3 ms·

So people with a Latin background are not part of the public?

tristor 1y ago
> So people with a Latin background are not part of the public? Hispanic people don't like being called "latinx" so anything with that word in it is pretty much automatically invalidated as being credulent, especially if it is purporting to be helping people when they're colonizing their language. The person you're responding to is way overplaying their case, though, most of the funding that was cut wasn't DEI related, but let's also be serious people here.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  I don't think it's so cut and dry. Program Manager: Alicia Santiago Gonzalez Veronica Garcia-Luis (Principal Investigator) Moreover you're assuming a lot from just a title.
  - tristor 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx#Among_US_Hispanics/Latinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx#Among_US_Hispanics/Lati... It's language colonization. The correct term, if there is even a need for an alternative for "latino" is "latine", which has existed in Spanish for thousands of years.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      "language colonization" sounds pretty woke to me, I think I've lost the plot. I thought we were trying to get rid of woke. Now we are getting rid of "language colonizers" because their terms are wrong? I thought we were going back to a meritocracy, where people are judged on the merits of their ideas. You read a word and concluded a lot. It's interesting -- I was in a thread with someone else lamenting it's so hard to get funding if you go against the establishment. Now you're telling me this research shouldn't have been funded because it uses a term that goes against the established term. I think that really highlights the challenges in science funding.
      - tristor 1y ago
        I think you are incorrectly assuming that I am somehow supporting cutting science funding and/or that I am "anti-woke" (I am a little bit, but more because I think it's unhelpful than because I think the goal of helping people who are underrepresented in society is wrong). The "ideas" are bad when they start from forcing something on a people that doesn't align to their linguistic or cultural experience coming from an outsider using their wealth and power to directly influence outcomes for those people. The use of the word "latinx" is a perfect example of exactly the wrong way to approach trying to help people, which honestly if you are as cynical as I am you see as the point. I don't often believe people who say "I was only trying to help" as they actively seek to destroy other people's cultures and languages.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        You're assuming all of that from just a word. To support your position you would need to cite the proposal, which you haven't read, but are assuming its contents. All you can do is cite the title and conclude it's defacto bad. Most people don't agree that we should base funding decisions on titles of proposals, that's why we have them write a full proposal.
        tristor 1y ago
        I am not saying the proposal is bad, I'm saying I automatically don't trust the authors because they use the term "latinx" in something that's theoretically intended to help the Latin American community. Additionally, the fact our funding climate is such that people feel they have to insert coded language for white academic elites into their proposals for them to be accepted for a grant is part of the problem in at least 3 layers, and probably more than that, of this very complex social issue.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        That's fine if you don't trust the title of this proposal, or this researcher, but that's why you're not in charge of funding science. Typically people who are in charge of funding science reserve their opinions about the efficacy of something until after actually reading the details of the proposal. All I know from our several back and forths is that you don't like the term latinx and some other people don't, and therefore this proposal, of which you cannot even articulate the details, is a priori defacto harmful. If that's all you have than I think I've learned all I can from exchange. > people feel they have to insert coded language for white academic elites Assumed; there's no proof that happened here. You're inventing the genesis of this proposal in your mind. > this very complex social issue. Agreed, and that's why we shouldn't draw conclusions (like "they actively seek to destroy other people's cultures and languages") from a single word or a title, and why we usually rely on panels of domain experts who understand the nuance to fund such complex social research. Which is what happened in this case.

> So people with a Latin background are not part of the public? Hispanic people don't like being called "latinx" so anything with that word in it is pretty much automatically invalidated as being credulent, especially if it is purporting to be helping people when they're colonizing their language. The person you're responding to is way overplaying their case, though, most of the funding that was cut wasn't DEI related, but let's also be serious people here.

ModernMech 1y ago
I don't think it's so cut and dry. Program Manager: Alicia Santiago Gonzalez Veronica Garcia-Luis (Principal Investigator) Moreover you're assuming a lot from just a title.
- tristor 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx#Among_US_Hispanics/Latinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx#Among_US_Hispanics/Lati... It's language colonization. The correct term, if there is even a need for an alternative for "latino" is "latine", which has existed in Spanish for thousands of years.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    "language colonization" sounds pretty woke to me, I think I've lost the plot. I thought we were trying to get rid of woke. Now we are getting rid of "language colonizers" because their terms are wrong? I thought we were going back to a meritocracy, where people are judged on the merits of their ideas. You read a word and concluded a lot. It's interesting -- I was in a thread with someone else lamenting it's so hard to get funding if you go against the establishment. Now you're telling me this research shouldn't have been funded because it uses a term that goes against the established term. I think that really highlights the challenges in science funding.
    - tristor 1y ago
      I think you are incorrectly assuming that I am somehow supporting cutting science funding and/or that I am "anti-woke" (I am a little bit, but more because I think it's unhelpful than because I think the goal of helping people who are underrepresented in society is wrong). The "ideas" are bad when they start from forcing something on a people that doesn't align to their linguistic or cultural experience coming from an outsider using their wealth and power to directly influence outcomes for those people. The use of the word "latinx" is a perfect example of exactly the wrong way to approach trying to help people, which honestly if you are as cynical as I am you see as the point. I don't often believe people who say "I was only trying to help" as they actively seek to destroy other people's cultures and languages.
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        You're assuming all of that from just a word. To support your position you would need to cite the proposal, which you haven't read, but are assuming its contents. All you can do is cite the title and conclude it's defacto bad. Most people don't agree that we should base funding decisions on titles of proposals, that's why we have them write a full proposal.
        tristor 1y ago
        I am not saying the proposal is bad, I'm saying I automatically don't trust the authors because they use the term "latinx" in something that's theoretically intended to help the Latin American community. Additionally, the fact our funding climate is such that people feel they have to insert coded language for white academic elites into their proposals for them to be accepted for a grant is part of the problem in at least 3 layers, and probably more than that, of this very complex social issue.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        That's fine if you don't trust the title of this proposal, or this researcher, but that's why you're not in charge of funding science. Typically people who are in charge of funding science reserve their opinions about the efficacy of something until after actually reading the details of the proposal. All I know from our several back and forths is that you don't like the term latinx and some other people don't, and therefore this proposal, of which you cannot even articulate the details, is a priori defacto harmful. If that's all you have than I think I've learned all I can from exchange. > people feel they have to insert coded language for white academic elites Assumed; there's no proof that happened here. You're inventing the genesis of this proposal in your mind. > this very complex social issue. Agreed, and that's why we shouldn't draw conclusions (like "they actively seek to destroy other people's cultures and languages") from a single word or a title, and why we usually rely on panels of domain experts who understand the nuance to fund such complex social research. Which is what happened in this case.