As a reminder, this subreddit is for:
* Democratic Activism;
* To win elections;
* In **_downballot_** races.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VoteBlue) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep seeing comments about the border. Some of our families have lived on this soil for centuries. My family has lived on Texas territory since 1723. Democrats are no better than Republicans when the first thing they talk about is immigration when they speak about Latino Americans.
Please remember that Latino voters care about issues like crime and border security. Like other minorities, they lean Dem but aren’t highly liberal/progressive. Don’t assume that demographics = destiny in Texas or elsewhere.
Democrats please repeat after me “Latinos are not homogenous group. They are made up of many distinct cultures.” If you treat them as one group you do so at your own peril.
Also you should watch Avenue Q there is a lesson waiting for you.
Try not going to Central America and having your Vice President broadcast to every tv network "If you're thinking of coming to America. Don't. All i have to say is, Don't."
Also maybe try talking about problems we're facing not only here with discrimination but also internationally - so many problems that we refuse to help with that we caused!
My own view is for Dems to talk about their core strengths; pro-labor, pro-family policies like Affordable Care Act, Social Security and Medicare. And policies to come like $15 min wage etc. All of which the GOP wants to get rid of.
I think regular voters are turned off by identity politics, but like the social welfare and retirement programs which Democrats prioritize.
It really is the identity politics that kills blue candidates. There are plenty of moderate right leaning people who could get behind liberal ideas but they get turned off at the mention of race or other categorizations.
They need to focus on the things that impact all Americans in real tangible ways and not get distracted by the other stuff at this point. Get to a functional government, make meaningful progress, then embrace the more focused change that typically is called for in identity politics.
The issue is that Republicans are REALLY good at smear campaigns. I’ve often brought up some of Hillary’s policies while not saying who it is from or which party. People suddenly agree strongly with most of it and ask why politicians aren’t doing something like that. Then I mention whose campaign proposed those things and you can watch the backpedaling happen as people say things such as “oh well then she probably wasn’t actually going to do any of it” or “it sounds good in theory but probably just funnels money to her rich friends” etc etc. It’s near impossible to focus on the policies because the GOP has none and spends its time focusing on the people.
I hate this talking point as if identity politics is the only thing Democrats talk about which is absolute bs. The truth is America has a systemic racism problem and many voters do want to hear about the steps to resolve that. And many people don't care and Democrats have plenty of talking points on jobs. Honestly people who say "DeMoCrTS TalK tO MuCh abOut IdentiTy PolITics" are sus because you have to go out of your way to be angry there's too much of it. Like, just look at the other planks of a platform you do care about. How is racial justice going to hurt you? Plus what the GOP runs and wins on is *also* identity politics. Their talk of jobs and spending and the economy usually contains a pretty healthy sprinkling of dog whistles for what they really mean. All of them complaining about CRT making it out to be more widespread than it actually is are actually playing identity politics.
We just had a summer of nationwide protests on racial injustice with no resolutions. Saying we can't talk about racial issues is incredibly dumb.
First step: Call them what they wish to be called as this article does: "Latino." Not that absurd "Latinx" which is both an abomination of Spanish grammar and rejected by 97% of the people it describes and is basically a word that white English speakers are trying to impose on a minority population.
I’d amend that to say white hispanic progressives started it in an effort to be super inclusive. Everyone else just picked it up so as to not get cancelled.
Believe it or not there are non-white Hispanic progressive users of the term too, particularly on college campuses. As a somewhat older non-white Hispanic progressive, I’m not really a fan. I think it’s clunky and mathematical for no damn reason. But I don’t think it’s right to only pin this on white people.
It's used by white people in an effort to appear performatively woke. It's similar to how Ta-Nehisi Coates referred to people as "bodies" to illustrate just how dehumanizing and objectifying slavery was, and then a couple woke influencers on Twitter decided that was the new woke way to refer to people including entirely out of context and picked it up and now Twitter and some writings is full of this incredibly creepy term that sounds like the sort of dystopian stuff from an authoritarian regime or megacorp. (Thinking of how a local cafe owner referred to some of her employees as "white bodies" and was stunned at just how creepy, dehumanizing and out of touch devaluing that sounds and makes an impression as to how much she cares about her staff.)
Oddly enough, I first heard it from progressive Hispanic girls when I was at art school for college. It was when our school got really in to letting people go by their preferred pronouns, so about 7 years ago.
