Musk’s DOGE clashes with Treasury over access to payment system, report says

Longtime official retires after clash "over access to sensitive payment systems."

See full article...

 

[marsilies]

My argument is look at the facts.

The data shows that yes, that is indeed a factor.

Note that the "facts" and "data" are from this article:

https://www.newsweek.com/latinx-latino-voters-donald-trump-1977268

Which, at best, shows a correlation between conservatives and the dislike of the term LatinX, in that conservatives tend to dislike the term more.

It's a bit dubious to think that Dem's use of the term "turned" people to GOP/Trump, instead of them just being inclined to vote that way anyway.

The study's theory is that it's the fact that the term in gender-inclusive and LGBTQ+ friendly, that those who hate LGBTQ+ people would dislike the term and politicians that use it:

https://www.marcelroman.com/pdfs/wps/latinx_project.pdf

The intent of “Latinx” as a gender-inclusive phrase, in addition to its’ association with, and usage by, the Democratic party, makes the label’s relationship with Latinos an effective theoretical test case for the Identity-Expansion-Backlash Theory (IEBT). Consistent with the
IEBT, the Latino population may observe the increased association with and usage of “Latinx” by Democratic party politicians and subsequently shift their evaluations of said politicians on the basis of predispositions toward inclusivity of LGBTQ+ group members within their
broader ethno-racial group category. For Latinos positively predisposed toward the inclusion of LGBTQ+ group members, there may be an increase in positive evaluations and support of Democratic party politicians as they use and are associated with the “Latinx” group label.
But, given the American two-party system and the Republican party’s strong association with policies that denigrate the rights of LGBTQ+ group members, Latinos positively predisposed toward LGBTQ+ people may be a “captured electorate” that was already going to support Democratic party politicians anyways (Frymer and Skrentny, 1998; Smith, 2007).

Conversely, for Latinos negatively predisposed toward LGBTQ+ group members, there may be a decline in positive evaluations and support of Democratic party politicians as they use and are associated with “Latinx.” Given the politician evaluations of Latinos positively predisposed
toward LGBTQ+ group members are less likely to marginally shift in response to politicians increasingly using and being associated with “Latinx,” we would expect, on average, support for politicians to decline if they use “Latinx,” and for this decline in support to be driven by Latinos who are negatively predisposed toward the inclusion of LGBTQ+ group members.

Bolding is mine.

It's not a great look when you're arguing "you're losing the bigots by using that term."

 

[Aurich]

Notice how during this whole conversation nobody says "you know, if people don't like being called something maybe we should just not do it anymore".

We can play who can post the most links, it's a widely studied issue and something I've read up on quite a bit, but the truth is I don't care to argue it. From my perspective it's about respect.

If someone tells me their preferred pronoun or name I don't argue with them. If trans people say something like "we don't like the term trannies" then I wouldn't use it. (Never have, just an example) I'm not going to argue that it's a perfectly good term and they should embrace it if they find it offensive. That would be wrong.

Latinx is not a term communities self-identify with, it's academic language, and comes off as an anglicization. There's some evidence that it did not start with white people, from my research it seems to have been a student group, but the adoption very much worked that way, and more importantly comes off that way.

And yet, here we are, trying to justify it somehow still. Why?

Just stop and think about that for a moment instead of trying to win the argument. Why is this particular issue about "we know better" instead of respect? Where does that come from? Because it's a problem, whether you agree with my take on it or not.

Digging your heels in and insisting that it's good actually because the people who don't like it are bigots is the part that isn't a great look from my perspective. We can't just always insist we're right.

 

[KGFish]

Again, there is data on this. It's not about your logic, or my argument, it's about what people say. Feel free to argue with them I guess, but it's a real thing, and it does expose a certain hypocrisy on respecting how people would prefer to be addressed that I think is a weak spot for the left. It's good to respect people. That means though not being arrogant and thinking you know better than they do.

I understand it's a real thing. But you went from "some people dislike being addressed with those terms and therefore voting for the other person" to "how people are treated matters". That's the problem.

