[Quoting a screaming racist, but not something @RogueAI said or believes, but something he vehemently disagrees with]

"I don’t hate snakes because of their skin, they just don’t want to get bit and can’t determine if they’ve encountered a harmless one or dangerous one." — RogueAI

At least (and I mean at very very least), the racists are now wearing full Klan regalia so we know who they are, instead of pretending to have a reasoned nuanced view that they say just coincidentally appears racist.

Also, I'm a stickler for "bitten" as the past participle of to bite, so that annoyed me too.

Hanover, can you change that quote? It makes it look like I"M saying that!!!

Better?

Very! Thanks.

I suppose "Dilbert" is now bad for business. 'Bottom-line cancel culture' in full effect is on display. Predictable. Like 'suicide by mod' here on TPF. Apparently, saying the quiet part out loud in America is still considered "trashy" (à la MTG) by most of the CEO Class. Maybe this is "Dilbert's" way of kicking off a MAGA campaign for office?

Don't reckon this dipshit merits a discussion unless you can flesh out some generalized thesis that you think his comments illustrate.

Don't reckon this dipshit merits a discussion unless you can flesh out some generalized thesis that you think his comments illustrate. — Baden

His was the most popular comic strip in America at one time. It comes on the heels of a general increase in attempts by some Republicans to legitimatize intolerance such as making the rainbow flag illegal on public property and restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees.

It's all just fun and games till we need to start scapegoating and the door has already been open to attacking certain groups. I think the Republicans who put up with this stuff are naive.

Don't reckon this dipshit merits a discussion unless you can flesh out some generalized thesis that you think his comments illustrate. — Baden

It's not his comments that surprise me, it's the reaction to them.

Is the idea that people are more racist than you thought? Is there anything else to it than that? What are we supposed to be debating here?

That's on the way to developing something, yes. I'd like to see more of that in OPs of this sort.

I'd like to see more of that in OPs of this sort. — Baden

Would you really?

Well, yes, analysis, link from specific to general etc.

I don't even understand that poll question to begin with but it's nice to know it gave cover for a bunch of closet racists to reveal themselves. The censorship is interesting in that it's apparently ok to vote in racists and publish all their racist comments (because news) but not publish non-racist comics because we now know they're made by a racist.

And this sort of censorship probably feeds the "I'm not allowed to say what I think anymore because of evil neo-Marxists, therefore for consistency sake I'm going to prohibit critical race theory, flags and "LatinX"".

restricting the use of "LatinX" by government employees. — frank

Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same...

Why? Why on earth prohibit the use of words? Whatever happened to free speech?

Because that word has nonsense and disrespects Spanish grammar and lexicon.

So you want to prohibit bad grammar? Shall I go through your post history and delete every post where you've made a grammar mistake? Starting with the sentence I'm replying to? It makes perfect sense to me. I'm Latinx would denote that I have a latin-american heritage and do not (want to) identify as male or female. Perfectly understandable to me and I don't even live in the States.

I just do not understand why say Latino and Latina is so offensive...

Perfectly understandable to me and I don't even live in the States. — Benkei

Do you know that for the most Hispanic citizens LatinX word is offensive, right?

I agree with you about the ludicrousness of "LatinX", but the issue here is of actively preventing the use of a word, not mandating it. I think a word being silly isn't sufficient ground to prevent its use.

Latino or latina is not offensive. Who said that? If I don't identify as either latino or latina and I can come up with a word that better describes me, why should you force me to use something I don't think correctly describes me? What's offensive is that people are so uptight they need to regulate how other people use words. How exactly, in real terms, are you harmed by the use of that word? Being offended isn't harm. I'm offended by a lot of bad quality movies but I don't go around demanding they aren't shot or shown.

I understand and respect your views.

Yet, what I want to say is not related to civil rights, sexology, philosophy of mind, etc... and I respect the transsexuals citizens. If they want to switch their genders is not a topic which incumbent me.

What I try to defend is the lexicon and grammar. These "rules" are not based on oppresive behaviours. They just help us how to speak and write "correctly" in terms of serious affairs, for example when you write a book or Ph.D.

I only see the logic of the word LatinX when it is used by someone who doesn't consider himself a man or a woman. It is okay if they use it privately or for basic purposes. But changing every grammar rule for a brief percentage of the population would be reckless and crazy.