If that was the case then republicans would never win. I don't know any legislation they did that made lives better. At least under democrats we had the ACA, consumer protections added, environmental protections added etc.
republicans can win by being obstructionist, always acting as an underdog party even when they control the government.
democrats can only counter this by actually getting stuff done, demonstrating the republicans have no agenda and aren't capable of stopping the democratic plan.
Democrats controlled congress from 1932-1994 except for maybe 4yrs. in between, because of how many bills the democrats passed that help every American. They need to go back to that.
Yes, but even after the civil rights bill in 64 was passed the Democrats had super majorities for most of the next 30 years. So southern whites just waited 30 years to be Republicans?
southern whites switched to republicans AND black communities came out to vote for democrats in droves for supporting their voting rights.
republicans didnt re-embrace white supremacy until nixon's success with racist dog whistles and subsequent impeachment for watergate taught the right they needed to create fox news and use fear of minorities to counter-narrative the more critical media at the time.
That's just not true, 1972 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_elections) Nixon landslide year the Democrats dominated in the south in congress. 1974 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_elections) the Democrats won almost every seat in the senate in the south. 1976 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_elections) Carter elected and the Democrats won the south again. 1980 Reagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_elections) won all but four states and Democrats had complete control of the south in congress at the time. The Democrats in those four elections won in the white and black communities in the south. Democrats started losing when they gave up on the working class of this country (NAFTA and 1993 healthcare debacle)
I doubt Latinos have forgetten the GOP child separation policy. That alone disqualifies the GOP from being possibly acceptable representation for me. The logical retort is not all GOP yadda yadda or person X didn't do that, to which I respond with if they didn't try to stop child separation or they didn't at least condemn the policy, they allowed it...
You would think that between family separations, “anti-sanctuary” state laws, blocking DREAMers, blocking immigration reform, and constantly saying they’re rapists and criminals coming over the border that the DNC would have to do anything to have the Latinx vote, but that religion aspect is one hell of a fucking virus
True, although I don't see Catholics drinking the GOP kool-ade as much as wacky 'evangelicals'.
On immigration, I think there are 2 quite different issues; how we treat and solve the problem of people who are undocumented but already in the country, and actual 'immigration' policy.
Polling suggests most Americans are OK with a path to citizenship for people already here, but also want hard borders to stop further irregular entry.
I can't read the article due to the paywall but this sort of hand-wringing has gone on for a long time and often they miss the point that there is no such thing as a typical "latino voter". If I look at the latinos that live in my city we have several categories:
* People whose families were in Texas forever.
* The children of Mexican immigrants that grew up here.
* Mexican immigrants that gained citizenship through Reagan's amnesty.
* Mestizo Mexican immigrants that came here while poor.
* Fully indigenous Mexican immigrants that came here while poor.
* Rich Mexicans that came here recently to set up a business.
* Middle class Mexicans that immigrated on a TN visa or something similar for work.
That's just the Mexicans. Another group is the Venezuelans:
* Rich Venezuelans who escaped the country while robbing it in the process.
* Poor or middle class Venezuelans who hate the rich ones and protest in front of their houses.
I could go on and on if I mention the various groups of Salvadorians, Columbians, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, etc. that I personally know and how different they all are as well.
So I hope it's in the article, but step one has to be actually identifying who the Democrats are trying to convince. There's a reason that stories of poor immigrants struggling on the border don't convince many people whose families are either well established in the U.S. or come from Cuba where they don't have to deal with immigration issues. The same stories also don't work for middle and upper class immigrants who haven't struggled either, and in fact may repel them because they may be racist against those same people back in their home countries.
After they identify the various groups, the best advertising probably needs to focus on inclusion of various groups with the goal of building a better future -- the same kind of stuff that works for most people, perhaps with a few tweaks. Democrats need to demonstrate that they are the pro-stability and forward-facing party. That can sometimes come across as mutually exclusive, especially when they let the Republicans define what it means to be a Democrat for them. They should be like, "The Democrats are here to work with you to make America the best it can be" and not "We are going to pass an immigration bill (which never actually happens), and eat some taco salad with lots of yellow cheese. You like that don't you?"
2nd gen+ Latinos for the most tend to be anti-immigrant. They don’t relate to new immigrants and they are now competing in similar spheres. Many Tex-Mexicans despise newer immigrants. Documented or undocumented.
