zlacker

It would indeed be nice if these things were introduced as “let’s try a new thing and then choose to accept or reject it later, based on results”, rather than “we have determined there is only one correct way of thinking about this topic, and if you don’t like it, you’re a Nazi”.

>>jl6+(OP)
I suppose I would ask where you've seen or heard this sort of ultimatum about Latinx.

>>UncleM+C2
Isn't it interesting that your response here is questioning and perhaps dismissive?

If a minority were sharing their perspective about whatever their lived experience was with regards to racism, would you respond this way?

I'll answer that: no, you wouldn't.

Which very quickly lifts the curtain. The movement is not about empathy or understanding. It's about empathy and understanding for people you deem worthy of receiving it.

>>dolni+ac
I really don't understand how this relates.

>>UncleM+C2
Sure, for example, this guy and his paper: https://x.com/mfrmarcel/status/1850899388165693916

“Latinx” is presented uncritically as “inclusive”, and the people who don’t like it are smeared as “queerphobic”.

This is academia at its most tone-deaf and ignorant. If he actually spoke to some Latino people he would quickly discover that the reasons for the backlash have approximately zero to do with “queerphobia”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latinx

>>jl6+jk
Can you please bridge how your comment "and if you don’t like it, you’re a Nazi" is in any way connected to this tweet about a researcher saying the usage of the phrase "latinx" reduced latino support for Democrats?

Another person is asking basically "why are people so quick to dismiss claims of aggressive wokeness policing" and this is why. Because it is always so much exaggeration about the topic coming from these claims.

>>jl6+jk
That's an egregious misrepresentation. The authors of that paper surveyed Latinos, found that those who disliked the term 'latinx' had moved toward voting for Trump between 2020 and 2024, and that those most likely to move were also most likely to express antipathy toward LGBT people.

You say the academics should have talked to some Latino people, and they did - n = ~2000. Are you saying that they should not have reported their results because you dislike what they imply?

>>anigbr+mn1
>The authors of that paper surveyed Latinos, found that those who disliked the term 'latinx' had moved toward voting for Trump between 2020 and 2024

It's strange for the author to distinguish "those who dislike the term" from those who don't, considering that the term is overwhelmingly unpopular (https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/09/12/ho...).

>>anigbr+mn1
I’m saying that he shouldn’t have presented use of “Latinx” as an unalloyed good, and uncritically “inclusive” (a massive assumption which is highly debatable, particularly amongst Latinos), and that his survey questions are very weak at controlling for the explanations that Latinos generally give for disliking the term (pronunciation, erasure of diversity, trendiness, imperial/colonial attitude to language, elitism…).

Concluding that there is no problem with the term and the real problem is “queerphobia” is textbook academic myopia.

See this critique, which the author engages with - unconvincingly: https://x.com/paulnovosad/status/1851994193503359003

>>dolni+ac
> If a minority were sharing their perspective about whatever their lived experience was with regards to racism, would you respond this way?

If a small group of people told me they actually experienced flight under only human power, no mechanical assistance. Would it be right to take that claim at face value?

I'll answer that: no, it wouldn't.

If you're going to ignore plausibility entirely, then yeah I suppose all statements deserve equal consideration.

However... If it is the case that some stamens are more plausible than others maybe it's an effective heuristic to be skeptical of implausible claims.

>>UncleM+Bd
Maybe that is the problem.

>>btreec+Zl2
The number of people making the claim is not small.

You probably just cut all the people out of your life who disagree with you.

That is the liberal way, these days.

Donald Trump, among the worst presidents the US ever had, won the 2024 election. This kind of nonsense was absolutely a factor.

>>dolni+WE2
By definition, a minority group isn't the majority. So it's at least less than half. A non-small amount of people claim the earth is flat.

Does a personal attack make you feel better about yourself, your situation in life?

If that "kind of nonsense" was a factor, show us in the numbers where it made an impact. I got time, don't cop out, cough it up.

>>zahlma+bD1
I don't see why. My read of the research paper was that they went looking for correlates to gain some insight into why it's unpopular.

>>anigbr+Si4
Because the finding is more accurately described like "Latinos[0] moved towards Trump". If that's related to the latinx thing, it might be something like "... in part because they generally resent having this 'latinx' thing pushed on them".

[0] Here in Canada, as far as I can tell "Hispanic" is the accepted term - but it's rare for people to identify that way generically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_origins_of_people_in_Ca...). People here far more often attribute their ethnicity to a specific country of origin rather than to some generic grouping.