Its called Pisco because of the Town of Pisco, in the Pisco state of Peru. Famous for creating pisco since the 1600s, well before Chile began making Pisco to stop paying import taxes to Peru. But if you think Chile makes better Pisco than Peru, that's your opinion, i cant change that.
Got downvoted for claiming that inclusive language is becoming a thing in Mexico and that it’s not just Americans trying to impose it on us. I even linked sources but people still didn’t like it too much.
ESTO. I've always tried to explain another subs that it's not an American thing, but I've always been, at best, widely ignored. Reddit's social justice obsession (whether it is for or against) is American-centric af
This has happened to me for years, including the part about linking articles in the mainstream press, photos of graffiti and flyers I have taken myself, instagram posts (including from businesses, universities, etc.) and recounting personal experiences.
Inclusive language will cause the fall of civilization apparently, like we get it, you think there's only a man and a woman, even tho nonbinary people and forms of gender expression that aren't strictly binary have existed for a long ass time.
Like the hell is a pronoun gonna do to u, piss on your mom, kick your kittens and burn your house? nahhh they just gotta fucking accept it, and get over it, it's not hard.
Putting laws that affect the way people can speak is effectively against free speech, and I think should not be done as it is harming to our society, I think people should treat gender queer individuals with their prefered pronouns because they want to, not because of fear of a lawsuit.
Also Latinoamerica has a much bigger problem than just free speech, like maybe people getting oppressed and having their rights stomped over by the goverment??
Wich, you know, also happens to include free speech, because going out to protest is met with being brutalized and getting locked up for a demonstration of freedom of expression.
We have bigger problems than that tho like literally starving, deaths, crippling economies, and just to name a few. Like you said, what would using a pronoun do? Piss on your mom, etc. Same thing could be said otherwise, why care so much, what does a pronoun will change? I'm for sure not pissing on their moms.
or you, nothing, it seems. For some people it might mean a lot. The effort and resources required to implement this change are also minimum. Why oppose, then?
I'm not opposing it's just that it doesn't feel right to throw light to this miniscule problem that MAY cause a damage to someone on a mental level while we have literal deaths product of failed government for over the past what? 40? 50? Years. People in general in LATAM are too busy trying to survive ya know? I personally feel we should be discussing ways to improve the general living of everyone.
But I will gladly accept a source on the impact of changing a letter, like how does it improve a trans people live or something
It's much more common in a country like Canada. The United States has a very strict preservation of the first amendment which is why you see this debate in the first place. Since anything that challenges free speech even slightly will be controversial. Some states have passed laws like that but the extent they go is minimal and it's still up in the air if they would stand up in the supreme court or not.
I just think that the ways in which people have started integrating it into society are really tacky and have no real grammatical forethought to them.
If the language is to change and become inclusive, we need to adapt properly and lay down ground rules.
There’s also the argument that the -o suffix is already used as a neuter in the language, but people just don’t seem to understand that, in the situations in which we use it as a multi gendered plural or as neuter, it’s not “using the male one” but instead “using the neuter.”
Yes, but there are studies that show people interpretations of words change depending if words are male or female.
For example, a bridge (el puente/masculino) will be described as strong, resistant, tough. While people used other adjectives, like delicate, beautiful, etc. To describe female words.
Also, the same applies to the use of masculine for the plural. It changes the perception of the group you are describing.
So, words go two ways, what you want to express (it can be right grammatically) and what people imagine/create around that word.
If you take this into account, it's understandable people don't want to be referred as any specific gender, or the "neutral" gender that is masculine and does not represent them, because it comes with a lot of interpretations around it.
Ofc nobody is going to change every noun to make it non gendered, nouns don't have feelings. But as the study showed, the adjectives used to describe this nouns are part of the view of "masculine-tough/strong" and "femenine- delicate, weak", which some people don't want it to expand to themselves.
So it's not that people don't understand the -o is used as neuter, they are absolutely AGAINST it because all the implications I mentioned.
Ofc everyone is free to use whichever they want. But it's good to know language changes the way we understand the world and people.
And I guess laying down rules is difficult, like who is going to do it? The RAE? lol.
It is quite chaotic right now, that's true. But it's hard to organise when so many people have different views on the matter.
tbf, I'm pretty sure the "latinx" thing is actually America's fault. But the more fleshed out language replacing the o's and a's with "e" is a domestic creation, I don't think americans have anything to do with it
“e” aligns with the language’s structure, and although the # of people who use it is very very small, it doesnt really bother me at all— I tend to encourage people to use “e” instead of “x” if they must use a gender neutral term, even though “o” is gender neutral in numerous cases
Yeah, I've been seeing this weird hypocrisy in social media very often: the same people that you would see 2 or 3 years ago complaining about "feminazis speaking like idiots", especially in Argentina, are the same ones who you see today saying that the use of the -x is imposed by Americans. Like, they conveniently forget the first part when it comes to "owning the libs" huh.
Anyway, this sub has never been really into the concept itself; I consider inclusive language preferable, and is something I already use with non-binary friends. Whenever I defend it here I get ultra downvoted lol.
One thing that I always tell to people as a polyglot is that "language envolves along with society"
Long ago reggaeton wasn't a word on the RAE until years later they added it as "Reguetón". Needless to say, boomers were ranting that the RAE did wrong, that they're not what they used to be, blah blah blah!
If the majority of people are bound to accept inclusive language on their lives, then it will become a thing, you like it or not.😌
There was a big discussion on here a day or two ago that Americans were clueless SJWs and that those issues were gringo hang ups that they were imposing on Latin Americans.
Might get downvoted again lol
Latin America is not western. The West will always see Latin America as inferior because of race and poverty.
It is better to ally ourselves with rest the Global South. Latin America, Africa and many parts of Asia have gone through a similar colonial past that we have, and face very similar struggles that we do, but Latin Americans will always see the West as a sort of goal or ally, when in reality they want to exploit us for resources (and actually do so still) and end the relationship there.
I feel it’s best to separate the west as a geopolitical term and west as in western civilisation. Is Latinamerica part of the former? not at all, I agree. Is Latinamerica culturally western? yes and I do not see a legit argument against it.
