Hispanic will be a race on the census in 2030

[Tintrlvr]

Seems appropriate for the current way Americans talk about race except if they split MENA from white they should also split south Asian from East Asian. South Asians are genetically and linguistically closer to Europeans than to Chinese

I do think this would result in controversy over what to do with SE Asians and to a lesser extent Central Asians, and they wanted to avoid the debate. A lot of it is solved by the fact that they are also now asking ancestry, so you'll be able to separate, e.g., Indian Americans from Chinese Americans much more easily in the data than in previous Censuses where ancestry wasn't part of the Census (but I wish ancestry was checkboxes instead of a fill-in-the-blank, recognizing that would dramatically extend the form).

[Ferguson97]

I still haven’t heard anyone make a compelling argument for why Latino shouldn’t be its own category. Race is a social construct, and American culture clearly considers Latinos to be separate from whites. The Census should reflect this.

[RI]

MENA opportunity district:

[David Hume]

I am against this. MENA and Latino are cultural umbrella categories, not racial categories.

What is the difference between a cultural umbrella category and a race? There's no scientific definition of race, and the most practical use of the Census racial data is to be able to ensure political representation is in line with the Voting Rights Act. And at least for that purpose, wouldn't having a bigger number of more specific racial categories be more useful than a smaller number of more general categories?

VRA only protects racial and language minorities. Middle easterners and Hispanics that no longer speak Hispanic do not qualify. This change would give them VRA seats.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

MENA opportunity district:

Gerrymandering a district in Michigan to include the Christian victims of Islamist genocide and Islamists because they’re both from the Middle East would be a great example of how absurd leftist racial categorizations and “voting rights” policies are.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Discussions on here about this (with progressives generally supporting it and conservatives generally opposing it) made me think of an interesting idea that I haven't fully fleshed out, but I think there's merit to.

It's not just race, but about what's perceived as the default or "normal".  Conservatives like to push more people into identifying with the mainstream "normalcy", while progressives like to push people to embrace ways that they are different from that.  From that perspective, it would make sense why a conservative-minded person who was half Cuban and generally appeared "white" would identify less with a minority group.

I think this goes beyond race.  We see far lower levels of (self-reported) mental illness among conservatives than progressives.  It might be true that some forms of "neurodivergence" correlate with left-leaning politics.  But, it's also true that there are borderline cases of anything- whether it be depression, anxiety, ADHD, autism, or something else.  People on the left who are generally "well-adjusted" members of society might be more willing to embrace one of those labels, while conservatives tend to not identify with them.

It's not just race or mental illness.  We also see progressives classifying numerous different sexual orientations (even beyond just "straight", "gay", or "bisexual").  I can't say exactly why it is, but it seems like one side prefers to "expand the majority", while the other side prefers to "embrace divergence from the majority".  One might not be right, and the other might be wrong.  But, they're completely different perspectives on how you see the world.

I also apologize if I used any loaded language.  I didn't exactly know how to best describe that thought, but I hope y'all get the idea.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Discussions on here about this (with progressives generally supporting it and conservatives generally opposing it) made me think of an interesting idea that I haven't fully fleshed out, but I think there's merit to.

It's not just race, but about what's perceived as the default or "normal".  Conservatives like to push more people into identifying with the mainstream "normalcy", while progressives like to push people to embrace ways that they are different from that.  From that perspective, it would make sense why a conservative-minded person who was half Cuban and generally appeared "white" would identify less with a minority group.

I think this goes beyond race.  We see far lower levels of (self-reported) mental illness among conservatives than progressives.  It might be true that some forms of "neurodivergence" correlate with left-leaning politics.  But, it's also true that there are borderline cases of anything- whether it be depression, anxiety, ADHD, autism, or something else.  People on the left who are generally "well-adjusted" members of society might be more willing to embrace one of those labels, while conservatives tend to not identify with them.

It's not just race or mental illness.  We also see progressives classifying numerous different sexual orientations (even beyond just "straight", "gay", or "bisexual").  I can't say exactly why it is, but it seems like one side prefers to "expand the majority", while the other side prefers to "embrace divergence from the majority".  One might not be right, and the other might be wrong.  But, they're completely different perspectives on how you see the world.

I also apologize if I used any loaded language.  I didn't exactly know how to best describe that thought, but I hope y'all get the idea.

There's something to this, yeah.

[It’s so Joever]

Can we PLEASE just merge the race and ethnicity question together. We can have one section where we ask general race (AAPI, Hispanic, Black, White, Native) and then one where we ask a detailed ancestry question (which includes American in all categories as well) depending on the first option selected?