Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Prestor Jon wrote: Having an official language that everyone is incentivized to learn and therefore also be able to effectively communicate with each other, allowing people to better understand each other and weakening the ability to create political and social divisions based on pandering dehumanizing fear of demographic groups sure would ruin everything, wouldn't it? It's not like the Feds would round people up and ship them off to English language education camps. Having official govt paperwork done primarily or exclusively in English doesn't force people to do anything, it just incentivizing knowledge of the language. Trying to get anything done, either with a private business or any level of govt without being able to understand English and relying on the possible availability of an interpreter is already an arduous task. Taking a de facto official language and making an actual official language isn't a big deal.
This may shock you, but people already are Incentivized to learn English, by the fact most people know it, and they would like to communicate. But going "feth you" to anyone who doesn't know English and doesn't have the time or resources to lean is moronic.
You're being hyperbolic. Is changing English from the de facto language of the US to the official language of the US terribly important? Not really. Are people already incentivized to learn English? Yes. Is officially recognizing that English is the de facto language of the US a big FETH YOU to anyone? No. Recognizing an already obvious truth isn't a big deal, the incentive to learn English will remain either way. It's nothing worth getting worked up over.
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
Not having an official language sure has gotten in our way of leading the world, hasn't it?
Having an official language that everyone is incentivized to learn and therefore also be able to effectively communicate with each other, allowing people to better understand each other and weakening the ability to create political and social divisions based on pandering dehumanizing fear of demographic groups sure would ruin everything, wouldn't it? It's not like the Feds would round people up and ship them off to English language education camps. Having official govt paperwork done primarily or exclusively in English doesn't force people to do anything, it just incentivizing knowledge of the language. Trying to get anything done, either with a private business or any level of govt without being able to understand English and relying on the possible availability of an interpreter is already an arduous task. Taking a de facto official language and making an actual official language isn't a big deal.
"English language education camps"...so going to the usual reference of hyperbole, I see? Okay.
Firstly, don't kid yourself thinking that an "official language" would do anything to eliminate social divisions, pandering, or anything else along those lines. An official language would cater to and empower the small minded boobs that think this country was founded by legions of white, English-speaking immigrants coming across the pond and checking into Ellis Island with the ability to speak and read the native language perfectly and their certainty that anyone that doesn't isn't of the same status as them. Absurd xenophobia at it's worst. People come here to make a better life for themselves and their family, they learn the language de facto. Hell, I've got a neighbor whose elderly mother, a naturalized citizen, still speaks almost exclusively Greek...with enough English to get by...and her and her family occupy the most expensive house on the block and own probably a dozen restaurants in the Chicago area.
"Incentives"? I think the incentive to learn the language of the land, which is English...any debate on that?...has been, and is, as strong as it always has been without the government officializing anything. Simply, it allows for access to wealth and education, which are pretty much the drivers for everyone coming to our country. Proof? The largest increase in College/University enrollment in the past 15 years has been Hispanics. From 1996 to 2012, college enrollment among Hispanics ages 18 to 24 more than tripled (240% increase), outpacing increases among blacks (72%) and whites (12%). Pretty sure they're just one, or less, generation from not being English as a first language. And that impressive accomplishment and statistic comes without any official language driving them.
You're only proving my point. Your Greek neighbors were going to learn English at least enough to get by and make sure their children became fluent in it when it wasn't the official language just the de facto language so nothing would have changed if English was the official language. Again, recognizing an already obvious truth isn't bad policy, it's a high priority or a necessity because primacy of the language is already established but it's not inherently racist or prejudicial.
To quote the Lady:
'New Colossus'
(statue of liberty poem)
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Just feth yeah! Still looking for the "...and we speak English here, bitches!" bit. Sorry, but you must see that the tone and message behind the whole "English as official language" movement is more than just a debate between "de facto" and "official", otherwise it wouldn't register on anyone's radar. If you can't see that, then I think you're missing the point here.
You're arguing that officially recognizing the importance of immigrants' need to learn English, something already accepted as being true and necessary, by making English our official language is really a xenophobic racist dog whistle for govt sanctioned prejudicial malicious actions because of a poem we put on a statue in 1903? I think you're trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable. I'm not arguing that making English the official language needs to be done, I'm pointing out that everybody already recognizing the need to learn it and learns it so recognizing it is a very minor issue. You're arguing that the govt taking an official position that aligns with preexisting widely accepted conditions is the equivalent of persecution.
