***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

My issue is that is a term that was mainly used in academia.

In the academic setting, it makes sense to use because it clarifying. To regular people, it isn't, so you probably shouldn't use it

As I mentioned earlier, it is now firm policy at the Very Famous Financial Institution that I work for to refer to all people with Iberian ancestry as LatinX. So regardless of it’s original use, the context has shifted.

I ‘d also note that I have never been asked to use the term by the dozens of Latin-American academics than I know. I know the origin story that you know, only because I looked it up when this started hitting the mainstream.

100% of my exposure to the term is either from thought pieces debating it’s political significance or from corporate communique.

Gallego’s guessing at the intent of other people is dumb and unnecessarily combative. But he’s probably right that most of the community will react with an eye roll if they see it.

That said, osh kosh bosh ,no one I know really cares one way or another. When I have asked other Mexican Americans about it, they kind of shrug. It’s just not an issue outside of navel gazing press as far as I can see.

I think all of the conversations around LatinX are a waste of time and mental energy that could be spent on issues that actually matter to those groups. Do that, and mostly no one will care what you want to call them.

 

[RustyShackleford]

yes i think dumb to say in a debate for presidency of the united states of America,

a country with a pretty a sordid with race,



that you should decriminalize boarder crossings, and then force all the other candidates to take a position on your politically toxic sophies choice

yes, call me crazy, I think that is extremely dumb.

Oh so it is not is a campaign, just a clip from a debate.

Locking up kids in cages was unpopular

He didn't say you have to decriminalize border all crossings, he kinda said the opposite. He said repeal one law, Trump used to do something unpopular and unethical

He wanted to make it a civil offense, that would still lead to deportation and being barred from reentry. But no longer gives Republicans the legal framework to separate families. Which again was unpopular.

A clip from one debate, no matter the spin you put on it, doesn't make up the totality of his campaigning. Which he explained his immigration position.

But hey, if a clipped Youtube clip is enough for you to make a sweeping judgment that ignores observable reality. Who I'm I to argue

Get you Bill Maher on famb

 

[osh kosh bosh]

As I mentioned earlier, it is now firm policy at the Very Famous Financial Institution that I work for to refer to all people with Iberian ancestry as LatinX. So regardless of it’s original use, the context has shifted.

I ‘d also note that I have never been asked to use the term by the dozens of Latin-American academics than I know. I know the origin story that you know, only because I looked it up when this started hitting the mainstream.

100% of my exposure to the term is either from thought pieces debating it’s political significance or from corporate communique.

Gallego’s guessing at the intent of other people is dumb and unnecessarily combative. But he’s probably right that most of the community will react with an eye roll if they see it.

That said, osh kosh bosh ,no one I know really cares one way or another. When I have asked other Mexican Americans about it, they kind of shrug. It’s just not an issue outside of navel gazing press as far as I can see.

I think all of the conversations around LatinX are a waste of time and mental energy that could be spent on issues that actually matter to those groups. Do that, and mostly no one will care what you want to call them.

As I've said 50 different times, I don't think the specifics of the term are winning or losing elections.

Its a symptom of a disease in progressive politics.

education polerization making it harder for progressives to appeal working class non college educated people.

 

[RustyShackleford]

As I mentioned earlier, it is now firm policy at the Very Famous Financial Institution that I work for to refer to all people with Iberian ancestry as LatinX. So regardless of it’s original use, the context has shifted.

I ‘d also note that I have never been asked to use the term by the dozens of Latin-American academics than I know. I know the origin story that you know, only because I looked it up when this started hitting the mainstream.

100% of my exposure to the term is either from thought pieces debating it’s political significance or from corporate communique.

Gallego’s guessing at the intent of other people is dumb and unnecessarily combative. But he’s probably right that most of the community will react with an eye roll if they see it.

That said, osh kosh bosh ,no one I know really cares one way or another. When I have asked other Mexican Americans about it, they kind of shrug. It’s just not an issue outside of navel gazing press as far as I can see.

I think all of the conversations around LatinX are a waste of time and mental energy that could be spent on issues that actually matter to those groups. Do that, and mostly no one will care what you want to call them.

Is he also right to says this...
"It will not lose you an election but if your staff and consultants use Latinx in your mass communication it likely means they don’t understand the Latino community and is indicative of deeper problems."

Gallego was not just talking about the feelings of Hispanics about Latinx. His criticism of people using the word went beyond that.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

education polerization making it harder for progressives to appeal working class non college educated people.

