While your at it, Fuck Fox TV and a BIG FUCK YOU to all that watch fox and regurgitate it here.
That about covers it... Thanks for your understanding. Didn't want to leave anyone else out. That would just be wrong!
As any Judge would he's merely telling you the law as (I assume) Congress wrote it. Maybe you should say fuck them instead.
Thanks
I resent the race question. How will we ever be equal if we still categorize each other?
Those that benefit from additional funding/programs that are based on race are not interested in equality. Only what they can get for being classified according to their race.
After reading and rereading the official definition of race backwards, forwards, cross-referencing with the other historical legal meanings of the term I have come to the conclusion that the current definitionis a convoluted way of saying "fill in whatever you want as long as you have a bona fide way to back it up":Of course the census bureau can't say that directly because that would delegitimize the question, but it's all there for anyone to see. It is NOT based on biology, anthropology, or genetics. Think about what that REALLY means. It is an entirely social construct - which is an inherently useless legal construct. To a judge that means "we the legislature can't come up with a coherent definition but - wink wink - you know what we mean, right?"
Given the lack of statutory definition and my personal contempt for "social constructs" I am forced to defer to the scientific consensus that my origins are in Africa. Sure some people might call me "white" but I have no use for such ignorant labels. I am, after all, post racial.
Choose African. It's the only answer that parses with a truly well-defined read of the legalese. Sure it requires the question to be parsed in a manner that amounts to reductio ad absurdum, but if the shoe fits...
I think you missed the part where the "right wingers" are answering the number of people in the household just not the rest.
By giving each other equal rights, equal pay, having relatively equal situations.
"Blacks are making the same as whites now." "No, they're not - they make like half what what whites make. And they are almost all still living in segregated ghettos, so poor that extended families live together, probably an average of 10 per household." "Wrong, blacks are now almost equally represented in suburban America."
"Let's see who's right - check the census data." "Oh, that's right, there is none."
Policymakers need data for policies. Researchers need data for determining what the situation is.
I'm not talking about the poster above, but arguing for not collecting the data, harming the efforts to address race issues, under the guise that it's 'racist' is offensive and disengenuous. It's yet another 'mask' to hide behind for actual racist policies, pretending to be anti-racism.
It's racists who like to make up the facts they use to argue against any race issue efforts who don't like the inconveniient facts to shoot themn down - so stop collecting any.
Morally disgusting.
Do blacks get paid the same as whites for the same job position? If no? That's racist. If yes? There's no issue. Quite simple.
What an interesting and well constructed opinion you have presented. I will contemplate your argument and incorporate it into my worldview in a manner consistent with the intelligence presented therein.Apparently we need to add 'children' as a race option. We have quite a few of all ages.
Do blacks get paid the same as whites for the same job position? If no? That's racist. If yes? There's no issue. Quite simple.
what if they're just not as good at negotiating salary and benefits?
What an interesting and well constructed opinion you have presented. I will contemplate your argument and incorporate it into my worldview in a manner consistent with the intelligence presented therein.
Seriously, if my opinion is that easy to dismiss then by all means post a rebuttal. Tearing up a (IMHO sloppy) legal definition is no trifling matter. If I am truly being immature about it, it shouldn't be that hard to rebut in an intelligent manner. Your petulance speaks volumes.
You are missing the implication by my giving you such a curt response about the level of response your post deserves.
La dee dah. You already made this point with your "child" post. That was when you were trying to make the point that you didn't think it was worth the effort. This post seems to be shifting gears, so get over it already. You are going to great lengths to write an introduction about how a reply isn't worth the effort - and then you write the reply. It's either pretentious or incoherent but either way it's awfully tiresome. Replying is either worth the effort or it isn't. Make up your mind and get on with it.Yes, I could point out in more detail why any of the anecdotes I refer to are misguided. But the point it, you don't deserve it. You post crap, why do you get quality back?
Why is worth any time to do so? If you don't have the character and qualities needed to know why calling yourself black isn't the right thing to do, why would a post help you?
It's better to make the point of how worthless the 'argument' is with the curt reply that it doesn't deserve more - and it wastes less of my time.
I am well aware of the history of slavery (and other policies of cruel institutionalized racism). I reject the conclusion that a slave's descendant today is somehow prevented from any specific opportunities that a non-slave descendant faces due to the legacy of slavery in particular.But since you are such an eager beaver to get more information, I'll give you a point or two. Are you ignorant of the history that this nation has a group of people who were hugely discriminated against for centuries, that their families did not get the ability to increase their standing in education, housing, skills, while others did, and that we have massive inequalities today resulting from that history, apart from other issues, that we have many races and groups to try to understand about what's happening in society?
You mock as a child mocks the very notion of collecting accurate information on which to base policy, using weasel arguments to try to justify throwing a wrench in the system.
