When we say "x is racist" I wonder if the most confusing word is "is."
Saying "is racist" seems to invite us into strange convos or about folks psychology or their "hearts."
Saying "supports/creates" (laws, policies representations etc.) invites us to consider actions & impact

Yes. I think there are people who meet the definition of "being" racist. And yes I think that in certain circumstances like when that person is president - or police officer it is necessary to name it. So not trying to let racists of the hook BUT

BUT I think that the idea of race as a condition that some people have and others don't has been a tremendous tool in the hands of those enacting racist policies, laws, power arrangements.

Once we think that race is like a "virus" CEO's, politicians, corporations simply turn their attention to convincing us that they don't have it - rather than identifying and uprooting how racist power arrangements are encoded into their history, incentive structures, practices.

Think about all of the well-meaning headlines that ask "is X racist?" And think about how much smarter our conversations could be with a\\ range of more precise questions that are still focused on revealing racial oppression?"

Not shaming folks who name people that exhibit a pattern of racist practices. I just also see:

1. People who genuinely struggle because of the phrase "is racist"
2. People who have decided they or others "aren't racist" & their curiosity stops after that.

AND especially

3. Institutions who find all sorts of ways to and declare perform "we ARE not racist" - precisely as a way to protect and intensify racist and exploitative economic, labor, lobbying, policing practices.

I could also have said "neoliberalism deals with oppression by acknowledging it but constraining it into the realm of individual attitudes, expression & dialogue which protects institutions & systems from collective coercive struggle. But maybe that would have been annoying.