The first one is just a statement of fact, like you said. We can quibble on the exact numbers that were moved by that term, but I think we can agree it was a fairly small margin - not anywhere near the top ten reasons Harris lost. The second one implies that Harris treated some Latin people worse than Trump did by using that term on some rare occasion. That's absolutely ignoring 99% of what Trump said and did about Latin people. Not only that, but it also implies the massive double-standard that definitely was one of the top-10 reasons Harris lost: Harris needed to be perfect, while Trump was fine being the shit-gibbon he is.

Here, let me spell it out for you. "It's good to respect people." is an accurate statement. However, it clearly only applies to Harris and not to Trump. Therefore, to make that somehow a statement about how the election went is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Aurich]

This isn't about Harris specifically, and I'm not talking about why she lost. Which is why I haven't been discussing her and have been repeatedly saying "the left", which is a very broad umbrella that very deliberately includes just how people interact in general.

 

[marsilies]

Notice how during this whole conversation nobody says "you know, if people don't like being called something maybe we should just not do it anymore".

How many actually dislike it though? You're treating the Latinx community like a monolith, and stating that if some don't like it (predominately because they consider it LGBTQ+ inclusive), then it can't be used.

Again, it's like saying Democrats lost because some use the term "cisgender." Just because some bigots found offence with the term doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

We can play who can post the most links, it's a widely studied issue and something I've read up on quite a bit...

Again, from the only link you provided:



The majority don't seem to care, and only when you look at those that Identify as Republican is the "less likely to support" on par with "no difference to support."

You crafted a narrative around a headline, that the actual meat of your source doesn't really support.

Latinx is not a term communities self-identify with...

ahem
https://www.hispanicfederation.org/our-work/latinx-lgbtq-advocacy-and-empowerment/

Hispanic Federation is committed to protecting and expanding the rights of the Latinx LGBTQ+ community. As a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation sweeps through the nation, we have ramped up our efforts to fight back against these policies. This includes the creation of our Advance Change Together (ACT) initiative that strengthens Latinx LGBTQ+ nonprofits across the country that serve as critical lifelines for our communities.

https://latinocf.org/latino-giving-circle-network/lgbtq-latinx-giving-circle/

Our LGBTQ Circle is a critical partner to Latino Community Foundation in helping us fulfill our mission of inclusion and acceptance for our LGBTQ folks. In 2020, they helped us host a Dismantling Transphobia series to lift up the need for acceptance and understanding around gender and identity in the larger Latinx community.

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/11l4mxq/is_the_discourse_around_the_term_latinx_not_seem/

The irony behind that first paragraph is that Latinx (along with Latine) was created by a segment of the Latin LGBTQ community in the US. The term is caught up in intertwined culture wars.

https://unidosus.org/publications/latinx-lgbtq-students-and-their-experiences/

 

[KGFish]

This isn't about Harris specifically, and I'm not talking about why she lost. Which is why I haven't been discussing her and have been repeatedly saying "the left", which is a very broad umbrella that very deliberately includes just how people interact in general.

I'm gonna set aside for a second that you linked to a Newsweek article about how the term LatinX moved people to Trump, talked about how that would lead to people not voting for Democrats and a few more comments like that, and just return back to your initial argument about "the left". You're of course right: if someone tells me "I don't like that term", I should listen. There is some additional issue here that there is a need for an umbrella term and there isn't much agreement even among that group about what umbrella term should be used. Or, we can do away with umbrella terms, but that's also tricky, because someone is going to feel left out.

So yes, respect is important.

But I'm going to return to your comments where you explicitly talked about how that term moved people to Trump. When analyzing why people move their belief systems or who they support, it is important to not just analyze one group in a vacuum, but how the two groups or belief systems differ.

When one group is objectively worse on one metric than the other, it cannot be the actual reason that people move to the worse group. It may be the stated reason, but we're also very, very good as a species to rationalize decisions after the fact with non-sensical justifications. As a result, trusting someone's stated reasons when they fly in the face of basic logic is... well, not good, and will lead to disappointment later.

And again, just to clarify where we agree: we should listen when people tell us what they want to be called. Where I disagree is that me using the wrong term leads that person to hang out with someone who constantly talks about locking them up and deporting them.