Nah, people felt like their needs weren’t being addressed or even discussed 30 years ago. That continues to be the real issue.

I’d say the debate about the term is more alienating than the term itself.

 

[Based Jesus]

Latinx discourse is ridiculous

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Is he also right to says this...

Gallego’s guessing at the intent of other people is dumb and unnecessarily combative.

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Oh so it is not is a campaign, just a clip from a debate.

Locking up kids in cages was unpopular

and that's what made it so dumb, he took a winning issue for democrats and attached to something toxic.

and it might as well have been his whole campaign,
you don't challenge everyone on stage to make some pledge unless you want it to be a key differentiating aspect of your campaign.

He didn't say you have to decriminalize border all crossings, he kinda said the opposite. He said repeal one law, Trump used to do something unpopular and unethical

Ezra Klein said "you want to decriminalize boarder crossings"
he didn't go "oh nah nah nah just the opposite."

bunch of media outlets ran with the headline.
nobody pushed back. so if his actual policy was "just the opposite" he did a really really ****** job of getting his message out there.

and centering the differentiating aspects of your campaign around non voting non citizens is also dumb.
creating a class of climate refugees, extending protections to animals, if anything I forgot how really truly dumb it was.

 

[Mark Antony]

The ****?

 

[Based Jesus]

Why are we even revisiting this? In almost 2022 A.D.?

 

[dinyc3st]

 

[RustyShackleford]

and that's what made it so dumb, he took a winning issue for democrats and attached to something toxic.

and it might as well have been his whole campaign,
you don't challenge everyone on stage to make some pledge unless you want it to be a key differentiating aspect of your campaign.



Ezra Klein said "you want to decriminalize boarder crossings"
he didn't go "oh nah nah nah just the opposite."

bunch of media outlets ran with the headline.
nobody pushed back. so if his actual policy was "just the opposite" he did a really really ****ty job of getting his message out there.

and centering the differentiating aspects of your campaign around non voting non citizens is also dumb.
creating a class of climate refugees, extending protections to animals, if anything I forgot how really truly dumb it was.

-What toxic thing did he attach to it? That we can go everything we are doing now with deportation, barring people, and illegal activity with laws on the books, but let us remove the legal framework so this doesn't happen again?

-First off, read what I typed. I said "all" border crossings. And that was in reference to the clip you posted addressing Beto's objection to his Castro's immigration position.

Beto said they needed the section of the laws to deal with certain scenarios and Castro is saying that is not true, there are other laws on the books to address it.

It is weird you are only a stickler for what someone type when you need to respond to something

So you comeback is basically, is basically to change the context of my response.

-So this doesn't count as being part of his campaign too...


Pretty clear to me that he is saying he is gonna keep the border secure. Doesn't seem like he is suggesting allowing large flows of people in.

Hell, he even outlines that same long-term solution for undocumented immigration that your boy Pete did.

What is weird is that Castro's campaign only existed in media outlets you look at. Nowhere else.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I’d say the debate about the term is more alienating than the term itself.

I find this "who cares?" response from some progressives to be so hypocritical.

I just can't help but seen this as pure class-ism.


If there was a term that non college educated people used to refer to a minority group.
and that minority group, the majority did not like that term or found it actively insulting.

I find it really really hard to believe that the response would be "well it's not going to lose you an election so who cares"
"or the real problem is the debate around the term, not the term itself"


it just feels like pure elitism. like well
college educated people can address people in terms they don't like because we know better

but lets say some comedian address a group in a term they don't like, it's def con 5.

if anything youd think a politician merits more scrutiny.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think I've been pretty clear.

I said white educated progressives substituting the opinion of black or Latino academics
for the opinions of the broader group is racist / classist.

and Black or Latino academics should write whatever they want
i don't see how this is in conflict.

Gallego is criticizing Latinos using a word Latinos came up with. He does this by bringing up white progressives a vehicle to be uncharitable to other Latinos politicians

You go on this usual hot taking about educated progressives.

But neither you nor Gallego considers a reality that doesn't involve a Latino performing for white progressives.

So it is cool for a Latino academic to use it, it doesn't matter electorally for a Latino politician. Especially if that person was running in a district like Gallego's

But it is an issue because some white progressives happen to use the word too.