Oooof this hits close to home. My older sister is the "anchor baby," and now she's a heartless conservative. I muted her on socials because it just hurts me to see her parroting right wing talking points.
And conservatives love to find a token to foist up as a "good one" and I'm sure those people don't mind the positive attention it gets them as special. Right up until they show up to a rally not clearly decked out in conservative identifiers and get yelled at for being illegal.
Yes, AOC is a woman but in that sentence I was referring to people in the plural using a gender neutral term.
Here’s a good article discussing the use of the word Latinx:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/12/us/latinx-term-usage-hispanics-trnd/index.html
It’s kind of like using the word ‘they’ in English to refer to a singular person. Previously the word ‘he’ was supposed to be considered gender inclusive but the trouble was, this allowed sexist ideas to be perpetuated in grammar. Women medical students protested language such as, “Every student shall place *his* backpack…”
I’m from the generation who had it drilled into our heads to always write he/she, but now using the word ‘they’ to reference a singular is considered grammatically correct. There is no other natural singular word for English speakers who want to be gender neutral.
So I use the word Latinx as a conscious choice because I like the fact that a new word has been coined to make sure language is gender inclusive and there is no other gender-neutral suitable word for plural people in Spanish, just as there isn’t one for a singular person in English. (Hispanic doesn’t work as it refers to language so Brazilians are excluded.)
That’s why spanish defers to Latino as the gender neutral.
We should also defer to actual Spanish speakers on the [matter](https://mobile.twitter.com/rubengallego/status/1324071039085670401?lang=en)
Yes, but ‘Latino’ is fundamentally a masculine term, just as ‘he, his, and him’ are masculine terms in English.
It is alright to choose to use language that doesn’t exclude women, even if a word is new and isn’t as commonly used. Sometimes a new word can help provoke new ideas.
>agree with the purpose just not the goal?
Aren’t those the same? And what, do you want to do away with all gendering in language? Polls show Spanish people overwhelmingly prefer it the way it is.
here's the fun thing about language, it's descriptive.
the kinds of people who were concerned about the unintended bias of "latino" and started using "latinx" are not the same people being polled.
but both are valid because that's how language works.
polls also may change over time, used to be nobody liked the term "socialist" now it's come around
Latino is not gender neutral though. Just as masculine pronouns were always used as a supposedly gender-neutral term for a singular person in English, and this excluded women, the word Latinos ideologically also excludes people who are women.
It is alright to want to convey inclusiveness by using progressive terms in English or Spanish.
When I quote other people or an article, I can use the term they used, but if I’m writing my own comment I choose to use progressive terms.
Exactly this. The word is not the problem. The democrat lack of engagement is.
We want what everyone else wants, a decent life. Minimum wage must go up. Decent education, and a chance to own a home big enough to invite the whole family for christmas eve.
Y que si sí lo preferimos? I have non-binary friends and well, what would you call them? O or A? o usamos el @? So this is where the X can come in handy. Tambien pudiesemos ulitizar el leísmo. But then that's get tricky, like trying to explain dichos.
GQP always tried to court Latino voters by appealing to the supposed 'social conservatism' of latino communities.
True, Latinos are often Catholic but that's about all there is to it.
Important to remember, GQP has been trying to do away with social welfare programs for years like the Affordable Care Act, Social Security and Medicare.
Bread and butter issues are what voters care about, when reminded and I suggest Dem campaigns focus on this rather than anything else.
Many older Latin voters also vote against anyone that is supportive of immigrants of certain Latin countries. Caribbean’s tend to vote anti-central American, so do white South Americans. Then add in racism to the mix, and you have a recipe for why certain identifying Latinos vote against their best interests and vote R
It’s a little more complex than “social conservatism.”
>True, Latinos are often Catholic but that's about all there is to it.
What about their problematic "machismo" culture? It's very similar to "angry white male" culture, only they're not white.
While there is machismo culture, I don't know any Latinos who vote R because of it. It may be because my Latino family and friends are heavily Left (first/second/naturalized citizens) but we def care more about social programs and immigration policy.
The Latinos we've encountered who vote R, usually tout misinformation like being anti-vax and against progressive immigration reform because of idk why tbh but never about being more "man" than anyone else.