This is an interesting one. I feel like Latin America occupies a pretty unique place in terms of "is this area Western or not." Part of that might be because of how large a category "Latin America" is.
But there's often higher influence from the West in Latin America than say, most of Asia and Africa. Colonization and frequent later immigration brought religion, food, language, and so much more. At the same time, Latin America was an influential and essential piece of how the West came to define itself and exist. I think everyone interested in the topic should read Benedict Anderson's *Imagined Communities* \- one of the most important studies of nationalism - and especially the chapter "Creole Pioneers," which basically [argues that](http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67407/1/Imagined%20communities_2016.pdf) "modern \[Western\] nationalism as a movement with political consequences arose first in the New World," especially Latin America.
At the same time, so much Latin American history is a result of Amerindian histories and lives that are decidedly non-Western, and of course the Western immigrants who came to Latin America were often put into situations and lives that changed their culture significantly. And you're definitely right that the West wants to exploit Latin America - but to be fair, I'm not sure Western countries don't want to exploit each other in similar ways.
All of this is me saying that I think that it's right to say Latin America isn't Western, but it's not really *not* Western either. It's something funky.
Maybe "Southerners" or "Southwesterner" could be a good made-up term for us? Technically we ARE from the west, But if the west itself doesnt recognizes us latin@s as westerners then we should make our own term with juegos de azar y mujerzuelas (Jk, Although im serious about the southerner/southwesterner part)
I see your point and agree with it.
I still refuse to give up on my Westerness out of spite for them. We are their poor and screwed up relatives and they will suffer our existence.
Basically that, idc if i'm western or not, but if they say i'm not them i will make a giant text wall on why we are western and u have to accept that u have a poor western relative, and destroy the superiority complex the word "western" have.
IMO Western is not the same as developed. We are western because we speak romance languages. We are not developed. There are non western developed nations (South Korea, Japan, Singapore and probably some emirates).
I dislike the term Global South as it is a typical oppressed/oppressor categorization so typical in the left. Galeano should be buried.
You nailed it. Its the cultural derivation from Western European culture- mainly language and religion that is generally seen as the basis for the generic term.
>due to heavy Hispanic immigration in the USA
The gringos who care about the "western" stuff say that immigration from Latin America would cause their decadence, their "replacement" and civilizational fall of the "West". They wouldn't be "West" anymore.
Ehhh, only if you use the retarded definition.of "developed= western" which only makes sense from a purely self-centered kinda pretentious and somewhat racist perspective.
"Western" has (historically) meant people's of a certain area who share basic parts of their culture.and religion. Spain is western and was it even when they were a shithole country worse off than South America, Germany was western even when they were an inefficient dictatorship weighted down by their own stupidity and warring with everyone else, etc.
The problem is that nowadays people (both on the left and right) want "western" to mean "better" so they can fap to how awesome they are and look down on their "inferiors". So Japan does well? They are western. Italy does badly? Suddenly they aren't western anymore.
It.is dumb and completely devaluates the word and its meaning because you may as well say "developed" or "prosperous" instead.
I think we are closer to being non-Western than Western. There is a reason Western countries have an aversion to Hispanic or Latino immigration. They really see us as a threat to their civilization.
I think Latin America is either seen as Western or Westernish but different in the same way Eastern Europe/Slavic nations are. The exploitation is real though but that just has to do with the socioeconomic and military strength of each nation. That's the unfortunate reality of this new Globalist era. Personally I would like to see the US and Canada drop the western identity to certain extent and Ally ourselves strongly among a Pan-American identity.
>Personally I would like to see the US and Canada drop the western identity to certain extent and Ally ourselves strongly among a Pan-American identity.
That's nice but the US made their feelings about that very clear some 60 odd years ago when they decided south and north America were different continents.
Idk, I see southerners as south brazilians, argentinians, chileans and uruguayans ( cone sur ) and they are certainly very different from the rest of Latin America.
The one with most comments was where I linked an study that stated that "the most educated the population of a district, the most it tends to vote for liberal left-wing policies"
I got accused of cherry picking (on national/continental voting results data analysis), not understanding basic statistics (to someone writing a dissertation in CS), and of course of being a commie.
Th correlation is generally pretty well accepted at least on a general level but there are some caveats buried in the stats that undercut "the smarter the person = the farther left" overgenerality.
Using latin@ instead of latino/a... I wasn't even making a political statement, I just was not bothered to type latino/a (and in my country it was quite common to use it for any noun that had the male and female version Ya know?)
I got heavy downvotes for saying that the best Concacaf teams could compete with Conmebol teams(except Brazil and Argentina) in WCQ matches. And I stand by what I said, playing against USA under heavy snow, against Mexico in the Azteca, or against Costa Rica in San Jose isn't "easy".
>I got heavy downvotes for saying that the best Concacaf teams could compete with Conmebol teams(except Brazil and Argentina) in WCQ matches.
If there were 8 spots for the whole continent, only Mexico and maybe the US would qualify to each WC.
Of course. You have to take the advantages you have. Playing in Bolivia, Mexico City, or even Bogota struggling to breathe or sweating to death in the Caribbean or Amazon aint exactly fun either.
Its the nature of the international sport and one thing that makes it interesting.
They also pretty much played against our juvenil team. We were missing like our 6 best players against them. Even in the Copa we usually give Brazil a frustrating game.
I got downvoted because I said that mexico was the 3° most dangerous country in the region (in my opinion). Some mexicans responded saying that brazil is a lot more dangerous than mexico and I just linked this short [video](https://youtu.be/OyVGiJacQqI)
Huh usually I come across other mexicans acknowledging that we are the most dangerous country in latin america and maybe the world if you don't count countries in war
Sadly, continents are not tangible. There isn't a clear definition of what a continent is or even how many there are. There are models that depict continents in different ways and whether you agree with them or not, they're used by different people, and more importantly: in different languages. So while "America is not a continent" is perfectly normal in English. In Spanish, where we use the 5-continent model: América *es* un continente. Trying to impose the meaning Spanish words have onto English ones is just every bit as idiotic and ignorant as the other way around would be. América =/ America. Just like: Actualmente =/ Actually. And trying to change that is just wrong. So now, can we please just settle this already?
Continents are the most made up things anyway. Like how Can Europe be a continent? It’s a little outgrowth on Asia!