You're arguing that officially recognizing the importance of immigrants' need to learn English, something already accepted as being true and necessary, by making English our official language is really a xenophobic racist dog whistle for govt sanctioned prejudicial malicious actions because of a poem we put on a statue in 1903? I think you're trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable. I'm not arguing that making English the official language needs to be done, I'm pointing out that everybody already recognizing the need to learn it and learns it so recognizing it is a very minor issue. You're arguing that the govt taking an official position that aligns with preexisting widely accepted conditions is the equivalent of persecution.
If you want people to learn English, set up tax-funded classes for them. While you're at it, get better funding for anyone to learn the most common languages in the US. Make sure people actually have the opportunity to regularly go to classes, too. Enshrining English as the most important language would, given the social and political climate, absolutely be an affirmation of white supremacy.
cuda1179 wrote:I think you misunderstood what I posted. I never proposed " discrimination as state policy" as you put it.
The really sad part here is that people are failing to think through an extremely simple cause and effect scenario.
Singling people out for investigation for non-criminal acts is pretty damn discriminatory, especially when the people who will be effected are most likely to be non-whites and immigrants.
I feel that anyone should be allowed to speak any language they want without repercussions.
Then maybe we shouldn't be investigating people for doing so, or demanding they learn one language. It would almost certainly fail a Constitutional challenge anyway because if freedom of speech includes not just what you say but how you say it, then people have the innate right to speak whatever language they want.
However, I do think that an official English language for official acts and paperwork would be a good idea.
Why? It's pointless. If you only produce paperwork in English, then anyone who can't red it (which is actually probably an even higher number than people who can't speak it), will need assistance filling paperwork. It's cheaper to produce the form in another language than it is to provide translation assistance every time someone wants to fill the form out. Even if you generate laws, legal proceedings, and basic functions in English as a lingua franca you'll still need to translate them for people who don't speak it/read it somewhere along the line. The only other alternative is to summarily shut anyone who doesn't out of access and participation in the state.
Just because someone is speaking something other than English does not mean they can't speak English.
If there is a law that says "anyone who interacts with government officials and can't speak English gets citizenship checked" that law is saying "anyone who doesn't speak English when filling a police report is getting citizenship checked" because if they're not speaking English they're speaking something else (that this has to be explained is probably sadder than that the idea was proposed in the first place). It's "Papers please" because its taking something that is not remotely an indication of immigration status. It's as stupid as the law requiring people to carry around proof of citizenship so beat and traffic cops can ask them if they're a citizen every time they interact with police. It's only effect is to take anything that is not "normal" for some people and make is suspect. It's pretty damn ludicrous, and the only thing more ludicrous is the utterly failure to think through the extremely basic consequence of such a policy and how it's completely discriminatory (not to mention how easy it would make it for a group to "DDOS" local and state government because Office Joe at the police desk has no idea if the white guy with a Spanish sounding name can speak any language other than Spanish just by talking to me when I walk into the station to report a broken window in Portugese).
You're arguing that officially recognizing the importance of immigrants' need to learn English, something already accepted as being true and necessary, by making English our official language is really a xenophobic racist dog whistle for govt sanctioned prejudicial malicious actions because of a poem we put on a statue in 1903? I think you're trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable. I'm not arguing that making English the official language needs to be done, I'm pointing out that everybody already recognizing the need to learn it and learns it so recognizing it is a very minor issue. You're arguing that the govt taking an official position that aligns with preexisting widely accepted conditions is the equivalent of persecution.
If you want people to learn English, set up tax-funded classes for them. While you're at it, get better funding for anyone to learn the most common languages in the US. Make sure people actually have the opportunity to regularly go to classes, too. Enshrining English as the most important language would, given the social and political climate, absolutely be an affirmation of white supremacy.
It's all really academic anyway.
Most second generation immigrants speak two languages. Most third and fourth generation immigrants speak one (and it's usually English).
This is literally a non-existent problem that resolves itself within 50 years. There's no need for a law or specific policy to fix it. Learning a new language at 30 is hard. It's not really a worthwhile burden for people already adjusting to a new place, work, raising their kids, and cultural norms. They'll often learn enough to get by, and their kids will pick it up from there.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/11/25 21:27:21
You know what happens to people who can only speak one language in an area where most people speak two languages? Say if you only spoke English where most people spoke French and English in highly-bilingual parts of Quebec?
Do you know, how rough it is, to only speak English in a place like that? Where most of the people you have to buy stuff from, most of the people you deal with in the government, and most of the doctors and nurses you have to deal with grew up in a home where they only speak French?
Basically, the language barrier isn't an issue for doing anything. Because when you live in a place where a lot of people speak two different languages, most store clerks, government officials, doctors and nurses, and literally everyone who has to deal with the public all the time, is REQUIRED to speak both languages quite fluently as a JOB REQUIREMENT.