To me that is ******* stupid, you claim to be so against mind reading but it is fine for some to claim Latino politician using that word is to appease white people, and really doesn't know what it takes to help Latino communities.

well no I would say white people popularized it,
if the majority of Hispanic people don't know, don't like or are actively offended by a term.
but it reaches the main stream anyways

that only happens if white people start using it.

The word as supposedly been around for decades, got bumps in usage by Latinos.

Yes, white people in academic and activist spaces started using it. But still, that doesn't mean a Latino would use that word because of white people

Again, Gallego was criticizing the behavior of Latinos as well

no i didn't say that. I said I find the concept of "non binary" to be contradictory and kinda goofy.
people wanting to feel more comfortable I fully support, hence why i said ill call people whatever they want.

district is 64% Hispanic but yes, if he's in favour of ending the filibuster he should do/say whatever it takes to win.

This district has a 50 point Democratic partisan lean. It is so blue, no Republican ran against him in 2018

Winning Arizona still means winning a lot of independent swing white voters. They don't give a **** about it, Gallego even admits the word won't make a difference in an election

So they, as you admit, there is no principled stance against Latino capitulating to white people. You like it because you like people ****ting on progressives.

if calling Latino people Latinx helped you win elections, you should do it.

it just so happens calling people latinx doesn't seem to help you win anything
and many of them find it insulting.

so naturally it's pretty darkly funny that democrats keep doing it.

Which Democrats keep doing it?

It was barely done before, and there have been stories about the word nearly being wiped from operatives' vocabulary at meetings.

So I'm interested in hearing about which Dems are still doing it, so we can zero in on the people responsible

Just like the "defund the police" stuff, seems like the definition of what counts as a "democrat" gets expanded so the criticism seem more valid.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

-What toxic thing did he attach to it? That we can go everything we are doing now with deportation, barring people, and illegal activity with laws on the books, but let us remove the legal framework so this doesn't happen again?

-First off, read what I typed. I said "all" border crossings. And that was in reference to the clip you posted addressing Beto's objection to his Castro's immigration position.

Beto said they needed the section of the laws to deal with certain scenarios and Castro is saying that is not true, there are other laws on the books to address it.

decriminalizing boarder crossing.

If a politician says we are going to make possession of drugs from a felony to a civil violation,
most normal people non expert people will view that as decriminalizing drug possession.

and you can see in the aftermath of the debate media organizations call it that

What is weird is that Castro's campaign only existed in media outlets you look at. Nowhere else.

Call me crazy, but I think the democratic primary debate got a couple more eye balls than his backpedal interview with Chuck Todd.

Castro decided to use that as his big debate tactic, and Ezra Klein described it as a central differentiating factor in his campaign
and Castro doesn't push back at all.

you want to get in the weeds about the specifics of his policies, and im talking about the politics of it.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I find this "who cares?" response from some progressives to be so hypocritical.

I just can't help but seen this as pure class-ism.


If there was a term that non college educated people used to refer to a minority group.
and that minority group, the majority did not like that term or found it actively insulting.

I find it really really hard to believe that the response would be "well it's not going to lose you an election so who cares"
"or the real problem is the debate around the term, not the term itself"


it just feels like pure elitism. like well
college educated people can address people in terms they don't like because we know better

but lets say some comedian address a group in a term they don't like, it's def con 5.

if anything youd think a politician merits more scrutiny.

You are making **** up now

Gallego himself said it won't lose anyone an election

Progressive like Jamelle Bouie like I posted said that there are bigger issues at hand people have to grapple with.

Things that have a more tangible effect on people's lives and views than just a word many hardly hear anyway

No one is arguing for the continued usage of the word

I don't see how it is classist to argue that this debate about the word doesn't mean much, it is fine for people to stop using it.

The only evidence you have to label people classist is for them not to feel with conservation is not important because they have fine with the word not going away

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Gallego is criticizing Latinos using a word Latinos came up with. He does this by bringing up white progressives a vehicle to be uncharitable to other Latinos politicians

You go on this usual hot taking about educated progressives.

But neither you nor Gallego considers a reality that doesn't involve a Latino performing for white progressives.

So it is cool for a Latino academic to use it, it doesn't matter electorally for a Latino politician. Especially if that person was running in a district like Gallego's

But it is an issue because some white progressives happen to use the word too.