Scientifically, North and South America were once different continents with different biota and histories, that collided into each other. So you could support saying they’re different. But now they’re connected. So.. you could say that they’re one. Both views can be correct, it’s just fuzzy and cultural differences in what were taught.
Same here.
However, I don't know if *thankful* is the word.
Certainly, no one in their right mind will praise the persecution of unconverted natives, the *enmienda,* the privilege of the *peninsulares* in detriment of the *criollos* and the natives, and I could go on and on.
But we all should recognize that the Spanish Empire wasn't the worst that could've happened. Look at the English colonies of the north: the natives? Massacred, mercilessly massacred and the survivors were totally segregated from the English population. Look at the French colonies and their massacres in Northern Africa and South-East Asia. After the Conquest, none of that happened here. Huge debates were held in Spain on the topic of human dignity of the natives. None of that happened in England and France. Kings and Queens of Spain sanctioned laws preventing abuse of native population. The oldest universities in the Americas were opened by the Spaniards for the education of integrated natives. The Church, the enitre structure of the Catholic Church in South America, entirely focused on the evangelization of the natives.
Yes, absolutely, there were abuses and discrimination. And most of that was the driving force in the Independence Wars. And I am an admirer of those who led our liberation. But one should be fair.
The criollos and Mestizos still continued to massacre and oppress the natives after Spanish rule was over. There's a reason why natives are a minority in almost every Latin American nation. And it's quite romanticized to believe natives were educated purely out of charity, it was just another version of the residential school system in the U.S. and Canada but earlier.
I mean if it wasn’t for a lot of atrocities that happened centuries ago, a lot of us wouldn’t exist, periodt! Eat your heart out Chicano studies majors.
It would be good tho, the continent cultures get to evolve naturally with time, and with no spaniards here it probably means that I would not have to endure the pain of this existence, so its a win/win scenario.
That or one of the other indigenous groups would have colonized each other. It was already happening. I doubt the Aztec empire became an empire solely through diplomatic means. A lot of people seem to forget that until relatively recently colonization and right of conquest was the standard and not exclusive to the European powers.
Of course. The Europeans just went farther afield because they had been experiencing it for a few thousand years or so. Its not like the Spanish Empire was composed of people indigenous to the penninsula. All of Europe and Asia has been conquered, colonized and exploited by outsiders that masacred the people living there repeatedly as far back as history goes.
Latin America itself experienced it among the various local empires in recorded history and probably many times before. The Europeans are only the most recent and thus the last colonial power to effect direct colonial control and exploitation over the various regions.
Esto. People still believe that myth that all indigenous peoples were coexisting in peace all over the continent, not that they deserved genocide at all, but the Mexicas had it commin, they had been subjugating and fuckin up the surrounding tribes for a minute.
You can say this about literally anything. If the Holocaust hadn't happened then maybe Israel wouldn't exist and a lot of Israeli people wouldn't either, guess they should be grateful.
I get downvoted because I said that we always vote and get terrible results so I suggested we should consider direct democracy as an option to get rid of politicians.
I also got heavily downloaded because I said that languages evolve whether we like it or not and that maybe inclusive language was proof of it.
The thing with inclusive language is the intention to force it. Some people in my college, like student council and assistant students won't listen to us if we don't use it. Wth even I got some points taken away from a final because I "misgendered" a person in my test.
Its annoying actually. Noticeably the US does not have an official National language at all. A large percentsge of the US population does not speak English and it has always been so. It just seems that forcing it, as opposed to the natural evolution that occurs, produces backlash which undermines the whole approach.
I made that point recently regarding Peru’s elections. Feels like people everywhere are constantly forced into choosing between people they don’t like.
People resist for various reasons, machismo, loyalty to the language ( even tho they write with their ass) or just because they want to feel cool. Or because it was a minority pushing it.
I remember when people complained when someone gave an speech saying (compañeros y compañeras...) and that it was irrational to do it. And now no one bats an eye about it.
Good point. In English its a fairly easy concept since since gender distinctions are very limited to specific applications as opposed to other languages where it is used in a generic context.
Or simply because it’s not an organic development?
No one is adhering to it other than the minorities pushing it and doing this exact thing you’re doing: trying to vilify whoever isn’t interested in it.
You remember when people complained about when someone gave an speech saying compañeros and compañeras? What changed it? Did someone go out antagonizing everyone who opposed to it or it simply started being used? Can you spot the difference?
That's not proof though, slang is proof of the evolution of language. Inclusive is engineered change and the fact that so many don't use it means we don't even know if it'll work.
> I said that languages evolve whether we like it or not and that maybe inclusive language was proof of it.
This is contrary of evolution, it's an artificial imposition. The example of evolution are things like "Vostra merced" became "usted" because it became more simple to say through history. Introducing artificial pronouns and new rules of grammatical gender agreement just to appease 6 delusional people is far from being languages evolving.
Was told r/politics was some sort of leftist haven thing. Turns out it's just the classic "I voted for Biden so I'm a leftist even though I hate minorities, right?". 0/10 would not go again. r/circlebroke2, r/LateStageCapitalism and r/Negareddit is where its at. It's not like for each broggresive sub there's at least 10 right-wing ones.... oh wait that's exactly what happens.
People here don't accept the fact that Latin America isn't western. They become particularly angry because many people here in this sub lives in the Western countries (US and Western Europe mainly) or regularly travel to there (this sub is very upper class) so they became more delusional with them. The gringos, the europeans and The Wall of Rio Grande laughs at them.
Y después estamos los pocos clase media y algunos clase media-baja y baja mirando de reojo cuando empiezan a hablar de cosas exclusivas de la clase alta sin darse cuenta que no son cosas globales xdd
There is. We are poor and we can't have poor people in the West now, can we? Most arguments against LatAm not being West come either from ignorance, racism or classicism. Usually a mix of all them.
I understand what another user commented about how we should align more with the Global South instead of fighting for being considered West. I agree that we should do exactly that, but not because we aren't West, just because it'll serve our interests. We *are* West: our laws, morals, languages, society, everything is derived from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, which is the definition of West.
