I think we can all agree that racism is a bad thing but staunchly declaring "anti-racism" as your priority seems to veer into the territory of consistently finding racism where there is none. It sounds suspiciously like historic witch hunting (and I hate that this term has been recently overused practically to the point of ruination).

How does it seem to do so? Please give me examples.

Racism is a societal ill, so it will express itself through many channels in society, and it will be embedded in the systems that we institute (just like other biases and attitudes do). Therefore identifying racism even when it isn't explicit or flagrant is pretty common and reasonable thing to do.

I don't think I've ever run into anti-racists who are trying to invent issues, or discover racism where there is none.

Your original comment is flagged, as was mine, but as an exercise, think about the following:

Civilized people on the left are also pro-American. Is pro-American really a partisan issue to you?

It's only partisan if the other side is anti-American. And in that case I see no issue with taking the pro-American side.

If anything is extremist, it's painting "pro-American" as a partisan activity. That's something I only see far-left politicians do.

Why does the word "pro-American" trigger this emotion in you? You say you have no issue with a zero tolerance for pro-Americanism, but for some reason, using the "pro" word makes you upset.

That seems quite extreme to me. They are the same statement. Sure, conservative people moght be more inclined to use "pro-America" than progressives, but there's nothing inherently partisan about the phrase.

It seems you have no issue with the contents of pro-American, but only with the form of it, or perhaps the tone of it.

That is not a good reason to oppose it.

Antiracists are as against racism as North Korea is democratic, and the people's, and as much as the Berlin Wall was an anti-fascist protection rampart and totally not a way to stop people from defecting en masse.

Ostensible names are just that, ostensible. They do not always describe reality and are often chosen to mislead. With woke antiracists, that is exactly the case.

I've seen "antiracist" lecturers say kindly silly little things like "white people are born to not being human", an "antiracist" teacher saying white people are born human, but invariably abused by their parents "into whiteness". The torrent of absolutely blatant anti-white racism from these sorts of people is comical in its proportion, and neverending. Their every campaign is "we'll include sparkles everyone sparkles (NOT YOU), so join us at..."

Somehow, it's hard to take the epithet seriously. I wonder why.

Turn on showdead and see all the [flagged] "detractors" posting concisely.

Same. I'm not saying OP is doing this at all, but in the last few years a common Conservative refrain has been "why they gotta bring politics into this?" Which seems like a perfectly reasonable complaint on the surface, until one realizes that what they really mean is "I'm offended when mildly confronted with the possibility that my worldview may not be fair to those not like me". Or, "How dare those marginalized groups remind me that they're marginalized?"

I can see that the addition of what may be possible social commentary to the EFF's mission may rub some the wrong way, but I can't see a meaning in which "for all the people of the world" is some coded message for a "woke agenda" or whatever. What about that addendum is political? Should the EFF only support "freedom, justice, and innovation" for some people of the world? For some, the assumption that "no, of course it means all people" is a certain naivety that reminds me of not understanding what "all lives matter" actually means.