> Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
I don’t believe in race. I think it’s a dumb and harmful social construct detached from reality. I consider anyone who does believe in race a racist.
While massive structural disadvantages for those who aren't perceived as "white" still exist, your attitude might not be "racist" per se, but it's still privileged and shitty.
Your idiosyncratic definition is fine-tuned to capture both KKK and BLM as "racist". Clearly you haven't suffered the racism of modern American life that gave rise to BLM [0]. If anyone other than yourself used this definition, it would prolong that racism. You have only "confused" yourself. If you meant something else, you should have said something else.
> Your idiosyncratic definition … is privileged and shitty
So you’re not saying it’s wrong, you’re just saying it’s offensive?
It’s not that idiosyncratic [0], though even if it were, appeal to the masses is a fallacy.
> If anyone other than yourself used this definition, it would prolong that racism.
I disagree. I don’t see how you can fight for race and fight against racism at the same time. I also don’t understand why you would want to - science is the ultimate ally.
> Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.
I don’t believe in race. I think it’s a dumb and harmful social construct detached from reality. I consider anyone who does believe in race a racist.