I'm not sure this is a particularly useful way to use the word "racist". Usually the definition includes something about prejudice or antagonism. By the time you hit 4, there's no antagonism and minimal to no prejudice--just a bit of obliviousness about what bothers others.

Drawing a linguistic equivalence between #4 and #1 seems profoundly unhelpful. It's like using "thief" to describe both someone who remorselessly embezzles funds from a program to improve child nutrition in economically disadvantaged countries, and someone who is honest but whose tax dollars only pay for 90% of their own personal wear and tear on roads.

I understand that for those trying to move people to fervent activism it is very convenient to have pejorative words divide fervent activists from everyone else, so as to drive people intuitively towards activism. But this is fundamentally dishonest intellectually, even if it's for a good cause. The distinctions are important.

If roads are in bad shape and those extra tax dollars are important, we absolutely should try to get people to pay more. But losing the distinction between them and the embezzlers is a terrible way to do it because it lets the embezzlers off the hook and that embezzling is far worse.

Likewise with calling jaywalkers and mass-murderers all "criminals" and leaving it at that.

And likewise with losing the distinction between people with overtly negative opinions plus antagonism, and those who merely aren't that energized to demand ongoing structural problems be solved.