You are simply lying about my lack of honesty. I am honest beyond a fault. I am so incredibly honest that I have the nerve to take Congress at their word and read the definition more precisely than they themselves wrote it. Somehow that is "childish"!There are no easy answers to how to do the census just right. There are different cultures that can't be measured, the past racism is only one factor affecting issues, there are all kinds of situations affecting all races and other groups, anthropomorphic race is very different than the racial definitions typically used in society and very different than the ones that have driven policy - the census is making a good effort to collect useful data, and you are refusing to use any honesty or common sense.
I'll ignore this straw man because at least you had the sense to acknowledge that it is totally nonsensical.There are an infinite number of ways to try to be 'cute' to make a nonsensical claim. "The stop sign law requires coming to a complete stop before proceeding, but doesn't say how long before moving so I can sit here and hold up traffic! heehee!" (Nevermind the law that might prohibit sitting there, it's the childish mentality I'm describing).
You seem to be saying that whatever the mob thought was black was black and whatever the mob thought was white was white. Fair enough -= as a definition of what the social construct was. Unfortunately it is useless as a basis for a census question because I don't have a mob to consult as to my 'social'-ly defined race. Even if I did it's a far reach to say that I am legally compelled to sign my name on a census form to communicate an answer about my identity that I have no power over. THAT is what I mean when I say I reject the notion of a social construct. It exists, but only in a sense to which Congress has no authority to compel my acquiescence.Race is a challenging issue to deal with legally - but that didn't stop the mob who supported racism from knowing who was and was not 'white' and 'black'. That was 'social'.
I could write pages about this one line but I'd rather not mischaracterize what you are trying to say. Before I go on, what EXACTLY do you mean when you say "common sense"?Experts put trouble into coming up with useful categories to track. Maybe some are done better than others. But that's no reason for trying to not use common sense.
Hah!It's disrespectful to the people affected in society, it's childish petulism against 'the man' who tries to collect accurate data for the society to use to understand and set policy.
Ah yes, I'm a liar and unpatriotic. Touche.Really, it's not worth the trouble to explain much more, when you have shown you don't understand the basic notions of citizenship, of honesty, of the need for the census.
Allow me to reiterate:Ha ha, you think you found a clever way to spit in the face of those who want to get an accurate census and deal with race issues, you are such a clever boy. No, you're not.
By giving each other equal rights, equal pay, having relatively equal situations.
"Blacks are making the same as whites now." "No, they're not - they make like half what what whites make. And they are almost all still living in segregated ghettos, so poor that extended families live together, probably an average of 10 per household." "Wrong, blacks are now almost equally represented in suburban America."
"Let's see who's right - check the census data." "Oh, that's right, there is none."
Policymakers need data for policies. Researchers need data for determining what the situation is.
I'm not talking about the poster above, but arguing for not collecting the data, harming the efforts to address race issues, under the guise that it's 'racist' is offensive and disengenuous. It's yet another 'mask' to hide behind for actual racist policies, pretending to be anti-racism.
It's racists who like to make up the facts they use to argue against any race issue efforts who don't like the inconveniient facts to shoot themn down - so stop collecting any.
Morally disgusting.
What do trans-gender people put?I wonder what do mixed race people put?
What do trans-gender people put?
Hmmm... I would guess they would mark whatever their current gender is. Good question. You would think the form would have some explanations on those questions, seeing as it pertains to quite a few people.her209 said:What do trans-gender people put?
They just aren't a fashionable enough cause. When somebody discovers a way to spin the trans gender question so that can justify complex and fruitless government programs, THEN the lawyers will fire up the marketing machines to bring the issue to the forefront of public opinion.
I didn't mean to trivialize the issue of identifying trans gender people on the Census and I didn't mean to imply a conspiracy either. I was just pointing out political reality. I think it's an egregious oversight and it should be fixed. However it won't get the attention it deserves because the mechanisms for allocating political attention have nothing to do with the actual legitimacy of a cause.Gee thanks.....we were actually bringing up some possible oversight on the form. Not looking for a liberal conspiracy. But Thanks anyway.....even though your post was a complete waste. But once again thanks
By giving each other equal rights, equal pay, having relatively equal situations.
-snip-
After reading and rereading the official definition of race backwards, forwards, cross-referencing with the other historical legal meanings of the term I have come to the conclusion that the current definitionis a convoluted way of saying "fill in whatever you want as long as you have a bona fide way to back it up":Of course the census bureau can't say that directly because that would delegitimize the question, but it's all there for anyone to see. It is NOT based on biology, anthropology, or genetics. Think about what that REALLY means. It is an entirely social construct - which is an inherently useless legal construct. To a judge that means "we the legislature can't come up with a coherent definition but - wink wink - you know what we mean, right?"
Given the lack of statutory definition and my personal contempt for "social constructs" I am forced to defer to the scientific consensus that my origins are in Africa. Sure some people might call me "white" but I have no use for such ignorant labels. I am, after all, post racial.
Choose African. It's the only answer that parses with a truly well-defined read of the legalese. Sure it requires the question to be parsed in a manner that amounts to reductio ad absurdum, but if the shoe fits...
My Census forms are going into the paper shredder, the same place my last Jury Duty notice went.