So the fact I only knew English in a highly bilingual area didn't mean I couldn't do anything. I could just do everything in English, since everyone I was dealing with had to know the two common languages being spoken, one of which was French, the other of which was... English! The thing I speak! No problem communicating when we both know the same language, whatever that language is, is there? English was one of the languages that people who grew up in homes only speaking French had to learn to even GET the job of store clerk.
So being in a bilingual area doesn't mean you HAVE to learn both languages.
LordofHats wrote: [If there is a law that says "anyone who interacts with government officials and can't speak English gets citizenship checked" that law is saying "anyone who doesn't speak English when filling a police report is getting citizenship checked" because if they're not speaking English they're speaking something else (that this has to be explained is probably sadder than that the idea was proposed in the first place). It's "Papers please" because its taking something that is not remotely an indication of immigration status. It's as stupid as the law requiring people to carry around proof of citizenship so beat and traffic cops can ask them if they're a citizen every time they interact with police. It's only effect is to take anything that is not "normal" for some people and make is suspect. It's pretty damn ludicrous, and the only thing more ludicrous is the utterly failure to think through the extremely basic consequence of such a policy and how it's completely discriminatory (not to mention how easy it would make it for a group to "DDOS" local and state government because Office Joe at the police desk has no idea if the white guy with a Spanish sounding name can speak any language other than Spanish just by talking to me when I walk into the station to report a broken window in Portugese).
.
Once again, you are confusing "can't" and "doesn't". I can speak Spanish (sort-of). I can also speak English, the same as many immigrants. If you hear someone speaking random language x during a normal investigation, and he can't speak English run him through the system. If he is speaking random language x, but then reverts to English, he gets a pass. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I can understand how it could be a tempting and possibly useful tool.
And bye the way, I can read Spanish quite well. I can sort-of speak it, and sort-of write it. Listening to a natural Spanish speaker is a no-go for me. Might as well be Charley Brown's teacher.
My local DMV allows Spanish speakers to bring their own interpreter with them to take the written test. Hispanic people I know say that it is quite common for the interpreter to be the one to actually take the test and pass the answers along in Spanish. A "gringo" that worked there for a while actually spoke Spanish and busted a number of them doing just that. And while I agree that many signs are simply symbols, there are many that aren't. "No Right Turn on Red", No Parking This Side, No Parking during X Time, Reduced Speed Ahead, and others are not that uncommon.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 21:59:32
cuda1179 wrote: And while I agree that many signs are simply symbols, there are many that aren't. "No Right Turn on Red",
Why isn't that a symbol? We have signs like those around here in Ottawa, they usually feature a black traffic light symbol with the red symbol lit, combined with a right turn symbol somewhere and the whole thing being canceled out with a red circle with a slash through it universally known to mean "Don't do this!"
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
cuda1179 wrote: And while I agree that many signs are simply symbols, there are many that aren't. "No Right Turn on Red",
Why isn't that a symbol? We have signs like those around here in Ottawa, they usually feature a black traffic light symbol with the red symbol lit, combined with a right turn symbol somewhere and the whole thing being canceled out with a red circle with a slash through it universally known to mean "Don't do this!"
Yeah, something like this.
Spoiler:
Or, alternativly, because you have to know the signs to get your learner's permit, they would just have to know the phrase "on red", similar to this.
Spoiler:
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
cuda1179 wrote: And while I agree that many signs are simply symbols, there are many that aren't. "No Right Turn on Red",
Why isn't that a symbol? We have signs like those around here in Ottawa, they usually feature a black traffic light symbol with the red symbol lit, combined with a right turn symbol somewhere and the whole thing being canceled out with a red circle with a slash through it universally known to mean "Don't do this!"
Yeah, something like this.
Spoiler:
Or, alternativly, because you have to know the signs to get your learner's permit, they would just have to know the phrase "on red", similar to this.
Spoiler:
So the difference is nothing then? Except one involves reading something and the other involves recognizing a symbol?
You know what's way easier to do on the fly than reading something on a sign? Recognizing a symbol on a sign. I think that's true regardless of what language you speak.
Prestor Jon wrote: Having an official language that everyone is incentivized to learn and therefore also be able to effectively communicate with each other, allowing people to better understand each other and weakening the ability to create political and social divisions based on pandering dehumanizing fear of demographic groups sure would ruin everything, wouldn't it? It's not like the Feds would round people up and ship them off to English language education camps. Having official govt paperwork done primarily or exclusively in English doesn't force people to do anything, it just incentivizing knowledge of the language. Trying to get anything done, either with a private business or any level of govt without being able to understand English and relying on the possible availability of an interpreter is already an arduous task. Taking a de facto official language and making an actual official language isn't a big deal.