I only see the logic of the word LatinX when it is used by someone who doesn't consider himself a man or a woman. It is okay if they use it privately or for basic purposes. But changing every grammar rule for a brief percentage of the population would be reckless and crazy. — javi2541997

Yes. I agree. I was only making the point that they weren't actually changing grammar rules forcibly by using "LatinX", it was just silly. There was no need to ban it legally, just call it out for what it is, a daft bit of virtue signalling.

What I try to defend is the lexicon and grammar. These "rules" are not based on oppresive behaviours. They just help us how to speak and write "correctly" in terms of serious affairs, for example when you write a book or Ph.D. — javi2541997

Definitely. I love Spanish. It's much more logical than most other languages. You don't swallow half the letters that the French do. Don't have horrible grammar like the Germans and the Greeks, or a million exemptions like the Dutch and the English. I used to be decent at Spanish (I could make myself understood and carry on a conversation in a loud bar) but not having practised it for ten years and now I can barely speak it any more.

I think feminists have been arguing for gender neutral language or inclusive language for decades already and Spanish does have a few ugly examples. Like the different meanings of secretaria and secretario and how the plural follows the male form most of the time. Their solutions were to avoid them, so "la plantilla de la empresa" instead of "los trabajadores".

Any way, language is in flux. I think this issue about Latinx is really niche as a lot of discussion resolves around people arguing about it rarely if ever meet people in person who deal with this. I've lived in a student house with an exchange student who was clearly born female but still wanted to be referred to as "he". I just did it because it made him happy. My confusion (or anyone's aversion) really doesn't need to factor in a lot.

I think feminists have been arguing for gender neutral language or inclusive language for decades already and Spanish does have a few ugly examples... — Benkei

Another example which is pretty controversial in Spain: Juez (judge). Some feminists want to switch the lexicon to "Jueza". It is a terrible mistake because "Juez" is already a neutral word and refers to both women and men.

I've lived in a student house with an exchange student who was clearly born female but still wanted to be referred to as "he". I just did it because it made him happy. My confusion (or anyone's aversion) really doesn't need to factor in a lot. — Benkei

Yes, I agree with this. If they are happy when they are called as they wish to be, there are no problems. But I think this topic or debate was so badly taken by some politicians or some activists, or whatever, etc., because rather than use it in good faith, they just use those words with political aims.

Just for a basic rational sense, I would do the same... — javi2541997

I don't think you're demonstrating intolerance by that attitude, though. The American governor who has attacked the use of "Latinx" is specifically trying to normalize intolerance. It's not even a dog whistle. Everyone can hear it. I see this as a result of Trump's success.

Its sad. I find older people who have lived their lives in luxury tend to fear things that they do not understand and react with cowardice. As a white man I lived five years in inner city minority neighborhoods. Two apartments I've lived in I was the only white person. I also taught high school math for five years where my students were almost entirely black and hispanic.

Beyond minor cultural differences, there was no difference then with living in majority white neighborhoods. And for those who I know have an internal double take, I'll re-emphasize. There was none. Certain aspects of society play up the negative components of minority culture unfortunately, and I know what its like to be a white person from a white community first going into minority neighborhoods. I wanted to learn. I get having that initial fear and bias. Its normal. Its the same as any person who decides to venture outside of their culture. The problem is when people make judgements based on that bias and fear alone instead of trying to understand first.

If only 53% of white people polled believe it is ok to be black, would a black man be justified in saying that blacks people should stay away from whites? Or would we cancel him?

Racist polls invariably lead to racist reactions.

If that black person also brags about moving to a non-white neighborhood, implying some link between race and societal problems then... well personally I don't believe in cancellation no matter what people say (though private businesses and individuals are free to associate or disassociate with whomever for whatever reason) but that sure is racist by any technical definition.

Race-thinking is the problem to begin with. The poll, the question, the answer, Dilbert’s reaction, his cancellation, is all racist. Not only that but the question “Is it ok to be white?” is bloody weird.

Have to define what "racism" means here. I usually understand it as the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Obviously the Nazis were racist by that definition, and so is Adams based on his comments (and no I'm not trying to compare Hitler to the Dilbert guy in case you're wondering). Simply asking a question in a poll about race doesn't qualify as racist from my view.