danger/u/
This thread is permanently archived
Can someone explain to me "LatinX" and why is it wrong to just say Latin-Americans?

| ... title self explanatory


| because people are retarded


| Identity politics. More important than distinguishing between Latin-Americans and non-latin Americans is to distinguish between rich and poor people, no matter what cultural, sexual or whatever constructed identy. Never heard of LatinX btw.


| Identity politcis just shows who are the real pro segregation


| Yanks


| >>697564 indeed


| latino is usually used for "latin descent born in america", latin american means "from latin america (central america etc.)." minute differences but still there

the problem is latino is masculine (as opposed to latina), and latino/a is a mouthful. most spanish speakers i know prefer latine instead tho (instead of latinx), because you can actually pronounce it in spanish, lol. anyway, its just about using terminology accurately


| As a latinO, i think puting x wont solve anithing especialy because even if some words have masculine nouns by default there also words that have feminine nouns by default, puting an x will only crap on our lenguage because these words arent used to oppress anyone and we would be "solving" an inexistent issue by making our lenguage unecesearly complex


| Imagine wanting to change an intire lenguage and culture just to make it fit your identity politcis that promote segregation in the name of ending oppression


| should be latine if anything


| >>697618 at most this, it shouldnt even be a problem in the first place


| There are no solutions, only trade offs.

Personally I prefer o/a. At least you don't sound as dumb.

This comes from someone who has to deal every weekend with the far left enjoying their free speech, loudly, in from of their house.


| I don't think anyone really cares about LatinX, except those who yell loudly on social media about how much they do.


| >>697575
Ohh, first time I hear that other spanish speakers prefer latine instead, interesting.
And I would agree. I don't personally like the term (it just doesn't sound right to me to make them neutral in spanish) but I'm not against either... but is more fitting than "Latin-ex"


| >>697694
talking about what sounds right and not when they're not even "Latin" is...
weird...


| >>697726
Pfff, I never thought of that. I might use this if the topic comes up again.


| Moving past the replies dogwhistling about identity politics...

Spanish and other Romantic languages assign every noun a gender. 'La llave' means 'the key' but is assigned female with la. 'El libro' means 'the book' and is male with el.

It is grammatically correct to call a group of people (say, a group of 10 men and 1 woman) 'los personas'. So unless a group is entirely female, any group of people is considered grammatically male.


| >>2a4869 cont'd
This idea isn't really equal. I wouldn't consider it fair to call my classmates "my bros" just because the class has a single dude in it.

Latine/latinx is basically the English equivalent of 'folks' which is gender-neutral.

And to all those who think this is dumb or just appealing to radicals that have issues with semiotics, remember language belongs to the people who use it. Nobody used the word 'dude' until probably the 80s and now its everywhere.


| >>698369 the changes must come naturaly not enforced by some morality police on the internet


| I've seen a lot more people policing against "latinx" on the internet than I've seen actually even speaking for it, it seems to be spreading irl and because people hear it and think it's a good idea


| newspeak for big brother


| >>698367
You are not necessarily wrong but "Los personas" was a wrong example. "Personas" is actually a female noun so you would actually refer to it always as "las personas" because the gender of the article is derived from the noun in the sentence.
Now, "we" does translate to either "nosotros" if the group is composed of both m/f and "nosotras" if it's only composed of females.


| >>698402 cont'd
Now, I don't disagree with your statement because I always strive to speak in a more neutral way (IN spanish), but I've never had the need to utilize such progressive language to do so. My problem here is the use of words that don't seem fitting of the language in question.
LatinX for instance doesn't sound like something belonging of the Latin-american culture. If anything it sounds completely american (US based only) and that kind of goes against it, I think.


| >>698407 cont'd (last one)
And Latine is one I'm struggeling to use mostly because it just sounds wrong, but many are indeed vocalizing it. So if everyone agrees that it's more convenient, so be it. (But the whole "e" as a neutral convertor just sounds lacking of intention when there are a ton of ways already to be neutral without having to use a new term).


| >>698409 abd thats why creating a new noun is unnecessary, my language is portuguese but we have the same "problem", but it seems people dont realise that there already ways to be more "neutral" they just lack education on their own language ore are people from outside craping on a language that thwy dont even speak
It it realla was an issue people would have naturaly started speaking that way, not enforce it on the internet


| Trust me, only Latin Americans living outside of Latin America are with that shit of putting a fucking X. Here, at least in my country, they don't give a fuck, to busy trying to think of taxes to save us from drowning.


| LatinX is just Americans trying to push their social justice bullshit on the rest of the world.


| How about don't refer to the person's ethnicity, ever. On the rare day you have to, it's cheaper to apologise for your obvious lack of woke with ``I don't know what the correct word for it is.'' This also helps avoid subconscious bias because you're not even thinking about the ethnicity, but instead thinking about the traits that matter for the situation. Like if you're hiring someone, you can say something like ``I think candidate 35 may be overqualified.''


| Of course if your job requires thinking about ethnicity, then it might be cheaper to keep up with the new terms, but you'll probably learn them as they come up.


| >>698866
no, i don't think i will.


| latinx is a neolib white thing.
latina and latino fine


| fucking white people trying to corrupt our language and culture with their stupid idealist and neolib flawed ideals


| >>698995 also this but unironically


| yeah but some nouns like workers are trabajadores (m) and trabajadoras (f) so you can't do the woke-e trick here, you have to go full trabajadorxs. i've seen it in signs at protests


| >>698995 >>698996
don't confuse whites with pc libtards


| >>699962 that was a semi joke, because one thing that bothers me is that most pc libtards are just white people who genuenly belive that they are privileged, i e better than the others so they feel guilty and need to liberated the oppresed, wich is very fucked


| why not just call them "people" and if you like to distinguish them why not "workers" and "bourgeoisie"?

Total number of posts: 37, last modified on: Mon Jan 1 00:00:00 1600974080

This thread is permanently archived