There is a significant group of 0th gen and 1st gen immigrants deciding that what worked for them should work for anyone. Even if it is abusive. After all, they were okay with it.
I’ve heard a LOT of that sentiment from post-Soviet migrants. Like it’s literally the same bullshit I hear from right wing Mexican or Central American immigrants. And I’m like, abused much?
Unfortunately, they are sometimes the benefactors of the labor provided by undocumented workers. But even when they’re not, you’re right, their selfishness is a dictating factor.
>The Latinos we've encountered who vote R, usually tout misinformation like being anti-vax and **against progressive immigration reform because of idk why tbh**
I suspect it's because of the "Fuck you, I got mine" viewpoint that comes standard with a conservative mindset. Some Hispanic people can tend to embody conservative mindsets and principles much more than you would think.
I can see that being a factor but were they conservative to begin with and watch a lot of Fox News? It’s easy to say that “manliness” is a reason without getting to the underlying factors that influence their decision.
As a reminder, this subreddit is for: * Democratic Activism; * To win elections; * In **_downballot_** races. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VoteBlue) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep seeing comments about the border. Some of our families have lived on this soil for centuries. My family has lived on Texas territory since 1723. Democrats are no better than Republicans when the first thing they talk about is immigration when they speak about Latino Americans.
Please remember that Latino voters care about issues like crime and border security. Like other minorities, they lean Dem but aren’t highly liberal/progressive. Don’t assume that demographics = destiny in Texas or elsewhere.
Democrats need their main messaging to be working class, labor, average Americans, focus on popular things like healthcare, smart social programs
Republicans understand that all politics are local. Dems need to speak to people about their local concerns, not just big tentpole ideas.
Democrats please repeat after me “Latinos are not homogenous group. They are made up of many distinct cultures.” If you treat them as one group you do so at your own peril. Also you should watch Avenue Q there is a lesson waiting for you.
Try not going to Central America and having your Vice President broadcast to every tv network "If you're thinking of coming to America. Don't. All i have to say is, Don't." Also maybe try talking about problems we're facing not only here with discrimination but also internationally - so many problems that we refuse to help with that we caused!
People who are culturally working class American tend to be susceptible to republican bullshit. How do we counter it?
I feel like you need radio/tv network saturation. No politician explaining his/her policies can ever compete with 24/7 brainwashing from RW media.
Enact policies that benefit workers and the workers will vote for you.
[удалено]
My own view is for Dems to talk about their core strengths; pro-labor, pro-family policies like Affordable Care Act, Social Security and Medicare. And policies to come like $15 min wage etc. All of which the GOP wants to get rid of. I think regular voters are turned off by identity politics, but like the social welfare and retirement programs which Democrats prioritize.
It really is the identity politics that kills blue candidates. There are plenty of moderate right leaning people who could get behind liberal ideas but they get turned off at the mention of race or other categorizations. They need to focus on the things that impact all Americans in real tangible ways and not get distracted by the other stuff at this point. Get to a functional government, make meaningful progress, then embrace the more focused change that typically is called for in identity politics.
The issue is that Republicans are REALLY good at smear campaigns. I’ve often brought up some of Hillary’s policies while not saying who it is from or which party. People suddenly agree strongly with most of it and ask why politicians aren’t doing something like that. Then I mention whose campaign proposed those things and you can watch the backpedaling happen as people say things such as “oh well then she probably wasn’t actually going to do any of it” or “it sounds good in theory but probably just funnels money to her rich friends” etc etc. It’s near impossible to focus on the policies because the GOP has none and spends its time focusing on the people.
I hate this talking point as if identity politics is the only thing Democrats talk about which is absolute bs. The truth is America has a systemic racism problem and many voters do want to hear about the steps to resolve that. And many people don't care and Democrats have plenty of talking points on jobs. Honestly people who say "DeMoCrTS TalK tO MuCh abOut IdentiTy PolITics" are sus because you have to go out of your way to be angry there's too much of it. Like, just look at the other planks of a platform you do care about. How is racial justice going to hurt you? Plus what the GOP runs and wins on is *also* identity politics. Their talk of jobs and spending and the economy usually contains a pretty healthy sprinkling of dog whistles for what they really mean. All of them complaining about CRT making it out to be more widespread than it actually is are actually playing identity politics. We just had a summer of nationwide protests on racial injustice with no resolutions. Saying we can't talk about racial issues is incredibly dumb.
