Categories?

Ultimately their game is to cite how arbitrary these categories are, in abstraction without context, without coming in for why it matters. To reiterate, this debate is about a level of context-less abstraction when we're always discussing these racial categories in the context of various issues or observations. Seems to be missing here.

They consider racialist thinking to be folk theories based on phenotype which dont match its scientific use (to what consequence is not divulged, white still means European, Black still means subsahara).

Ironically in doing so they affirm why race matters, it cannot be concealed and these phenotypes carry info or probabilities and therefore are never without any meaning.

If Group A has psychometric differences with Group B, the two cant get along in a mass polity except barely when A has absolute dominance demographically, A nations are seeing massive influxes if these people who cant maintain their nations, and A also receives animus based on a denial or handwaving of these psychometric differences... Does the subjectivity actually affect using A and B to describe what we see and how to solve it?

And doesnt a revival of A ingroup preference, sinxe they used to use that to prevent this, seem prudent over fanciful social engineering? Especially if it is partly to blame for the situation, that social engineering