Dem Post Mortem

[pood]

What "gendered suffix problem" did Latinos want to be solved?

Implicit exclusion of trans and non-binary people from Latino spaces. I take it you never learned how to Google? Am I your Google?

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about any trans issues, and it's especially off putting for Latinos, who have a serious conservative streak. It's a losing cause in terms of getting and then maintaining a voter base.

The group is super vocal and sucks up a lot of air on the internet, which gives them an outsized voice. You wanna see attempted cancellation, see their psychotic and unrelenting attacks on JK Rowling. That's the epitome of the movement.

The Dems need to moderate their position on this issue e.g. we believe in equal rights for everyone, but not special rights. No more extra accommodations, no more taxpayer funded surgeries, and no more of this "There's no such thing as a man or a woman" bullshit.

If you wanna alter what you're born with, that's up to you, but not until you've reached the age of consent, and insurance companies should never be required to pay for that. It's a voluntary surgery.

I don’t think anyone is saying “there is no such thing as a man or a woman.” They are saying something perhaps subtly but crucially different, as can be seen from P.Z Myers’ rebuttal to Jerry Coyne.

If people want to get worked up and lathered up about trans’ rights, that’s their problem.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

To broaden the Dems appeal to Latinos the Democrats need to start trashing Latinos.

Nah. Maybe the Dems could start by actually doing their research and understanding their culture, needs and desires. Like perhaps looking at surveys showing they don't like being called Latinx. By an overwhelming margin. Yet PBS & NPR, etc continue to use that term.

how many Trump voters do you suppose spend a lot of time listening to PBS and NPR?

They don't have to listen to those stations in order for the word to get out into the public sphere.

They're tired of being relabeled every decade or so e.g from Chicano to Hispanic to Latino, and then Latinx. It's condescending in that tiny numbers of overly influential people in the liberal sphere are consistently attempting to recreate their identity for them.

Colonel
You really need to stop talking sense or you will be banned.

I know you're being sarcastic, but gee, I hope not.

"Don't call Trump supporters derogatory names! Anyway, the other side gets to do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it."

If you do what your opponents do are you any better than them? Are you not trying to be better than them?

We've tried being better than them. They still voted for the dipshit.

This whole "When they go low, we go high" notion died in 2016. IMO, the Trump party has gotten into the mud and is eating all the food from the trough. While dirty politics has always existed, discourse from conservatives is a scary but very real threat.

Being above it all is indeed being better than them, and ideal, but the bully needs to get punched in the mouth. IF we fail to do so, we're going to continually get our heads dunked in the toilet in the boys bathroom at the local high school.

Of course, this is all based on the idea that we'll continue to have free and fair elections. If we don't, which I believe is an all too real possibility, then none of this matters.

The fascists have taken power and for some reason we still need to play nice with them even now. It's ridiculous.

 

[thebeave]

To broaden the Dems appeal to Latinos the Democrats need to start trashing Latinos.

Nah. Maybe the Dems could start by actually doing their research and understanding their culture, needs and desires. Like perhaps looking at surveys showing they don't like being called Latinx. By an overwhelming margin. Yet PBS & NPR, etc continue to use that term.

how many Trump voters do you suppose spend a lot of time listening to PBS and NPR?

Very few I would imagine. What is your point?

My point is that if as you say PBS and NPR are using the term but people who voted for Trump don’t listen to PBS and NPR the. How were they bothered by PBS and NPR using the term? If it is other sources using the term that bothered them then how does PBS and NPR using the terms matter?

You were the one who brought up PBS and NPR so I’m trying to understand the relevance of your statement.

I live in a mixed area where my kids’ schools are at least 40% Hispanic and I never hear the term “latinx”. I’ve only heard it on this board and in niche political discussions. It seems weird to me at least that this would be a significant issue amongst Hispanic voters.

My point about PBS and NPR specifically was intended to show that even a media outlet that portends to be heavily focused on sensitivity to minority issues and being "super not racist" is using a term that Latinos themselves do not want. And PBS, NPR, etc either don't research enough themselves to see this and/or really don't care about the objections. Either way, it reflects badly on them.

With regard to your statement that its an obscure term and that its "weird" that it would be a significant issue to Hispanics doesn't hold up. I think you might have missed my earlier post in another thread. I'll link to it here:

My post about Latinx

Depending on where you live or your social media algorithms, you might have seen the term "Latinx" used to describe Hispanics and Latinos over the last few years, as a gender-neutral way to refer to people of Latin American descent or cultural identity in the United States. But new research suggests that not only do many of those exact people dislike it, the word itself may even be pushing them away from the Democratic Party.

"Latinx" entered the mainstream lexicon around 2016, gaining traction through its use by liberal celebrities, media and politicians. Democratic figures like Vice President Kamala Harris and President Joe Biden have used the term in public statements. During the 116th Congress, between 2019 and 2021, half of Democratic representatives used it on social media, while Republicans did not use it once.