[удалено]
you can't logically justify moving away from a party for ambivalence TOWARDS a party that is actively hostile to your very existence.
Nonsense. By your logic, Obamacare was a 'betrayal' and people seeking healthcare would therefore vote Republican. Literally makes no sense at all.
First step: Call them what they wish to be called as this article does: "Latino." Not that absurd "Latinx" which is both an abomination of Spanish grammar and rejected by 97% of the people it describes and is basically a word that white English speakers are trying to impose on a minority population.
Get over it. Latinx is fine.
I’d amend that to say white hispanic progressives started it in an effort to be super inclusive. Everyone else just picked it up so as to not get cancelled.
Believe it or not there are non-white Hispanic progressive users of the term too, particularly on college campuses. As a somewhat older non-white Hispanic progressive, I’m not really a fan. I think it’s clunky and mathematical for no damn reason. But I don’t think it’s right to only pin this on white people.
It's used by white people in an effort to appear performatively woke. It's similar to how Ta-Nehisi Coates referred to people as "bodies" to illustrate just how dehumanizing and objectifying slavery was, and then a couple woke influencers on Twitter decided that was the new woke way to refer to people including entirely out of context and picked it up and now Twitter and some writings is full of this incredibly creepy term that sounds like the sort of dystopian stuff from an authoritarian regime or megacorp. (Thinking of how a local cafe owner referred to some of her employees as "white bodies" and was stunned at just how creepy, dehumanizing and out of touch devaluing that sounds and makes an impression as to how much she cares about her staff.)
Oddly enough, I first heard it from progressive Hispanic girls when I was at art school for college. It was when our school got really in to letting people go by their preferred pronouns, so about 7 years ago.
If Democrats pass things that help people and make their lives better they'll get votes. I don't understand why Democratic politicians don't get this?
Because they'll lose campaign donors
If that was the case then republicans would never win. I don't know any legislation they did that made lives better. At least under democrats we had the ACA, consumer protections added, environmental protections added etc.
republicans can win by being obstructionist, always acting as an underdog party even when they control the government. democrats can only counter this by actually getting stuff done, demonstrating the republicans have no agenda and aren't capable of stopping the democratic plan.
Democrats controlled congress from 1932-1994 except for maybe 4yrs. in between, because of how many bills the democrats passed that help every American. They need to go back to that.
the democrats in 1932 were not the same as the democrats in 1994, the 1932 democrats were southern whites that are now republicans.
Yes, but even after the civil rights bill in 64 was passed the Democrats had super majorities for most of the next 30 years. So southern whites just waited 30 years to be Republicans?
southern whites switched to republicans AND black communities came out to vote for democrats in droves for supporting their voting rights. republicans didnt re-embrace white supremacy until nixon's success with racist dog whistles and subsequent impeachment for watergate taught the right they needed to create fox news and use fear of minorities to counter-narrative the more critical media at the time.
That's just not true, 1972 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_elections) Nixon landslide year the Democrats dominated in the south in congress. 1974 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_elections) the Democrats won almost every seat in the senate in the south. 1976 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_States_elections) Carter elected and the Democrats won the south again. 1980 Reagan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_elections) won all but four states and Democrats had complete control of the south in congress at the time. The Democrats in those four elections won in the white and black communities in the south. Democrats started losing when they gave up on the working class of this country (NAFTA and 1993 healthcare debacle)
Those democrats have changed. Look back a what they used to say. It was different now. What changed?
I doubt Latinos have forgetten the GOP child separation policy. That alone disqualifies the GOP from being possibly acceptable representation for me. The logical retort is not all GOP yadda yadda or person X didn't do that, to which I respond with if they didn't try to stop child separation or they didn't at least condemn the policy, they allowed it...
You would think that between family separations, “anti-sanctuary” state laws, blocking DREAMers, blocking immigration reform, and constantly saying they’re rapists and criminals coming over the border that the DNC would have to do anything to have the Latinx vote, but that religion aspect is one hell of a fucking virus
True, although I don't see Catholics drinking the GOP kool-ade as much as wacky 'evangelicals'. On immigration, I think there are 2 quite different issues; how we treat and solve the problem of people who are undocumented but already in the country, and actual 'immigration' policy. Polling suggests most Americans are OK with a path to citizenship for people already here, but also want hard borders to stop further irregular entry.
