4 ms·

Don't entirely agree with what some of what you've said but upvoting you nevertheless as clearly you argue in good faith (and to get you out of negative score),

by pen2l 6y ago

Don't entirely agree with what some of what you've said but upvoting you nevertheless as clearly you argue in good faith (and to get you out of negative score), that aside -- you say: > It’s a term originating in academia that non-college educated people have mostly never heard of. Being called by a label that you don’t recognize is alienating. Okay, so the word is an academic construct. But it comes from a good place: an effort to be more inclusive. I will understand if everyday folks don't subscribe to the latest code and vocabulary of a younger progressive society, and I understand any resistance to new vocabulary, but that is no reason to stop progress. You can't deny that embedded in our language are the biases of our history, and it's possible that a natural evolution of language may not get us out of this, so why not let a prescriptivist push get us out, even if it comes from academia? Separately, curious to hear your thoughts on changes imposed by Académie Française in recent years toward a similar direction of being more inclusive.

JamesBarney 6y ago
Rayiner is making an argument about whether politicians should use the word. He argued no and I think that's right. You're trying to pull him into a separate argument which is should individuals use latinx or latino. (The obvious answer here is to use whatever word who you're talking to would prefer)
rayiner 6y ago
Inclusivity isn’t a single axis. When a politician calls a group of people by a label that’s unfamiliar to them and that they don’t recognize or identify with, that’s exclusionary and alienating. Example: I’m from Bangladesh. It means “country of Bengalis.” We fought an independence war with Pakistan to have a country for our own ethnic/linguistic group. The name of the country is exclusionary of the non-Bengali ethnic and linguistic groups, including the indigenous population. If an academic wants to come up with a different label for us, they can do that. But politicians shouldn’t use it until we broadly accept the label. It’s not Elizabeth Warren’s place to take a prescriptive position on what Bangladeshis call themselves. Stepping back, identity and how it’s defined and what it’s defined by reference to is an explosively complicated issue. Focusing on issues like gender inclusivity is a western, and particularly American, way of looking at language and identity labels. Different cultures will sort out how they want to approach these issues. It’s not something white Americans like Elizabeth Warren should just parachute into. > Académie Française The French can do what they want with their own language. But as an Anglophile I have to point out that they could easily solve the problem of gendering in French by just speaking English instead. That would also solve their problem of having to come up with French words for things invented by English-speakers.
rayiner 6y ago
Let me address the issue from a slightly different angle. White progressives calling Latinos “Latinx” is in some respects a demand for assimilation into prevailing American ideas of gender-identity inclusivity. (I recognize that it’s not an exclusively American phenomenon, but the movement has more purchase in the United States than in say Guatemala.) There is a long tradition of Americans saying “it’s fine if you’re Catholic or Polish so long as you believe the same things that Protestant Americans believe.” This continues to this day. Whites set the direction of the Democratic Party on social issues, and Black/Hispanic/Muslim people, who are much more conservative on social issues, follow. (Obviously there are many Black/Hispanic/Muslim people who are socially progressive. But on average they’re much more conservative: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo.... For example, 55% of Black Democrats say “you must believe in God to be moral.” Just 11% of white Democrats say that.) I’m not criticizing all that, I’m just noting that it’s a power dynamic that clearly exists. However, these days, nobody wants to come out and say “it’s okay if you’re a Muslim immigrant from a country where homosexuality is illegal, but you’re in America now and you’re going to have to get cool with LGBT rights.” What happens instead is social engineering of people’s’ identities by media, academia, and political leaders. Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour are amplified and become the face of Islam. Movies and TV are filled with socially progressive hijabis. Progressive Muslim academics and writers are amplified and given platforms. To use another example: fully half of Black people still do not accept same-sex marriage. Just half say abortion is morally acceptable. When was the last time a socially conservative Black person got any mainstream media airtime? Same thing with Hispanic people opposed to abortion? A Muslim who holds social views held by nearly all of the world’s billion Muslims? I’m not objecting to the sentiment. I agree Bangladeshis who come to America should leave Bangladeshi views of homosexuality in the old country. What’s creepy to me is the mechanics of how this works. Instead of telling people, “you’re in America now and here’s what we believe” we are redefining peoples’ identities. We selectively amplify Bangladeshi voices that happen to agree with white progressives.

by pen2l 6y ago

JamesBarney 6y ago

Rayiner is making an argument about whether politicians should use the word. He argued no and I think that's right. You're trying to pull him into a separate argument which is should individuals use latinx or latino. (The obvious answer here is to use whatever word who you're talking to would prefer)

rayiner 6y ago

Inclusivity isn’t a single axis. When a politician calls a group of people by a label that’s unfamiliar to them and that they don’t recognize or identify with, that’s exclusionary and alienating. Example: I’m from Bangladesh. It means “country of Bengalis.” We fought an independence war with Pakistan to have a country for our own ethnic/linguistic group. The name of the country is exclusionary of the non-Bengali ethnic and linguistic groups, including the indigenous population. If an academic wants to come up with a different label for us, they can do that. But politicians shouldn’t use it until we broadly accept the label. It’s not Elizabeth Warren’s place to take a prescriptive position on what Bangladeshis call themselves. Stepping back, identity and how it’s defined and what it’s defined by reference to is an explosively complicated issue. Focusing on issues like gender inclusivity is a western, and particularly American, way of looking at language and identity labels. Different cultures will sort out how they want to approach these issues. It’s not something white Americans like Elizabeth Warren should just parachute into. > Académie Française The French can do what they want with their own language. But as an Anglophile I have to point out that they could easily solve the problem of gendering in French by just speaking English instead. That would also solve their problem of having to come up with French words for things invented by English-speakers.

rayiner 6y ago

Let me address the issue from a slightly different angle. White progressives calling Latinos “Latinx” is in some respects a demand for assimilation into prevailing American ideas of gender-identity inclusivity. (I recognize that it’s not an exclusively American phenomenon, but the movement has more purchase in the United States than in say Guatemala.) There is a long tradition of Americans saying “it’s fine if you’re Catholic or Polish so long as you believe the same things that Protestant Americans believe.” This continues to this day. Whites set the direction of the Democratic Party on social issues, and Black/Hispanic/Muslim people, who are much more conservative on social issues, follow. (Obviously there are many Black/Hispanic/Muslim people who are socially progressive. But on average they’re much more conservative: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo.... For example, 55% of Black Democrats say “you must believe in God to be moral.” Just 11% of white Democrats say that.) I’m not criticizing all that, I’m just noting that it’s a power dynamic that clearly exists. However, these days, nobody wants to come out and say “it’s okay if you’re a Muslim immigrant from a country where homosexuality is illegal, but you’re in America now and you’re going to have to get cool with LGBT rights.” What happens instead is social engineering of people’s’ identities by media, academia, and political leaders. Ilhan Omar and Linda Sarsour are amplified and become the face of Islam. Movies and TV are filled with socially progressive hijabis. Progressive Muslim academics and writers are amplified and given platforms. To use another example: fully half of Black people still do not accept same-sex marriage. Just half say abortion is morally acceptable. When was the last time a socially conservative Black person got any mainstream media airtime? Same thing with Hispanic people opposed to abortion? A Muslim who holds social views held by nearly all of the world’s billion Muslims? I’m not objecting to the sentiment. I agree Bangladeshis who come to America should leave Bangladeshi views of homosexuality in the old country. What’s creepy to me is the mechanics of how this works. Instead of telling people, “you’re in America now and here’s what we believe” we are redefining peoples’ identities. We selectively amplify Bangladeshi voices that happen to agree with white progressives.