• surreptitiouswalk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Forcing other people who have a shared language to not speak that language to each other sounds more divisive than allowing people to speak to each other in whatever they want to.

    But honestly why would you care? Does it bother you that you’re unable to eavesdrop on a conversation you have no part in? If they want to speak to you, then they’ll speak English.

    Also I didn’t notice anywhere in my post that suggested people shouldn’t learn to speak English. You put that up as a strawman argument.

      • surreptitiouswalk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        And the other point is you talked about Trump, which is the height of irrelevant since we are talking about Australia. If you’re not Australian, get the fuck out of here. We don’t need US politics infecting our country.

        • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Trump is probably the best example of extrimist popularism seen in a western democracy. We heading down a dangerouse path of americanisation. America is our distopian future.

      • surreptitiouswalk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        its extraordinarily useful to have everyone speak the same language the easiest way to achieve this would be to choose the language that the largest number of people speak so we will end up with English

        I’m not sure how else I was supposed to interpret this. Maybe instead of being cryptic, just spell out what it is you’re saying instead.

        • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sounds like “Language has nothing to do with it except” Would be immwdiatly followed by the exception to language having nothing to do with anything.

          I think your suposed to interpret it by not quoting an exception to a rule as a rule for the purpose of misrepresentation. Its amazing how less cryptic things become when u havnt cut half of it out.