Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
SinisterDeath

Official language in the US

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Lenlo said:

How is not speaking the language of the land racism? It doesn't matter what your skin color is, so it has nothing to do with race.

 

Personally, I want English to be the official language. I see nothing wrong with that. Expecting someone to speak German when living in Germany is not unreasonable, they shouldn't have to bend over backwards for other people, so why is it considered unreasonable in America?

 

To me, its not. Welcome to a foreign country.

 

We don't have an official language; English is the default languge here, and, frankly, it is the new "langue francias" of the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyzack said:

 

We don't have an official language; English is the default languge here, and, frankly, it is the new "langue francias" of the entire world.

We don't. I am saying we should. Welcome to yesterdays conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

We don't. I am saying we should. Welcome to yesterdays conversation.

 

I was traveling yesterday.

 

My point is that we don't need one. All (most) signs/interactions are in english (by default), plus whatever other langauges are needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

I was traveling yesterday.

 

My point is that we don't need one. All (most) signs/interactions are in english (by default), plus whatever other langauges are needed.

And I disagree. The fact that there are areas of this country where you can go and not find anyone who speaks English is a problem. That some people think they can just move to this country not speaking the language, like say... the refugee caravan currently trying to get its way in here, is a problem. We need a common baseline for communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

And I disagree. The fact that there are areas of this country where you can go and not find anyone who speaks English is a problem. That some people think they can just move to this country not speaking the language, like say... the refugee caravan currently trying to get its way in here, is a problem. We need a common baseline for communication.

 

That's different.

 

There aren't towns which put up "Arret" signs instead of "stop" signs, or highway signs which say "Zerbitzu hau irten da"

 

Saying that "english is the offical language" doesn't help you if you're issue is ordering at a restaruant.

 

 

Edited by Tyzack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

That's different.

 

There aren't towns which put up "Arret" signs instead of "stop" signs, or highway signs which say "Zerbitzu hau irten da"

 

Saying that "english is the offical language" doesn't help you if you're issue is ordering at a restaruant.

 

 

It is if they now have to learn it to keep their job. Which they should, being in a service position in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

It is if they now have to learn it to keep their job. Which they should, being in a service position in America.

 

There are restaurants around me where the staffs english is broken at best, but I don’t think it really matters. Having English be an official language wouldn’t help either; am I supposed to call the police because the employee got my order wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Saying that "english is the offical language" doesn't help you if you're issue is ordering at a restaruant."

 

Actually it would. The requirement would mean that very one in the country would have to obtain a minimum level of literacy in English. Prblem with your scenerio is that since servers are not required to obtain a minimum level of english proficiency they can at best only communicate in broken english which at the very leaqst complicates you eating at those restaurants.

 

Of course they would still not be required to speak english in seving you if their employer did not care, but at least they would have the ability to speak english which of course would increase their job potential above of those of menial jobs close to ethnic enclaves.

Edited by CUBAREY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, learning English is a net positive for everyone. We get a baseline communication language, and they get better prospects. Learning the language of the country you are living in is never going to hurt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lenlo said:

Really, learning English is a net positive for everyone. We get a baseline communication language, and they get better prospects. Learning the language of the country you are living in is never going to hurt you.

 

I’m really struggling to understand this; I’ve always been able to communicate in English in at least marginally worldly countries, even in rural parts, with “smile, ‘Hello’, point and smile, and ‘thank you’”

 

are you saying  you’re having problems where even that won’t work in the us?

 

like, most Uber/Lyft drivers are barely fluent but, again, I don’t see a problem 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"are you saying  you’re having problems where even that won’t work in the us?"

 

Kind of hard to have any type of poltical or social impact discusiion when your communication is Hello, point and smile.

 

Pointing and smiling might get you someplace if you are a toruist looking for the nearest torurest attraction, it's not exactly helpful when you are dealing with people on an ungoing bases.