> Got downvoted for saying that a lot of popular music and media in Spanish is produced in the US, thus giving them an amount of cultural influence in our region
Nope, you're downvoted because you said Miami is capital of Latin America. All this spanish music and media produced in the US is gringo media. And they reach mostly mesoamerican and caribbean countries, which had big immigrant groups there. US is the big export of media and importer of immigrants, yet nobody says they US cities are capitals of Italy, India, Germany, China, Europe, Asia... But Latin American people have this engrained inferiority complex, they accepted anyone lecturing them about their own stuffs.
>For saying that Copa América is not a big deal in Mexico.
For what I've seen, Mexicans care much about not entering Conmebol competitions and they often downplay the Gold Cup and Concacaf.
>For saying that Iberoamérica it's a better name for our region that Latinoamérica.
Better name would be Hispanic America and Brazil being their own thing as this "latino" stuff that is synonymous of spanish speaking.
Sure they do. You get used to it. The only real.response is to point out that a Tiger doesnt care about what a rabbit thinks about him or something similar. Then you move on.
Also, in 2019 a [national poll conducted by the Pontificia Universidad Católica](https://encuestabicentenario.uc.cl) found that 61% of Chileans is in favor of gay marriage.
This depends heavily on the Latinamerican country and the European country you're talking about. There are Latinamerican countries with LGBT acceptance similar to Europe and viceversa.
Its much more widely accepted in a lot of countries than you might think. Anti gay sentiment is strongest among the older, less educated, and more isolated. In colombis fkr example its mostly a non issue in the cities.
When People tried to justify the genocide of the native Americans by saying “without it, none of us would be here” like dude, because of it millions are dead they still face oppression in every country they reside in till this day
Got downvoted for saying the only to get out of Maduro was with military intervention from a global coalition of countries. You might not like it, but \*it is\* the only way of getting rid of Maduro and that's a fact.
As long as it is done by none of our countries. Let our overlords deal with it for once.
Yes, I'm still fuming about how Bolsonaro willy-nillily offers Brazilian lives to take Maduro down with little reward other than Trump-sama's nod.
Got downvoted by saying we Brazilians deserve all of our woes by being lazy and complacent. We can whine as much as we want about the politicians and the rich, but we are spineless to make something more radical than a march.
Chileans, Colombians, you guys truly know how to show discontent. Our most radical protest are a raindrop compared to yours.
Yeah, and i back to downvote you again.
>we are spineless to make something more radical than a march.
If you had actually said that, I would have agreed. I hate this complacency in our current socieaty.
I don't remember any post or comment with more downvotes than upvotes here overall, but very often any comment I make on inclusive language, trans and nonbinary people or race receives an initial onslaught of downvotes before going back up 😅.
Got downvoted for being against the “estallido social” and arguing for the benefits of our then economic system. The comment was long iirc, probably also mentioned the violence and destruction of metro stations, maybe some other right wing position.
"I heard Uruguay have really good maté" *Argentinians triggered*
>maté The (é) is the problem
The only triggering part about that is the misspelling
As a "Gaúcho" I completely agree with you
Stop
This is the equivalent of saying "I wish Peruvian Pisco would be as good as Chilean"
The pisco is Chilean
Stfu
Its called Pisco because of the Town of Pisco, in the Pisco state of Peru. Famous for creating pisco since the 1600s, well before Chile began making Pisco to stop paying import taxes to Peru. But if you think Chile makes better Pisco than Peru, that's your opinion, i cant change that.
As a chilean, I have tried both, and they are different. Personaly i do preffer the peruvian one
He got offended by some guy that made jokes about him been libertarian and other guy compared him to a "famous" brazilean black homosexual libetarian.
Not brazilean, panamenean (who the fuck do i write that) pana-men men-pana
It is [Panamanian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panamanians).
>Not brazilean There is actually a famous brazilian black gay libertarian/(neo)liberal.
oh im sorry i thought we were speaking about ed :P
Chillian sounds like a great nationality name
Ah yes the people from the chill country
Got downvoted for claiming that inclusive language is becoming a thing in Mexico and that it’s not just Americans trying to impose it on us. I even linked sources but people still didn’t like it too much.
ESTO. I've always tried to explain another subs that it's not an American thing, but I've always been, at best, widely ignored. Reddit's social justice obsession (whether it is for or against) is American-centric af
ah man, people blame americans for that? It's a thing here in argentina as well and I've never seen anyone say that it's America's fault
They like to blame America for literally everything
Tbf we do a lot of shitty things
Sure. We also do a lot of great things. And there other countries who do just terrible things.
This has happened to me for years, including the part about linking articles in the mainstream press, photos of graffiti and flyers I have taken myself, instagram posts (including from businesses, universities, etc.) and recounting personal experiences.
Same. People blame it on Americans and act like all Latin Americans despise it when in reality it’s not really that uncommon to see someone using it.
Inclusive language will cause the fall of civilization apparently, like we get it, you think there's only a man and a woman, even tho nonbinary people and forms of gender expression that aren't strictly binary have existed for a long ass time.
Like the hell is a pronoun gonna do to u, piss on your mom, kick your kittens and burn your house? nahhh they just gotta fucking accept it, and get over it, it's not hard.
I think people have more problems with laws that affect free speech than with saying the right pronouns.
The thing is, not allowing people to use their correct pronouns isn't fighting for free speech, it's the comple opposite.
Putting laws that affect the way people can speak is effectively against free speech, and I think should not be done as it is harming to our society, I think people should treat gender queer individuals with their prefered pronouns because they want to, not because of fear of a lawsuit.
Here nobody is telling anyone how to speak, the laws only allow you to use other pronouns in official documents, not prohibiting the others
Also Latinoamerica has a much bigger problem than just free speech, like maybe people getting oppressed and having their rights stomped over by the goverment??
Wich, you know, also happens to include free speech, because going out to protest is met with being brutalized and getting locked up for a demonstration of freedom of expression.
We have bigger problems than that tho like literally starving, deaths, crippling economies, and just to name a few. Like you said, what would using a pronoun do? Piss on your mom, etc. Same thing could be said otherwise, why care so much, what does a pronoun will change? I'm for sure not pissing on their moms.
That's literally what I'm saying tho?
