US changes how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity. It's the first revision in 27 years
US changes how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity. It's the first revision in 27 years
For the first time in 27 years, the U.S. government is changing how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity.
For the first time in 27 years, the U.S. government is changing how it categorizes people by race and ethnicity, an effort that federal officials believe will more accurately count residents who identify as Hispanic and of Middle Eastern and North African heritage.
The revisions to the minimum categories on race and ethnicity, announced Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget, are the latest effort to label and define the people of the United States. This evolving process often reflects changes in social attitudes and immigration, as well as a wish for people in an increasingly diverse society to see themselves in the numbers produced by the federal government.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I admit I did not read all of your links. I read the first one, as I said none of it supported your point, and stopped there because after doing so it was apparent you did not actual read your own links to see if they supported your claim. You lied and claimed I stopped at the second paragraph. So claiming you didn't lie is hilarious.
Of course, I quoted the article to show how it did not support your point. What did you do? Oh yeah, providee zero explanation as to how it does support your point. Of course you avoid doing so because we both know it was a disingenuous gish gallop.
You read two paragraphs of the first one. You quoted the second paragraph out of context as if it did not.
And you still have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim. The Civil Rights Act being passed 60 years ago does not prove your claim about anything about the government in 2024. Because it's an entirely different government and almost everyone in the government in 1964 is dead now.
Let me know when you want to provide actual evidence about the U.S. government in 2024.
Or when you bother to actually read a single link I provided to the end. Because you sure didn't read the one you claimed you did read after paragraph 2.
And I like how you've suddenly dropped the "you're lying about what I said" accusation when I pointed out that I never claimed you said any of it. "I was wrong about that" would be the honest response. I won't be holding my breath.
No, I read the whole thing, even explicitly pointing out that there was nothing in it that supported your original claim. I just quoted the part that contradicted your claim.
You still have yet to actually explain how it supports your point.
How about this- I'll explain how it supports my point when you provide the evidence bout the U.S. governments actions on systemic racism in 2024, which I've asked for multiple times.
Again, I won't be holding my breath.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I didn't just point to the CRA, but even that's enough to demonstrate how your point is wrong by comparing now to when the vast majority of the government was actually working against black people. You then shifted your point, provided nothing that supports it, and now demanding that I prove you wrong.
That's not how it works, sorry.
But I would like to point out how I'm still the only one who has provided something to support my point, while also being able to explain it.
But I would like to point out how I’m still the only one who has provided something to support my point, while also being able to explain it.
That's simply a lie. You haven't provided anything to support your point.
Yet again, a 60-year-old law proves nothing about the government in 2024.
I gave you many links. You read two paragraphs of one link and then decided none of it was evidence.
You have provided zero links to back up anything. Zero.
You are an incredibly dishonest person.
You don't think my point is very good. This is different than not providing anything. And that's fair I'm more than happy to go on, but you have to reciprocate first, which of course you refuse to do because even you realize your point is bs.
You, on the other hand, despite being told, multiple times, that I read the whole thing, continue to lie and claim I didn't read it and still haven't provided an explanation as to how it supports your point.
At least I know going forward with you that you won't be honest.
Ah, dishonesty again.
You admitted you didn't read all of my links. What I don't believe is that you read the single one you claim to have read to the end.
What is the point of this "reciprocating" when you admit you don't even look at what I provide to you?
I think what you must mean by "reciprocating" is that you want me to make up evidence-free claims like you have done so far.
I'll explain how my point is supported when you read the things I used to make my point. Which I do not believe you will ever do.
You lied when you said I was claiming you said things you didn't say. I did no such thing.
You lied when you said you presented evidence. You did no such thing.
Now you're lying when you said you read what I provided when you already admitted you didn't.
Yes, I didn't read all of your links. Openly admitted. I didn't bother after it was clear your first link didn't support your point. Already pointed out the apparent gish gallop.
But your lie is that I didn't read past the first two paragraphs of the first article, which was clearly untrue from the start and certainly after I clarified it for you.
It's amazing that you're willing to jump through all of these hoops to lie about me lying, but won't even explain your point.
Pretty transparent.
Again, I will "reciprocate" more and explain my point when you read the links I provided to make my point. Let me know when you have done so. Of course, I will expect more than just your word, just like I don't just take you at your word that you read the single one you claim to have read to the end.
Whenever you're done reading those links, tell me about them.