Can we even talk about "race" on here without breaking rule 16 and what can we actually talk about or infer without breaking rule 16?
My understanding of the rule, based on how little seemingly crosses the threshold to action being taken, hinges on the "entire" part. So it's still plenty possible to discuss race in the most accurate terms without breaking the rule.
E.G. Saying "African Americans are much more likely to have sickle cell anemia than the rest of the US population" is permitted by the rule. But saying "all black people have sickle cell anemia" and then making unfavorable conclusions based on that is against the rule, and not to mention very incorrect. Stick to demonstrable propensity and occurance rates within groups, rather than absolutist statements about the everyone in the group that invariably end up being inaccurate anyway and I don't see there being any conflict with that rule.
My understanding of the rule, based on how little seemingly crosses the threshold to action being taken, hinges on the "entire" part. So it's still plenty possible to discuss race in the most accurate terms without breaking the rule.
E.G. Saying "African Americans are much more likely to have sickle cell anemia than the rest of the US population" is permitted by the rule. But saying "all black people have sickle cell anemia" and then making unfavorable conclusions based on that is against the rule, and not to mention very incorrect. Stick to demonstrable propensity and occurance rates within groups, rather than absolutist statements about the everyone in the group that invariably end up being inaccurate anyway and I don't see there being any conflict with that rule.