There’s other types of identifications which do have the issue of just who decides who can wear that label; Velocity touched on them. Who decides who is Hispanic? You don’t need to have a lastname which originated in Spain; you do not need to have ancestry from Spain or Latin American; you do not need to speak Spanish; you just need to say you’re Hispanic… but depending on what reasoning you have behind that self-identification, other Hispanics reserve their right to roll our eyes heavily at you. Who decides who is Cheyenne? The Cheyenne nation, you can’t just self-identify. Who decides who is African-American? Oy vey…
A Trump presidency.
What you described would be the opposite of self-identification. If people don’t accept you as what you claim to be, then you aren’t being allowed to self-identify.
And that’s the point. People don’t say people can self-identify their race or ethnic background.
The Hispanic example does work on self-identification; people may roll their eyes but they can’t reject the self-identification. If someone marks an X on “Hispanic” in a form, nobody will go and say “whoah, whoah, Hispanic how? Who do you think you are, to claim you’re Hispanic?” It’s nowhere near the only one I know of, but many of the ones I’m familiar with won’t be familiar to a lot of the people in these boards.
OOT: note that I said “other Hispanics”. That accepts the self-identification.
My University in England had a policy whereby students were told that they could wear their “ethnic dress” and the Uni would be delighted to.
Oooppps. Cue students c;laimimg that PJ’s are ethnic dress, and so is pretty much anything.
They changed it to “genuine ethnic dress” afterwords.
Flying cars.
The perennial “It’s the 21st century so where are the…” item. But we’ve fairly conclusively proven that safe driving in *two *dimensions isn’t for everyone. The consequences of adding a third dimension for people to fuck up in don’t really bear thinking about. And that’s before you consider that the effects of even minor mishaps tend to be a lot more… plummety.
Thirded (or fourthed). I have in fact spent several years altogether unemployed, and have had interesting things to do every single day on those occasions. Now that I have a job, I have easily a multi-page list of cool projects waiting for my free time, each taking weeks to months to years to complete (now, I inch my way on these, every chance I get). Give me free time with basic income, and I’d never be bored or need “something to do”. Lottery money, and I’d do those same things, only bigger and more thorough.
So it sounds like you agree with me that the idea that ‘anyone can identify as whatever or whomever they want’ is not actually a popular one, since you provided examples of large groups of people who don’t agree with the idea and no examples of anyone saying they agree with the idea.
This is true, and probably even more so for jetpacks.
Ending earmarks and pork barrel politics. They are an ugly but vital part of the American (nay, any) political system – hell, even primate societies operate with the principle that ‘I scratch your back; you scratch mine.’ Even at their 2006 high water mark of 29 billion it was a rounding error in comparison to the total budget (2.7 trillion in 2006). Money makes the world go round, and stopping the flow brought things to a crashing halt in DC. The backers of the bill(s) would say this is a feature, not a bug, (but that way lies anarchy.) It’s not hard to see that this has led to today’s deadlock and the rise of the Tea Party – can you imagine being the House Whip with no carrots! House Senority is now reduced to committee appointments. No wonder why Boehner was so happy to quit.
I think there’s an implicit AI though in flying cars. It’s usually depicted as the driver only needing to stay “in lane”, if that. And if it happens in real life it seems they would be largely or entirely self driving.
Of course it’s a big “if” whether it would happen. Even without driver error it’s always going to be more dangerous, as well as more costly than rolling shit around on terra firma.
I did provide an example… apparently I’ve forgotten how to write, but Hispanic is completely a self-defined label. As are for example many related to religion. I consider myself a Christian; some other Christians think I’m not. Since I can’t ask Jesus for His opinion, I’ll go with mine - and so would the US Census, as they do not ask whether other people call me a Christian but whether I do.
My dad told the story of being 21 years old and on shore leave in Italy. Some guys decided to go to a beach on the Riviera. The *topless *beach. Forty years later, his disappointment at the reality of topless Italian beachgoers was still evident.
No, it’s not as YOU pointed out - if I walked around as a guy with mostly Scandinavian heritage and no cultural ties to any Spanish-speaking country and claimed to be Hispanic, actual Hispanics would roll their eyes at me and not accept my self-identification. If I walked around calling people ‘spic’ and saying it’s OK because I’m Hispanic so the ‘same race slur is OK’ rule applies, no one is going to suddenly go ‘oh, that’s OK then.’ It is clearly NOT a completely self-defined label.
Also, even if your example did work, it still wouldn’t really support the specific claim that “anyone can identify as whatever or whomever they want” is a common belief, since that’s just one specific identity, not “whatever or whomever”. It’s important to make the distinction here, because the phrase I am calling out is a strawman invented by people who object to respecting non-standard gender identity, it’s not an actual position that a significant number of people hold.
The fact that the Census uses self-reported demographic information is not remotely the same thing as a large body of people believing “anyone can identify as whatever or whomever they want”. The census also accepts what people say about the number of people living in their house and their annual income, but that doesn’t mean that people believe that you can ‘self identify’ as having no income or as having eight kids when you live alone. The IRS, for example, will very harshly reject your ‘no income’ or ‘eight dependents’ claims.
I don’t think that’s a good analogy because the essence of being a Christian is about a relationship to something unseen, God, and a particular way of seeking Him. Also there is not state granted privilege to calling oneself a Christian, nor any other designation on a Census form per se, but there is in other contexts to call oneself Hispanic or other minorities (for hiring, school admission, contract set asides etc). I don’t seek to derail the thread debating the merit of this policy, but it exists, and the benefits given are not based on demonstrating individual harm from discrimination. That half of the equation in the policy debate is separate from the question of who can legitimately claim to be in a ‘protected group’ for official purposes.
Or assume there is some (unofficial, social etc) benefit to claiming to be a Christian. To the extent that can be nailed down objectively (though I doubt it reality it could to the same extent as a hiring/admission preference) the same issue arises.
I’ll be more specific using myself as example. If I gained official benefit by claiming to be Hispanic, that would be dishonest. In common sense terms I have no connection to remotely recent Latin American or Spanish speaking heritage (I happen to know, but even if I didn’t it would be unlikely based on basic observation of family names etc). If the designation meant nothing, then it would be trivial for me to claim it just as a protest about ‘how race and ethnicity are artificial constructs’ or some such. Given that I could gain from it, I would feel obligated to have some factual basis, besides whatever mixing occurred between Spanish or proto-Spanish people and the Irish centuries ago, or common ancestors of all humans millennia ago
Not everyone agrees on a common sense definition of Hispanic, which is among the problems with official ‘race’ preferences IMO. But that doesn’t mean the term just means whatever anyone feels like making it mean, or meaningless.
Heh. Christians being nailed down, huh.
Or if we were nailing down those who weren’t. 
But either way if a society is handing out benefits for being/not being something, and assuming that’s pretty clear rather than ‘some random internet poster claims it’s true, so it’s true for them, man’ (which it isn’t for being Christian IMO, is for being Hispanic, why it’s bad analogy to begin with) it invalidates the concept of ‘I’m whatever I say I am’ wrt to that thing.
Mohammed claimed that four was the perfect number of wives. The whole quote is kind of funny (and very sexist.)
I’d have a hard enough time dealing with one wife let alone four.
My sister wants to get an RV and go on the road when she retires. I told her she’ll probably be sick of it after a month.
Over easy. Nobody is ever satisfied with their egg.