 

[Aurich]

I think it's more than fair to point to the one example I linked, I didn't drop a bunch of research in the thread and just grabbed an easy link. That's on me, I chose not to. I had more links and I deleted them from the post, because I wasn't trying to approach it that way. Clearly I should have. It's incredibly easy to do so.

Linking up advocacy organizations is pretty much the kind of thing I'm talking about though. Look at these numbers:

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-an...spanics-since-2019-but-only-4-percent-use-it/

After years of public use by celebrities, leaders, media, academics and others, awareness of Latinx has grown among U.S. Latinos.1 Nearly half (47%) say they have heard of Latinx, up from 23% who said the same in 2019. Notably, awareness of Latinx has grown across nearly all major demographic subgroups of U.S. Latinos.
Still, about half of the population that Latinx is meant to describe has never heard of the term.
While awareness of the term has grown, the share who use Latinx to describe themselves is statistically unchanged: 4% of Latino adults say they have used Latinx to describe themselves, little changed from the 3% who said the same in 2019.

4%. Up 1% in 5 years as awareness has grown. Half the people polled still aren't even aware of it. That's not inclusive, it's something trying to be forced. Why?

Gonna link a couple WaPo editorials that I dug up because I remembered reading them.

This piece ends with the most important part:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...177c5c-3b41-11eb-9276-ae0ca72729be_story.html

"And when in doubt about how people identify, she advises, just ask them."

Somehow that's not part of the conversation though. Again, why? What is that about? I think it's part of a broader problem, that the left can come off with this very arrogant "we know better" attitude to people. And on some topics it's true. 100%. This isn't some both sides BS. But it's not always actually true, and it's important I think to be open to that part of the discussion.

I also agree with this take:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/01/latinx-latinos-trump-democrats/

Our findings do not imply that the Democrats should pander to anti-LGBTQ+ voters. We simply find that politicians who use “Latinx” in a desire to be gender-inclusive may lose votes among some Latinos. Some liberals might argue it is still better to use “Latinx” and signal their party’s values, even if it means some voters defect. But Democrats should make that choice understanding that their words matter, too, not just Trump’s.

 

[marsilies]

I think it's more than fair to point to the one example I linked, I didn't drop a bunch of research in the thread and just grabbed an easy link. That's on me, I chose not to. I had more links and I deleted them from the post, because I wasn't trying to approach it that way. Clearly I should have. It's incredibly easy to do so.

Linking up advocacy organizations is pretty much the kind of thing I'm talking about though. Look at these numbers:

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-an...spanics-since-2019-but-only-4-percent-use-it/

4%. Up 1% in 5 years as awareness has grown. Half the people polled still aren't even aware of it. That's not inclusive, it's something trying to be forced. Why?

What was awareness of "cisgender" when it was first used? You can't think of any reason why a LGBTQ+ inclusive term may have an uphill battle in terms of awareness and use?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-cisgender-means-transgender_n_63e13ee0e4b01e9288730415

I coined the term “cisgender” in 1994. Nearly three decades later, the word has had ramifications I never dreamed of...

It took years for the term to take off, and it was not until 2016 that it entered both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary ― both attributed the origin of the word to my 1994 post....

Even though I never predicted it, the word cisgender is now at the center of a minor maelstrom. Across social media, people say they resent being “labeled” or having an unwanted term “forced” on them. Some call cisgender a slur — as in, “I’m not cis, I’m normal.”

..It saddens me to hear that people feel harmed by the word cisgender. Is the creation of the word to blame? No. Cisgender is just a straw man. It is easier to attack a word than to address the reasons people feel intimidated by discussions of gender identity.

Again, some people consider "cisgender" a slur. X actually bans it as such. Would you argue that Dems should stop using the term cisgender, lest they drive people into the arms for Trump? If not, why is one new, inclusive word with some resistance to use ok, and another not?

Think about what you wrote here in terms of the word/indentity cisgender:

"And when in doubt about how people identify, she advises, just ask them."

Somehow that's not part of the conversation though. Again, why? What is that about? I think it's part of a broader problem, that the left can come off with this very arrogant "we know better" attitude to people. And on some topics it's true. 100%. This isn't some both sides BS. But it's not always actually true, and it's important I think to be open to that part of the discussion.

