I remember reading a short comic from a Boom! Studios artist claiming he heard "Latine" on a game show and came to the conclusion that because it used a vowel, it would fit better with the Spanish language than "Latinx." He also believed "Latinx" was invented by English speakers forcing their language conventions onto Spanish, but I also read claims that "Latinx" originated within Spanish-speaking communities and the incompatibility with conventional Spanish was intentional. I'm not from those communities and don't have any opinion on which is better.
What I'd like to know is what Yoshida Saki and her Cheetos have to do with all of this. Is there any connection besides her being bullied?
What I'd like to know is what Yoshida Saki and her Cheetos have to do with all of this. Is there any connection besides her being bullied?
Sounds like it's due to the real life Flamin' Hot Cheetos controversy (Saki's eating a bag of it in post #6750390) and Saki somehow being ragged on by fake SJWs in class for liking it, or for somehow associating herself with the Latino community because she likes it. (When she didn't even actually do or say anything, that is.) That Twitter 'X' actually would be pretty on the nose about that kind of thing.
Yes. If you take a look at the profanity wiki, it includes ethnic slurs, so it qualifies.
I'm pretty sure "latinx" isn't an ethnic slur. Fairly certain the wiki is referring to things actually used as slurs, not things satirically used in place of one.
I'm pretty sure "latinx" isn't an ethnic slur. Fairly certain the wiki is referring to things actually used as slurs, not things satirically used in place of one.
There's no satire in the fact "Latinx" is a slur though. It is widely used by white American academics as a hurtful term targeting Latinos, which, I would say, fits in the most basic definition for an ethnic slur.
I'm pretty sure "latinx" isn't an ethnic slur. Fairly certain the wiki is referring to things actually used as slurs, not things satirically used in place of one.
Even if it’s not usually an ethnic slur, it sure is being used as one here.
There's no satire in the fact "Latinx" is a slur though. It is widely used by white American academics as a hurtful term targeting Latinos, which, I would say, fits in the most basic definition for an ethnic slur.
There's no satire in the fact "Latinx" is a slur though. It is widely used by white American academics as a hurtful term targeting Latinos, which, I would say, fits in the most basic definition for an ethnic slur.
It was not intended as hurtful, and I have never seen it used with the intention of being hurtful. It may be hurtful somehow (which, if so, would be reason enough not to use it), but I've only ever seen it used out of well-meaning ignorance. Where the hell did you get that?
It was not intended as hurtful, and I have never seen it used with the intention of being hurtful. It may be hurtful somehow (which, if so, would be reason enough not to use it), but I've only ever seen it used out of well-meaning ignorance. Where the hell did you get that?
I agree in that the vast majority of instances start as well-meaning ignorance. However, when you try to let people know that the term is not okay, partly because it was invented by American whites suffering very extreme cases of white savior complex, trying to impose their new terms to brand an entire group, I would argue it stops being as well-meaning. I would know, being Mexican, having first-hand experience with this, no matter how basic an explanation you try to give, they are hellbent in that they are the only ones that know what's best, and completely discard whatever argument you might've provided.
I agree in that the vast majority of instances start as well-meaning ignorance. However, when you try to let people know that the term is not okay, partly because it was invented by American whites suffering very extreme cases of white savior complex, trying to impose their new terms to brand an entire group, I would argue it stops being as well-meaning. I would know, being Mexican, having first-hand experience with this, no matter how basic an explanation you try to give, they are hellbent in that they are the only ones that know what's best, and completely discard whatever argument you might've provided.
That doesn't make it a slur, that just makes them stupid. If they're not using it with the intent to demean or cause harm, then its not a slur. "Chink" and "Jap" are slurs because they were used by racist people as a pejorative when referring to Chinese or Japanese individuals, or just Asians in general because racists don't care to know the difference. Stupid white people on Twitter won't listen to anything anyone says, that doesn't make the stupid things they say slurs.
deebeedo_ohno said:
Even if it’s not usually an ethnic slur, it sure is being used as one here.
