The current progressive focus on race and gender is new, and new is always better.
Divide et impera.
This is the biggest win of the 1% in the recent decades. Turning people against each other so they can't eat the rich.
I'm pretty sure that maximizing user engagement (as social media does) leads to communities with easily defined and large borders. The border between rich and poor might be easily defined, but it isn't so large as to have a constant flow of anecdotes. The borders between races or genders are much more "daily life."
And -- ultimately -- I don't think the rich are that different of humans either. I see the issue as system level, some flaw in design which makes inequalities and differences grow rather than taper out.
I have absolutely no reason to care about this issue. I'll bet 99% of the people reading the article have absolutely no reason to care. I don't care if I see Latin(o|a|x) on a form, if I was creating a form and someone asked me to include Latinx I'd say 'sure, why not'. This is an artificial culture war created by a click happy media.
but the article says
>while 40 percent [of Hispanics] found it offensive.
> Does the use of the term LatinX to describe the Hispanic or Latina(o) community bother or offend you?
I'd say there's a difference between "bother or offend" and "found offensive". Breaking it down further
> 20% "Yes, a lot" > 11%, "Yes, somewhat" > 9%, "Yes a little"
20% 'a little or somewhat bothered' is a lot different than 20% offended
If we trust Wikipedia that Latinos are 18% of the US population and 20% of that population is "a lot" offended by Latinx, we get down to 3%. I'll grant that I was incorrect in my 99% assumption, but 97% isn't much better.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017d-81be-dee4-a5ff-efbe7...
This to me smacks of elitism and making the intention more important than the effect.
I don't really see us doing both though. We keep yelling about identity politics and one side keeps evolving to the point where 50% of the people are basically on the same page about an ever increasing list of concerns around minorities, while the other side is ever more entrenched in opposition -- meanwhile the social policies that 80% of the people would agree upon (like if you poll about universal healthcare by describing it instead of naming it) are simply not happening.
This is unlikely to be an accident since the corporations who have bought most of the politicians in the country don't mind more minority CEOs but they're very threatened by economic policies that would be overwhelmingly popular if an imaginary labor-oriented political party were able to punch through the corporate propaganda.
My feeling here is that these issues are not as pressing to progressives as conservatives think they are. Not surprisingly on this site, I only see these topics brought up from the conservative "anti-woke" perspective.
OP's submission history shows a pretty clear theme with these type of articles. I think an occasional discussion is fine but some users here insist on carrying out some sort of culture war here.
From the guidelines:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon."
"Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity."
If you don’t see why the topic is interesting and is a new angle on a new (“latinx” is quite new) phenomenon, there is little effort required to simply move on.
In the past 10 days I’ve submitted links about mathematics, computer science, the Defense Dept, physics, and libraries. But this is the one you decided to drop in on and complain about.