This may shock you, but people already are Incentivized to learn English, by the fact most people know it, and they would like to communicate. But going "feth you" to anyone who doesn't know English and doesn't have the time or resources to lean is moronic.
You're being hyperbolic. Is changing English from the de facto language of the US to the official language of the US terribly important? Not really. Are people already incentivized to learn English? Yes. Is officially recognizing that English is the de facto language of the US a big FETH YOU to anyone? No. Recognizing an already obvious truth isn't a big deal, the incentive to learn English will remain either way. It's nothing worth getting worked up over.
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
Not having an official language sure has gotten in our way of leading the world, hasn't it?
Having an official language that everyone is incentivized to learn and therefore also be able to effectively communicate with each other, allowing people to better understand each other and weakening the ability to create political and social divisions based on pandering dehumanizing fear of demographic groups sure would ruin everything, wouldn't it? It's not like the Feds would round people up and ship them off to English language education camps. Having official govt paperwork done primarily or exclusively in English doesn't force people to do anything, it just incentivizing knowledge of the language. Trying to get anything done, either with a private business or any level of govt without being able to understand English and relying on the possible availability of an interpreter is already an arduous task. Taking a de facto official language and making an actual official language isn't a big deal.
"English language education camps"...so going to the usual reference of hyperbole, I see? Okay.
Firstly, don't kid yourself thinking that an "official language" would do anything to eliminate social divisions, pandering, or anything else along those lines. An official language would cater to and empower the small minded boobs that think this country was founded by legions of white, English-speaking immigrants coming across the pond and checking into Ellis Island with the ability to speak and read the native language perfectly and their certainty that anyone that doesn't isn't of the same status as them. Absurd xenophobia at it's worst. People come here to make a better life for themselves and their family, they learn the language de facto. Hell, I've got a neighbor whose elderly mother, a naturalized citizen, still speaks almost exclusively Greek...with enough English to get by...and her and her family occupy the most expensive house on the block and own probably a dozen restaurants in the Chicago area.
"Incentives"? I think the incentive to learn the language of the land, which is English...any debate on that?...has been, and is, as strong as it always has been without the government officializing anything. Simply, it allows for access to wealth and education, which are pretty much the drivers for everyone coming to our country. Proof? The largest increase in College/University enrollment in the past 15 years has been Hispanics. From 1996 to 2012, college enrollment among Hispanics ages 18 to 24 more than tripled (240% increase), outpacing increases among blacks (72%) and whites (12%). Pretty sure they're just one, or less, generation from not being English as a first language. And that impressive accomplishment and statistic comes without any official language driving them.
You're only proving my point. Your Greek neighbors were going to learn English at least enough to get by and make sure their children became fluent in it when it wasn't the official language just the de facto language so nothing would have changed if English was the official language. Again, recognizing an already obvious truth isn't bad policy, it's a high priority or a necessity because primacy of the language is already established but it's not inherently racist or prejudicial.
To quote the Lady:
'New Colossus'
(statue of liberty poem)
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Just feth yeah! Still looking for the "...and we speak English here, bitches!" bit. Sorry, but you must see that the tone and message behind the whole "English as official language" movement is more than just a debate between "de facto" and "official", otherwise it wouldn't register on anyone's radar. If you can't see that, then I think you're missing the point here.
You're arguing that officially recognizing the importance of immigrants' need to learn English, something already accepted as being true and necessary, by making English our official language is really a xenophobic racist dog whistle for govt sanctioned prejudicial malicious actions because of a poem we put on a statue in 1903? I think you're trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable. I'm not arguing that making English the official language needs to be done, I'm pointing out that everybody already recognizing the need to learn it and learns it so recognizing it is a very minor issue. You're arguing that the govt taking an official position that aligns with preexisting widely accepted conditions is the equivalent of persecution.
I'm stating quite clearly that making English the "official" government language is absolutely unnecessary, will provide little...if any...benefit to our country and will provide a means for the sanctioning of discrimination by those elements seeking an opportunity to do so. I have absolutely no doubt this will happen. One only has to look at the aftermath of the Supreme Court's striking down of portions of the Voting Rights Act and the almost immediate impact on minorities thereafter. Thousands of polling sites closed or moved, polling hours changed and ID laws enacted. Even in your state, the Supreme Court ruled over the summer that new North Carolina voting rules targeted black Americans with "almost surgical precision." You think I'm "trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable."? You don't think we'll see the likely potential for a very similar cause-and-effect result in this situation? You're kidding yourself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:21:52
BigWaaagh wrote: I'm stating quite clearly that making English the "official" government language is absolutely unnecessary, will provide little...if any...benefit to our country and will provide a means for the sanctioning of discrimination by those elements seeking an opportunity to do so. I have absolutely no doubt this will happen. One only has to look at the aftermath of the Supreme Court's striking down of portions of the Voting Rights Act and the almost immediate impact on minorities thereafter. Thousands of polling sites closed or moved, polling hours changed and ID laws enacted. Even in your state, the Supreme Court ruled over the summer that new North Carolina voting rules targeted black Americans with "almost surgical precision." You think I'm "trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable."? You don't think we'll see a very similar cause-and-effect in this situation? You're kidding yourself.