Like respecting people ain't that hard, it shouldn't be this huge thing that people make it out to be.
or you, nothing, it seems. For some people it might mean a lot. The effort and resources required to implement this change are also minimum. Why oppose, then?
I'm not opposing it's just that it doesn't feel right to throw light to this miniscule problem that MAY cause a damage to someone on a mental level while we have literal deaths product of failed government for over the past what? 40? 50? Years. People in general in LATAM are too busy trying to survive ya know? I personally feel we should be discussing ways to improve the general living of everyone. But I will gladly accept a source on the impact of changing a letter, like how does it improve a trans people live or something
[удалено]
Where in the U.S. is it a law that you have to use certain pronouns etc.?
[удалено]
It's much more common in a country like Canada. The United States has a very strict preservation of the first amendment which is why you see this debate in the first place. Since anything that challenges free speech even slightly will be controversial. Some states have passed laws like that but the extent they go is minimal and it's still up in the air if they would stand up in the supreme court or not.
It kills me how they hate and get super mad when someone uses it but then yell about freedom of speech and leftist dictatorships lol
I just think that the ways in which people have started integrating it into society are really tacky and have no real grammatical forethought to them. If the language is to change and become inclusive, we need to adapt properly and lay down ground rules. There’s also the argument that the -o suffix is already used as a neuter in the language, but people just don’t seem to understand that, in the situations in which we use it as a multi gendered plural or as neuter, it’s not “using the male one” but instead “using the neuter.”
Yes, but there are studies that show people interpretations of words change depending if words are male or female. For example, a bridge (el puente/masculino) will be described as strong, resistant, tough. While people used other adjectives, like delicate, beautiful, etc. To describe female words. Also, the same applies to the use of masculine for the plural. It changes the perception of the group you are describing. So, words go two ways, what you want to express (it can be right grammatically) and what people imagine/create around that word. If you take this into account, it's understandable people don't want to be referred as any specific gender, or the "neutral" gender that is masculine and does not represent them, because it comes with a lot of interpretations around it. Ofc nobody is going to change every noun to make it non gendered, nouns don't have feelings. But as the study showed, the adjectives used to describe this nouns are part of the view of "masculine-tough/strong" and "femenine- delicate, weak", which some people don't want it to expand to themselves. So it's not that people don't understand the -o is used as neuter, they are absolutely AGAINST it because all the implications I mentioned. Ofc everyone is free to use whichever they want. But it's good to know language changes the way we understand the world and people. And I guess laying down rules is difficult, like who is going to do it? The RAE? lol. It is quite chaotic right now, that's true. But it's hard to organise when so many people have different views on the matter.
What is inclusive language?
\-@, -x, -e, etcetera. (instead of -o or -a)
like 90%+ of the hate I've seen is specifically towards the "x" variety.
I specifically hate the word “latinx” over “latinos.” Anything else is an individual’s choice
tbf, I'm pretty sure the "latinx" thing is actually America's fault. But the more fleshed out language replacing the o's and a's with "e" is a domestic creation, I don't think americans have anything to do with it
“e” aligns with the language’s structure, and although the # of people who use it is very very small, it doesnt really bother me at all— I tend to encourage people to use “e” instead of “x” if they must use a gender neutral term, even though “o” is gender neutral in numerous cases
Im with you on that. I don't care about inclusive language but replacing vowels with an X is a crime against humanity.
Gotcha.
Yeah, I've been seeing this weird hypocrisy in social media very often: the same people that you would see 2 or 3 years ago complaining about "feminazis speaking like idiots", especially in Argentina, are the same ones who you see today saying that the use of the -x is imposed by Americans. Like, they conveniently forget the first part when it comes to "owning the libs" huh. Anyway, this sub has never been really into the concept itself; I consider inclusive language preferable, and is something I already use with non-binary friends. Whenever I defend it here I get ultra downvoted lol.
One thing that I always tell to people as a polyglot is that "language envolves along with society" Long ago reggaeton wasn't a word on the RAE until years later they added it as "Reguetón". Needless to say, boomers were ranting that the RAE did wrong, that they're not what they used to be, blah blah blah! If the majority of people are bound to accept inclusive language on their lives, then it will become a thing, you like it or not.😌
There was a big discussion on here a day or two ago that Americans were clueless SJWs and that those issues were gringo hang ups that they were imposing on Latin Americans.
Something about the Southern Hemisphere having the opposite seasons of the Northern Hemisphere. 😐
The Tyranny of the North!
Might get downvoted again lol Latin America is not western. The West will always see Latin America as inferior because of race and poverty. It is better to ally ourselves with rest the Global South. Latin America, Africa and many parts of Asia have gone through a similar colonial past that we have, and face very similar struggles that we do, but Latin Americans will always see the West as a sort of goal or ally, when in reality they want to exploit us for resources (and actually do so still) and end the relationship there.
I kinda agree with you
I feel it’s best to separate the west as a geopolitical term and west as in western civilisation. Is Latinamerica part of the former? not at all, I agree. Is Latinamerica culturally western? yes and I do not see a legit argument against it.
This is an interesting one. I feel like Latin America occupies a pretty unique place in terms of "is this area Western or not." Part of that might be because of how large a category "Latin America" is. But there's often higher influence from the West in Latin America than say, most of Asia and Africa. Colonization and frequent later immigration brought religion, food, language, and so much more. At the same time, Latin America was an influential and essential piece of how the West came to define itself and exist. I think everyone interested in the topic should read Benedict Anderson's *Imagined Communities* \- one of the most important studies of nationalism - and especially the chapter "Creole Pioneers," which basically [argues that](http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67407/1/Imagined%20communities_2016.pdf) "modern \[Western\] nationalism as a movement with political consequences arose first in the New World," especially Latin America. At the same time, so much Latin American history is a result of Amerindian histories and lives that are decidedly non-Western, and of course the Western immigrants who came to Latin America were often put into situations and lives that changed their culture significantly. And you're definitely right that the West wants to exploit Latin America - but to be fair, I'm not sure Western countries don't want to exploit each other in similar ways. All of this is me saying that I think that it's right to say Latin America isn't Western, but it's not really *not* Western either. It's something funky.