 

Also, even in the mundane setting of a restaurant setting, pointing and smiling gets you very little when you are asking about how a dish is being prepared or asking for a side to be substituted for.

 

 

"like, most Uber/Lyft drivers are barely fluent but, again, I don’t see a problem "

 

Ever try convincing one of these guys not to take a certain route because you have information that it would delay the trip but you cannot get them to understand your explaination because they lack english skills and the end result is that you get caught in a massive traffic jam and are 30 minutes late to an appointment!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

 

I’m really struggling to understand this; I’ve always been able to communicate in English in at least marginally worldly countries, even in rural parts, with “smile, ‘Hello’, point and smile, and ‘thank you’”

 

are you saying  you’re having problems where even that won’t work in the us?

 

like, most Uber/Lyft drivers are barely fluent but, again, I don’t see a problem 

English as the official national language only makes sense, not sure what the struggle is. Let me lay down some points for you and see where you stand then.

 

1. First and foremost as far as I know every developed nation has a national langue and usually an official one as well. This also applies to many developing nations as well. So to have an official language is not out of place or at odds with the norm of the rest of the world. This is not in dispute I hope.

 

2. To have multiple national languages is to harbor split identities and possibly loyalties which then usually fester until they turn into outright independence movements. (See: Canada, Spain)

 

3. The opposite is true of having one national language (as well as religion, culture, etc). It is unifying and brings a people closer together as a nation.

 

4. It is not only practical, it's obvious. The majority of the United States still speaks English as a first and usually only language. In addition the rest of the world has gone to great lengths to teach themselves English as a second language. This is because English is the language of business and politics, primarily due to hundreds of years of English and then American dominance on the world stage. It is basically the "common tongue" of Earth if we were to have one.

 

5. We already demand that our children learn English in school as well as immigrants entering the country legally.

 

6. Making English the official language removes the need to print government papers and signs in so many different languages and would save vast amounts of money on interpreters for court alone.

 

7. Even now it would be relatively easy to implement and the idea shares widespread and bipartisan support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) English is the default national (and international) language.

 

2.) SATs, APs, MCAS (and most other graduate-requirement tests) are in the English, and while elementary and primary schools can/should/do have multi-lingual instruction, all instruction I've ever had - or heard of - at college, graduate, or post graduate level is taught in English, even if it's not the primary langauge of the instrutor or the majority of the class.

 

3.) Our national discourse is in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

1.) English is the default national (and international) language.

 

2.) SATs, APs, MCAS (and most other graduate-requirement tests) are in the English, and while elementary and primary schools can/should/do have multi-lingual instruction, all instruction I've ever had - or heard of - at college, graduate, or post graduate level is taught in English, even if it's not the primary language of the instructor or the majority of the class.

 

3.) Our national discourse is in English.

^
This.
We don't need to legislate something that is already de facto true.

I still maintain it creates artificial hurtles in the future if the standard world language changes, and sets precedent for criminalizing the use of languages that aren't English.
https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/116243

Quote

Boycotting German was the first step in the campaign, but legislating against the language quickly followed. Scribner’s was urged to publish no German titles during the war. Sheet music dealers refused to handle German songs. At least one American Berlin was renamed Liberty. Even German foods were rebranded. Just as later, during the Iraq War, French fries would become freedom fries, in the America of World War I,German fried potatoes became American fries, sauerkraut morphed into liberty cabbage, and superpatriots even caught the liberty measles.

Quote

In addition, new laws regulated the use of foreign languages. Responding to a growing sentiment that using anything but English gave aid and comfort to the enemy, the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 USC Appendix), passed in June, 1917, suppressed the American foreign-language press and declared non-English printed matter unmailable without a certified English translation.

Quote

Across the country, state and local ordinances forbade the use of foreign languages, urged immigrants to switch to English immediately, and punished those who failed to comply. On May 23, 1918, Iowa Gov. William Harding banned the use of any foreign language in public: in schools, on the streets, in trains, even over the telephone, a more public instrument then than it is today. For Harding, the First Amendment “is not a guaranty of the right to use a language other than the language of this country—the English language.”