Like the time when Canada made English and French our two official languages and... Uhhh... Well, I guess we got a lot of laughter out of watching Stephen Harper speak French sometimes.
Also, you're right. America making English its official language wouldn't be a good idea. Your government already does business in English anyways, and not having an official language lets individual areas with higher populations of non-English language being spoken offer government services in those areas in the language they're speaking there.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:25:07
BigWaaagh wrote: I'm stating quite clearly that making English the "official" government language is absolutely unnecessary, will provide little...if any...benefit to our country and will provide a means for the sanctioning of discrimination by those elements seeking an opportunity to do so. I have absolutely no doubt this will happen. One only has to look at the aftermath of the Supreme Court's striking down of portions of the Voting Rights Act and the almost immediate impact on minorities thereafter. Thousands of polling sites closed or moved, polling hours changed and ID laws enacted. Even in your state, the Supreme Court ruled over the summer that new North Carolina voting rules targeted black Americans with "almost surgical precision." You think I'm "trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable."? You don't think we'll see a very similar cause-and-effect in this situation? You're kidding yourself.
Like the time when Canada made English and French our two official languages and... Uhhh... Well, I guess we got a lot of laughter out of watching Stephen Harper speak French sometimes.
Canada and the US don't have quite the same cultural baggage. See a couple pages back where we had someone putting forth the idea that government officials should immediately question the citizenship of anyone they deal with who doesn't speak English.
Quick check - how many of the people willing to put government time and resources toward having an official language would support making the official languages English and Spanish?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:27:23
Once again, you are confusing "can't" and "doesn't".
Unless you make all government officials psychic or run a massive surveillance state there is no way to distinguish can't from doesn't.
And great job failing at arguing a technical point while utterly failing to address the underlying issue that the state shouldn't be launching investigations into people because of what they say or how they say it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:31:26
cuda1179 wrote: And while I agree that many signs are simply symbols, there are many that aren't. "No Right Turn on Red",
Why isn't that a symbol? We have signs like those around here in Ottawa, they usually feature a black traffic light symbol with the red symbol lit, combined with a right turn symbol somewhere and the whole thing being canceled out with a red circle with a slash through it universally known to mean "Don't do this!"
Yeah, something like this.
Spoiler:
Or, alternativly, because you have to know the signs to get your learner's permit, they would just have to know the phrase "on red", similar to this.
Spoiler:
So the difference is nothing then? Except one involves reading something and the other involves recognizing a symbol?
You know what's way easier to do on the fly than reading something on a sign? Recognizing a symbol on a sign. I think that's true regardless of what language you speak.
Yup, either way works.
Although the whole thing is moot, as you have to show you know what the signs mean to get your license.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:29:10
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Also, you're right. America making English its official language wouldn't be a good idea. Your government already does business in English anyways, and not having an official language lets individual areas with higher populations of non-English language being spoken offer government services in those areas in the language they're speaking there.
To expand on this, the idea that we need a law to make sure that the government is conducting business in the language the Constitution is written in is kind of absurd.
We don't need an official language.
The entire debate about making English the national language in the US has nothing to do with anything but winning a childish argument about how immigrants should learn English.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:29:44
BigWaaagh wrote: I'm stating quite clearly that making English the "official" government language is absolutely unnecessary, will provide little...if any...benefit to our country and will provide a means for the sanctioning of discrimination by those elements seeking an opportunity to do so. I have absolutely no doubt this will happen. One only has to look at the aftermath of the Supreme Court's striking down of portions of the Voting Rights Act and the almost immediate impact on minorities thereafter. Thousands of polling sites closed or moved, polling hours changed and ID laws enacted. Even in your state, the Supreme Court ruled over the summer that new North Carolina voting rules targeted black Americans with "almost surgical precision." You think I'm "trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable."? You don't think we'll see a very similar cause-and-effect in this situation? You're kidding yourself.
Like the time when Canada made English and French our two official languages and... Uhhh... Well, I guess we got a lot of laughter out of watching Stephen Harper speak French sometimes.
Canada and the US don't have quite the same cultural baggage.
