[shadowgovt]

It's possible to say racist things without intending to be racist. In fact, it's extremely likely given how much of American culture is pretty firmly grounded in a racist history; a lot of common sayings started as racially-charged stereotypes. So these racist sayings are propagated forward by people innocently unaware of their origins and implied meaning.

Whether one, having learned that history, changes one's choice of language or shrugs, says "I didn't invent the term so its use is not my problem," and charges forward will influence the kind of company one keeps in our society.

[throwoutway]

Question: if 100,000,000 people use some common phrase, innocently unaware of its history/roots, and one person finds a racist definition for it from 200 years ago, why should the entire population be beholden to an outdated definition? Shouldn’t we be able to change the definition (after all, that’s exactly what dictionaries do)

[dariusj18]

> It's possible to say racist things without intending to be racist

This is still using loose language to try and equate two things that are not equal, "saying racist things" is still not the same thing as "being racist". Though it's getting closer, intent and context definitely matters.

ex. I use the term "black" to describe to people when applicable. There was a blip of time when that was a racist thing to say, some people probably still think it would be better to say "african-american" and might think the language is racist. But my use of the term is not because I am being racist.

The issue here is that there are those who would abuse good faith and nuance, but I generally think it's pretty obvious when it happens, and this seems to not be one of those times. It can be fatiguing to continually need to use critical thinking, but it's not something we can just stop doing if we want to keep progressing.

[shadowgovt]

> "saying racist things" is still not the same thing as "being racist"

I think whether that assertion is true hinges on whether one is of the opinion that there is meaningful difference between one's actions and the content of one's character or whether "ye shall know them by their fruits," as it were.

But even if we use the duality approach of separating action from character: if one does a racist thing unintentionally, then given the opportunity to do so, does not apologize, I would be understanding of those who choose to believe that the action was a reflection of the content of the actor's heart.

Apologies are something we do when we've done wrong, after all. Whether the wrong was intended.