I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. I'm very happy you're willing to engage with me on this. Obviously I'm somewhat familiar with this subject, but not as much as you, and it's nice to have a more detailed discussion on HN.
> But it is important to understand that in either case the word does not refer to individuals and certainly not to their sentiments, but to the way they are a vessel for social dynamics.
> the main mechanism by which racism is perpetuated has little to do with people's conscious intentions.
Yep, I understand this, and this is key to the disconnect between academia and the public. Academia is saying, "it's not individuals, it's institutions, social habits, etc". That's a perfectly legitimate and important point to make.
But the public hears "you're racist" (by which academia and their surrogates mean, "you're a participant in these phenomena"), and understands it to mean "xenophobia" (implying intentionality). And you cannot fault the public for this misunderstanding because that is the common and historical meaning of the word.
> The left cares a lot more about the result, and it turns out that what you call "overt racism" has very little effect on the result, and it is racism in the broader sense that is much more important. The left wants to draw attention to what it views as the bigger problem.
As they should. I think we agree on just about everything except the question of whether repurposing an existing word is an unhelpful confusion-causing conflation or not. I do not question the motives of academia or the left on this issue, only their linguistic methods. They are the ones trying to make the change, so they are the ones responsible for clear communication.
More concretely, I am arguing that this confusion has cost the left dearly in this election on the very goals they claim to be working towards.
> Once you know that your actions are part of an unwanted social dynamics, you can choose to change them.
Just to be clear then, it is possible for a person, even a white person, not to be racist assuming they take appropriate actions? If so, I think we are very close to resolving our disagreement.
> Without intent does not mean without choice. When I smoke a cigarette I don't intend to make myself sick...
A decent analogy. I think however when we shift from the popular to the academic definition of racism, we have made a crucial shift from a "negative ethical obligation" (an obligation not to do direct harm to another) to a positive one (an obligation to take direct action to fix problems you didn't directly cause). Generally positive obligations are weaker and more dubious than negative ones, so this could be seen by conservatives as a bit of a bait-and-switch.