4 ms·

the main thing is that we keep the political focus on race & gender etc instead of focusing on old fashioned things like progressive taxation, healthcare, worke

the main thing is that we keep the political focus on race & gender etc instead of focusing on old fashioned things like progressive taxation, healthcare, worker rights & benefits, etc. The current progressive focus on race and gender is new, and new is always better.

izacus 5y ago
It's also really amazing at dividing lower/working classes into two groups. Which makes it much harder for them to band together and push for a change in how the country treats the poorest majority.
haunter 5y ago
>the main thing is that we keep the political focus on race & gender Divide et impera. This is the biggest win of the 1% in the recent decades. Turning people against each other so they can't eat the rich.
- seph-reed 5y ago
  I don't think it was really intentional though. I'm pretty sure that maximizing user engagement (as social media does) leads to communities with easily defined and large borders. The border between rich and poor might be easily defined, but it isn't so large as to have a constant flow of anecdotes. The borders between races or genders are much more "daily life." And -- ultimately -- I don't think the rich are that different of humans either. I see the issue as system level, some flaw in design which makes inequalities and differences grow rather than taper out.
testudovictoria 5y ago
They're not mutually exclusive. I would like a more progressive tax system, better healthcare for everyone, better rights for workers, and better systemic treatment of minorities and non-binary people.
- smegsicle 5y ago
  what are 'binary people', and should they be offended by a term that implies that they only come in two kinds?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    "Binary people" means "women and men".
    - yucky 5y ago
      What percent of the population is that...99.6%?
  - thaneross 5y ago
    This is an excellent point that I hadn't properly considered before. The term "non-binary" invokes a strawman that it proceeds to tear down. The notion is if you don't accept the idea that gender is an arbitrary social construction, you must therefore believe people fall into rigid, simplistic categories.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  The common quip is always "we can do both". I don't really see us doing both though. We keep yelling about identity politics and one side keeps evolving to the point where 50% of the people are basically on the same page about an ever increasing list of concerns around minorities, while the other side is ever more entrenched in opposition -- meanwhile the social policies that 80% of the people would agree upon (like if you poll about universal healthcare by describing it instead of naming it) are simply not happening. This is unlikely to be an accident since the corporations who have bought most of the politicians in the country don't mind more minority CEOs but they're very threatened by economic policies that would be overwhelmingly popular if an imaginary labor-oriented political party were able to punch through the corporate propaganda.
nineplay 5y ago
I completely agree with you, with the qualifier that the article is very much part of the problem. These sort of issues always start small and then the media picks them up and splashes them on the front page purely as outrage bait. I have absolutely no reason to care about this issue. I'll bet 99% of the people reading the article have absolutely no reason to care. I don't care if I see Latin(o|a|x) on a form, if I was creating a form and someone asked me to include Latinx I'd say 'sure, why not'. This is an artificial culture war created by a click happy media.
- gruez 5y ago
  > I'll bet 99% of the people reading the article have absolutely no reason to care. but the article says >while 40 percent [of Hispanics] found it offensive.
  - nineplay 5y ago
    The author's numbers are questionable. The study is linked - 800 participants, the actual question > Does the use of the term LatinX to describe the Hispanic or Latina(o) community bother or offend you? I'd say there's a difference between "bother or offend" and "found offensive". Breaking it down further > 20% "Yes, a lot" > 11%, "Yes, somewhat" > 9%, "Yes a little" 20% 'a little or somewhat bothered' is a lot different than 20% offended If we trust Wikipedia that Latinos are 18% of the US population and 20% of that population is "a lot" offended by Latinx, we get down to 3%. I'll grant that I was incorrect in my 99% assumption, but 97% isn't much better. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe74ec0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe7...
    - leephillips 5y ago
      So the author’s claim is correct, that 40% of the population that the slur claims to refer to find it offensive. Although some of that 40% just found it "somewhat" or "a little" offensive.
      - 5y ago
dashundchen 5y ago
> The current progressive focus on race and gender is new, and new is always better. My feeling here is that these issues are not as pressing to progressives as conservatives think they are. Not surprisingly on this site, I only see these topics brought up from the conservative "anti-woke" perspective. OP's submission history shows a pretty clear theme with these type of articles. I think an occasional discussion is fine but some users here insist on carrying out some sort of culture war here. From the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
- leephillips 5y ago
  As the OP, I prefer my discussions to be mostly free of ad hominem. If you don’t see why the topic is interesting and is a new angle on a new (“latinx” is quite new) phenomenon, there is little effort required to simply move on. In the past 10 days I’ve submitted links about mathematics, computer science, the Defense Dept, physics, and libraries. But this is the one you decided to drop in on and complain about.