Quick check - how many of the people willing to put government time and resources toward having an official language would support making the official languages English and Spanish?
I don't think you even should, really, People in your country speak more languages than just English and Spanish, and not requiring the government to only do business in any particular language at all lets you tailor those services to the languages that they're needed in.
An official language means your government loses options for languages they can work in, with the benefit of... I guess having your whole government speak the same language? I dunno. Maybe it makes a difference with bureaucracies and standardized forms or something.
Also, you're right. America making English its official language wouldn't be a good idea. Your government already does business in English anyways, and not having an official language lets individual areas with higher populations of non-English language being spoken offer government services in those areas in the language they're speaking there.
To expand on this, the idea that we need a law to make sure that the government is conducting business in the language the Constitution is written in is kind of absurd.
We don't need an official language.
The entire debate about making English the national language in the US has nothing to do with anything but winning a childish argument about how immigrants should learn English.
You have options down there for how immigrants should learn English?
I know one of those options is "teach them English" since that's the option Canada usually goes for.
What other options were you entertaining?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:35:29
Once again, you are confusing "can't" and "doesn't".
Unless you make all government officials psychic or run a massive surveillance state there is no way to distinguish can't from doesn't.
And great job failing at arguing a technical point while utterly failing to address the underlying issue that the state shouldn't be launching investigations into people because of what they say or how they say it.
When you selectively crop-out my statements into misleading quotes it definitely improves your argument. I actually gave an example of how that would work. Also, I actually said I DON'T agree with it, but could see how some might see it as a useful tool.
BigWaaagh wrote: I'm stating quite clearly that making English the "official" government language is absolutely unnecessary, will provide little...if any...benefit to our country and will provide a means for the sanctioning of discrimination by those elements seeking an opportunity to do so. I have absolutely no doubt this will happen. One only has to look at the aftermath of the Supreme Court's striking down of portions of the Voting Rights Act and the almost immediate impact on minorities thereafter. Thousands of polling sites closed or moved, polling hours changed and ID laws enacted. Even in your state, the Supreme Court ruled over the summer that new North Carolina voting rules targeted black Americans with "almost surgical precision." You think I'm "trying to shoehorn some meaning into this question that isn't really applicable."? You don't think we'll see a very similar cause-and-effect in this situation? You're kidding yourself.
Like the time when Canada made English and French our two official languages and... Uhhh... Well, I guess we got a lot of laughter out of watching Stephen Harper speak French sometimes.
Canada and the US don't have quite the same cultural baggage.
Quick check - how many of the people willing to put government time and resources toward having an official language would support making the official languages English and Spanish?
I don't think you even should, really, People in your country speak more languages than just English and Spanish, and not requiring the government to only do business in any particular language at all lets you tailor those services to the languages that they're needed in.
An official language means your government loses options for languages they can work in, with the benefit of... I guess having your whole government speak the same language? I dunno. Maybe it makes a difference with bureaucracies and standardized forms or something.
That's my view exactly, really. I'm just curious to see if there would be any support for that from the people who want an official language. As of 2011, the census has 37.58 million people speaking Spanish at home in the US - over 10% of the population. Not exactly a majority, but 1 in 10 is a fairly significant number.
cuda1179 wrote: When you selectively crop-out my statements into misleading quotes it definitely improves your argument.
It's the only thing you said that's remotely a response to me.
You can write out 10 pages, but if only one sentence actually responds to anything I said its the only thing I'm going to respond to because I'm damn tired of people replacing what other people post with whatever pops into their heads in this thread. I already know how the DMV works. You have to sit there for hours sometimes just to fill out a form and turn it in. It's a lot of time to people watch. On the other hand, I'm taking about;
could see how some might see it as a useful tool.
"Anyone who speaks to government officials and doesn't speak English should be checked for citizenship" because "it's a good indicator someone isn't a citizen" is not useful. The US Census says 60,000,000 Americans don't speak English "very well." That's nearly 1 in 5. It's an indicator of absolutely nothing more than that someone doesn't speak English very well. There is nothing useful about that policy, and the logic that underpins it is poorly conceived.
What other options were you entertaining?
Letting culture do the job, because as I explained above on the page most second generation Immigrants are bilingual, and most third and fourth generation immigrants only speak English. If someone wants to learn the language make the classes available. Go for it. There is however no need whatsoever to enshrine into law that English as a national language needs protection when its the language of Shakespeare, the United States Constitution, and The Great Gatsby. English isn't going anywhere just because a 55 year old man from Honduras moved here and never learned it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 22:53:29
Spinner wrote: That's my view exactly, really. I'm just curious to see if there would be any support for that from the people who want an official language. As of 2011, the census has 37.58 million people speaking Spanish at home in the US - over 10% of the population. Not exactly a majority, but 1 in 10 is a fairly significant number.
