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.
Wow, still refusing to provide anything to prove your point. Amazing.
You mean sort of like you haven’t either other than saying a law was passed 60 years ago?
But here you go. I’m sure you’ll say if you bother to read any of it that this doesn’t prove my point because 60 years ago, the Civil Rights Act was passed:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/american-racial-and-ethnic-politics-in-the-21st-century-a-cautious-look-ahead/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/black-americans-differ-from-other-u-s-adults-over-whether-individual-or-structural-racism-is-a-bigger-problem/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
But hey, Barack Obama was elected president. Institutional racism solved. The government is helping black people now.
From the second paragraph of your first link. It basically agrees with what I said. And nothing in that link about how the whole government is against them.
Did you just spam a lot of links without vetting them in a desperate attempt to make your point look valid? This is shamefully dishonest.
Holy shit you’re still lying about my position. Why so grossly dishonest?
Are you okay?
Cute. You didn’t read past the second paragraph.
You had a chance to actually prove me wrong. And what did you do? Nothing and then lie about what I said.
I literally gave you a whole bunch of links. You apparently only read two paragraphs of one of them. I mean the paragraph immediately after the one you read might have given you a clue. So you either didn’t read the links or you did and you’re being dishonest about what you read.
You, on the other hand, have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and absolutely nothing else, which you claim is proves something about the government in 2024.
By the way, I never lied about what you said, because all the times you claimed I lied about what you said, I never claimed you said it.
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.