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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    11·
    il y a 8 mois

    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.

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      il y a 8 mois

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        1·
        il y a 8 mois

        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.

        • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          il y a 8 mois

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            1·
            il y a 8 mois

            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.

            • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              il y a 8 mois

              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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                1·
                il y a 8 mois

                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.

                • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
                  1·
                  il y a 8 mois

                  I’m the only one who has responded to anything in your links. The only one who has put up more than their word is me.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    1·
                    il y a 8 mois

                    Once again, when you have read all of my links, tell me what you think of them. Then we can continue this discussion.

                    You cannot honestly address my point without reading and addressing my evidence and I’m not interested in helping you try.