"Latinos and Hispanics often dislike the term and, as a result, are more inclined to support the Republican Party or withdraw support for Democratic candidates," Roman said in an interview with Newsweek.

He said that part of the backlash stems from the perception that "Latinx" signals an association with progressive gender and LGBTQ+ issues, which may not resonate with the more socially conservative segments of the Latino community.

Such backlash against the term reflects a broader trend among Latino voters, long thought to be a reliably Democratic voting bloc.

 

[Politesse]

To broaden the Dems appeal to Latinos the Democrats need to start trashing Latinos.

Nah. Maybe the Dems could start by actually doing their research and understanding their culture, needs and desires. Like perhaps looking at surveys showing they don't like being called Latinx. By an overwhelming margin. Yet PBS & NPR, etc continue to use that term.

how many Trump voters do you suppose spend a lot of time listening to PBS and NPR?

They don't have to listen to those stations in order for the word to get out into the public sphere.

They're tired of being relabeled every decade or so e.g from Chicano to Hispanic to Latino, and then Latinx. It's condescending in that tiny numbers of overly influential people in the liberal sphere are consistently attempting to recreate their identity for them.

Colonel
You really need to stop talking sense or you will be banned.

I know you're being sarcastic, but gee, I hope not.

"Don't call Trump supporters derogatory names! Anyway, the other side gets to do whatever the fuck they want and get away with it."

If you do what your opponents do are you any better than them? Are you not trying to be better than them?

We've tried being better than them. They still voted for the dipshit.

This whole "When they go low, we go high" notion died in 2016. IMO, the Trump party has gotten into the mud and is eating all the food from the trough. While dirty politics has always existed, discourse from conservatives is a scary but very real threat.

Being above it all is indeed being better than them, and ideal, but the bully needs to get punched in the mouth. IF we fail to do so, we're going to continually get our heads dunked in the toilet in the boys bathroom at the local high school.

Of course, this is all based on the idea that we'll continue to have free and fair elections. If we don't, which I believe is an all too real possibility, then none of this matters.

The fascists have taken power and for some reason we still need to play nice with them even now. It's ridiculous.

Because it works... for them. That is, in fact a major tool in their arsenal. They know how easy it is to manipulate people who already agree with some of their aims, by offering them a justification for inaction or strictly meaningless action on points of disagreement.

 

[SLD]

What "gendered suffix problem" did Latinos want to be solved?

Implicit exclusion of trans and non-binary people from Latino spaces. I take it you never learned how to Google? Am I your Google?

Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans don't give a damn about any trans issues, and it's especially off putting for Latinos, who have a serious conservative streak. It's a losing cause in terms of getting and then maintaining a voter base.

The group is super vocal and sucks up a lot of air on the internet, which gives them an outsized voice. You wanna see attempted cancellation, see their psychotic and unrelenting attacks on JK Rowling. That's the epitome of the movement.

The Dems need to moderate their position on this issue e.g. we believe in equal rights for everyone, but not special rights. No more extra accommodations, no more taxpayer funded surgeries, and no more of this "There's no such thing as a man or a woman" bullshit.

If you wanna alter what you're born with, that's up to you, but not until you've reached the age of consent, and insurance companies should never be required to pay for that. It's a voluntary surgery.

In part I agree, but I fail to see where democrats pushed these policies. Jon Stewart had a great show last night debunking this whole point by pointing out that democrats tried to distance themselves from the trans rights movement. He played a bunch of Democrat ads to illustrate it. It didn’t work. You don’t win elections by trying to vie for the middle. You win by motivating the base to show up.

I think the better approach would be to simply say who gives a fuck? I’m trying to build a better future for all Americans, including LGBTQ. I want stronger worker rights. I want to tax the billionaires down a notch. I’m concerned about income inequality.

That is they should deflect, not repudiate policies. Same goes with the border and inflation. Constantly responding to their attacks does nothing but amplify their attacks. Harris was horrible at this. She didn’t have a message that she stuck to.

 

[Politesse]

I think the better approach would be to simply say who gives a fuck? I’m trying to build a better future for all Americans, including LGBTQ. I want stronger worker rights. I want to tax the billionaires down a notch. I’m concerned about income inequality.

In an age of populism, I feel like this would have ultimately played better than vague admiration of a status quo that most people don't in fact like. Or could have, in the hands of a more competent orator. Civil rights issues are never inherently popular as such, or there would be no need for civil rights movements. But there is, with a bit of authenticity and a lot of charisma, a way to sell the public on the idea of seeking common cause with their dissimilar neighbors. We did it time and time again to get where we are, and we'll need to do it again to avoid losing what ground we have gained.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

...and when he gave a blowjob to a microphone when there was a child in the background audience, they cheered him on....

Can any of you imagine if ANY OTHER Presidential candidate in the history of Presidential candidates running for office did this, what the backlash would be? Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Obama, Kerry, Bush 1, Bush 2, Gore, Bernie Sanders, even Ronald Reagan ... The Moral Outrage Brigade, the Party of Family Values, the Old-White-Men-Have-Dementia Crowd were all completely silent and worse, cheering...

