What?

[marshwiggle]

1) who  gets to  decide what terms are to be used, even with the membership of a not necessarily monolithic 'in group, cf. 'Latinx'?

2) what would be the justification for berating or rebuking older folks who have not yet gotten with the program, esp those lacking the education, social circles connections, etc., to be aware of the new preferences?

That is about the most arrogant, ageist, classist view of differences of opinion.
(Maybe you meant it sarcastically; if so, it's right on.)

As though the younger generation is inherently "right".
The older people would probably say the younger ones need to grow up and then their opinions will change (which has a lot of historical support).

[mamselle]

Apples and kumquats.

The "younger generation" is not always, maybe not even not often, or usually, the ones who generate the "new ideas" you're complaining about.

In my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.

M.

[mahagonny]

In my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.

What a tired cliché that is. (my italics)

Believing American society is racist against blacks is bitterness. Progressives think it's an uplifting revelation, but then again, they are doing a kind of religious sacrament.

ETA:

So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.

Nice deflect. I was only making a statement about the statement I quoted. I disagree that it is true, and don't have any bone to pick regarding Shelby Steele. It is the statement I disagree with. I also happen to respect Sen. Scott.

You simply cannot engage honestly.

Shelby Steele and Sen. Scott do not like what you are doing, namely, focusing on racial victimhood identity as a way to improve life in the USA for black people. If that's not you, then good, but I'd be pretty surprised.

[jimbogumbo]

In my experience youth are often more resistant to change and less ideologically flexible than their more nimble grandsires--at least, less agile than the ones who keep up, think things through, and don't just turn into bitter, grumpy trolls yelling at the TV.

What a tired cliché that is. (my italics)

Believing American society is racist against blacks is bitterness. Progressives think it's an uplifting revelation, but then again, they are doing a kind of religious sacrament.

ETA:

So you're wondering if I heard Shelby Steele right or not? I wouldn't bother. He said something nice about Governor Tim Scott. So screw him.

Nice deflect. I was only making a statement about the statement I quoted. I disagree that it is true, and don't have any bone to pick regarding Shelby Steele. It is the statement I disagree with. I also happen to respect Sen. Scott.

You simply cannot engage honestly.

Shelby Steele and Sen. Scott do not like what you are doing, namely, focusing on racial victimhood identity as a way to improve life in the USA for black people. If that's not you, then good, but I'd be pretty surprised.

Well. Still not engaging honestly, I see.

First, using a cliche, you don't know me. Your surprise is misplaced. Second, I am confident you speak for neither Shelby Steele nor Sen. Scott.

FTR, I don't know you; might enjoy a drink with you. Your online persona here, however can KMA. It is a cesspool of word salad, garbage, and arguments that could be mistaken for those of a callow freshman with no sense of logic.

Hope we are clear.

Mods: do with me what you wish.

[kaysixteen]

I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic.  I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to.   These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley.  And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.

[mahagonny]

I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic.  I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to.   These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley.  And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.

I understood your comment as you intended it.

Well. Still not engaging honestly, I see.

I don't know what you want me to do.

I do not 'speak for Dr. Steele;' certainly not. I never studied with him. I think I understand his message and it speaks to me.
As I understand him, he believes that
1. In the aftermath of the civil rights movement white America, consumed with guilt, lost its moral confidence
2. Black America has suffered the effects of low expectations and a shrinking sense of agency as white America has tried to redeem itself by throwing government programs at the problem of economic inequality
3. While slavery and Jim Crow were horrible moral failings, America nevertheless had a well developed moral sense from the outset in many ways, unacknowledged today
4. Black America suffers especially from the weakening of the nuclear family
5. Whites today are reluctant to criticize any behavior of a black person even when it's errant, and this is not helping anyone.
6. A young black American today has opportunities for success.

FTR, I don't know you; might enjoy a drink with you. Your online persona here, however can KMA. It is a cesspool of word salad, garbage, and arguments that could be mistaken for those of a callow freshman with no sense of logic.

There's no word salad. Don't be silly.

Academic thinking around race today frightens me. I admit that.
ETA: Part of their situation is the tenure track itself is too white. Whatever else should be concerning, or not, the optics are bad. I don't know what they can do about it.