That's not how tags work. A bucket doesn't become a hat just because someone's wearing it on their head. Someone searching profanity is almost certainly looking for real-world established vulgarity, not random words being used in place of existing swears.
That doesn't make it a slur, that just makes them stupid. If they're not using it with the intent to demean or cause harm, then its not a slur. "Chink" and "Jap" are slurs because they were used by racist people as a pejorative when referring to Chinese or Japanese individuals, or just Asians in general because racists don't care to know the difference. Stupid white people on Twitter won't listen to anything anyone says, that doesn't make the stupid things they say slurs.
The problem with labeling words slurs or not-slurs is that practically any word can be made a slur. All it takes is for a single individual to inject it with vitriol, and for it then to catch on with other like-minded people. At one point "retard" meant "to slow down", "queer" meant "out of the ordinary", "bitch" was a female dog, and "woke" meant "aware".
NuclearHellBird said:
[...] that the term is not okay, partly because it was invented by American whites suffering very extreme cases of white savior complex, trying to impose their new terms to brand an entire group,
Exonyms are not automatically bad and endonyms are not automatically good. Is it a slur to call someone Japanese instead of にほんじん? Others using a term to define or categorize me (for good or ill) by itself does not impose anything on me. I am not obligated to use their term or to conform to its notion, nor are they obligated to change their usage at my request. It is only when the word informs behavior, such as devaluing my worth as a human being or denying my rights, that it starts matterring.
The problem with labeling words slurs or not-slurs is that practically any word can be made a slur. All it takes is for a single individual to inject it with vitriol, and for it then to catch on with other like-minded people. At one point "retard" meant "to slow down", "queer" meant "out of the ordinary", "bitch" was a female dog, and "woke" meant "aware".
Exonyms are not automatically bad and endonyms are not automatically good. Is it a slur to call someone Japanese instead of にほんじん? Others using a term to define or categorize me (for good or ill) by itself does not impose anything on me. I am not obligated to use their term or to conform to its notion, nor are they obligated to change their usage at my request. It is only when the word informs behavior, such as devaluing my worth as a human being or denying my rights, that it starts matterring.
You are certainly right in that people are not obligated to change the terms they use for themselves at anyone's request. I'd argue the issue here, and really the source of most of the confusion, is that there are actually two distinct usages of "Latinx" and other similar terms. On one hand, people can always choose to refer to themselves in whatever way they feel most comfortable with, which is of course always valid; and on the other hand, you've got people using terms, not for themselves, but to brand entire groups, even after said groups have repeatedly told them the term doesn't represent them and, in fact, that they consider the term offensive. For the latter case, I don't think anyone could claim well-meaning ignorance or even it being an honest mistake; rather, it's more likely that it's, once again, another instance of white savior complex at best, or, in the most likely case, people just flat out being willfully malicious.
All I understand from this discussion is that, according to someone from outside your group, getting hurt by a word specifically intended for your group and imposed on them by outsiders doesn't make it a slur because it's not intended to hurt. Despite the fact it's imposed on your group by people who aren't from your group. But it's totally not a slur. Seem like we have all forgotten the ol' saying that "hell is paved with good intentions", mmm?
Let's try this from another perspective. If I go into most public online spaces, and start posting the N-word, will I probably get banned? Yeah. If I start posting "Latinx", will I probably get banned? Most likely not. Because one carries a history of dehumanizing, pejorative use, while the other does not. Twitch banned "simp" because it's commonly used as an insult and twitch mods were tired of being called simps for letting female streamers do whatever while banning men and vtubers over the smallest infractions but that doesn't make it a slur.
People finding something offensive doesn't make something a slur. Anyone can be offended by anything. Unless a majority of people are using the word specifically with the intent of being insulting or demeaning, then it's not a slur, and I don't think it's fair to assume that it's most likely the case that people are. Just because you don't like that some people insist on using the term doesn't mean it's a slur or that their intention is to be hurtful.
