Seriously, though, the very definition of it is massively stupid anyway. The definition is literally, "Oh, you have a single drop of non-white blood in you? You are no longer white". Meanwhile, someone who is half white and half black is considered 'black'. Of course there is going to be less 'white people' when the definition is so rigidly narrow.
That's not the definition the census uses. I'm fact, it doesn't use one. It's whatever each person considers themselves.
First, people self-identifying isn't going to be very 'accurate' in a scientific sense. Second, just because the one drop rule isn't enforced, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect people's view of themselves.
I dont get it, what are you responding to here exactly? First, he didnt say self-identifying is more scientifically accurate, and second, he didnt say the one drop rule doesnt affect how people view themselves. Hes just saying the one drop rule isnt how the census bases a persons race, which is what you seemed to be saying in your prior post, is that not what you were saying?
He was saying what I said about how this sort of status is ridiculous due to the implicit social bias of the 'one drop rule' isn't true because the census doesn't use that.
Again, he didnt say there arent implicit biases when it comes to self-identifying, hes just pointing out that the one drop rule isnt the definition by which the census records race, which is what you seem to have claimed couple of posts prior. Just because hes pointing out a factual error doesnt mean he doesnt agree with the sentiment that theres bias when it comes to this.
No, I didn't say it was, I said even if people self-identify, it doesn't matter, because the one drop rule is not just a legal thing, but also ingrained in society, to the point that people are going to self-identify as minority even if they are over 50% 'white'.