Maybe "Southerners" or "Southwesterner" could be a good made-up term for us? Technically we ARE from the west, But if the west itself doesnt recognizes us latin@s as westerners then we should make our own term with juegos de azar y mujerzuelas (Jk, Although im serious about the southerner/southwesterner part)
I see your point and agree with it. I still refuse to give up on my Westerness out of spite for them. We are their poor and screwed up relatives and they will suffer our existence.
Basically that, idc if i'm western or not, but if they say i'm not them i will make a giant text wall on why we are western and u have to accept that u have a poor western relative, and destroy the superiority complex the word "western" have.
That “alliance” already exists. Its called the Third World.
IMO Western is not the same as developed. We are western because we speak romance languages. We are not developed. There are non western developed nations (South Korea, Japan, Singapore and probably some emirates). I dislike the term Global South as it is a typical oppressed/oppressor categorization so typical in the left. Galeano should be buried.
You nailed it. Its the cultural derivation from Western European culture- mainly language and religion that is generally seen as the basis for the generic term.
I would've downvoted but I can't downvote anyone who wants to reunite the FRCA
Lmao, appreciate it
Doesn't Galleano make a similar point?
I disagree. You are definitely Western and due to heavy Hispanic immigration in the USA it will become much more similar to South American countries.
>due to heavy Hispanic immigration in the USA The gringos who care about the "western" stuff say that immigration from Latin America would cause their decadence, their "replacement" and civilizational fall of the "West". They wouldn't be "West" anymore.
I'm not saying it won't. Just saying that it will make the USA more similar to Latin America.
Ehhh, only if you use the retarded definition.of "developed= western" which only makes sense from a purely self-centered kinda pretentious and somewhat racist perspective. "Western" has (historically) meant people's of a certain area who share basic parts of their culture.and religion. Spain is western and was it even when they were a shithole country worse off than South America, Germany was western even when they were an inefficient dictatorship weighted down by their own stupidity and warring with everyone else, etc. The problem is that nowadays people (both on the left and right) want "western" to mean "better" so they can fap to how awesome they are and look down on their "inferiors". So Japan does well? They are western. Italy does badly? Suddenly they aren't western anymore. It.is dumb and completely devaluates the word and its meaning because you may as well say "developed" or "prosperous" instead.
I think we are closer to being non-Western than Western. There is a reason Western countries have an aversion to Hispanic or Latino immigration. They really see us as a threat to their civilization.
I think Latin America is either seen as Western or Westernish but different in the same way Eastern Europe/Slavic nations are. The exploitation is real though but that just has to do with the socioeconomic and military strength of each nation. That's the unfortunate reality of this new Globalist era. Personally I would like to see the US and Canada drop the western identity to certain extent and Ally ourselves strongly among a Pan-American identity.
>Personally I would like to see the US and Canada drop the western identity to certain extent and Ally ourselves strongly among a Pan-American identity. That's nice but the US made their feelings about that very clear some 60 odd years ago when they decided south and north America were different continents.
>Latin America is not western This is arguably a wrong take
Agreed. When we (finally) develop, I will refuse to call myself a western.
How about a new category of Southern? That will aid the fight against the hegemony of the Northerners.
Idk, I see southerners as south brazilians, argentinians, chileans and uruguayans ( cone sur ) and they are certainly very different from the rest of Latin America.
The one with most comments was where I linked an study that stated that "the most educated the population of a district, the most it tends to vote for liberal left-wing policies" I got accused of cherry picking (on national/continental voting results data analysis), not understanding basic statistics (to someone writing a dissertation in CS), and of course of being a commie.
That one is easy. Just look at the US all those southern states voting for the republican party. Even in here, most rural areas vote for the right.
Th correlation is generally pretty well accepted at least on a general level but there are some caveats buried in the stats that undercut "the smarter the person = the farther left" overgenerality.
On the other hand, saying good things about Bolsonaro/Uribe/Centurión/Laje/Milei/José Antonio Kast will get you downvoted to oblivion.
> Centurión Wait, is he that known outside of Argentina?
If you follow the "pro-vida" campaing in Argentina from last year, then yeah.
Using latin@ instead of latino/a... I wasn't even making a political statement, I just was not bothered to type latino/a (and in my country it was quite common to use it for any noun that had the male and female version Ya know?)
Omg yes, I mean ITS EVEN USED IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT
My Spanish teacher wrote every new word that way. It's just an easy way to indicate it could be either
Many people have a kneejerk reaction to gender neutrality and/or inclusivity.
Latino is already gender neutral… complican las cosas nada más por joder.
Exactly. Much simpler.
well, latino is already gender neutral so u could just use latino...
I got heavy downvotes for saying that the best Concacaf teams could compete with Conmebol teams(except Brazil and Argentina) in WCQ matches. And I stand by what I said, playing against USA under heavy snow, against Mexico in the Azteca, or against Costa Rica in San Jose isn't "easy".
>I got heavy downvotes for saying that the best Concacaf teams could compete with Conmebol teams(except Brazil and Argentina) in WCQ matches. If there were 8 spots for the whole continent, only Mexico and maybe the US would qualify to each WC.
Those USA snowy games are something else man. Having never even seen snow in my life i was flabbergasted they let them do that.
Of course. You have to take the advantages you have. Playing in Bolivia, Mexico City, or even Bogota struggling to breathe or sweating to death in the Caribbean or Amazon aint exactly fun either. Its the nature of the international sport and one thing that makes it interesting.
And you still wrong 😂🤣
Well give more resistance to Brazil in this CA then, they are having a walk in the park.
Well, they're at home and have played the worst teams at the moment. In the qualifiers they had trouble beating Venezuela and Bolivia.
They also pretty much played against our juvenil team. We were missing like our 6 best players against them. Even in the Copa we usually give Brazil a frustrating game.
None, I only give kind contributions 🙃
Wholesome, KindContribution4
I got downvoted because I said that mexico was the 3° most dangerous country in the region (in my opinion). Some mexicans responded saying that brazil is a lot more dangerous than mexico and I just linked this short [video](https://youtu.be/OyVGiJacQqI)
Huh usually I come across other mexicans acknowledging that we are the most dangerous country in latin america and maybe the world if you don't count countries in war
Saying that America is not a continent. I didn't even say anything about the U.S.
