references to "race". I lean more toward the idea of it being a social construct and having little real meaning. It can be a challenge to do this, but I've found it worth the effort.

My white, tattooed, Harley Davidson motorcycle riding son is often called "white supremacist", "racists", and "Nazi" because he supposedly looks the part. His wife, my favorite daughter-in-law, finds it amusing as she is a beautiful woman of color. Their daughter is a bright little girl who adores her parents and the rest of her family. I have often thanked them for "saving" my son from hypocrisy.
The word "racists" has been used, abused, and tossed about so much it has lost any and all impact and viability in our family.

No, for me the goal is not to let the leftists win but to attempt to reclaim language. To let them have certain terms to the point where we consider dispensing with them altogether is essentially giving the field to them.

It’s definitely lost it’s meaning the left are radical being racist and they can’t even see it. I don’t think I’m conservative but I sure always had their beliefs apart from religious beliefs.

Here's an example of why the word needs to remain, apart from the fact that banning the use of a word buys into the SJW culture vulture narrative, how would I be able to say the following?

As a little context for the true racist types, those who hide behind the color of their skin, while condemning those for whom they infallibly identify by skin color - ethnicity is not a skin color and is the true subject matter, imo.
Maybe, if we could get away from that and talk about differences between cultures in the context of racism and not use the word as both a bludgeon and shield to hide behind, honest discussions might be had.
Banning words is a harmful and ridiculous concept, it is ideological in its implementation and its only purpose is to shut down debate. Not to fix any social ills, but indeed make them worse. Symbolically putting a strip of duck tape over the mouth might work for some as a signal of virtue, but for me it screams - captive hostage taking!

A tool for the left, eh? Thats a cop-out that the left hopes that you use to shut down open dialogue. For example, how fruitless does a conversation become after someone uses the "racist" card? Its so frustrating when a valuable conversation redirects to this narrative, and all the points get lost when the outrage bomb detonates. It doesn't matter who uses it, talks cease. One might say there's no point in continuing the conversation if somebody gets pegged as such. If someone calls you racist and you walk away, it is you that ended the dialogue- not them. The left remains standing, proud and victorious. I do think that @ObiRonMoldy and @Aurelien are onto something here, and I hope this contributes. I think that it would be better to identify these dialogue ending words and phrases as "check" and not "checkmate." Do not ban! Instead, find a way to hold your ground when "racist" cheapens the point, and do not let one word, or any like it, end the conversation. Learn how your ground may evolve while holding it, even as someone is venting. Let them exhaust themselves. Best case scenario- they recollect and the conversation continues. The alternative is that they walk away (hopefully no one gets hurt). Easier said than done, right? Just remember that the "racist" card trumps anyone who does not/can not counter it, or doesn't value their own growth/opinion enough to learn how to deal with it.

No banning of words. Shun, avoid, make it known that misuse is socially unacceptable. Don't ban. Don't put laws on the books for thought crimes. The founders had lots of flaws and bad ideas but freedom of speech was the greatest gift anyone ever gave us. We just take it for granted. No word bans. "I'm not mad...I'm disappointed" is a better tactic than arguing from authority

[theguardian.com]

Yep. Islamophobia is now racism, as above.

Why? The problem is nobody feels very empowered by a mere concept like “cultural aversion.” Then all you are left with is: “Child-marriage, clitorectomy, gay-stoning, misogeny? Not my cup of tea, but whatever floats your camel.”

Words get degraded. Like “fascism.” It’s just Com-speak for “We don’t like it politically.”

“Racism” continues this. It is Left-speak for when a “fascist” doesn’t like something (anything at all) about anybody who doesn’t look exactly like them.

The word DOESN'T have 'so many different meanings depending on the context.' It has a very specific definition, independent of political agendas and audience.

It's the language used by people tossing such words around, with no care for their very specific meanings, that should be banned.

What we need is not a ban on words; but a reshaping of how we debate and engage with each others (as opposed to demean, caricature, insult...).

The problem, as I see it personally, is 'political' correctness: both whose who defend it (by using such words carelessly to silence opponents) AND whose who denunce it (using it as an excuse to spout more hate and divisions, in the name of freedom of speech). We need to get rid of 'political' (=partisan agendas) when dealing with correctness (courtesy, respect).

Politics has turned into a noisy jungle where politicians act like gorillas in the mist at the expense of dialogue, compromise, and reason. That's why the political landscape is fucked up. The problem is not the dictionaries. It's the morons governing us -Right and Left. Don't let them impose their 'newspeak' on us all.

No, use it with its correct meaning.
Allow the others who use it incorrectly and change the meaning as many times as they change their gender to continue their asininity. Eventually, they'll try something else.

I'm not a racist, I'm a f#*+ING Nazi, for saying that I know indigenous Australians who state that they enjoy Western medicine, technology, transport, agriculture, communications, education, etc. I'm related by marriage to an Aboriginal bloke, but, what would I know?

Short of yelling FIRE in a theater, I thought FREE SPEECH was part of the Constitution.
But Racist is about the same as a Canadian saying AY, now days. It carries no weight!!
Lots of replies re: a single word. What does that tell you?????

No.
The DemLeft uses it to death ... and, at this point, to their detriment ... but that’s on them.
They’ve ruined so many words through overuse or misconstrued and mangled definitions but I simply stop using the words (mostly). I wouldn’t want them “removed” from the lexicon.
Most people here use words contextually correctly ... so it’s not US ... it’s THEM.
To stop doing stuff ... using words ... accepting THEIR Point of View is to simply accede to them some sort of “Win”.
To hell with them.

The left has unfortunately succeeded making what once was a general and common definition within our cultural language, into a toxic weapon.

I say keep using it. They're shooting themselves in the foot with it. You're not going to get rid of ambiguity - they'll just come up with something else. Let them air their dirty laundry.

If they want to froth themselves up to getting stomped upon, by all means.

The word isn’t ambiguous, it has a specific meaning. The fact that leftists use it against anyone who disagrees with them is immaterial.

Btw, it’s been abused so often that using it is now meaningless.

My God, we need to expand our language, not reduce it. We already recycle so many words.