> I see it as unintentional discrimination. It's treating the people they are relabeling as children that need the kind progressives to step in and save them. It's so condescending.
The dynamic is entirely consistent with them thinking about themselves as shepherding sheep. It's why they don't really care that nobody likes "Latinx." Who care what the sheep want to call themselves? It's also why they don't care whether the people they platform as icons of minority groups (Ilhan Omar, etc.) are representative of those groups or not. It's not coalition politics with give-and-take and compromise. It's a parent/child relationship.
Isn't it enough just to point out that Hispanic/Latino people reject "Latinx", rather than continuously trying to psychoanalyze the people (who are not exclusively white) who do choose to use it? At a minimum, you're now citing social science research to make your point, but you are yourself a vociferous critical of social science research.
You're making it hard to agree with you or to reach a shared understanding; like, I think "Latinx" as a universal term for Hispanic/Latino people is silly and mostly an elite discourse shibboleth, too, but the Extended Rayiner Cinematic Universe of paternal white behavior is not something I buy into.
"Latinx" is just an easy-to-analyze example of a wider phenomenon where elite whites intervene on behalf of minorities while being wholly indifferent to what those minorities actually want. "Defund the police," racial preferences for hiring and education, "micro-aggressions," and many others are examples.
I think the psychoanalysis is necessary to understand the phenomenon in a coherent way. Obviously I can't get in their heads. It's just a theory based on conversations where mentioning polling and statistics would be met with dead shark eyes in response.
Well, racial preferences for hiring and education was something you used to support. What were you thinking when you supported it? Does it line up with your diagnosis here?
Pretty much, yes. That was before I got kicked out of the house and become one of the objects of that elite concern. It was also before I confronted the prospect of my kids having to do some sort of diversity dance to pique the interest of some white admissions officer.
I don't understand the first part of this but I do understand the latter part about your kids. I'm a white dude who sent his kids to their flagship state school; they'd have been better off, just learning-wise, if they'd started at directional state, or even a community college. So consider that the elites might be doing you a favor. :)
> If your point is that this is noodly enough not to be interesting to anybody else: fair enough.
Not at all. Please carry on. It is a good discussion. I meant, I would enjoy hearing you guys debate this topic in person where you're not limited by text or latency.
What happened for you to get "kicked out of the house"? This is sometimes in the back of my mind. I'm usually just curious - but sometimes even asking a question is seen as an indication of wrong think.
You may be surprised at the spectrum of people who are a)admissions officers and b)support the current thing.
I think if minorities didn't want jobs as lawyers, they could simply not apply for the job. Getting hired at a big law firm isn't something done to people unwillingly.
I don't know how "unintentional" it is, but it sure is "discrimination" and "condescending." It's like how liberal whites dumb down their speech when talkign to black people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/30/white-liber....
The dynamic is entirely consistent with them thinking about themselves as shepherding sheep. It's why they don't really care that nobody likes "Latinx." Who care what the sheep want to call themselves? It's also why they don't care whether the people they platform as icons of minority groups (Ilhan Omar, etc.) are representative of those groups or not. It's not coalition politics with give-and-take and compromise. It's a parent/child relationship.