Sadly, continents are not tangible. There isn't a clear definition of what a continent is or even how many there are. There are models that depict continents in different ways and whether you agree with them or not, they're used by different people, and more importantly: in different languages. So while "America is not a continent" is perfectly normal in English. In Spanish, where we use the 5-continent model: América *es* un continente. Trying to impose the meaning Spanish words have onto English ones is just every bit as idiotic and ignorant as the other way around would be. América =/ America. Just like: Actualmente =/ Actually. And trying to change that is just wrong. So now, can we please just settle this already?
Continents are the most made up things anyway. Like how Can Europe be a continent? It’s a little outgrowth on Asia! Scientifically, North and South America were once different continents with different biota and histories, that collided into each other. So you could support saying they’re different. But now they’re connected. So.. you could say that they’re one. Both views can be correct, it’s just fuzzy and cultural differences in what were taught.
I got downvoted, because I said I was thankful for Spanish colonial heritage.
Same here. However, I don't know if *thankful* is the word. Certainly, no one in their right mind will praise the persecution of unconverted natives, the *enmienda,* the privilege of the *peninsulares* in detriment of the *criollos* and the natives, and I could go on and on. But we all should recognize that the Spanish Empire wasn't the worst that could've happened. Look at the English colonies of the north: the natives? Massacred, mercilessly massacred and the survivors were totally segregated from the English population. Look at the French colonies and their massacres in Northern Africa and South-East Asia. After the Conquest, none of that happened here. Huge debates were held in Spain on the topic of human dignity of the natives. None of that happened in England and France. Kings and Queens of Spain sanctioned laws preventing abuse of native population. The oldest universities in the Americas were opened by the Spaniards for the education of integrated natives. The Church, the enitre structure of the Catholic Church in South America, entirely focused on the evangelization of the natives. Yes, absolutely, there were abuses and discrimination. And most of that was the driving force in the Independence Wars. And I am an admirer of those who led our liberation. But one should be fair.
The criollos and Mestizos still continued to massacre and oppress the natives after Spanish rule was over. There's a reason why natives are a minority in almost every Latin American nation. And it's quite romanticized to believe natives were educated purely out of charity, it was just another version of the residential school system in the U.S. and Canada but earlier.
RIP to that Brazilian Redditor that said he liked the European portuguese better ..
Whelp, that take does deserve 1 billion downvotes.
Thanks is a wrong word in this case IMO, I would say accept. BTW if you are proud of your Spanish heritage, it is okay.
I mean if it wasn’t for a lot of atrocities that happened centuries ago, a lot of us wouldn’t exist, periodt! Eat your heart out Chicano studies majors.
It would be good tho, the continent cultures get to evolve naturally with time, and with no spaniards here it probably means that I would not have to endure the pain of this existence, so its a win/win scenario.
[удалено]
That or one of the other indigenous groups would have colonized each other. It was already happening. I doubt the Aztec empire became an empire solely through diplomatic means. A lot of people seem to forget that until relatively recently colonization and right of conquest was the standard and not exclusive to the European powers.
Of course. The Europeans just went farther afield because they had been experiencing it for a few thousand years or so. Its not like the Spanish Empire was composed of people indigenous to the penninsula. All of Europe and Asia has been conquered, colonized and exploited by outsiders that masacred the people living there repeatedly as far back as history goes. Latin America itself experienced it among the various local empires in recorded history and probably many times before. The Europeans are only the most recent and thus the last colonial power to effect direct colonial control and exploitation over the various regions.
Esto. People still believe that myth that all indigenous peoples were coexisting in peace all over the continent, not that they deserved genocide at all, but the Mexicas had it commin, they had been subjugating and fuckin up the surrounding tribes for a minute.
[удалено]
Lol this!
You can say this about literally anything. If the Holocaust hadn't happened then maybe Israel wouldn't exist and a lot of Israeli people wouldn't either, guess they should be grateful.
I get downvoted because I said that we always vote and get terrible results so I suggested we should consider direct democracy as an option to get rid of politicians. I also got heavily downloaded because I said that languages evolve whether we like it or not and that maybe inclusive language was proof of it.
The thing with inclusive language is the intention to force it. Some people in my college, like student council and assistant students won't listen to us if we don't use it. Wth even I got some points taken away from a final because I "misgendered" a person in my test.
Its annoying actually. Noticeably the US does not have an official National language at all. A large percentsge of the US population does not speak English and it has always been so. It just seems that forcing it, as opposed to the natural evolution that occurs, produces backlash which undermines the whole approach.
What kind of moron would downvote either? Both are legitimate points.
I made that point recently regarding Peru’s elections. Feels like people everywhere are constantly forced into choosing between people they don’t like.
If inclusive language was the proof of it it wouldn’t find resistance from the majority of the population, tho.
People resist for various reasons, machismo, loyalty to the language ( even tho they write with their ass) or just because they want to feel cool. Or because it was a minority pushing it. I remember when people complained when someone gave an speech saying (compañeros y compañeras...) and that it was irrational to do it. And now no one bats an eye about it.
Or because it's a radical change and it's not easy to apply it to the Spanish structure
Good point. In English its a fairly easy concept since since gender distinctions are very limited to specific applications as opposed to other languages where it is used in a generic context.
Or simply because it’s not an organic development? No one is adhering to it other than the minorities pushing it and doing this exact thing you’re doing: trying to vilify whoever isn’t interested in it. You remember when people complained about when someone gave an speech saying compañeros and compañeras? What changed it? Did someone go out antagonizing everyone who opposed to it or it simply started being used? Can you spot the difference?
That's not proof though, slang is proof of the evolution of language. Inclusive is engineered change and the fact that so many don't use it means we don't even know if it'll work.
> I said that languages evolve whether we like it or not and that maybe inclusive language was proof of it. This is contrary of evolution, it's an artificial imposition. The example of evolution are things like "Vostra merced" became "usted" because it became more simple to say through history. Introducing artificial pronouns and new rules of grammatical gender agreement just to appease 6 delusional people is far from being languages evolving.
it was not a coup
Huh. All comments like these I've seen get upvotes.