Let's try this from another perspective. If I go into most public online spaces, and start posting the N-word, will I probably get banned? Yeah. If I start posting "Latinx", will I probably get banned? Most likely not. Because one carries a history of dehumanizing, pejorative use, while the other does not. Twitch banned "simp" because it's commonly used as an insult and twitch mods were tired of being called simps for letting female streamers do whatever while banning men and vtubers over the smallest infractions but that doesn't make it a slur.
People finding something offensive doesn't make something a slur. Anyone can be offended by anything. Unless a majority of people are using the word specifically with the intent of being insulting or demeaning, then it's not a slur, and I don't think it's fair to assume that it's most likely the case that people are. Just because you don't like that some people insist on using the term doesn't mean it's a slur or that their intention is to be hurtful.
In this case it's not just me, or just a handful of people, it's the entirety of Latin America, and Latinos in the USA, that find the term offensive. You can see it on X and other social media that Latinos repeatedly try to tell universities, companies, and even government entities, that are often supposed to be the ones that advocate for the former, that the term is offensive, and yet they don't care, at which point, as I mentioned above, it's most likely they are just being hurtful on purpose.
I've already been on this back and forth several times, however, and it always ends the same way. The topic comes with the guarantee of summoning at least one white savior that comes and discards everyone's arguments because they know best, by virtue, of course, of them being white/American. I also realize I had already addressed most these points above, so it's likely this discussion has already reached that point, and we'd just be going in circles should it continue.
In this case it's not just me, or just a handful of people, it's the entirety of Latin America, and Latinos in the USA, that find the term offensive. You can see it on X and other social media that Latinos repeatedly try to tell universities, companies, and even government entities, that are often supposed to be the ones that advocate for the former, that the term is offensive, and yet they don't care, at which point, as I mentioned above, it's most likely they are just being hurtful on purpose.
I've already been on this back and forth several times, however, and it always ends the same way. The topic comes with the guarantee of summoning at least one white savior that comes and discards everyone's arguments because they know best, by virtue, of course, of them being white/American. I also realize I had already addressed most these points above, so it's likely this discussion has already reached that point, and we'd just be going in circles should it continue.
Sorry, but that's just dishonest. Unless you can point to a poll with a very large sample size where every single Latin American individual unanimously agreed that "Latinx" is offensive, then you cannot say that the entirety of Latin America agrees that the term is offensive. A portion of the Latin American community definitely feels that way, but people on Twitter do not and have not ever spoken for the entirety of their community. I have seen more than a few people (claiming) to be Latin American who don't care or think people are overreacting. Do they speak for everyone? Of course not, which is my point. If you've got a reputable source with some numbers on this, I'd be genuinely interested in it.
But that's not even what I'm trying to debate here. There are definitely people who strongly dislike the term, whether they think it's offensive or just stupid. I also think the term is stupid. I'm not arguing against those points. I'm arguing about tagging. Is Latinx profanity? I say no. It's not profanity just because it offends people. Slurs are built on intent by the user. Being offensive doesn't make something a slur, being offended by something doesn't make it a slur. I argue that you, as a single individual, do not get to speak for all of society and decide that "Latinx" is profanity. You don't get to decide that every single person using it is doing so with the same intent as calling someone the N-word. That's presumptuous. At risk of looking pretentious, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." People are stupid, most companies are completely out of touch with their consumers. "Latinx" is not profanity, no one's going to be shocked when you say it, it's not going to be censored on television. Is it offensive? A percentage of people certainly think so. Does that make it a slur? No.
Obviously you didn't read the source story. You better stay that way.
Pffshaw, what can possibly-
Emergence (Henshin in Japanese), also known as Metamorphosis, is an infamous, controversial eromanga created by shindol, best known for its disturbing storyline and its notoriously tragic ending. It's often referred to by the number "177013" in reference to its assigned page number on the hentai database nhentai.net.