Are you open to people calling cisgender a slur and wanting it banned from usage on Ars? Do you recommend people stop using it, since some get offended by it?

And you're final quote basically boils down to "using LGBTQ+ inclusive terms may lose the votes of some Latinos, and that's worse than Trump, who's openly hateful to those Latinos." If people are willing to vote for a hateful bigot that want to actively make their life worse, do you really think the term Latinx was the tipping point?

 

[marsilies]

I think it's more than fair to point to the one example I linked, I didn't drop a bunch of research in the thread and just grabbed an easy link. That's on me, I chose not to. I had more links and I deleted them from the post, because I wasn't trying to approach it that way. Clearly I should have. It's incredibly easy to do so.

Linking up advocacy organizations is pretty much the kind of thing I'm talking about though. Look at these numbers:

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-an...spanics-since-2019-but-only-4-percent-use-it/

4%. Up 1% in 5 years as awareness has grown. Half the people polled still aren't even aware of it. That's not inclusive, it's something trying to be forced. Why?

Just to dig into this poll more. It's interesting that you're claiming the term is something that strongly negatively impacted the Democrats, when you're admitting on this poll that the majority aren't even aware of the term.

As for those who are aware? From that article:

And Hispanics are more likely to view more widespread use of Latinx as a bad thing rather than as something positive. About a third (36%) who have heard of the term say it is a bad thing for people to use Latinx more often, while 12% say it is a good thing. Another 38% of Hispanics view growing use of the term as neither good nor bad, and 14% say they are not sure.

So, 36%, a minority, think it's a bad term. And that's of just the 47% that have heard of it. So in other words, 17% of Latinos had a negative view of the term.

Also, it's interesting that poll doesn't include info from an earlier poll, about what people associate with the term:
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-an...anics-have-heard-of-latinx-but-just-3-use-it/

When asked in an open-ended question what Latinx means in their own words, 42% of those who have heard the term describe it as a gender-neutral one. As one 21-year-old woman said, “Latinx is a more inclusive term to use for those who do not choose to identify with a certain gender. The terms Latino and Latina are very limiting for certain people.”

Other responses from the open-ended question offer other descriptions of Latinx and reactions to it. For example, 12% of respondents who had heard of Latinx express disagreement or dislike of the term. Some described the term as an “anglicism” of the Spanish language, while others say the term is “not representative of the larger Latino community.”

Among other responses, 12% say Latinx is a term about being Hispanic or Latino, while 9% of those aware of Latinx say it is an LGBTQ community inclusive term. And 6% of respondents who have heard of Latinx say it is a new, alternative or replacement term for Latino.

At the least, the new article does note who's most likely to use the term:

While the use of Latinx among U.S. Hispanics has not grown since 2019, some demographic subgroups are more likely than Hispanic adults overall (4%) to say they have used the term to describe themselves.

13% of lesbian, gay or bisexual Latinos say they have used Latinx to describe themselves.
9% of Afro-Latinos say they use Latinx.

Again, reflective of how it's considered a more inclusive term, especially in terms of LGBTQ+ people.

 

[Aurich]

By all means feel free to use Latinx with people who self-identify by it. I certainly have no problem with that. Trying to make it some inclusive term for people who don't want it is exactly the problem and the point you're continuing to make for me.

 

[graylshaped]

"And when in doubt about how people identify, she advises, just ask them."

I did. When I first became friends with the woman I eventually married, we had many a long discussion about the differences in our upbringings, which went well beyond ethnicity. When asked, she said IF someone had to label her (which she preferred they not do), she asked she be called an American, for the very reasons we are now debating. If pushed, she preferred Latina to Mexican, Mexicana, or Hispanic, because it was more accurate. Even though her parents were Mexican, her heritage went beyond that country. DNA sampling of our kid at the request of my dad and her mom confirmed exactly that.

When "LatinX" became a topic of debate, I asked her about it. "No one uses it because people consider themselves Latina or Latino, and that's how they self-describe."

It is realistic to believe those who struggle with non-standard gender considerations on top of the whole wacky some languages work differently than English thing want to project its usage as being patronizing, rather than what I believe you are correct in saying is a clumsy Anglicization. I strongly agree with calling people by the terms they prefer.

