No, they don't mean two different things any more than food means two separate things when describing broccoli and ice cream. It's a broad term that covers many more nuanced concepts. I was attempting to cover the difference between overt racism and systemic racism. There's your two separate terms but both are absolutely forms of racism and to say that systemic racism isn't is just an attempt to rid it of the stigma that rightly gets associated with the term racism.

> ...is just an attempt to rid it of the stigma that rightly gets associated with the term racism.

What am I attempting? Why shut down the conversation like that? We can be more civil and reasonable here.

I do think missing demographic goals in hiring does not deserve the same stigma as sending Jewish families to gas chambers. Both deserve distinct stigmas and should be described with distinct terms.

It's not "nuance" to use the same word in different ways in the same sentence. The problem with the word "racism" is that it clouds nuance, so if communicating nuance is your goal, better descriptive language should be attractive.

Of course the word racist isn't specific...that was my point. It's a generic term that occupies a higher level of abstraction from the more concrete terms like overt racism/racial prejudice, systemic racism and genocide (since you brought up the holocaust). They are, in programming terms, subclasses/implementations of an abstract type. Using the word racism in two different ways in a single sentence is just polymorphism. You're only concerned with the properties of the more abstract concept and not those of the concrete type. Nuance isn't specificity.

I was merely pointing out that it's not wrong to do that, it's just less precise, and often intentionally so. But often times readers demand extra precision under the guise of avoiding terms that are rightly stigmatized. Your "missing demographic goals" obviously can't be equated with the holocaust...that's nonsensical. But by avoiding any connection with the word racism, it doesn't validate the employment discrimination that's felt by PoC. Just because that discrimination may start years earlier during the education process doesn't change the fact that it's still experienced. In fact it may be completely legitimate and entirely not the fault of the business choosing not to hire (or even interview) the diversity candidate. The last link in the chain doesn't have to, on its own, be wrong.

And that's a great example of the original point. Not hiring an under-qualified candidate doesn't feel wrong to most reasonable people. But the fact that that under-qualified candidate didn't have access to the schooling necessary to become qualified can still represent a system that is, overall, discriminatory against PoC. Hence my original statement, "a PoC can be negatively affected by racism that isn't the result of a racist act." The act of not hiring them wasn't discriminatory and yet they still experienced systemic discrimination.

The overall point is that there are a lot of people that want to minimize the effects that PoC feel from racism (generic term encompassing all forms) because either they don't like feeling like racists or they actually are racist. What I think the original poster was trying to get at and what I tried to rephrase was that just because PoC feel those effects is not an indication that anyone is personally responsible. You can validate those experiences without there needing to be someone to blame. And we'll have more productive discussions on how to move forward and diminish the effects of racism if people aren't worried about being blamed.