Actually, "pharisaical" is the dictionary definition for this kind of hypocrisy.
Surely some adherents of each use it to feel righeous/superior, but in only one case is it actually justified.
"Sure, my group sounds self-righteous, but our view is justifiably superior."
Nobody wins a shouting match.
This makes the modern American strain of Christianity all the more puzzling to me, with how it in many ways shares more with the Pharisees than it does with the religion's namesake, but that’s a topic for a different post.
I also find it rather amusing that the social justice movement tends to be so US-centric - i.e. focusing on the issues that are specific to or manifest most strongly in US, and then projecting that focus outwards, sometimes to the point of cultural intrusiveness (like that whole "Latinx" thing which seems to be nearly universally reviled outside of US).
At the same time many people sincerely believe that US is not just a bad country - I'm fine with this as a matter of subjective judgment, and share some of it even - but that it's particularly bad in a way that no other country is. It's almost as if someone took American exceptionalism and flipped the sign. Which kinda makes me wonder if that is really what's happening here.
If many random readers won't understand a reference to "Pharisee", and people trying to make a point stop using it as a result, then even fewer Internet-educated readers will get the reference.
The Puritans got kicked out.
It's hilarious the extent to which New England history is one of people showing up in Boston, looking around, realizing who was running the show and deciding that the frontier and the natives didn't sound all that bad.
Well, there are a few things to clear up:
1. Latino is an American word that's only useful in the US to summarize people south of the US in Latam. People in Latam don't use the word since that grouping isn't otherwise useful to them.
2. There definitely are Spanish speakers who do use the -x or -@ suffix like "tod@s" and "todxs".
The mass confusion between these two facts is responsible for most of the discourse you'll read about latinx.
Americans don't understand that #2 exists. "Woke" Mexicans, for example, do use the -x suffix.
"Non-woke" Spanish speakers think the -x suffix is dumb in their own language. But they don't represent all Spanish speakers.
there seems to be a territorial overlap between the two
Is it possible that this is just the nature of writing about regional cultures?
Active users of the suffix are a small minority: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/09/12/ho...
Later in the survey:
>Still, this population continues to favor the terms Hispanic and Latino over the newer terms Latinx and Latine. 52% prefer the term Hispanic to describe people who are of Hispanic or Latino origin or descent, while 29% prefer the term Latino. 2% say they prefer Latinx and 1% favor Latine.
--
>As someone from and living in LatAm
This is about people living in the US.