Has anyone here made that claim? Most of the discussions I’ve been involved in have been about government, society, and insitutions, and are backed (broadly – claims such as these are made as a large characterization that doesn’t necessarily apply in every single circumstance) by history, statistics, and other evidence.
This thread was an attempt to find out what racial classification is being used for these purposes, so I won’t speculate since the progressives haven’t come up with a definition.
You are trying hard, I’ll give you that.
Quoting you in context? Not that difficult, tbh.
Get over yourself-You’ve done nothing of the sort. Your agenda is made obvious by your repeated attempts to take any response here and twist it with “So what you’re really saying is (insert stilted premise here)” and/or “So you agree with me that(insert stilted premise here)”. The fact that nobody here has agreed that what they are really saying has anything to do with the agenda you are pushing should be a big clue for you.
Just for shits and giggles, what is your definition?
Trying hard to understand something simple. Keep at it.
I don’t have one. This is why I don’t support race-based policies.
Here, Czarcasm, asked and “answered”. Twice. With different answers. :rolleyes:
Agenda? I asked people that advocate for race-based policies to explain their racial classifications. One guy tried with a tautology. Nobody else has tried.
If somebody applies for a race-based program, then they are that race. That’s how I would classify them.
Ok. Do you agree with race-based policies?
If you agree with these policies, would allowing anyone to benefit from them fulfill the intent of the policy?
Sure, I agree. To make up for past injustices. The intent of the policy is to help certain races overcome past injustices. So, no, allowing just anyone to benefit would not fulfill the intent of the policy.
If you’re curious about how SBA or various certifying organizations make their determinations, a GQ thread might be the best way to fight any ignorance you may have on the topic.
People make hamfisted statements like the above all the time. It is not a complex phenomenon to them. Now if you changed the above to “Historically, Black people have been treated statistically different than white people”, it wouldn’t change the fact that it deals with race in a facile way, similar to how your discussions of race develop.
No, Will, you haven’t. The person who has come off looking the worst in this thread is you.
That would be irrelevant. My question asks if using the standard of self-identification is consistent with the desires of advocates of race-based policy. This does not sound like a GQ topic.
If only such great effort was put towards convincing those who attack others for race-based reasons that there is no such thing as “race”, the problem would be solved, wouldn’t it? Or are you thinking that, like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, if people of various races and/or colors pretended that there were no differences then the racists that attack them would suddenly not be able to see those differences and stop attacking them?
Have you adjusted your lame definition yet?
Ok then I guess we will need another way to classify humans other than how they self-identify, since we cannot fulfill the policy that way.