Then again, neither I, nor my mother, nor my son go by the given names on our birth certificates.

 

[Aurich]

There are feminists who prefer the term "womyn" because it's distinct from having "men" in it. Outside of those circles it never really caught on. I think it would be very weird to insist on calling all women that after they told you they don't care for it. Regardless of good intentions or your thoughts about language.

Somehow LatinX is a magic exception, for ... reasons.

As I see it this is what virtue signaling is. Telling someone your self identity as someone who uses "inclusive language" is more important than what they self identify as. It's not really about them then, it's about you.

 

[marsilies]

By all means feel free to use Latinx with people who self-identify by it. I certainly have no problem with that. Trying to make it some inclusive term for people who don't want it is exactly the problem and the point you're continuing to make for me.

Again, do you think the same for cisgender? As long as a minority percentage of the group don't like the term, it shouldn't be used?

 

[Aurich]

Again, do you think the same for cisgender? As long as a minority percentage of the group don't like the term, it shouldn't be used?

Here's why I don't like this question. Not because I'm not happy to answer it, but because you're being weasely with the terms in how you ask it. As well as engaging in whataboutism to shift the goalposts and avoid the actual discussion.

There is no "minority percentage of the group" in the scenario we're talking about with LatinX. It's the opposite. 4% isn't who objects, it's who self identifies. You can't just flip that and pretend the math is inverted.

I do not in fact care if people use cisgender. It's not how I think about the basis of my self identification, and if I feel like someone is using it to reduce or other me I will probably feel turned off. Context matters, it's a factual word, and it can be using in a sneering way.

Some people only hear the sneer. If you're trying to be respectful of them continuing to throw it at them is counterproductive.

But it doesn't matter. There is no relation here to LatinX. The left keep using a word that people find offensive, that is not endemic to the community, and what happens? People dig in their heels. It is in fact virtue signaling in the actual sense of the term.

Calling someone something that isn't what they would like to be called and then defending it because you prefer it because it's convenient to your outlook is about caring about yourself, not the people you're talking about.

 

[marsilies]

Here's why I don't like this question. Not because I'm not happy to answer it, but because you're being weasely with the terms in how you ask it. As well as engaging in whataboutism to shift the goalposts and avoid the actual discussion.

There is no "minority percentage of the group" in the scenario we're talking about with LatinX. It's the opposite. 4% isn't who objects, it's who self identifies. You can't just flip that and pretend the math is inverted.

As per the links both of us have provided, especially that Pew Research poll you last linked to, only a minority who have heard the term view it negatively.

"About a third (36%) who have heard of the term say it is a bad thing for people to use Latinx more often, while 12% say it is a good thing. Another 38% of Hispanics view growing use of the term as neither good nor bad, and 14% say they are not sure."

Cisgender wasn't widely used at one point either, in fact for most of the time since it was coined it wasn't heavily used. It took a while for people to accept it, and some still don't accept the term for themselves. But it's an inclusive term.

But it doesn't matter. There is no relation here to LatinX.

Considering that Latinx was coined and first used by those in the LGBTQ+ community as a more inclusive term, there's a huge relationship between the two terms. You're denying a LGBTQ+ inclusive term because a minority of the people it refers to don't like it.

Again, would you advocate for Dems to stop using the term cisgender, since some conservatives don't like it, and could make them less likely to vote for a Democrat? Are you ok with suppressing LGBTQ+ inclusive terms because some people don't like them?

 

[Aurich]

Only in bizarro land could numbers like 36% view it negatively and 4% self identify with it be taken as "that's the word to use to refer to people".

I'm gonna stay with calling people what they ask to be called, instead of thinking that I know best.

And yes, if I'm trying to talk to someone and they find the use of cisgender bothersome I'll stop using it. Because it costs me nothing to listen and adjust. It's not remotely an inclusive term, and I'm not going to treat it as such.

 

[marsilies]

Only in bizarro land could numbers like 36% view it negatively and 4% self identify with it be taken as "that's the word to use to refer to people".

