No, I do not think race realism is accurate. I just think that race realism is not an adequate defense of racial discrimination, AND ALSO that race realism is inaccurate.
Pessimizer and I agree.
> Many examples in the article don't fit your description of the problem at all
You asked me what I think the problem is, not what I think the article's author thinks the problem is. The fact that I emphasize different things is not proof that I misunderstand the article's author.
> The only thing that I argued is that the imprecise language used by Techcrunch is confusing people and that this is bad.
Who, exactly, is supposed to be confused?
Subject matter experts should know the difference, and if they don't, that's really their own problem.
The public at large doesn't even know what statistical bias is, so why in the world would they be confused?
No matter how confusing the current state of affairs is, it would be far more confusing if suddenly everyone starting using bias to mean statistical bias. Mostly because 99.9% of the people using the term wouldn't have an adequate grasp of mathematics to even know to which object they are referring. So if your priority is clarity, then keeping around the messy moralized and politicized vernacular notion of bias is far preferable.
> I didn't argue in favor of or against your mysterious "vernacular-discrimination" - how could I when I don't even know what it is?
Not everything in the world can be mathematically formalized. Most things don't even have fixed meaning over time. If your criticism is genuinely about imprecision, you've got a lot of much lower hanging fruit than "discrimination" and "bias"...