I liked how Dyson started his "Mean, mad, white man" diatribe by telling Peterson that he was getting ready to precisely describe racism, and then he proceeded to spill out his word-salad of vague generalities.
In my experience, when a person (or people) insist on only using general language to describe what they insist is a specific problem, that usually means that: a.) They can think of no specific examples to prove their point. AND: b.) By requiring everyone to consider their vague argument as valid, they are requiring everyone to put THEM in the position to judge any and all counter-positions.
Well, I speak fluent word-salad. Let me translate: Racism is the oppression of minority races by majority races, where the former has no political power, and the latter has all the political power. So basically, minorities can't be racist, no matter how racially prejudice, or how much they hate the majority race; their hatred is justified.
Also, some reality implies some things that the word salad must also mean. Not only can minority races not be racist because they have no political power, even when they gain political power, they can never be racist because the majority race's ancestors oppressed them. This is the only thing that explains two glaring inconsistencies: 1) how they still can't be racist when a member of their racial group held the most powerful office in the nation, and was thus the most influential person in the world. 2) talk of reparations.