Hardly, though this seems a strawman since anyone who advocates for the X in Latinx would be unlikely to claim it solves the Flint water crisis.
> Or is it smoke and mirrors in the Big Tech goal of being perceived as noble ?
This feels like conflating. The X in Latinx is independant of the Tech industry, and was most definitely used long before any Tech HR department caught on.
Latinx came out of the intersectionality of minority rights and issues of gender. Latin languages are gendered but we want to address Latin-American issues without profiling a single gender, a la Latino or Latina.
As another tool in the toolbox to fix oppressive systems the X in Latinx is a fine thing and people have been empowered by it, but it in isolation is certainly going to fall short of addressing the myriad of issues within this domain and I doubt any advocates for change would claim otherwise.
I think business leaders will do anything to avoid dilluting their ownership, which will be an important effort toward real positive change, and if their tactic is to distract organizers with superficial changes then organizers will need to remain diligent.
Take what is offered and keep working until what is offered is what you need.
> This was not a rant.
Maybe, but your replies seem to point to a specific interpretation of your comment of villifying, or at least mocking, of people who see themselves represented in LGBTTQQIAAP and its advocacy ilk, and a plea that the only reasonable response is to reject the activism wholesale.
This is a malliciously uninformed take; which you seem to imply you already realize with your provocative self attack mocking 'ableism'.
If you have an issue with "Putting people in smaller and smaller box"es then you should start your rants by addressing religion or American voter policy.
Your take reads like in America's history black people were always able to vote and Civil Rights was really a rebranding of their rights because Black Americans collectively just wanted to now call it the 'Black Vote'.
Religions are predicated on in-group out-group dynamics, and the shared schizophrenic delusion of a, specifically old white male in the case of the dominant American religion Christianity, in the clouds telling them to hate homosexuals.
Your take ignores the fact that the oppressor is often the one compartmentalizing.
For example, the church refusing to marry same sex couples. So homosexual specific civil rights movements organize to force the hand of the chuch to begrudgingly allow them to marry.
But some people still want to tell trans people they are forbidden from using a bathroom. So now a T specific civil rights movement is needed from the previous compartment they were just lumped into of 'homosexual' because the L and Gs can use bathrooms without issue.
I agree the end goal should be one category: Entropic Debris. It encompasses all that is and will ever be.
I think compartmentalizing humanity as separate from the rocks we see in the night sky is unscientific, but I can recognise that such a take fails to address any of the frought and nuanced elements of contemporary human social interactions that need to be addressed with specificity.
Hardly, though this seems a strawman since anyone who advocates for the X in Latinx would be unlikely to claim it solves the Flint water crisis.
> Or is it smoke and mirrors in the Big Tech goal of being perceived as noble ?
This feels like conflating. The X in Latinx is independant of the Tech industry, and was most definitely used long before any Tech HR department caught on.
Latinx came out of the intersectionality of minority rights and issues of gender. Latin languages are gendered but we want to address Latin-American issues without profiling a single gender, a la Latino or Latina.
As another tool in the toolbox to fix oppressive systems the X in Latinx is a fine thing and people have been empowered by it, but it in isolation is certainly going to fall short of addressing the myriad of issues within this domain and I doubt any advocates for change would claim otherwise.
I think business leaders will do anything to avoid dilluting their ownership, which will be an important effort toward real positive change, and if their tactic is to distract organizers with superficial changes then organizers will need to remain diligent.
Take what is offered and keep working until what is offered is what you need.
> This was not a rant.
Maybe, but your replies seem to point to a specific interpretation of your comment of villifying, or at least mocking, of people who see themselves represented in LGBTTQQIAAP and its advocacy ilk, and a plea that the only reasonable response is to reject the activism wholesale.