So @Lenlo how exactly was my argument a slippery slope, when it's exactly what HAS happened in the past? In 'Murica?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean during WW1 and 2 where we had concentration camps for Japanese US Citizens? That has nothing to do with criminalizing languages that weren't English and everything to do with us being at war with them. A really damn big war.

 

You find me something like this that A) isnt from over 100 years ago and B) isn't from the same time period where we jailed US citizens based on nationality, still didn't allow black people or women to vote and weren't at War with half the world, then you will have a point.

 

As is? That's an out of date example based on a world changing event. Other countries with official languages didn't do that, so why does America with no official language doing that prove that having an official language will cause it to happen? Simply, it doesn't.

 

The precedent argument is ridiculous. You can't set precedent for criminalizing something by making one thing required. They are two independent things and by your own examples, we don't need to have an official language to criminalize other languages. Your own examples showed them to be independent of each other.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lenlo said:

ou find me something like this that A) isnt from over 100 years ago and B) isn't from the same time period where we jailed US citizens based on nationality, still didn't allow black people or women to vote and weren't at War with half the world, then you will have a point.

Now your just back-peddling.

A) Many of the stuff highlighted in the article took place between 1917 and the 1960s. So Not all of it was over a hundred years ago. WW2 was 79 years ago dude. L2Math

B) Read the article. Most of it targeted Germans, not the Japanese, and that fueled growing xenophobia to target any non-English language. So much so as to criminalize any language spoken verbally in public that wasn't English in certain jurisdictions.

So again, you said I was making a slippery slope argument. I wasn't. This shit already happened, even with languages of peoples we weren't at war with!

 

2 hours ago, Lenlo said:

As is? That's an out of date example based on a world changing event. Other countries with official languages didn't do that, so why does America with no official language doing that prove that having an official language will cause it to happen? Simply, it doesn't.

Other countries are also not America. Australia isn't America, Canada isn't America, Britain isn't America. Which is why any argument that mentions well it worked in X country falls apart.  Those countries aren't America. They don't have the same demographics, size, bureaucracy, etc.

 

2 hours ago, Lenlo said:

The precedent argument is ridiculous. You can't set precedent for criminalizing something by making one thing required.

If you have an official language, it sets precedent in the sense that we have already ESTABLISHED/ENSHRINED in the LAW that X language is the language of the land. Which makes justifying the criminalization of any non-official language so much easier.

 

If you try to criminalize speaking a language, you cannot currently justify it based on any Law that states English is the official language. 

 

Quote

They are two independent things and by your own examples, we don't need to have an official language to criminalize other languages. Your own examples showed them to be independent of each other.

What you failed to see is that we have done it in the past. 

By making it a FEDERAL LAW, it makes it easier for FEDERAL LAW to CRIMINALIZE it, not just local jurisdictions that relied heavily upon xenophobia of the time to make it pass. Criminalizing it right now isn't going to happen. But making a Federal Law making English the official language (And it's not going to stop there, it's going to go down Nolder territory of all official documents, no translations, nothing) allows for congress to pass criminalization laws in the future, without having to heavily rely on xenophobia. They can merely argue "But it's the official language!"

Side Thought:

If you want to make it so no federal agencies have to translate documents to foreign languages, cause F those guys. You don't need a Federal Law making English the Official language to do that. I'm pretty sure a Presidential Directive will accomplish that. Infact, I'm pretty sure most of what you guys want with it, can be accomplished through Presidential directives without wasting time in Congress on something so trivially stupid.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only speak for myself, but when people refuse to attempt to communicate with people outside of fully fluent conversational English, they're simply being jerks.

 

Though, the country (not a majority, of course), elected someone as Presidents whose platform was essentially "I'll get a jerk for you." How 'jerks' are appealing, at any level, always baffels me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tyzack said:

I can only speak for myself, but when people refuse to attempt to communicate with people outside of fully fluent conversational English, they're simply being jerks.