The election result was not about VALUES or IDEOLOGY. It was about CHANGE and the ECONOMY. There was a perception that the economy was not recovering fast enough and people wanted swifter changes to get us there. Kamala Harris was seen as the status quo and just as much at fault for not improving things swiftly as Biden even though VP's have little power.

I'm not even sure if it was even mostly about that. A large part of it was about hurting the other side more.

 

[ZiprHead]

What "gendered suffix problem" did Latinos want to be solved?

Implicit exclusion of trans and non-binary people from Latino spaces. I take it you never learned how to Google? Am I your Google?

I think he's implying that Latinos, as a whole, did not want to solve that problem. And the "woke left" who pushed the solution may have solved it for a minuscule minority of Latinos but then pushed away enough of the majority of Latinos to get them to vote for Trump instead of Harris.

According to Google AI, it likely started in gay latin communities.

The term Latinx originated in the early 21st century as a gender-neutral alternative to the terms "Latino" and "Latina". The term's origins are somewhat unclear, but it likely emerged from queer Latinx online communities as a way to challenge gender binaries.

Some say the term may have been inspired by Latin American feminist protests in the 1970s, where protesters would X out words ending in "os" to reject the default masculine. Others say the "X" was first used in a Puerto Rican psychological periodical to challenge gender binaries in Spanish.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What "gendered suffix problem" did Latinos want to be solved?

Implicit exclusion of trans and non-binary people from Latino spaces. I take it you never learned how to Google? Am I your Google?

I think he's implying that Latinos, as a whole, did not want to solve that problem. And the "woke left" who pushed the solution may have solved it for a minuscule minority of Latinos but then pushed away enough of the majority of Latinos to get them to vote for Trump instead of Harris.

According to Google AI, it likely started in gay latin communities.

The term Latinx originated in the early 21st century as a gender-neutral alternative to the terms "Latino" and "Latina". The term's origins are somewhat unclear, but it likely emerged from queer Latinx online communities as a way to challenge gender binaries.

Some say the term may have been inspired by Latin American feminist protests in the 1970s, where protesters would X out words ending in "os" to reject the default masculine. Others say the "X" was first used in a Puerto Rican psychological periodical to challenge gender binaries in Spanish.

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why do you believe that Trump's view is representative of all conservatives?

What leads you to feel that the ads for a single specific candidate represent the views of all conservatives?

What mockery did Fox push that specified college educations? Why do you assume that infotainment has the beliefs of all conservatives nailed?

Why do you always argue using strawmen?

 

[TomC]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Based on what evidence? Is this just a hunch you have?

 

[TomC]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Based on what evidence? Is this just a hunch you have?

Okay, so the answer is No.
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Based on what evidence? Is this just a hunch you have?

Okay, so the answer is No.
Tom

Okay, so the answer is, you don't have evidence.

 

[TomC]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Based on what evidence? Is this just a hunch you have?

Okay, so the answer is No.
Tom

Okay, so the answer is, you don't have evidence.

To what?
Your assertions about right wingers?

My question was "Could you be more specific?"
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Based on what evidence? Is this just a hunch you have?

Okay, so the answer is No.
Tom

Okay, so the answer is, you don't have evidence.

To what?
Your assertions about right wingers?

My question was "Could you be more specific?"
Tom

You don't have evidence that the "Wokesters" are to blame for the term "LatinX".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah so right wingers failing to do any research whatsoever on their claims once again.

Could you be more specific?

It looks more like the Wokesters assuming that minority folks would be fine with the language tweaking, because the Wokesters don't think that Latinos opinions are as important as the Woke agenda.
Tom

Yes, young Hispanic advocacy wokesters. That is where the term, at least partially, came from.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Why do you believe that Trump's view is representative of all conservatives?

What leads you to feel that the ads for a single specific candidate represent the views of all conservatives?

What mockery did Fox push that specified college educations? Why do you assume that infotainment has the beliefs of all conservatives nailed?

Why do you always argue using strawmen?

It's how conservatives argue and why I have the majority of them on ignore. Always bad faith bullshit and they're not interested in actually coming to any understanding.

 

[Emily Lake]

Since conservatives hate Mexicans, trans people, and college education

What leads you to believe that conservatives hate mexicans, or hate trans people, or hare college education?

The things they say, the policies they support, the felons they vote for, the…

What things to conservatives say? Are they said by all conservatives, a majority of conservatives, or just a few?

What policies do conservatives support? Are those policies supported by all conservatives, most conservatives, or just a few?

It was mostly a joke.

I don’t want to end up in a rhetorical trap of “no true conservative” form or deciding what the threshold percentage of people thinking similarly on a given subject is required to consider them a group.

I get tired of "the world is about to end" rhetoric fueled by "it is known".

 

[Emily Lake]

The fascists have taken power and for some reason we still need to play nice with them even now. It's ridiculous.

Go ahead, don't play nice. See where it gets you.