To accuse someone of racism or being a racist, is nothing but a slanderous invocation. Today,racism is demonised to the point of self-parody, but if we take a moment to analyse its usage, we can see that it means nothing.
Let's say someone says that blacks need to be put back into slavery because they're not worthy of regular jobs. Most people are going to say that's racist.
Let's say someone says that black people have lower I.Q. than white people. Again, you'll be met with the term racist.
And here you see the issue. The first claim could be (rightly) seen as racial hatred. The second claim is factual and supported by a ridiculous amount of evidence (http://humanvarieties.org...),yet the conclusion is that they are both "racist".
In order words, it's still possible to be correct *and* "racist", however the latter label will have you pigeon-holed with real racial hatred (as we saw in the former example), as if you're wrong for pointing out facts.
That leads us to ask the question: what can we infer from the labelling of "racist?" Not a whole lot, other than the fact that both claims refer to race. So merely referring to race, as if that's as bad as being Hitler, gets you called a "racist", and we know what happens when you're confirmed as such. So, there's a gigantic disconnect between the real parameters of "racism" (that it merely refers to race), and the application of it (that you're "literally Hitler"). That's because it doesn't have a concrete definition -- it merely exist to shut down reference to race.
Rather than use the slanderous and meaningless terms of "racism" or "racist", it would be better to use the term "racial hatred". That way, we could reject genuine racial hatred, and consider empirical data relating to racial differences in humans.