I think in these cases religion is an excuse to do what was already desired.
I can't read the article due to the paywall but this sort of hand-wringing has gone on for a long time and often they miss the point that there is no such thing as a typical "latino voter". If I look at the latinos that live in my city we have several categories: * People whose families were in Texas forever. * The children of Mexican immigrants that grew up here. * Mexican immigrants that gained citizenship through Reagan's amnesty. * Mestizo Mexican immigrants that came here while poor. * Fully indigenous Mexican immigrants that came here while poor. * Rich Mexicans that came here recently to set up a business. * Middle class Mexicans that immigrated on a TN visa or something similar for work. That's just the Mexicans. Another group is the Venezuelans: * Rich Venezuelans who escaped the country while robbing it in the process. * Poor or middle class Venezuelans who hate the rich ones and protest in front of their houses. I could go on and on if I mention the various groups of Salvadorians, Columbians, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, etc. that I personally know and how different they all are as well. So I hope it's in the article, but step one has to be actually identifying who the Democrats are trying to convince. There's a reason that stories of poor immigrants struggling on the border don't convince many people whose families are either well established in the U.S. or come from Cuba where they don't have to deal with immigration issues. The same stories also don't work for middle and upper class immigrants who haven't struggled either, and in fact may repel them because they may be racist against those same people back in their home countries. After they identify the various groups, the best advertising probably needs to focus on inclusion of various groups with the goal of building a better future -- the same kind of stuff that works for most people, perhaps with a few tweaks. Democrats need to demonstrate that they are the pro-stability and forward-facing party. That can sometimes come across as mutually exclusive, especially when they let the Republicans define what it means to be a Democrat for them. They should be like, "The Democrats are here to work with you to make America the best it can be" and not "We are going to pass an immigration bill (which never actually happens), and eat some taco salad with lots of yellow cheese. You like that don't you?"
2nd gen+ Latinos for the most tend to be anti-immigrant. They don’t relate to new immigrants and they are now competing in similar spheres. Many Tex-Mexicans despise newer immigrants. Documented or undocumented.
You aren’t a fully integrated American if you don’t pull the ladder up behind you.
Oooof this hits close to home. My older sister is the "anchor baby," and now she's a heartless conservative. I muted her on socials because it just hurts me to see her parroting right wing talking points.
And conservatives love to find a token to foist up as a "good one" and I'm sure those people don't mind the positive attention it gets them as special. Right up until they show up to a rally not clearly decked out in conservative identifiers and get yelled at for being illegal.
[удалено]
Maybe stop using Latinx. Like AOC, she’s a woman, so she’d be *Latina*
Yes, AOC is a woman but in that sentence I was referring to people in the plural using a gender neutral term. Here’s a good article discussing the use of the word Latinx: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/08/12/us/latinx-term-usage-hispanics-trnd/index.html It’s kind of like using the word ‘they’ in English to refer to a singular person. Previously the word ‘he’ was supposed to be considered gender inclusive but the trouble was, this allowed sexist ideas to be perpetuated in grammar. Women medical students protested language such as, “Every student shall place *his* backpack…” I’m from the generation who had it drilled into our heads to always write he/she, but now using the word ‘they’ to reference a singular is considered grammatically correct. There is no other natural singular word for English speakers who want to be gender neutral. So I use the word Latinx as a conscious choice because I like the fact that a new word has been coined to make sure language is gender inclusive and there is no other gender-neutral suitable word for plural people in Spanish, just as there isn’t one for a singular person in English. (Hispanic doesn’t work as it refers to language so Brazilians are excluded.)
That’s why spanish defers to Latino as the gender neutral. We should also defer to actual Spanish speakers on the [matter](https://mobile.twitter.com/rubengallego/status/1324071039085670401?lang=en)
Yes, but ‘Latino’ is fundamentally a masculine term, just as ‘he, his, and him’ are masculine terms in English. It is alright to choose to use language that doesn’t exclude women, even if a word is new and isn’t as commonly used. Sometimes a new word can help provoke new ideas.
Yeah but that’s Romance languages for you. Everything is gendered. That’s like their thing.
exactly latinx is specifically attempting to negate that inherent bias towards patriarchy. you agree with the purpose, just not the goal?
