Since "L*tinx" provides no electoral benefits why don't Democrats reject it outright? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2024, 02:37:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Since "L*tinx" provides no electoral benefits why don't Democrats reject it outright? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Since "L*tinx" provides no electoral benefits why don't Democrats reject it outright?  (Read 1305 times)
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,089
United States


« on: October 23, 2021, 05:39:06 PM »

BIPOC seems to be catching on and it's even worse. I can safely say I have never met a Black person who wanted to be referred to as a BIPOC. I have never met an Indigenous person who wanted to be referred to as a BIPOC. I don't know where these people are. Maybe tucked in the Oberlin sociology department or something?
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,089
United States


« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2021, 07:58:19 PM »

Hispanic and Latin American are already gender neutral words that everybody knows. Why don't people just use those instead of Latino/Latina/Latinx?

There is a crowd who seem to believe putting x in words makes them more inclusive. Latinx, wxman, folx etc. I think it's bizarre and have no clue as to why, perhaps it has to do with intersex or non binary people? But for folks it really makes no sense since the word is already gender neutral.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 12 queries.