To me that is ****ing stupid, you claim to be so against mind reading but it is fine for some to claim Latino politician using that word is to appease white people, and really doesn't know what it takes to help Latino communities.

i am against mind reading,
that's why i said i personally can't say for sure why someone would use the term.

but it is not an unreasonable deduction.
if you are a politician you presumably spend a lot of time thinking about messaging
and you choose to use a word that you know a community does not identify with or does not like.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think your reason for using that word is not to appeal to that group.
and you have some other reason. that reason may be noble for all I know.

but I don't think it's wrong for Gallego who maybe has more intimate opinion on intra Hispanic cultural conflicts to come to more negative conclusion.

The word as supposedly been around for decades, got bumps in usage by Latinos.

Yes, white people in academic and activist spaces started using it. But still, that doesn't mean a Latino would use that word because of white people


Winning Arizona still means winning a lot of independent swing white voters. They don't give a **** about it, Gallego even admits the word won't make a difference in an election

So they, as you admit, there is no principled stance against Latino capitulating to white people. You like it because you like people ****ting on progressives.

I don't know what this means, I think the word is evidence of a progressive attitude I think is bad.
if that means im ****ting on progressives, fine I am.
i **** on them when they do bad things maybe im weird.

Which Democrats keep doing it?

It was barely done before, and there have been stories about the word nearly being wiped from operatives' vocabulary at meetings.

So I'm interested in hearing about which Dems are still doing it, so we can zero in on the people responsible

Just like the "defund the police" stuff, seems like the definition of what counts as a "democrat" gets expanded so the criticism seem more valid.

but seriosuly i do think democrats have gotten the message finally and have mostly stopped doing this.
but the few times i see it, i chuckle.

 

[RustyShackleford]

decriminalizing boarder crossing.

If a politician says we are going to make possession of drugs from a felony to a civil violation,
most normal people non expert people will view that as decriminalizing drug possession.

and you can see in the aftermath of the debate media organizations call it that

Call me crazy, but I think the democratic primary debate got a couple more eye balls than his backpedal interview with Chuck Todd.

Castro decided to use that as his big debate tactic, and Ezra Klein described it as a central differentiating factor in his campaign
and Castro doesn't push back at all.

you want to get in the weeds about the specifics of his policies, and im talking about the politics of it.

What backpedal, that was always his position. If you listen to him for years he has been saying that.

You want a Youtube clip where you start it at a specific point and strip the context of what was said to be the totality of his residential campaign

Sorry, not gonna concede to something that stupid

Going by the clip YOU posted, he clearly didn't do what you accused him of. And your defense to this is look at how the media covered it. That doesn't change what he actually did, and was talking about on stage with Beto.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You are making **** up now

Gallego himself said it won't lose anyone an election

Progressive like Jamelle Bouie like I posted said that there are bigger issues at hand people have to grapple with.

Things that have a more tangible effect on people's lives and views than just a word many hardly hear anyway

No one is arguing for the continued usage of the word

I don't see how it is classist to argue that this debate about the word doesn't mean much, it is fine for people to stop using it.

The only evidence you have to label people classist is for them not to feel with conservation is not important because they have fine with the word not going away

the argument is it won't win or lose election so who cares that some small minority of people take offense to it?
or there are bigger fish to fry so who cares that some minority of Latinos are offended?

I don't think those track traditionally progressive opinions on offensive speech.

and I don't think that if this was a term mostly used by lower class people would habve that same attitude.
but that just my opinion, i have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

What backpedal, that was always his position. If you listen to him for years he has been saying that.

You want a Youtube clip where you start it at a specific point and strip the context of what was said to be the totality of his residential campaign

Sorry, not gonna concede to something that stupid

Going by the clip YOU posted, he clearly didn't do what you accused him of. And your defense to this is look at how the media covered it. That doesn't change what he actually did, and was talking about on stage with Beto.

Ezra said to him that decriminalizing boarder crossing was a central part of his campaign.
if this assertion was incorrect you would think he'd push back in the interview.

seems like Julien Castro himself conceded it.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

I find this "who cares?" response from some progressives to be so hypocritical.

I just can't help but seen this as pure class-ism.

A lot of stramen in your post, so I won’t go point by point.

But I think I’ve been consistent and clear in this thread that my own personal attitude on the usage is not, “who cares?”

More broadly, I’m not dismissing the perspective of blue collar Latinos. I’m saying that in my experience, having talked to a bunch of blue collar Latinos, this doesn’t really register for them. So, you know, the opposite of dismissing them.

 

[Cashflow]

You can't reason with this

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]