Thanks for considering my argument! I didn't miss the "when it comes to ending racism" part--I understood that, but my argument works for "when it comes to verbing noun" for any verb and noun, including "ending" "racism". So I didn't stress that part.

But I agree with the overall thrust of your article, which is basically a variant on "actions speak louder than words". I think if you'd made your case with a bit more nuance--making actions primary rather than everything--I wouldn't have bothered to say anything.

But still, it's not clear to me that I got across the importance of getting accurate terminology.

One example of structural racism in the U.S. is that blacks are more likely to live in dangerous neighborhoods. According to the CAREd definition, then, if some white gang members start mugging white residents (in a poor white neighborhood--basically everyone's white), that's anti-racism, because this reduces national racial disparity.

This is a weird way to use language.

Actions matter a lot. It's entirely reasonable to, at some point, ask people to actually demonstrate their commitment to ending racism by doing something.

But I think careless prescriptive changes to language just give us a mess. They don't help.

In fact, I would argue that one of the biggest changes in the past five years or so is that most people who aren't on the left are no longer afraid of being called a "racist" precisely because of these sorts of changes. That leads to considerably less shame in advocating a racially bigoted position, because the easy way to apply a mark of shame (say "that's racist") doesn't work any longer. This makes racism worse.

So, as per the CAREd definition, what CAREd is doing is racist.