I'm pretty sure "latinx" isn't an ethnic slur. Fairly certain the wiki is referring to things actually used as slurs, not things satirically used in place of one.
The issue with the term is that it's an attempt to change the ENTIRE LANGUAGE SYSTEM, for the sake of appeasing a minority of hypersensitive foreigners (read: white Californian's) who have no real investment or attachment to the cultures the language belongs to. In that regard, "Latinx" is worse than a slur. It's cultural erasure.
Blindvigil is absolutely correct in saying that Latinx isn't a slur because the intent of the word hasn't been used to demean, belittle, or ridicule a ethnic race for simply existing however it's still offensive. The word Latinx is a word created by a group of well meaning but ultimately ignorant white people who didn't speak or understand the language it's supposed to represent making it offensive. What makes the ignorance of Latinx even more profound is that the LATAM community already had a gender neutral word in their language, Latine.
The word Latinx is a word created by a group of well meaning but ultimately ignorant white people who didn't speak or understand the language it's supposed to represent making it offensive. What makes the ignorance of Latinx even more profound is that the LATAM community already had a gender neutral word in their language, Latine.
Looking at the history of the term, it's not particularly known the exact origin but general agreement seems to be it originated from Spanish-speaking LGBTQ communities in North America, with some of the earliest known Academic writings using it coming from places like Puerto Rico and other places. It appears to have originated sometime in the 00's and gained traction within the US in the 10's. The general misconception that it originated from white English speakers due to how it's gibberish when spoken by Spanish speakers has lead to it's lack of traction. The flaw seems that it was primarily developed for use in a written form and not in a spoken form.
Can see mention of such origins in various writings, like this Teen Vogue article
Andrés Acosta, a nonbinary content educator of Puerto Rican and Honduran descent, identifies as Latine. “The most simple reason is that for my parents, it’s easier to say ‘Latine’ than ‘Latinx,’” they explain, adding that they “had a misconception, at first, that there was a linguistic imperialism behind ‘Latinx.’ When I Googled the history behind ‘Latinx,’ I thought it was a term coined in academic spaces in the United States. Later on, I found out there were actually lots of Latines — queer Latines — who came up with ‘Latinx.’ That changed my perspective a little, but I still prefer to identify as Latine.”
I find it ironic that the gender-neutral Spanish terms are being pushed by the same sort of folks that claim to "Decolonize" everything, while ironically trying to force their own foreign standards on the same population they're trying to "save".
Spanish "neutral" words with "e" vowel (a.k.a. inclusive language) are the most retarded thing this generation ever invented. The "o" plural male form has always included both genres (i.e. "meseros" includes waiters and waitresses while "meseras" only includes waitresses, "hermanos" includes brothers and sisters while "hermanas" excludes brothers). Teen magazines in the 90's used the "@" symbol to refer about both genres because it resembles an "a" (female form) fused with an "o" (male form). Instead of writting "hermanos y hermanas", "herman@s" was enough... and so singular words like "estimad@", "maestr@", "novi@", "veinteañer@", etcetera.
In any case this here doesn't seem to be intended as a slur even when it looks like one, but an imitation from this meme where every insult was "fixed" by nicer words.
EDIT: Also, if you can pronounce "jinx" you can pronounce "Latinx" too. Whoever invented the term and its possible interpretation (a mix from Latino and jinx) really didn't think about this too much... or maybe they did it on purpose.
Looking at the history of the term, it's not particularly known the exact origin but general agreement seems to be it originated from Spanish-speaking LGBTQ communities in North America, with some of the earliest known Academic writings using it coming from places like Puerto Rico and other places. It appears to have originated sometime in the 00's and gained traction within the US in the 10's. The general misconception that it originated from white English speakers due to how it's gibberish when spoken by Spanish speakers has lead to it's lack of traction. The flaw seems that it was primarily developed for use in a written form and not in a spoken form.