 

Though, the country (not a majority, of course), elected someone as Presidents whose platform was essentially "I'll get a jerk for you." How 'jerks' are appealing, at any level, always baffels me.

If someone trys to talk to me without it, asking for directions or such, I will do my best to help them. If they are tourists, its perfectly understandable. No one expects tourists to be fluent.

 

If your going to live here however? There comes a minimum level of expected effort. If I moved to Germany, I wouldn't expect everyone there to speak English to accommodate me. I would learn German, because I am moving to their country. So I should speak their language.

 

SD, your argument is so very clearly slippery slope its ridiculous. Its on the same level as people who claim that the Government is going to take all their guns the moment any kind of gun law is put in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

SD, your argument is so very clearly slippery slope its ridiculous. Its on the same level as people who claim that the Government is going to take all their guns the moment any kind of gun law is put in place.

Nope. Because municipal and state governments have already done it in the past. And with the current Administration in place, if we make it Official in 2 months, chances are criminalization is happening in the next 3.

You claiming my argument is purely slippery slope, is just you committing a a strawman argument.

 

Quote

slippery slope

You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

I have offered proof that such things can happen, and have happened. not just in some far away 3rd world country but in our own. The reasons, the xenophobia, might change but it is there.
Also, I'm not appealing to emotion at all. If anything, it's stirring up your sides emotions against it.

 

Quote

strawman

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.

Example: After Will said that we should put more money into health and education, Warren responded by saying that he was surprised that Will hates our country so much that he wants to leave it defenceless by cutting military spending.

Sauce: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

If someone trys to talk to me without it, asking for directions or such, I will do my best to help them. If they are tourists, its perfectly understandable. No one expects tourists to be fluent.

 

If your going to live here however? There comes a minimum level of expected effort. If I moved to Germany, I wouldn't expect everyone there to speak English to accommodate me. I would learn German, because I am moving to their country. So I should speak their language.

 

SD, your argument is so very clearly slippery slope its ridiculous. Its on the same level as people who claim that the Government is going to take all their guns the moment any kind of gun law is put in place.

 

So your assumption is that everyone you interact with who is struggling to speak english is actively -not- trying to learn it? My assumption is that moving to a new country is really hard - i have a few friends who are doing just that, and doing the "learning through immersion" technique - so when I'm ordering something, or trying to direct a driver, i make sure to use simple, concise lanague- which isn't always easy for me since that's not my naturual speech pattern.

 

It's facinating to watch/listen my sisters interact in public here since they both live overseas in non-english countries where english is the commonly spoken langauge. The english they speak to others in public is very different - both simplier and more communicative - than cloqual american english.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tyzack said:

 

So your assumption is that everyone you interact with who is struggling to speak english is actively -not- trying to learn it? My assumption is that moving to a new country is really hard - i have a few friends who are doing just that, and doing the "learning through immersion" technique - so when I'm ordering something, or trying to direct a driver, i make sure to use simple, concise lanague- which isn't always easy for me since that's not my naturual speech pattern.

 

It's facinating to watch/listen my sisters interact in public here since they both live overseas in non-english countries where english is the commonly spoken langauge. The english they speak to others in public is very different - both simplier and more communicative - than cloqual american english.

Nah, if there is an effort, all power to them. Im patient with people tryin. You can't live in the south and not be used to spangrish.

 

Its the people who don't try and then get upset I don't speak spanish when I work in a customer facing position at my apartment complex in Waco Texas that I get annoyed at.

 

And yes, they exist. And yes, I have received complaints from people to my boss that I don't speak spanish because "This is Texas! Why don't you speak spanish?!" or their daughter getting upset they have to translate to/for me from their parents. Were they in a minority? Without a doubt, this was not a common occurrence, I am not saying this happened every day or even every month. But it happened enough in my 2 years working there that I remember it 3 years after quitting the job.

