[foldr]

>But race is not a cultural construct, as evidenced by the fact that you can't culturally adapt your skin to change colors.

But people who believe in "races" don't think that it's just a matter of skin color. They think that skin color (or whatever other feature) is a marker of some deeper difference. That's where the mistake lies. Otherwise racial differences would be of no more significance than, say, differences in hair or eye color.

Racial categories are nowhere near as objective as you suggest. For example, Italians used not to be considered "white" in the US. Many Americans who self-identify as "black" would not be considered black in many parts of Africa.

[moccachino]

Yes I probably wasn't as clear as I should have, that of course 'race' is very loosely defined. But it's not just completely made up is my point. Saying it is completely a cultural construct is just plain wrong, and as such not conducive to convincing anyone in an argument.

And then of course with ever increasing mobility, the differences are probably 'smoothing out' so to speak.

>Otherwise racial differences would be of no more significance than, say, differences in hair or eye color.

Interesting example, because red haired people generally have more sensitive skin and are prone to burning in the sun. This is an example of the kinds of differences that it is actually interesting and helpful to study.

[foldr]

>Saying it is completely a cultural construct is just plain wrong

No, it's completely correct, in the sense that there is no objective or scientific definition of "race". Every cultural construct is based on something.

>This is an example of the kinds of differences that it is actually interesting and helpful to study.

And of course, these are exactly the differences that people obsessed with "race" aren't interested in.

[dsr_]

1. Racists don't agree with each other on who counts as what race.

2. Racists can't point to actual genetic variation to establish their ideas.

3. Racists can go fuck right off.