>but you're using that to say no-one should talk about race (a social classification)
Where did I even imply that?
My point is that the stuff that people consider defining characteristics of "race" are minor genetic differences and should be irrelevant.
That some folks feel otherwise is a teaching opportunity.
What's more, the social construct of "race" is just arbitrary and capricious.
As such, while we certainly should address the ideas and behaviors around bigotry (because that's what it is, as "racism" isn't an actual thing unless you're referring to a species other than homo sapiens.), and we should call it that, otherwise we're perpetuating the ignorance and hatred of such bigoted beliefs.
So let's not fiddle around with imprecise (and flat wrong) ideas about "race" and instead discuss the issues of bigotry. One is a bunch of bullshit made up by bigoted scumbags, and the other is the actual issue/situation.
>There are good conversations to be had about when race should be discussed, but it sounds like you're advocating for a blanket ban.
Let's rephrase the above: "There are good conversations to be had about when bigotry should be discussed.
As for what I'm advocating, either I'm an extremely poor communicator, or you read what you wanted to read into my statement. I'll leave the decision about which it is to the readers.