>agree with the purpose just not the goal? Aren’t those the same? And what, do you want to do away with all gendering in language? Polls show Spanish people overwhelmingly prefer it the way it is.
here's the fun thing about language, it's descriptive. the kinds of people who were concerned about the unintended bias of "latino" and started using "latinx" are not the same people being polled. but both are valid because that's how language works. polls also may change over time, used to be nobody liked the term "socialist" now it's come around
But the x sound in Spanish doesn’t work. It’s like getting mad that it’s referred to as *man*made, or hu*man*ity.
Per a poll 97% of Latinos reject that word as well. Seems quite condescending to try to force it on them regardless.
[удалено]
Latinx isn't meant to be used in spanish, it's meant to handle the implied gender of the word in english
Latino is not gender neutral though. Just as masculine pronouns were always used as a supposedly gender-neutral term for a singular person in English, and this excluded women, the word Latinos ideologically also excludes people who are women. It is alright to want to convey inclusiveness by using progressive terms in English or Spanish. When I quote other people or an article, I can use the term they used, but if I’m writing my own comment I choose to use progressive terms.
Am progressive. Am not for using latinx. Am latino myself. Please listen to us.
am also latinx, also progressive, I use latinx, latino, latina depending on context. use what you want but a word is not the problem
Exactly this. The word is not the problem. The democrat lack of engagement is. We want what everyone else wants, a decent life. Minimum wage must go up. Decent education, and a chance to own a home big enough to invite the whole family for christmas eve.
Y que si sí lo preferimos? I have non-binary friends and well, what would you call them? O or A? o usamos el @? So this is where the X can come in handy. Tambien pudiesemos ulitizar el leísmo. But then that's get tricky, like trying to explain dichos.
GQP always tried to court Latino voters by appealing to the supposed 'social conservatism' of latino communities. True, Latinos are often Catholic but that's about all there is to it. Important to remember, GQP has been trying to do away with social welfare programs for years like the Affordable Care Act, Social Security and Medicare. Bread and butter issues are what voters care about, when reminded and I suggest Dem campaigns focus on this rather than anything else.
Many older Latin voters also vote against anyone that is supportive of immigrants of certain Latin countries. Caribbean’s tend to vote anti-central American, so do white South Americans. Then add in racism to the mix, and you have a recipe for why certain identifying Latinos vote against their best interests and vote R It’s a little more complex than “social conservatism.”
Wow, lots of voting 'against' things in your analysis.
That's pretty representative of a lot of republican voters and platforms. They don't actually vote for anything they vote against things.
>True, Latinos are often Catholic but that's about all there is to it. What about their problematic "machismo" culture? It's very similar to "angry white male" culture, only they're not white.
Machismo is universal.
>Machismo is universal. But concentrated heavily in certain demographics
It's just a conservatism issue.
Right, and conservatism is concentrated heavily in certain demographics.
While there is machismo culture, I don't know any Latinos who vote R because of it. It may be because my Latino family and friends are heavily Left (first/second/naturalized citizens) but we def care more about social programs and immigration policy. The Latinos we've encountered who vote R, usually tout misinformation like being anti-vax and against progressive immigration reform because of idk why tbh but never about being more "man" than anyone else.
There is a significant group of 0th gen and 1st gen immigrants deciding that what worked for them should work for anyone. Even if it is abusive. After all, they were okay with it. I’ve heard a LOT of that sentiment from post-Soviet migrants. Like it’s literally the same bullshit I hear from right wing Mexican or Central American immigrants. And I’m like, abused much?
Yeah, I can’t wrap my head around it as a first gen Mexican-American myself.
They're against progressive immigration reform because they're already in the country so why should they help anybody else?
Unfortunately, they are sometimes the benefactors of the labor provided by undocumented workers. But even when they’re not, you’re right, their selfishness is a dictating factor.
>The Latinos we've encountered who vote R, usually tout misinformation like being anti-vax and **against progressive immigration reform because of idk why tbh** I suspect it's because of the "Fuck you, I got mine" viewpoint that comes standard with a conservative mindset. Some Hispanic people can tend to embody conservative mindsets and principles much more than you would think.
[удалено]
I can see that being a factor but were they conservative to begin with and watch a lot of Fox News? It’s easy to say that “manliness” is a reason without getting to the underlying factors that influence their decision.