—
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 12, 2023 at 6:18 am #51296
@ Anybody here Explain to me how developing unique terms to supplant the familiar ones is inclusive rather than divisive.
It’s not a unique term. The terms Latina and Latino exist as the masculine and feminine forms prior to the creation of Latinx and Latine. Both ‘Latinx’ and ‘Latine’ were patterned off of pre-existing language trends for making terms gender-neutral. To my understanding, ‘Latinx’ gets more criticism because the language trend it borrowed from is predominately English while the latter is more consistent with Spanish language patterns and is more intuitive to read and pronounce.
“You’re not one of us, the majority white folks You’ve got your own category now. You’re a latinx. Feel you’re part of the club now?”
Latinx and Latine didn’t create a new category. The term ‘Latino’ has existed for a long time in reference to Latin American people. It doesn’t exclude people from any other group to which they may also belong. The switch to a gender-neutral variant addresses two issues:
1) Some people view defaulting to the masculine form for the collective noun as sexist.
2) Non-binary people lacked a term that wasn’t gendered.
The conjugation to a gender-neutral term is inclusive on both counts. Whether it is necessary in case 1 is not something I can weigh in on, yet I can be responsive to those making the case for change (just as I could refuse to do so).
November 12, 2023 at 5:13 am #51293Prejudiced old slimeball.
November 12, 2023 at 2:25 am #51290If honest mistakes with any pronoun ‘triggers’ someone to become angry, my new pronoun for them is the adjective “asshole”.
‘Asshole’ is a proper noun. This is also weirdly thin-skinned of you*.
*edit: the comment in this thread. I mean, if this were the subject of the conversation or a thing that was actually happening to you, whatever. But to go out of your way to make a point about how a non-binary person might wrong you so you can make a cheap pronoun joke… seriously, wtf?
November 12, 2023 at 1:49 am #51288Singling people out strikes me as less inclusive than using one term for all. Or, maybe we should go in the other direction to be even more granularly inclusive.
I am not sure what you mean. ‘Latine’ doesn’t single people out any more than ‘Latino’.
A term for elderly queers…
Pretty sure the number of terms to describe the different flavours of gay and queer would blow your mind.
Yeah, because we know better, right?
No. Because we can be responsive to the initiative of people who are part of that culture. I can also recognize feminism and recognition of non-binary people independent of this specific language issue. It’s not my job to tell people who speak, Spanish, French, German, Italian (etc.) how to address the issue; however, for those who take it upon themselves to do so, I can follow their lead.
November 12, 2023 at 12:36 am #51286You pronounce Latinx to rhyme with “sphinx,” right?
I believe it’s pronounced as the letter ‘X’ as you would in x-ray.
We should do what we often do: default to the male term. We use “man” to represent mankind.
That’s what is currently done and one of the reasons people want to do away with defaulting to Latino. One of the other reasons is to have a term for non-binary people.
That said, etymologically ‘man’ as in ‘mankind’ is a gender neutral term. The words for ‘man’ and ‘woman’ were ‘wer’ and ‘wyf’ respectively. Somehow we ended up with the compound women (wif-man) but not an analogous ‘wer-man’ compound.
Question: Are we supposed (according to the supposers) to jump ahead of the Spanish/Portuguese-speaking community and adopt these strange and unfamiliar modes of speaking even before they adopt them?
If you want to show solidarity or consideration for people working toward change and the reasons they are doing it, sure, that’s one way to go.
November 12, 2023 at 12:13 am #51285Piece of Sunshine!
Purveyor of shade with paucity of sensibility.
Thank you ever so much Autumn!
No problem.
November 11, 2023 at 11:14 pm #51282I am not too excited about POC.
Well, what’s important in all this is how it makes you feel. I will spread the word.
Groups can go with whatever handle they like. I propose POD for Muslims. People of death. And the funny thing is i think a lot of Muslims would take it and run with it.
Was the other thread not enough for you? Is the need to be a POS that great?
