Got some more info on that? The suffix certainly far predates modern (mid to late 1800s) eugenics. Did the Greeks use it to describe some ancient eugenics movement I’m not aware of? It’s root eidos is a common word—not to mention, newton discussed oblate spheroids in the 17th century.
I won’t speak of the eugenics angle, though I think there is a reason to feel uncomfortable for that, as its usage in eugenics stems from a dismissing of the humanity of various ethnic groups and the establishment of several “humanoid” species.
From a linguistic perspective, using “oid” is actually a negation of the author’s intent in most use cases here on lemmygrad.
“Oid” is used to describe a semblance. An android is like a man (andro), but is not one. A factoid is presented as a fact, but is not true (as per the term coined by Norman Mailer). A spheroid, as you mentioned, is like a sphere, but is not actually spherical. An asteroid is star-like, but is not a star.
The most common use cases of “oid” on the site are “westoid” and “angloid.”
Linguistically, calling someone a “westoid” would mean like a westerner, but not from the west.
An “angloid” would be like an anglo, but not actually anglo.
And in this case, a “crackeroid” would be like a cracker, but not a cracker.
However, when people say “angloid,” “westoid,” and now “crackeroid,” they mean, in fact, an actual westerner, anglo, and cracker. So the “oid” suffix is an incorrect addition to the term.
Good point. I was just curious if this was another instance of modern science borrowing from the eugenics movement. I don’t want people to think I was trying to defend the use of -oid or something.
Got some more info on that? The suffix certainly far predates modern (mid to late 1800s) eugenics. Did the Greeks use it to describe some ancient eugenics movement I’m not aware of? It’s root eidos is a common word—not to mention, newton discussed oblate spheroids in the 17th century.
I won’t speak of the eugenics angle, though I think there is a reason to feel uncomfortable for that, as its usage in eugenics stems from a dismissing of the humanity of various ethnic groups and the establishment of several “humanoid” species.
From a linguistic perspective, using “oid” is actually a negation of the author’s intent in most use cases here on lemmygrad.
“Oid” is used to describe a semblance. An android is like a man (andro), but is not one. A factoid is presented as a fact, but is not true (as per the term coined by Norman Mailer). A spheroid, as you mentioned, is like a sphere, but is not actually spherical. An asteroid is star-like, but is not a star.
The most common use cases of “oid” on the site are “westoid” and “angloid.”
Linguistically, calling someone a “westoid” would mean like a westerner, but not from the west.
An “angloid” would be like an anglo, but not actually anglo.
And in this case, a “crackeroid” would be like a cracker, but not a cracker.
However, when people say “angloid,” “westoid,” and now “crackeroid,” they mean, in fact, an actual westerner, anglo, and cracker. So the “oid” suffix is an incorrect addition to the term.
Good point. I was just curious if this was another instance of modern science borrowing from the eugenics movement. I don’t want people to think I was trying to defend the use of -oid or something.
So, a comprador or other (neo)colonial bootlicker.
your pfp scares me