[marshwiggle]

I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic.  I meant what I said, and do not intend to condescend or denigrate the older, less educated/ socially connected/ urbane people I alluded to.   These people deserve to have respect shown them, and not rebuked or berated for failing to get with the latest faddest program eminating from the faculty lounges of Cambridge and Berkeley.  And if the denizens of the latter types of places do *not* show this respect, the backlash this will engender is just more fodder for Trump and his ilk, with these folks essentially saying 'bleep you, libtards'.

I believe Churchill said something like
"A man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and a man who is not a conservative at 40 has no head".

There are logical reasons that older people don't "get with the program", many of which reflect the lack of common sense and experience of the world that well-meaning idealistic young people exhibit.

[little bongo]

It's a line that's been attributed to a lot of people, kind of like "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[kaysixteen]

You are right, but the impetus for the language revisionism I am criticizing is not a young people/ older people phenomenon.  It is largely a result of differences in education, social class, and closed-bubble social circies.   And the tendency of folks to look down on those who differ from them in these areas.

[mahagonny]

The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term. I suspect the people who choose the new terms are all political left, which more and more Latinos are not. But why don't they like it? Ask them. Maybe they feel a lot like I do, namely, society will be pretty much OK as soon as we cease trying to improve it.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/many-latinos-say-latinx-offends-or-bothers-them-here-s-ncna1285916
Just imagine a language where every noun has a gender but people who have ovaries or testicles do not. Wait, you don't have to imagine it. It's here!

The COVID testing center at my school now refers to me as "Mx. [Mahagonny's last name]" which I think is a hoot. They didn't ask me. They just went ahead and did it.

ETA: After you've identified a large segment of the populace as 'deplorables' in a ceremonial way, you have no business expecting them to think you want them in your tent. It's simply an effort to suppress the culture of the unwashed at that point.
This is what the people who are into inclusion are doing.

[Parasaurolophus]

The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term.

And that's a good reason not to use it.

Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult. The compromises are mostly unsatisfying, and it's better to find one that's "natural" to the language in question (which "Latinx" is not). We shouldn't be surprised, of course, if early attempts meet with resistance--remember when we used "gay" as a derogatory term, as in "that's so gay"? We don't any more, but there was a lot of resistance to the shift at first, including from putative allies, because that use was deeply ingrained in the culture. But it isn't any more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who think it's still okay.

With respect to war bonnets, racist chants and the like, I'll just note that Indigenous communities have been unified and consistent in calling them out as offensive for decades now. Issues of cultural appropriation aren't always clear-cut, but this one is about as close as it gets.

[mahagonny]

Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult. The compromises are mostly unsatisfying, and it's better to find one that's "natural" to the language in question (which "Latinx" is not). We shouldn't be surprised, of course, if early attempts meet with resistance--remember when we used "gay" as a derogatory term, as in "that's so gay"? We don't any more, but there was a lot of resistance to the shift at first, including from putative allies, because that use was deeply ingrained in the culture. But it isn't any more, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people who think it's still okay.

Yet our campus is presenting a series of 'healing sessions' for people who don't feel included in the community because they are homosexual. One of my best friends is gay, and she won't be going. She's one of the strongest, most self assured people I know. She doesn't need it.
The healing sessions are more for the woke community to meet, band and celebrate their activism and superior sense of their moral selves than they are there to treat any actual hurt being suffered by faculty.

[marshwiggle]

The people in the group referred to as "Latinx" mostly don't like the term.

And that's a good reason not to use it.

Finding gender-neutral language in languages that are heavily gendered is very difficult.

And very arrogant for people not from the corresponding culture to try and impose on it for their own ideological reasons.

[mamselle]

There are interesting dialogues going on around French, for example.

Some efforts to create blended pronouns and ungendered definite/indefinite articles seem to be emerging from within parts of the francophone/francophil community.

   https://theconversation.com/no-need-to-iel-why-france-is-so-angry-about-a-gender-neutral-pronoun-173304

Iel, anyone?

;--}

M. 

[mahagonny]

Why doesn't the woke movement then simply work to cancel French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian et al then? It would seem, by their definition, English has the least oppression in it.
ETA: Or at least identify those languages as unacceptable.