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 08, 2024, 06:24:04 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 1291 times)
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,254
United States


« on: October 23, 2021, 05:35:05 PM »

I didn't indirectly do a big thread on Latinx with multiple explanations only for this issue to pop up again  Roll Eyes

It’s quite funny how much people on here flip out about inclusive language when you think about how rare it actually is in English. Imagine if someone actually showed them what it was like in French or Spanish or German where it actually has pretty widespread and regular use.

I would have considered it the other way around? It’s more due to fundamental linguistic differences than social/cultural conditions, I think, but American English has transitioned from, say, using fireman to firefighter in a way that Spanish has not done with bombero to bombere/bomberx, or using the singular they vs elle.
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 0.018 seconds with 12 queries.