I asked my mom why Canada has an official language (she's an analysist for the Federal Government) and she told me to check an FAQ on the Canadian Government's site.
Had to check Wikipedia instead. The Canadian government thing I found stated the "objective" to basically be implementing the thing that already existed.
Wikipedia says Canada has official languages because French speakers in Quebec felt left out of the federal government since they only spoke French and the Federal Government did everything in English. So the law is just there to make them do everything in both English AND French so people in Quebec who couldn't speak English could understand it in French.
Also, my mom tells me that it's not really a hard restriction on what languages can be used, but more of a preference to make sure things are offered in both English and French. Apparently in places where people who don't speak English or French are more common, the official language thing was never meant to and doesn't restrict them from offering services in the required languages for those areas.
I mean, obviously, right? Why would you ever restrict the languages your government would work in just to say you had an official language? Why would your government even pass that? But the point wasn't to restrict it, it was tto make sure people who didn't speak English could get easy access to the government, and it also doesn't restrict the government from offering things in other languages anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/25 23:07:04
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
You smell that boys? That is pure freedom. Nothing says freedom like mandatory cultural integration!
Just curious, how many of those countries with mandatory languages have stricter gun laws than us? Maybe we should look in to that also.
For the love of god...
An official language doesn't mean it's mandatory. It just means all government business is done in that language.
For the love of god...
If you make English the official language and the government only operates in English, you are making it mandatory to learn English. If you are a person wanting to do anything that the Government is involved in, you better know English or somebody who does.
That makes it mandatory. Holy crap I am shocked I had to explain that.
I get what Pouncy is getting at, but the thing that needs to be recognized is why there's a debate in the US about making English the National/Official Language and it's about nothing more than winning an argument about immigrants who don't speak it. It's not about making sure the government does its business in English, something it already does and isn't going to stop doing forever because the basis of all US law is written in English, its about wanting to punish people who don't speak English i.e. discrimination.
It would be nice to get a ruling on the correct spelling for litre though.
litre or liter?
if we had police questioning everyone for speaking a different language, the cops in Louisiana would go nuts carding americans from every other state. I don't think they understand each other most of the time. Or those poor cops near any disney park, what's with all these people speaking chinese and japanese? they're tourists sir.
This came up a lot when I lived in san diego, and the paper there finally posted a study on the issue, most immigrants from mexico won't be fluent in english til the 3rd generation has lived here. so in the mean time yes let's offer them help in their language for generations 1 & 2.
It's a zebra actually. A zbra is a kind of mens' underwear.
sourclams wrote: Russians are doing a pretty good job at kicking Isis by themselves.
If all it takes from the US is to park an aircraft carrier somewhere for optics, while not getting involved in another 3rd world brushfire and letting Russia own the region, great.
If by ISIS, you mean everyone but ISIS, you're absolutely right.
A list of nations with an official language, but here in America it's racist.
You smell that boys? That is pure freedom. Nothing says freedom like mandatory cultural integration!
Just curious, how many of those countries with mandatory languages have stricter gun laws than us? Maybe we should look in to that also.
For the love of god...
An official language doesn't mean it's mandatory. It just means all government business is done in that language.
For the love of god...
If you make English the official language and the government only operates in English, you are making it mandatory to learn English. If you are a person wanting to do anything that the Government is involved in, you better know English or somebody who does.
That makes it mandatory. Holy crap I am shocked I had to explain that.
Isn't that basically how your government works anyways?
Also, an official language wouldn't necessarily prevent the government from offering services in other languages. You don't have to write it that way if you don't want to.
I mean, your government is so strongly English-only already that it's basically operating in English-only already.
Maybe you should consider having two official languages, so that your Spanish-speaking population can get access to government stuff too.
Like what Canada's official languages did for the french-speaking population of Quebec
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I get what Pouncy is getting at, but the thing that needs to be recognized is why there's a debate in the US about making English the National/Official Language and it's about nothing more than winning an argument about immigrants who don't speak it. It's not about making sure the government does its business in English, something it already does and isn't going to stop doing forever because the basis of all US law is written in English, its about wanting to punish people who don't speak English i.e. discrimination.
Actually, I wasn't trying to "get at" anything. I was literally just explaining why Canada has its official languages. It's just that the reason Canada wrote its official language law is basically the same reason the US would have English and Spanish as its official languages, to a degree where you thought I was extrapolating it to the USA, which I wasn't.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 03:08:11
Actually, I wasn't trying to "get at" anything. I was literally just explaining why Canada has its official languages. It's just that the reason Canada wrote its official language law is basically the same reason the US would have English and Spanish as its official languages, to a degree where you thought I was extrapolating it to the USA, which I wasn't.
