Changing the definitions of words (it’s “systemic racism” not “vile bigotry”) is no different than changing the premises of a debate in order better favor your

Changing the definitions of words (it’s “systemic racism” not “vile bigotry”) is no different than changing the premises of a debate in order better favor your beliefs. It is the rhetorical equivalent of gerrymandering. Even worse is the insistence that these new words are as true and constant as natural laws like gravity, when in reality, these ideas are just made up by non-scientist academics and activists. No real science is performed to test their validity. You say “systemic racism”, I say “the article cites one guy and gives his voice more weight than an entire industry body in order to contort this into a story about (maybe) racism”. Science is messy. Doctors are very cautious by training and experience. So yes, they encourage everyone to use sunscreen until the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests otherwise. This is not racism in any form. To suggest otherwise is a slap in the face to people who have been subjected to real racism.