@SpukiKitty02 #113191
Are the new words stupid-sounding or something?
Mostly no, but I also don't see much of a problem with most of the current language either. Except I do like Judeophobe. Theban and Sappho though? Meh.
As for your attempt to replace the word racism, I'll reiterate that I think it is misguided. Race may not exist as a biological reality, but "racism", however well-formed or ill-formed, has at it's core, some belief that there is some biological reality to the concept of race, and some kind of natural hierarchy of races. Calling racism racism does not lend credence to the concept of race, but calling it something else in my view obscures it's true meaning.
You also say we could "expand the meaning of 'ethnicity'". This is something I think quite unnecessary and probably harmful. Ethnicity refers to a natural grouping if people based on a shared cultural and possibly genetic heritage. Race is an arbitrary and artificial grouping of people based on superficial physical similarities. To conflate these concepts, it seems to me, would only make talking about these things more confusing. Race may not be real, but it is a cultural phenomenon. Here in the US, for example, it is very much race, in the old flawed understanding, and a particular system of racial hierarchy, that fuels many of the systemic injustices baked into our system as well as providing the ideological backbone to much of the bigotry that we face. So please, let's not stop using language that accurately describes what's going on in favor of language that obscures it.
As for the idea of using "macroethnicity" for race, I'd say if race isn't a valid concept then neither is macroethnicity as you have presented it. We don't need to come up with a new term. Calling it something else doesn't change the fact that it makes no sense. In fact, it would only serve to lend it credibility it doesn't deserve.