I didn't say you were extrapolating. I as trying to expand.
There are speakers of nearly 600 languages in the US, of which English and Spanish are simply to the two largest groups. Functionally we already provide, or facilitate, the ability of non English speakers to function in this country even though we already do the day to day business of the state in English. I.E. for the US there is no point to making national languages. It wouldn't change the way the state operates. It wouldn't change the need for non-English facilitation and services. It's a literal waste of the paper the law would be printed on, and the only reason people here want it passed is to win a childish argument. Its the same reason we shouldn't pass a voter ID law, and the same reason we shouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act. Because the only things that can come of such changes is no change at all or discriminatory practices. If the former why waste our time, and in the later why waste our time?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/26 03:20:58
Actually, I wasn't trying to "get at" anything. I was literally just explaining why Canada has its official languages. It's just that the reason Canada wrote its official language law is basically the same reason the US would have English and Spanish as its official languages, to a degree where you thought I was extrapolating it to the USA, which I wasn't.
I didn't say you were extrapolating. I as trying to expand.
There are speakers of nearly 600 languages in the US, of which English and Spanish are simply to the two largest groups. Functionally we already provide, or facilitate, the ability of non English speakers to function in this country even though we already do the day to day business of the state in English. I.E. for the US there is no point to making national languages. It wouldn't change the way the state operates. It wouldn't change the need for non-English facilitation and services. It's a literal waste of the paper the law would be printed on, and the only reason people here want it passed is to win a childish argument. Its the same reason we shouldn't pass a voter ID law, and the same reason we shouldn't repeal the Civil Rights Act. Because the only things that can come of such changes is no change at all or discriminatory practices. If the former why waste our time, and in the later why waste our time?
Yeah, I mean, really the only reason Canada has official languages at all is because people who spoke French were tired of being left out of national politics since they didn't speak English. Quebec had a crapload of people who felt that way, and I think at one point Quebec tried to be its own country over how the Federal government was treating them and barely didn't succeed (I think the referendum was like 51 against and 49 for, really damned close). So now federal government stuff is done in french to satisfy the huge number of people in Quebec who were feeling disenfranchised enough to try to become their own country independent of Canada. English is the other official language because it was the language everything had already been being done in anyways.
The official language thing didn't really change much, just how accessible the federal government was to the large portion of people in Quebec who couldn't understand English well enough to know what the government was doing without an interpretor.
Obviously, since there are plenty of languages in Canada being spoken other than English and French, we never restricted the government from doing things in any language, so any time there's a need for the government to do anything in a language other than English or French, they can do so for the people who need it to be that way, and we wrote the official language laws purely to increase the number of languages that basic-level government services was being done in from English, to English and French.
Hm, guess all that kinda applies to the USA and their Spanish-speaking population, doesn't it? Maybe the USA should have two official languages, nott one. Spanish, to make sure your Spanish-speaking population can get stuff done. Also English, so you can keep doing stuff the way it was already happening. Then just, you know, don't write the language laws in any way that restricts the government from doing stuff in any language imaginable when there's a need to do so.
General David Petraeus, one of the United States' most prominent military officers, has indicated he would be willing to serve in President-elect Donald Trump's administration if asked.
So, a disgraced former Army General wants in on the Trump gravy train.
General David Petraeus, one of the United States' most prominent military officers, has indicated he would be willing to serve in President-elect Donald Trump's administration if asked.
So, a disgraced former Army General wants in on the Trump gravy train.
The reason Ben Carson bowed out of being in Trump's cabinet was somehow both hilarious, yet also deeply disturbing since Ben Carson also ran for President.
Hm, guess all that kinda applies to the USA and their Spanish-speaking population, doesn't it? Maybe the USA should have two official languages, nott one. Spanish, to make sure your Spanish-speaking population can get stuff done. Also English, so you can keep doing stuff the way it was already happening. Then just, you know, don't write the language laws in any way that restricts the government from doing stuff in any language imaginable when there's a need to do so.
In the most "urah Merica!" thing I'll probably ever say, the national language of America is Freedom. Part of that language is the freedom of speech, and if freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to say what you want how you want then it doesn't mean anything at all.
So, a disgraced former Army General wants in on the Trump gravy train.
To be fair, I've never really doubted that Petraeus feels a desire to serve. He just made some stupid decisions that mean it's for the best we don't let him
I actually gave an example of how that would work. Also, I actually said I DON'T agree with it, but could see how some might see it as a useful tool.
