Using the terms "racism" and "racist" makes you look stupid

At this point you're essentially arguing that despite evolution making literally everything different, human brains were not affected.

Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful.  There is an obvious distinction.

"the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another."

Voting is difficult, has a high degree of accountability, and it time-consuming.

First, objectivity is irrational; Second, regardless of the source you cite, it will be biased.

What I attempted to convey to you is that skin colour alone doesn't determine race all that well. It's fine for Europeans and Africans. It's not fine for Africans and Australian Aboriginals.

So "Black" is not a race.

Appropriate is substantiated in that, for example, lumping all Japanese, Chinese, Malaysians, Koreans etc. into Asian, isn't as accurate as dividing them further. Of course, there is infinite regression until the individual has his/her group, but the same logic applies to colours, and we take no issue calling things red, orange, yellow etc. (i.e. what is considered to be appropriate).

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The trends and traditions one indulges (i.e. parsing colors) does not provide substantiation to "appropriate."

We're not writing research papers. We're having a discussion. Had you read your own source, you would've noticed where it was from, rather than accuse me of "plagiarizing" it from a source, which, by the way, you failed to identify correctly. Furthermore, if I had intended to "plagiarize," then quoting the content would've been unnecessary. I would've simply passed it off as my own unaltered.

I do know. I know intelligence is abstract. And that intelligence is informed by definition only.

And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?

Imagine for a moment that a tribe of Yalyuwara were to evaluate your "general intelligence" and or "general fitness".

I think most of us might look like complete idiots to them.

I think most of us might be unable to find our way back to camp by ourselves.

I think most of us might be unable to find water on our own.

I think most of us might be unable to avoid common predators and poisonous plants and insects, if left to ourselves.

When "evaluating" something (or someone) 99.99% of the "problem" is predetermined by the selection of the measuring method itself (and the creator of the measuring method).

And what does taking the "average I.Q." and juxtaposing them among your so-called "races" intend to indicate?

Great question.

You might enjoy this, [LINK]

This was an "interesting" watch. I'm not sure what a sample of six black women is supposed to help elucidate,

Historically, these indications were used to euthanize "undesirable" demographics in the early twentieth century if I'm not mistaken.

Part of what I'm trying to highlight is that there is no utility in believing that all people of similar skin-tone think and act in any sort of uniform way.

BbbbBBbbBBbbbut it's "science"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only a racist can have racial hatred, but not all racists are hateful.  There is an obvious distinction.

Please present your personally preferred definition of "racist".

Race

A social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.

A social construct grouping people based on inheritable traits, physically distinct from other groups of people.

The term "inheritable traits" seems inexplicably vague.

I read the decision and his post and I don’t think saying black people are biologically inferior to white people is hate speech or ban worthy.