November 11, 2023 at 10:30 pm #51280PopeBeanie wrote:
On a related note, boosted now by the House out to Cancel the Executive Branch’s use of a word. I had no clue that use of the term LatinX was yet another propagandanismistic (sp) tactic of Woke Culture.Pretty confident it wasn’t. There was just a divide between how different Spanish-speaking groups around the world approached creating a gender-neutral term. The term was created due to a legitimate need, but the approach in some regions appears to have been shaped by trends in English (Eg. use of Mx. in place of Mr. Mrs. Ms.) that were then adopted to Spanish.
PopeBeanie wrote:
It’d be funny if Wokesters, et al, and Biden, et al switched over to using the Genderless Pronoun Latine, in light of how the gender-full Latina introduced the anti-LatinX term amendment as an attachment to an unrelated, bigger bill.To some extent, it’s not so different from how there are anglophones who still to this day get upset if you refer to a same-sex or same-gender union as a ‘marriage’. While outsiders shouldn’t dictate to use how we use our own language, you can still understand there are issues of homophobia at play when someone defines marriage exclusively as the union between one man and one woman.
It’s not for us to dictate how various people refer to themselves. But in the case where there is disagreement between LatinX, Latine, and Latino, we can appreciate that the former two are legitimate attempts to address issues of sexism and recognition of non-binary people.
I can’t dictate to other people what they should be called, but when I am being asked to adopt a practice in my own language, yeah, I can choose to side with those who are pushing for change toward inclusivity of women and non-binary people in the collective noun in their own language. I can choose, in some contexts, not to side with someone who is rejecting change.
Now if Ms. Salazar prefers the collective term Latino as situationally appropriate, I can do my best to use that with her. Truth be told, it will likely never come up because I rarely refer to people that way and she and I will never meet. But it doesn’t mean I don’t think she’s an asshole for her reasons for rejecting LaatinX/ Latine, and if I were working for the White House and a policy had to be adopted, hers would likely not be the Latina argument I’d favour when there are Latine and LatinX voices making a stronger case for change, just like I’m not asking a homophobe how to define ‘marriage’.
November 10, 2023 at 1:02 am #51256That does not describe my views at all.
I’m talking about your pattern of thinking. It’s really not that fucking complicated of a point. You can not possibly be this obtuse.
November 10, 2023 at 12:19 am #51253While I am obviously making fun of you, there is a part of me that wonders how much you have swallowed the Flavor-Aid of American exceptionalism, not in defence of American foreign and military policy, specifically, but in distorted notions of what constitutes ‘self-defence’, the legitimization of occupation and interference, and the way you seem to be able to categorize actions as bad yet try to present some contextual rationalization. You have a lot of glaring blind spots that I can’t help think are the byproduct of what was normalized through your cultural surroundings.
No clue what you are specifically referring to in american exceptionalism. I have given America its due where i think it warranted and been critical where i think it deserving. So my glaring blind spots are caused by my cultural surroundings?
Again, not in defence of America specifically. It’s the same rationalizations and patterns of thought commonplace in American exceptionalism. We had to do the awful thing because we were the good guys and they were the bad guys. While you may be able to critique such claims when applied to America, it seems part of you still succumbs to that level of simplistic, propagandistic thinking.
November 9, 2023 at 11:42 pm #51247Act 5 Scene 3 Autumn: Typical cultist response. God damn colonialist mindvirus. Jake: In high dudgeon did she bludgeon. guffaw Close curtains
Nah. If you’re going to keep up with the ‘death cult’ nonsense, those are the rules of the game we’ll play by. You don’t have arguments. You don’t have a position. You don’t even have personhood. You have a culty mindvirus. That’s how we get to do things. I get to decide for you that those are your motivations and limitations, which is to say the cult of colonialism and Americanism—two of the most deadly cults known to humankind. And I get to pigeonhole you however I like reaching back as far into history as I like ignoring any context that paints your actions as anything more than cultish fervour.
Because that’s the Jake school of logic. That’s the level of argument it presents. That’s the level of competence it possess.
While I am obviously making fun of you, there is a part of me that wonders how much you have swallowed the Flavor-Aid of American exceptionalism, not in defence of American foreign and military policy, specifically, but in distorted notions of what constitutes ‘self-defence’, the legitimization of occupation and interference, and the way you seem to be able to categorize actions as bad yet try to present some contextual rationalization. You have a lot of glaring blind spots that I can’t help think are the byproduct of what was normalized through your cultural surroundings.