Again, cisgender likely had those numbers at some point. Should we not try to use new LGBTQ+ inclusive words, because it will take time for them to be fully accepted and adopted?

And yes, if I'm trying to talk to someone and they find the use of cisgender bothersome I'll stop using it.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you'd suggest Democrats stop using the term cisgender, since some object to the term? This was, after all, started by you saying Dems made a mistake using an LGBTQ+ inclusive term in their speeches and such.

You're admonishing others over their use of an LGBTQ+ inclusive term. It's not a good look.

 

[Madestjohn]

Easy example that had people heated: birthright citizenship. Again, you gotta track the rulings that lag his dumbshit pronouncements.

not to mention Vance’s statements that
‘Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’

or the Trump administration’s intentions to defy or just ignore judicial rulings

I mean delaying obstructing defying or ignoring judicial orders is kinda what Trump’s whole deal is

that and renegotiating/reneging/breaking contracts and prior agreements - and attempting to use intimidation, threats and blackmail

you know
like a wise guy

or a petulant privileged princling.

 

[Uragan]

not to mention Vance’s statements that
‘Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’

or the Trump administration’s intentions to defy or just ignore judicial rulings

I mean delaying obstructing defying or ignoring judicial orders is kinda what Trump’s whole deal is

that and renegotiating/reneging/breaking contracts and prior agreements - and attempting to use intimidation, threats and blackmail

you know
like a wise guy

or a petulant privileged princling.

The danger that is looming is that if the courts try to enforce their rulings through fines or arresting someone for contempt, the mechanism for which they can do those things is through the U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the DOJ.

Trump could, theoretically, order the USMS via the DOJ to ignore the courts, which would set up a huge constitutional crisis.

 

[CuriouslySane]

The danger that is looming is that if the courts try to enforce their rulings through fines or arresting someone for contempt, the mechanism for which they can do those things is through the U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the DOJ.

Trump could, theoretically, order the USMS via the DOJ to ignore the courts, which would set up a huge constitutional crisis.

Comes up on today's ICHH https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-...onstitutional-law-professor-reacts-266447708/

It boils down to whether enough people believe in the rule of law. If they don't, then there's no power that will enforce it.

 

[Madestjohn]

The danger that is looming is that if the courts try to enforce their rulings through fines or arresting someone for contempt, the mechanism for which they can do those things is through the U.S. Marshals Service, which is part of the DOJ.

Trump could, theoretically, order the USMS via the DOJ to ignore the courts, which would set up a huge constitutional crisis.

well he just ordered justice authorities to just stop enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), putting open corporate corruption and bribery of foreign government back into the ‘best practices’ column
so even if there is technically a law against whatever he wants can just chose to tell DOJ not to prosecute ( remember when he accused them of selective prosecution?) and while unlike the DOJ the FBI has not yet fully caved - resisting hanging over names, home addresses and children’s schools of all Jan 6 investigators - we have a fanatic waiting in the wings

wow … can you imagine how fucked we’d be if Trump wasn’t an imbecile ?

I mean we still are,
but damn if a bunch of fin-tech frat bro monarchists and syphilitic aging sex offenders can destroy america governance this easily with this meager
resistance from ‘the deep state’

- how the hell did it last this long?

 

[Uragan]

- how the hell did it last this long?

Hopes and prayers, to be honest.

Like none of this is necessarily new though. The country split in two because a certain demographic was dead set on owning a different particular demographic. One could easily make the argument that the “American Experiment” failed as soon as the first shots were aimed at Fort Sumter.

 

[Madestjohn]

Hopes and prayers, to be honest.

Like none of this is necessarily new though. The country split in two because a certain demographic was dead set on owning a different particular demographic. One could easily make the argument that the “American Experiment” failed as soon as the first shots were aimed at Fort Sumter.

well if they want to burn the house down
as a Canuck let me say we’re willing to do it for them

like we done it before

they’re certainly putting us in the mood for it

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

- how the hell did it last this long?

The honor system used to work when parties to it were able to be shamed.

 

[marsilies]

The honor system used to work when parties to it were able to be shamed.

The GOP also used to have a spine and at least some democratic ideals. Nixon was convinced to resign because he knew enough GOP congresspeople were willing to both impeach and convict him.