Can see mention of such origins in various writings, like this Teen Vogue article
Huh seems the truly ignorant one was me since I didn't realize Latinx had appeared earlier and created by LATAM lgbtq members no less. A wiki search probably would've enlightened me earlier but I was convinced that there was no way anyone who spoke fluently in that language would create such a word.
Looking at the history of the term, it's not particularly known the exact origin but general agreement seems to be it originated from Spanish-speaking LGBTQ communities in North America, with some of the earliest known Academic writings using it coming from places like Puerto Rico and other places. It appears to have originated sometime in the 00's and gained traction within the US in the 10's. The general misconception that it originated from white English speakers due to how it's gibberish when spoken by Spanish speakers has lead to it's lack of traction. The flaw seems that it was primarily developed for use in a written form and not in a spoken form.
Can see mention of such origins in various writings, like this Teen Vogue article
Ah yeah, I actually do remember reading about one of the proposed origins of the term being in Puerto Rico; however, Puerto Rico is still the U.S., and as such, we end up right back at the beginning, with it being a term created by Americans with, seemingly, very poor grasp of and regard for how the Spanish language works and is spoken.
As pointed out above, "Latine" is another alternative, which, even though it does still come with its rather large share of grammar issues, is at least pronounceable in Spanish speech, and was created by non-U.S., Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. Use of the term is still very grammatically incorrect of course, since Spanish is a heavily-gendered language, but at least it's not offensive.
The issue with the term is that it's an attempt to change the ENTIRE LANGUAGE SYSTEM, for the sake of appeasing a minority of hypersensitive foreigners (read: white Californian's) who have no real investment or attachment to the cultures the language belongs to. In that regard, "Latinx" is worse than a slur. It's cultural erasure.
brainwashed enwokenated 2nd gen latin americans also use it and it sounds really really dumb coming from them.
Ah yeah, I actually do remember reading about one of the proposed origins of the term being in Puerto Rico; however, Puerto Rico is still the U.S., and as such, we end up right back at the beginning, with it being a term created by Americans with, seemingly, very poor grasp of and regard for how the Spanish language works and is spoken.
Erm, no. Puerto Rico is only technically American. They're not a state, they're an autonomous territory, with their own government (they've tried to apply for statehood multiple times and been rejected). Further, Puerto Ricans are native Spanish speakers, and Spanish is the official language of the territory. Technically, English is also an official language and is taught, but only as a second language, and not all Puerto Ricans speak English.
Personally, as a native English speaker with only a small amount of education in Spanish, I'd prefer "latine", simply because it's easier to pronounce; but "latinx" was not created by English speakers, it was created by Spanish speakers, for reasons of their own.
I've seen both positive and negative responses to "latinx" from Hispanic Americans and Latin Americans, roughly equally. IME the majority of the negative responses have been from more conservative types, who object primarily on the grounds that it was created by and for LGBTQ people, and they prefer to use binary gendered language (and to exclude LGBTQ people in general).
Erm, no. Puerto Rico is only technically American. They're not a state, they're an autonomous territory, with their own government (they've tried to apply for statehood multiple times and been rejected). Further, Puerto Ricans are native Spanish speakers, and Spanish is the official language of the territory. Technically, English is also an official language and is taught, but only as a second language, and not all Puerto Ricans speak English.
Personally, as a native English speaker with only a small amount of education in Spanish, I'd prefer "latine", simply because it's easier to pronounce; but "latinx" was not created by English speakers, it was created by Spanish speakers, for reasons of their own.
I've seen both positive and negative responses to "latinx" from Hispanic Americans and Latin Americans, roughly equally. IME the majority of the negative responses have been from more conservative types, who object primarily on the grounds that it was created by and for LGBTQ people, and they prefer to use binary gendered language (and to exclude LGBTQ people in general).
Watch out, having an informed opinion isn't popular here.