November 9, 2023 at 10:04 pm #51245Autumn there was a withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 that forced Israelis out of there.
They were supposed to be out in the 90s, and Gaza was pretty much immediately subject to blockades. But you’re still missing the point. Less occupation is still occupation. Again, as outsiders, it’s going to be easier for us to accept that Israel isn’t going away. But from a Palestinian perspective, even the 1967 boundaries still leave them in a fucked up position. Look at the Oslo accords and how asymmetrical they were from the outset.
I am the furthest from any variety of cult. I don’t join jack shit.
Typical cultist response. God damn colonialist mindvirus.
November 9, 2023 at 8:58 pm #51243Misleading. My point is that there is no respite from the onslaught. Okay, brief periods without being attacked wholesale, just intermittent rockets and terrorist attack.
There is no respite from the occupation. None. Ever. While we, as outsiders, can accept that Israel is a done deal and that Palestinians will eventually all have to accept that fact, were we in the position Palestinians have been in for most of the last century, there is no way that would have made sense to us in the 40s, 50, 60s, 70, 80s, 90s. Being less aggressively occupied is not a peace proposition.
Jews as a whole in Israel are not out to get the Palestinians.
That’s something you can only say as a cultist with the colonialist mind-virus. You can’t be blamed. It’s the limit of thinking your people have managed.
November 9, 2023 at 1:55 pm #51234…can fail to contemplate what it is like to deal with people who are trying to ruin you…
That’s the very point we’re making to you. The difference between Palestine and Israel is that Israel is succeeding.
November 9, 2023 at 12:48 am #51229No argument from you just a denial. Ok well lets see. Overwhelming majority of Germans in a cult of personality to Hitler. Won over by what exactly?
Hitler came to power with minority support. Support and opposition were based on numerous factors. Anti-semitism was one, but if you’re under the impression that German society was one of people aimlessly puttering around muttering about the damn Jews you’re off your nut. Once the backslide into totalitarianism was complete, consequences for dissent became quite severe.
One of the major lessons from this time frame was that plunging nations into economic despair was only going to cement the ongoing cycle of hostilities. One of the major factors fuelling German anti-semitism and nationalistic sentiment was misplaced blame over financial crisis. Post WWII, West Germany was afforded the chance to regain political and economic stability. This is despite a very long history of warfare with surrounding states including the Great War—the “War that will end all war”—and what became knowns as WWII. If you were alive in the 1940s, you couldn’t be blamed for believing that European nations, Germany included, were capable of nothing more than imperialistic conquest and endless war.
But as it turns out, conditions where the losers of wars can recover and regain stability does create inroads for peace. Ultimately, the nations that once warred so fiercely became allies if not out of any love for one another, then because they were tied together in commerce and trade.
While Germany’s relationship with the rest of Europe is not analogous to the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis, if you’re going to try to make analogies, at least think of the actual history involved. Bombing German civilians is not what led to lasting change. Understanding that the general population weren’t dyed-in-the-wool Nazi fanatics but rather mostly people who wanted to get by in life and have a shot at prosperity and security was what carried the distance.
Holy cow i have come out over and over as an anti theist.
So? The point isn’t about your views on Christianity. It’s that ideology isn’t permanent. Faiths with the same vile tenets manage to move on and progress. I live side-by-side with Muslims, Christians, and Jews peacefully despite the old books. The difference between here and there is that coexistence is easier when you have stability. Now that we face even the slightest bit of economic turmoil, however, we’re seeing a rise in populist politics gain a lot of ground again. People are unsteady and uncertain, it makes them angry, they blame who’s convenient rather than who’s responsible.
While I am not claiming that economic and political stability are some panacea to a kumbaya existence, the idea that thrusting a population into prolonged poverty and insecurity while periodically bombing the shit out of it is going to effect positive change is the dipshittiest dipshittery and dipshit has ever shit out.
-
AuthorPosts