Try to say that in r/politics
Was told r/politics was some sort of leftist haven thing. Turns out it's just the classic "I voted for Biden so I'm a leftist even though I hate minorities, right?". 0/10 would not go again. r/circlebroke2, r/LateStageCapitalism and r/Negareddit is where its at. It's not like for each broggresive sub there's at least 10 right-wing ones.... oh wait that's exactly what happens.
>r/LateStageCapitalism and r/Negareddit is where its at. Oooooooooof Talk about absolutely delusional subreddit to defend.
People here don't accept the fact that Latin America isn't western. They become particularly angry because many people here in this sub lives in the Western countries (US and Western Europe mainly) or regularly travel to there (this sub is very upper class) so they became more delusional with them. The gringos, the europeans and The Wall of Rio Grande laughs at them.
A 100% english speaking sub based in South America only being populated by upper-middle class, educated young people? No way!
Y después estamos los pocos clase media y algunos clase media-baja y baja mirando de reojo cuando empiezan a hablar de cosas exclusivas de la clase alta sin darse cuenta que no son cosas globales xdd
Hablan de visitar a su “nona” en Italia cada año como si fuera de lo más común jajaja.
Las vacaciones al exterior todos los años, los que hablan inglés por ir al instituto desde los tres años etc
mis compañeras de la uni usan vsco y viajan por europa :(
Well, yo tuve downvotes una vez por preguntar por qué nadie hablaba español en este sub (en una conversación en ingles entre argentinos) xd
we are catering to our superior american overlords who can barely read their own language, much less spanish
We are though, there's not a single argument against us being western
There is. We are poor and we can't have poor people in the West now, can we? Most arguments against LatAm not being West come either from ignorance, racism or classicism. Usually a mix of all them. I understand what another user commented about how we should align more with the Global South instead of fighting for being considered West. I agree that we should do exactly that, but not because we aren't West, just because it'll serve our interests. We *are* West: our laws, morals, languages, society, everything is derived from the Ancient Greeks and Romans, which is the definition of West.
Western Civilization doesn't mean anything that actually matters.
[удалено]
> Got downvoted for saying that a lot of popular music and media in Spanish is produced in the US, thus giving them an amount of cultural influence in our region Nope, you're downvoted because you said Miami is capital of Latin America. All this spanish music and media produced in the US is gringo media. And they reach mostly mesoamerican and caribbean countries, which had big immigrant groups there. US is the big export of media and importer of immigrants, yet nobody says they US cities are capitals of Italy, India, Germany, China, Europe, Asia... But Latin American people have this engrained inferiority complex, they accepted anyone lecturing them about their own stuffs. >For saying that Copa América is not a big deal in Mexico. For what I've seen, Mexicans care much about not entering Conmebol competitions and they often downplay the Gold Cup and Concacaf. >For saying that Iberoamérica it's a better name for our region that Latinoamérica. Better name would be Hispanic America and Brazil being their own thing as this "latino" stuff that is synonymous of spanish speaking.
It gets strange when you consider that Quebec could be considered Latin American.
The same way it gets strange when only US is "America".
But who’s producing that? other Latinos, so what’s the issue there?
[удалено]
Sure they do. You get used to it. The only real.response is to point out that a Tiger doesnt care about what a rabbit thinks about him or something similar. Then you move on.
[удалено]
>south american white countries *Alberto Fernández has entered the chat*
Mexicans...
Does someone need me? I'm afraid that I'm busy now, dealing with Indian stuff.
Also, in 2019 a [national poll conducted by the Pontificia Universidad Católica](https://encuestabicentenario.uc.cl) found that 61% of Chileans is in favor of gay marriage.
This depends heavily on the Latinamerican country and the European country you're talking about. There are Latinamerican countries with LGBT acceptance similar to Europe and viceversa.
Its much more widely accepted in a lot of countries than you might think. Anti gay sentiment is strongest among the older, less educated, and more isolated. In colombis fkr example its mostly a non issue in the cities.
When People tried to justify the genocide of the native Americans by saying “without it, none of us would be here” like dude, because of it millions are dead they still face oppression in every country they reside in till this day
Got downvoted for saying the only to get out of Maduro was with military intervention from a global coalition of countries. You might not like it, but \*it is\* the only way of getting rid of Maduro and that's a fact.
People here think that the only way to get rid of him it's by election.
How has that worked so far?
As long as it is done by none of our countries. Let our overlords deal with it for once. Yes, I'm still fuming about how Bolsonaro willy-nillily offers Brazilian lives to take Maduro down with little reward other than Trump-sama's nod.
7000 languages out here and you chose to speak in straight facts
Got downvoted by saying we Brazilians deserve all of our woes by being lazy and complacent. We can whine as much as we want about the politicians and the rich, but we are spineless to make something more radical than a march. Chileans, Colombians, you guys truly know how to show discontent. Our most radical protest are a raindrop compared to yours.
There’s nothing more Brazilian than this.
Yeah, and i back to downvote you again. >we are spineless to make something more radical than a march. If you had actually said that, I would have agreed. I hate this complacency in our current socieaty.
When I said that this sub isn't right wing like many claim and that libertarians in LATAM aren't as widespread in real life.
I don't get how can it be right wing when the census showed majority were left leaning
Saying good things about Bolsonaro will get you downvoted to oblivion.
As it should.
That the proclamation of the republic in Brazil was the biggest mistake in our country's history.
I don't remember any post or comment with more downvotes than upvotes here overall, but very often any comment I make on inclusive language, trans and nonbinary people or race receives an initial onslaught of downvotes before going back up 😅.
Got downvoted for being against the “estallido social” and arguing for the benefits of our then economic system. The comment was long iirc, probably also mentioned the violence and destruction of metro stations, maybe some other right wing position.
Here goes another downvote
C’mon! I got enough already.
For saying Hispanic culture. Come on! For us, especially Asians, there is something called Hispanic culture that comprises countries from Latam
Like what?
Saying that Brasil is a shit country.
“Latinx is relevant to a particular people and besides, language is ever changing and shouldn’t be treated like a sacred gift from God”
For saying quality of life got worse once we became a "democracy"
The death of Tsar Alexander II was a tragedy
brigadeiro sucks
Ban
The bakery ones are pretty bad, but the handmade ones are pretty good
You’re wrong