Since "L*tinx" provides no electoral benefits why don't Democrats reject it outright?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Like it potentially alienates Latino voters and provides zero new voters. So what's the point? Why not just say it at all?

Dave Weigel said it best:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1330185173191757826

Who the hell honestly believes using this is a benefit?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This all comes back to left-wing activists being very good at punching above their weight class.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The problem is not gender-neutral language in and of itself, but the fact that the exact word that was invented for this is terrible for many reasons.  It’s like it was deliberately designed as a shibboleth to identify “allies” and alienate everyone else.

[GP270watch]

 Trump's Latino gains are not hard to figure out. He gave stimulus to people and the GOP platform talks about small business ownership and entrepreneurship more than Democrats.

 If you took the economic activity of Latinos in this country it would be a GDP bigger than France.

 The Democrats need to speak to this more, including it in their pitch of immigration reform and not just speak about immigration like it's the only thing Latinos care about.

[Cashew]

This all comes back to left-wing activists being very good at punching above their weight class.

On issues that don't upset powerful people.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Trump's Latino gains are not hard to figure out. He gave stimulus to people and the GOP platform talks about small business ownership and entrepreneurship more than Democrats.

 If you took the economic activity of Latinos in this country it would be a GDP bigger than France.

 The Democrats need to speak to this more, including it in their pitch of immigration reform and not just speak about immigration like it's the only thing Latino's care about.

I remember, when I was listening to a podcast, that someone was relating how when they said that talking about immigration more actually hurt among Latino voters, there were people who were in disbelief about that. This was all the way back in the 2008 presidential campaign, working within the Obama campaign.
Latino voters are more typical in their preferences than many would expect.
I agree completely.

[Red Velvet]

The main problem isn’t the expression itself, but the fact that this type of wokeness signaling is most people’s focus instead of talking about actual critical issues that affect people on a material way.

It just doesn’t work. People see right through it and there’s no “cancellation” that will change people’s perception that it’s more about positioning the liberal speaker as this superior high-moral figure than it actually is about inclusion. It’s gatekeep elitist strategy for the academic bubble to stay in privileged position that good education provided them with so that they could lecture working class minorities about their language not being good enough to their higher standards, etc.

Like, just talk to people like they were normal people. With no condescension. Most minorities are actually less woke than angry white liberals from big cities that went to an university and because of that feel entitled to shape and force everything, even stuff from outside their reality, according to their egos.

Average person feels more comfortable with being friends with someone who may be problematic but is relatable and charismatic than with someone who is constantly looking down on them and gives these nonstop lectures on how to be a good person as if they weren’t interested to explore anything in the world outside the bubble inside their asses.

Obama felt more like a real person in comparison to his opponents (even though that’s not saying much tbh). Trump was also more real than Hillary in 2016 (Biden speech issues actually made him look like approachable elderly man although people dismissed as a weakness, so it reduced the effect of this factor). Just talk like a real normal person instead of going for the scripts the wokesters wrote for you in order to “signal” to allies or whatever other crap.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This all comes back to left-wing activists being very good at punching above their weight class.

On issues that don't upset powerful people.

Really more when they're not actually targeting powerful people. Take their obsession with the Palestinian cause. They can't get more than 9 votes to defund Iron Dome despite causing a budget crisis, but they can browbeat a children's book author organization into firing a Black Jewish woman for condemning antisemitism.

[DrScholl]

Why get involved in an argument about it one way or another?

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Because it's the type of empty gesture that Democrats eat up and love.

[DaleCooper]

Why get involved in an argument about it one way or another.

Because it's such an obvious example of how out of touch the progressive left is with Hispanic Americans, and almost all minorities as a whole. The left's characterization of pretty much every minority group is either based off of a hilarious stereotype, or designed to be used as a pawn in some academic battle. "Latinx" is basically just an imperialist tool that lefty academics use to try and force their gender ideology into a foreign language against the wishes of people that actually speak it.

Again, the left is hilariously and offensively out of touch with real minorities in this country, that is, minorities who aren't tenured professors or media pundits. If you listen to some of these Democratic establishment types, you'd think Hispanic Americans are just starving people storming over the border looking for free handouts, that black Americans are anarchists looking to destroy entire cities until their abolish-the-police demands are met, that gay Americans are out to destroy the livelihood of every person who offends them, and that trans Americans are out to inject puberty blockers into every child who doesn't conform to rigid and antiquated gender norms. When Republicans characterize minorities like this, we rightly acknowledge them as bigots. Why are Democrats allowed to get away with it just because they think they're being helpful? I for one am completely sick of the paternalistic attitude the left has taken over the last few years, and I suspect that Democrats will continue to lose ground unless they drop this crap and start acknowledging minorities as real people with real concerns.

[Former President tack50]

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

[All Along The Watchtower]

For the same reason that people demand that you use their pronouns correctly and this is a major issue in American society that we must constantly talk about

[parochial boy]

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

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.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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

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.

[Horus]

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?

[DaleCooper]

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?

I can't see it without thinking "Bisexual Person of Color"

[Хahar 🤔]

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?

I would actually disagree with this; I saw it everywhere six months ago, but it seems that the euphemism treadmill has largely passed it by already. Something noteworthy about "BIPOC" is that nobody has ever known what it stands for, which seems like a bug but is probably a feature.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

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?

I would actually disagree with this; I saw it everywhere six months ago, but it seems that the euphemism treadmill has largely passed it by already. Something noteworthy about "BIPOC" is that nobody has ever known what it stands for, which seems like a bug but is probably a feature.

The other problem is that no one can agree what it means. It either means "Black and Indigenous People of Color", in which case it's a term explicitly created to exclude Asians for no other purpose, or it means "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color" in which case it's an utterly pointless redundancy.

[NerdyBohemian]

Because college educated white liberals would rather listen to whatever some Twitter activist in an echo chamber says than going down to Walmart and talking to someone stocking the shelves.

And on that note, if Latino people want a gender neutral term to refer to themselves as, that’s a conversation Latino people need to have amongst themselves and not forced onto them by bulwarks of mainstream liberals like the Democratic Party, NPR and colleges.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why not just say “Latin”?  English doesn’t have gender suffixes in most cases, so there’s really no reason to import the gendering of the word from Spanish in the first place.

[Pres Mike]

Most democratic politicians do not use this term. Why does it matter?

[VBM]

Like it potentially alienates Latino voters and provides zero new voters. So what's the point? Why not just say it at all?

Dave Weigel said it best:

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1330185173191757826

Who the hell honestly believes using this is a benefit?

Democrat politicians, and probably most politicians in general, are completely out of touch Booners / Gen X’ers that are incapable of thinking for themselves. They just do whatever their donors ask them to do, and they trust whatever political advice they are given by staffers and “strategists”.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

I can't see it without thinking "Bisexual Person of Color"

When my roommate had a dead-end job for a company owned by a conglomerate based in India, she used to refer to her "CEOOC". She was being sarcastic, thank God.

[omar04]

This recent trend of optimizing everything for the sake of more votes is dumb. If you don't agree with Latinx it should be because Spanish is a gendered language and the x is not even pronounceable, not because it's unpopular. Or really, any actual policy.