The usual statement isn't that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with ASCII (it's obvious that any 8-bit encoding wouldn't be; that's why we have UTF-7!). It's that UTF-8 is backwards compatible with tools that are 8-bit clean.

Yes, the myth I was pointing out is based on loose terminology. It needs to be made clear that "backwards compatible" means that UTF-8 based tools can receive but are not constrained to emit valid ASCII. I see a lot of comments implying that UTF-8 can interact with an ASCII ecosystem without causing problems. Even worse, it seems most Linux developers believe there is no longer a need to provide a default ASCII setting if they have UTF-8.