Edited by Lenlo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SinisterDeath said:

Other countries are also not America. Australia isn't America, Canada isn't America, Britain isn't America. Which is why any argument that mentions well it worked in X country falls apart.  Those countries aren't America. They don't have the same demographics, size, bureaucracy, etc.

 

I suggest Nolder and Cubarey hold this quote in their back pocket the next time a Gun Debate comes up. I know I will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

I suggest Nolder and Cubarey hold this quote in their back pocket the next time a Gun Debate comes up. I know I will be.

So you completely didn't read this.

20 minutes ago, Lenlo said:

Which is why any argument that mentions well it worked in X country falls apart.  Those countries aren't America. They don't have the same demographics, size, bureaucracy, etc.

You realize, I don't make the argument, that it works in those countries. You're confusing me with someone else.

 

Infact, I've called out those same people on why that's a bad argument, and even point out things like why they need to actually learn correct gun terminology if they want to actually try and have a debate about gun control without coming off as a raging liberal.

 

So.. Uhh Want to continue with that strawman argument stuff?

 

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SinisterDeath said:

So you completely didn't read this.

You realize, I don't make the argument that it works in those countries. You're confusing me with someone else.

Infact, I've even called out those same people on why that's a bad argument.

 

So.. Uhh Want to continue with that strawman argument stuff?

 

I completely read it. Whether you were the one who argues that other countries gun laws work or not is irrelevant. Its still a useful quote to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lenlo said:

I completely read it. Whether you were the one who argues that other countries gun laws work or not is irrelevant. Its still a useful quote to have.

Not useful against me since I don't make that argument.

 

And they've both used that argument themselves in the past.... so not all that useful. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Posts

    • Hey everyone. This is my first post and I figured this would be a good place to start. I've been chewing on this thread for well over a week, and as I am towards the end of book 5 in my first reread, I have a few things that I would potentially change.  These 3 things I feel are connected to some extent.    I should probably mention that I will probably not articulate this nearly as well here as I have in my head over the last week, but I will try.   1. Logain    Ever since we meet him in the Tower after being gentled and Min had her viewing of him, I was rooting really hard for him to have a major part or impact in the story. So obviously it follows that I was pretty disappointed in what became of him. I think he was severely underdeveloped and had so much potential .Maybe having him be the one to defeat Taim during the Last Battle. I really dont think his fulfillment of Min's viewing in AMoL fits with her description in FoH ( glory above all men). He does get a bit of redemption with his actions at the end.   2. A powerful male channeler as a sidekick to Rand   I understand that Mat and Perrin kind of fill this role( and maybe even Nynaeve to a certain extent) but I always wished Rand had a sidekick that he could confide in and share his experiences with.   This is where I think points 1 and 3 tie in.   3. One of the Forsaken flipping   In the first few books, its somewhat of a common theme that "No one is so lost that he cannot be brought to the Light" or some several iterations of that.  Naturally, Asmodean was a prime candidate for that.  I think Lanfear and Moridin were as well, but to a lesser extent and for different reasons.   It seemed like Jordan was leading towards Asmodean having a much bigger role before his thread was cut.   With the emphasis on redemption early on in the series, I think this would have been a great avenue to explore in regards to the Forsaken.   Even if Asmodean didnt survive until the end, I think having him eventually flip and maybe dying doing something heroic to save Rands' life or of Rands' companions would have had a nice touch. Having a former Forsaken at Rands side doing battle would have been epic.     To be fair, I am happy with WoT how it is and I dont necessarily think that these suggestions would make the series better.   They could very well break it for all I know.  These are are just things I remember wishing and hoping for when I first read through the series.    
    • i murder illian for needing other peoples approval
    • I think the Sharans showing up was not set up well. I like being surprised, but it can’t be cheap. There have to be clues I missed that are like glowing arrows after the fact but could have meant something else when first read. I still find no foreshadowing of an entire Sharan army. 
×