Animals
Race
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Should put it on his resume - Will fit right in with western corporate culture.
What if the immigrants are racists?
Tapate50
Well-known member
Pro tip- most of them are.
Black people around here hate Hispanics an it’s very very mutual
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Someday you'll learn what tyhe powers of tribalism can create as a weapon of pinning minorities vs. each others. It's kind of like how the kid who's bullied will pick on the kid who is bullied more.
Tapate50
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/omb-can-stop-bidens-race-counting-a7e22fdc?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
President Trump has issued at least three executive orders aimed at stopping racial discrimination, including affirmative action and disparate-impact analysis. The orders fulfill the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws, forbidding government from treating people differently based on race. They also reinforce Chief Justice John Roberts’s observation that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
One simple way that the Trump administration can promote these objectives is by revising the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 15, which specifies the kind of data on race and ethnicity government agencies must collect. The current directive is unconstitutional, discriminatory and scientifically unsound.
If OMB revised the directive to prohibit the collection of racial data, it would make it more difficult for regulators and attorneys to devise schemes for government to discriminate by race. Such a protection of Americans’ liberty would be even more robust and enduring if enacted by Congress rather than the executive branch. But in the meantime, a revised directive could halt this unconstitutional race accounting.
…
To revise the directive in time for the 2030 decennial census, the Census Bureau by statute has until April 1, 2027, to advise Congress of the changes. If it fails to do so, the next census won’t be protected from the directive’s harmful requirements.
The current directive violates the scientific objectivity that underlies the missions for the leading statistical agencies. The racial classifications aren’t based on objective facts but merely represent the opinions of survey respondents about their origins selected from a list offered by a government employee. Not only do we have recent cases of public figures misrepresenting their origins, but the directive itself includes the following admission: “The categories in these standards are understood to be sociopolitical constructs and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically or genetically.”
OMB’s expansion of racial/ethnic categories has consequences. If you split a population into more subgroups, you will get more groups that show outcomes different from the average—a gift to litigators and regulators who want to dole out unconstitutional rewards based on race.
…
America doesn’t need racial classifications. Between the censuses of 2010 and 2020, the number of Americans reporting that they belonged to more than one race jumped by 276%. Some 20% of new marriages in the U.S. are between people of different races, and their children are multiracial. This rapidly growing segment of the population with multiple racial roots means that when establishing the most intimate and significant of human relationships—the family—identification with race is becoming less important. So why do government bureaucrats insist on keeping the distinctions and are reinforcing, expanding and mandating them?
OMB has attempted to hide the unconstitutional and unethical uses of its racial accounting, asserting that “the race and/or ethnicity categories are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.” But when OMB proposed changing its race and ethnicity statistical standards, it provided such justifications as the following: “Data could be used to allocate program or initiative benefits.” “MENA population counts could be used to allocate needed resources.” “Foremost consideration should be given to data . . . useful for statistical analysis, program administration and assessment, and enforcement.”
—————
This would be a nice step in the right direction. Race is a stupid social construct that obscures more than it clarifies. This obsession with race essentialism has to end.
But sadly, I’m not sure who my allies are on this issue. I thought people on the right who correctly mocked the left’s obsession with race for years thought that we should be treating everyone as individuals, but it seems like the new MAGA adjacent position isn’t that discriminating based on race is wrong, it’s just that we haven’t been applying it correctly.
President Trump has issued at least three executive orders aimed at stopping racial discrimination, including affirmative action and disparate-impact analysis. The orders fulfill the constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws, forbidding government from treating people differently based on race. They also reinforce Chief Justice John Roberts’s observation that “the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
One simple way that the Trump administration can promote these objectives is by revising the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 15, which specifies the kind of data on race and ethnicity government agencies must collect. The current directive is unconstitutional, discriminatory and scientifically unsound.
If OMB revised the directive to prohibit the collection of racial data, it would make it more difficult for regulators and attorneys to devise schemes for government to discriminate by race. Such a protection of Americans’ liberty would be even more robust and enduring if enacted by Congress rather than the executive branch. But in the meantime, a revised directive could halt this unconstitutional race accounting.
…
To revise the directive in time for the 2030 decennial census, the Census Bureau by statute has until April 1, 2027, to advise Congress of the changes. If it fails to do so, the next census won’t be protected from the directive’s harmful requirements.
The current directive violates the scientific objectivity that underlies the missions for the leading statistical agencies. The racial classifications aren’t based on objective facts but merely represent the opinions of survey respondents about their origins selected from a list offered by a government employee. Not only do we have recent cases of public figures misrepresenting their origins, but the directive itself includes the following admission: “The categories in these standards are understood to be sociopolitical constructs and are not an attempt to define race and ethnicity biologically or genetically.”
OMB’s expansion of racial/ethnic categories has consequences. If you split a population into more subgroups, you will get more groups that show outcomes different from the average—a gift to litigators and regulators who want to dole out unconstitutional rewards based on race.
…
America doesn’t need racial classifications. Between the censuses of 2010 and 2020, the number of Americans reporting that they belonged to more than one race jumped by 276%. Some 20% of new marriages in the U.S. are between people of different races, and their children are multiracial. This rapidly growing segment of the population with multiple racial roots means that when establishing the most intimate and significant of human relationships—the family—identification with race is becoming less important. So why do government bureaucrats insist on keeping the distinctions and are reinforcing, expanding and mandating them?
OMB has attempted to hide the unconstitutional and unethical uses of its racial accounting, asserting that “the race and/or ethnicity categories are not to be used as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.” But when OMB proposed changing its race and ethnicity statistical standards, it provided such justifications as the following: “Data could be used to allocate program or initiative benefits.” “MENA population counts could be used to allocate needed resources.” “Foremost consideration should be given to data . . . useful for statistical analysis, program administration and assessment, and enforcement.”
—————
This would be a nice step in the right direction. Race is a stupid social construct that obscures more than it clarifies. This obsession with race essentialism has to end.
But sadly, I’m not sure who my allies are on this issue. I thought people on the right who correctly mocked the left’s obsession with race for years thought that we should be treating everyone as individuals, but it seems like the new MAGA adjacent position isn’t that discriminating based on race is wrong, it’s just that we haven’t been applying it correctly.
Yes - data driven decisions are better ones.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Garbage in, garbage out
This is the risk - nailed it.
acesfull86
Well-known member
Race data is garbage
I'm just making sure I understand your position here.
You don't believe any trends can be drawn from the existing crime/race data intersection that exists today?
acesfull86
Well-known member
See: “Race is a stupid social construct that obscures more than it clarifies.”