It's an insult simply because it's tarnishing the best language in the world, which is Spanish. Terms like 'Latinx' or 'Latine' don't sit well with their anglicisms or inclusive nonsense. In Spanish, there's only masculine and feminine gender. English might be the most spoken language in this era, but it remains a Germanic language of barbarians
I will solve this problem. I am from Uruguay. That is, I am a Latin American. Spanish uses masculine form as the all-encompassing one. For us, saying "Niños" (Boys) also includes "Niñas" (Girls). However, using "Niñas" excludes the "Niños". So, Latinos is the correct way to refer to both men and women. It is the proper neutral in our bi-gendered language. Trying to change it is an insult to our culture, and yet another attempt from Western nations to control us. We are not yours, we are ourselves. Go shove your gender-neutral bullshit where the sun doesn't shine.
Sorry, but that's just dishonest. Unless you can point to a poll with a very large sample size where every single Latin American individual unanimously agreed that "Latinx" is offensive, then you cannot say that the entirety of Latin America agrees that the term is offensive. A portion of the Latin American community definitely feels that way, but people on Twitter do not and have not ever spoken for the entirety of their community. I have seen more than a few people (claiming) to be Latin American who don't care or think people are overreacting. Do they speak for everyone? Of course not, which is my point. If you've got a reputable source with some numbers on this, I'd be genuinely interested in it.
But that's not even what I'm trying to debate here. There are definitely people who strongly dislike the term, whether they think it's offensive or just stupid. I also think the term is stupid. I'm not arguing against those points. I'm arguing about tagging. Is Latinx profanity? I say no. It's not profanity just because it offends people. Slurs are built on intent by the user. Being offensive doesn't make something a slur, being offended by something doesn't make it a slur. I argue that you, as a single individual, do not get to speak for all of society and decide that "Latinx" is profanity. You don't get to decide that every single person using it is doing so with the same intent as calling someone the N-word. That's presumptuous. At risk of looking pretentious, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." People are stupid, most companies are completely out of touch with their consumers. "Latinx" is not profanity, no one's going to be shocked when you say it, it's not going to be censored on television. Is it offensive? A percentage of people certainly think so. Does that make it a slur? No.
It was not intended as hurtful, and I have never seen it used with the intention of being hurtful. It may be hurtful somehow (which, if so, would be reason enough not to use it), but I've only ever seen it used out of well-meaning ignorance. Where the hell did you get that?
It's not about the intention of being 'good'; it's about labeling us as something we are NOT, again, no no no no and a thousand times NO! Don't call me that; I don't want to be called that. I am not that
Sorry, but that's just dishonest. Unless you can point to a poll with a very large sample size where every single Latin American individual unanimously agreed that "Latinx" is offensive, then you cannot say that the entirety of Latin America agrees that the term is offensive. A portion of the Latin American community definitely feels that way, but people on Twitter do not and have not ever spoken for the entirety of their community. I have seen more than a few people (claiming) to be Latin American who don't care or think people are overreacting. Do they speak for everyone? Of course not, which is my point. If you've got a reputable source with some numbers on this, I'd be genuinely interested in it.
But that's not even what I'm trying to debate here. There are definitely people who strongly dislike the term, whether they think it's offensive or just stupid. I also think the term is stupid. I'm not arguing against those points. I'm arguing about tagging. Is Latinx profanity? I say no. It's not profanity just because it offends people. Slurs are built on intent by the user. Being offensive doesn't make something a slur, being offended by something doesn't make it a slur. I argue that you, as a single individual, do not get to speak for all of society and decide that "Latinx" is profanity. You don't get to decide that every single person using it is doing so with the same intent as calling someone the N-word. That's presumptuous. At risk of looking pretentious, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." People are stupid, most companies are completely out of touch with their consumers. "Latinx" is not profanity, no one's going to be shocked when you say it, it's not going to be censored on television. Is it offensive? A percentage of people certainly think so. Does that make it a slur? No.
Peruvian here yes fuck u and your latinex, put it on your ass as deep and far as you can
