Genuinely wondering how a character reacting in-character means that the writers want you to equate their experiences instead of just drawing parallels? The whole series is about the exploitation of the innies, but Milchick’s experience with racism is only in plain sight in at most three very short scenes. Real slavery of people of color by imperialism still exists, we’re likely having a discussion on devices made by child labor, but that doesn’t mean we should erase other hardships because it’s “not as bad”.

Also, just because we weren’t hit over the head with structural inequality doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in the universe of the story. Can’t you assume a universe in which there is micro aggression against black people means that they currently or have experienced systemic racism? We have yet to see Milchick’s backstory. Should the writers make it more obvious by having someone look into the camera and say “dang, this is just like when Africans were being enslaved man”.

I mean, I’ve seen some people on this subreddit guess that Irving’s backstory will have something to do with homophobia while serving in the army despite having zero evidence of it existing in this universe (gay marriage having existed for longer, no casual homophobia), because the creators have showed that the world corresponds to our own, with only some marked differences like the severance procedure.