izacus 5y ago

It's also really amazing at dividing lower/working classes into two groups. Which makes it much harder for them to band together and push for a change in how the country treats the poorest majority.

haunter 5y ago

>the main thing is that we keep the political focus on race & gender Divide et impera. This is the biggest win of the 1% in the recent decades. Turning people against each other so they can't eat the rich.

seph-reed 5y ago
I don't think it was really intentional though. I'm pretty sure that maximizing user engagement (as social media does) leads to communities with easily defined and large borders. The border between rich and poor might be easily defined, but it isn't so large as to have a constant flow of anecdotes. The borders between races or genders are much more "daily life." And -- ultimately -- I don't think the rich are that different of humans either. I see the issue as system level, some flaw in design which makes inequalities and differences grow rather than taper out.

testudovictoria 5y ago

They're not mutually exclusive. I would like a more progressive tax system, better healthcare for everyone, better rights for workers, and better systemic treatment of minorities and non-binary people.

smegsicle 5y ago
what are 'binary people', and should they be offended by a term that implies that they only come in two kinds?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  "Binary people" means "women and men".
  - yucky 5y ago
    What percent of the population is that...99.6%?
- thaneross 5y ago
  This is an excellent point that I hadn't properly considered before. The term "non-binary" invokes a strawman that it proceeds to tear down. The notion is if you don't accept the idea that gender is an arbitrary social construction, you must therefore believe people fall into rigid, simplistic categories.
lamontcg 5y ago
The common quip is always "we can do both". I don't really see us doing both though. We keep yelling about identity politics and one side keeps evolving to the point where 50% of the people are basically on the same page about an ever increasing list of concerns around minorities, while the other side is ever more entrenched in opposition -- meanwhile the social policies that 80% of the people would agree upon (like if you poll about universal healthcare by describing it instead of naming it) are simply not happening. This is unlikely to be an accident since the corporations who have bought most of the politicians in the country don't mind more minority CEOs but they're very threatened by economic policies that would be overwhelmingly popular if an imaginary labor-oriented political party were able to punch through the corporate propaganda.

nineplay 5y ago

I completely agree with you, with the qualifier that the article is very much part of the problem. These sort of issues always start small and then the media picks them up and splashes them on the front page purely as outrage bait. I have absolutely no reason to care about this issue. I'll bet 99% of the people reading the article have absolutely no reason to care. I don't care if I see Latin(o|a|x) on a form, if I was creating a form and someone asked me to include Latinx I'd say 'sure, why not'. This is an artificial culture war created by a click happy media.

gruez 5y ago
> I'll bet 99% of the people reading the article have absolutely no reason to care. but the article says >while 40 percent [of Hispanics] found it offensive.
- nineplay 5y ago
  The author's numbers are questionable. The study is linked - 800 participants, the actual question > Does the use of the term LatinX to describe the Hispanic or Latina(o) community bother or offend you? I'd say there's a difference between "bother or offend" and "found offensive". Breaking it down further > 20% "Yes, a lot" > 11%, "Yes, somewhat" > 9%, "Yes a little" 20% 'a little or somewhat bothered' is a lot different than 20% offended If we trust Wikipedia that Latinos are 18% of the US population and 20% of that population is "a lot" offended by Latinx, we get down to 3%. I'll grant that I was incorrect in my 99% assumption, but 97% isn't much better. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe74ec0000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe7...
  - leephillips 5y ago
    So the author’s claim is correct, that 40% of the population that the slur claims to refer to find it offensive. Although some of that 40% just found it "somewhat" or "a little" offensive.
    - 5y ago

dashundchen 5y ago

> The current progressive focus on race and gender is new, and new is always better. My feeling here is that these issues are not as pressing to progressives as conservatives think they are. Not surprisingly on this site, I only see these topics brought up from the conservative "anti-woke" perspective. OP's submission history shows a pretty clear theme with these type of articles. I think an occasional discussion is fine but some users here insist on carrying out some sort of culture war here. From the guidelines: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon." "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."

leephillips 5y ago
As the OP, I prefer my discussions to be mostly free of ad hominem. If you don’t see why the topic is interesting and is a new angle on a new (“latinx” is quite new) phenomenon, there is little effort required to simply move on. In the past 10 days I’ve submitted links about mathematics, computer science, the Defense Dept, physics, and libraries. But this is the one you decided to drop in on and complain about.