Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

16

DeathToAmerica wrote

USA-centrism. Assuming everyone on the internet is in the US and that US political issues are all-important.

4

F3nd0 wrote

Use of the English language may be a contributing factor to this. It might help if people were using a neutral international language instead.

5

Pop wrote

I'm fascinated at the thought that there might be a neutral international language

3

F3nd0 wrote

Some have really been created thorough the history! By far the most successful one is Esperanto, which, after going through numerous hardships in over one hundred years, is still brimming with life and spoken by a few millions of people across the world. I would recommend learning that if you would like to pursue and push forward this noble idea! There's a forum here at /f/esperanto, that might interest you.

3

Pop wrote

There's nothing neutral about a Eurocentric language though

3

F3nd0 wrote

That's not really true, unless you focus on a few select aspects of the language and ignore all the others. There are Eurocentric aspects to Esperanto, but that doesn't mean there's ‘nothing neutral’ about it as a whole.

Firstly, beyond the technical (vocabulary) aspect, there's the political (couldn't think of a better word) aspect of the language, which I consider more important. English, for example, is not neutral in this aspect. It has historically belonged to a certain nation, which has spread it into many other parts of the world, often by colonising them (which, I presume, was often forceful). Even today, English is not neutral; it is a language native to several nations. If people speak English, they are accustoming themselves to the culture of those nations.

Everything originating from English-speaking countries then also has the unfair advantage of automatically being accessible to all the people being forced to learn English across the world. This may include cultural works (books, music, movies), but also news and politics. The same works of other countries don't get this accessibility. And this is partly the reason why you can find an abundance of US citizens in various places on the web, and why they may feel like the web is centred on their country—after all, it is centred on their language.

Now, with Esperanto, you get none of that. Esperanto belongs to no nation, and serves as a national language to no countries. Therefore, focusing on Esperanto can't imply focusing on certain countries. People from all places in the world get a (principally) equal opportunity creating content in Esperanto. None of them gets a (principal) advantage by default. The language itself was made to connect people of different nations, races, and cultures together. It was built on noble ideals, and has been spreading peacefully, and not forcefully. So politically and philosophically, Esperanto is very much a neutral language, and that alone sets it kilometres ahead of any national language.

Now, you called Esperanto ‘Eurocentric’, which must be a reference to its vocabulary (which I consider to be a part of the language's ‘technical’ aspect). In fact, most of Esperanto's vocabulary stems from romance languages, so you may find it looking very similar to French, for example. For an international language, that's a pretty bad trait to have. Ideally, the international language should be neutral for all people of all nations. Frankly, I don't think it's possible, but one could get at least somewhat close to it, and Esperanto is way off.

That's a flaw, but it's not a great one in my eyes. The consequence is that some students (e.g. French, Italian, Spanish…) will find many words familiar, and will probably have an easier time remembering them. Same goes for speakers of other European languages, to a lesser extent. This gives some people an advantage, but I don't think the advantage is big enough to hamper Esperanto's good points. Those include great regularity and simple grammar, which make the language simple enough to learn for anyone, so the gap in effort is not going to be that dramatic. (It might be fairly easy versus very easy, which, for an international language, is not bad in the greater picture. For English it's native versus considerably difficult.)

Beyond vocabulary, Esperanto is not entirely Eurocentric, even technically. In fact, you may find a number of similarities with languages outside of Europe. I would recommend taking a look at this article by Claude Piron, which examines Esperanto's supposed ‘Westernness’. So, you have a point, and a good one at that, but it's not nearly as bad as your phrasing would have one think, and discussable from there.

3

Pop wrote

I read your comment and the article you linked to and it has changed nothing for me

there are also vastly more languages out there that are not considered in that article
making the vague gesture of 'the east', amounting largely to a couple of semetic languages, japanese, but mostly chinese is on its own a reflections of languages beyond europe that europe finds valuable

I would rather cut out my tongue than ask people living in a postcolony to adopt a language that privileges coloniser language speakers as an 'alternative' to some other shit option

real alternatives plz

5

F3nd0 wrote (edited )

Thank you for taking the time to read them!

Certainly, there are many languages in the world, beyond what was mentioned; I assure you the author is aware of them, as becomes apparent throughout his work collection. But a couple which had similarities with Esperanto were selected to make a point, at which they should have succeeded.

If you're looking for an international language with a vocabulary not based in European languages, then you might want to look into Kotava—I heard it's nice and has considerable following (at least compared to others). Other languages include Lojban (mentioned here), Solresol, or Pandunia (mentioned here). I think Toki Pona draws from European languages, but the words are so few that it shouldn't matter much.

Myself, I'm going to stick to Esperanto, but hopefully you can find something that you like, too!

3

Copenhagen_Bram wrote

Lojban isn't Eurocentric, I believe.

4

yaaqov wrote (edited )

Lojban isn't particularly speakable, though. In addition to allowing sequences of sounds that only a very small number of the world's languages already do (thus making pronouncing it difficult for anyone who doesn't speak one of those languages already), its syntax and semantics is utterly unnatural, in many ways unlike any natural human language at all.

3

Copenhagen_Bram wrote (edited )

Sounds like you're describing Klingon.

I'll entertain the latter thought, but I've looked at Lojban and it's quite pronounceable. It uses the same sounds as Esperanto AFAIK.

3

yaaqov wrote

As far as I know, every structure in Klingon can be found in some language. That's more than could be said of Lojban.

And, well, Esperanto also allows plenty of consonant clusters that are rare crosslinguistically, like /gn/ or /kv/ in word initial positions, for instance. Lojban allows things like /txl/ word internally, where /x/ is the ‹ch› sound in "Bach" or "Chanukah"—also really marked in such a sequence. Of the most widely spoken languages on Earth, only Russian (and Arabic, depending on the variety) approaches the permissiveness of Lojban or Esperanto with respect to these factors.

3

ergdj5 wrote

I'm gonna push pandunia.info for that reason, draws a lot from African and Asian languages, and a bit from American ones.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

We really just need a universal translator like in star trek. The tech is almost there.

I've got better things to do than learn a 3rd language.

4

ergdj5 wrote

Agreed entirely, the issue is the tech is... Google-owned, with a few other shittier offshoots.

2

yaaqov wrote

Woah, this is the closest thing to a reasonable international auxiliary language I've seen yet!

1

ergdj5 wrote

It has a Github where people contribute as well, and can be discussed on Matrix (#pandunia2:matrix.org)

7

ziq wrote (edited )

The people 'shopping' for an 'ideology' that want you to convince them to embrace anarchy.

Hello my good sirs, please explain to me why I should join your jolly old social circle! Convert me to your ideology!

...

[insert 20 comments explaining anarchy]

...

"Oh I'm not quite convinced yet gentlemen, please explain why you consider rulership to be so uncouth when it seems to be working so well for my royal purposes".

...

[insert 30 comments explaining the sorry state of the world, rampant inequality, oppression, enslavement, crippling dystopia]

...

"No, I'm afraid I'm still not convinced my fine fellows. Please give me a different answer that takes my immense privilege into account and sets my mind at ease in regards to me not having to give up any of my wonderful blessings in this life".

...

[insert anarcho-Noddy prattling on about 'justified hierarchy', 'post-scarcity', 'scientific Marxism', and making anti-intersectional and workerist arguments]

...

"Ah! Now my interest is certainly piqued. So you say I can take up the label of 'anarchist' and continue to be a giant Noddy? Quite excellent! So an anarchist I shall be!"

6

plast wrote

1). The constant calls for "action" and "organization"

2). The tendency to consolidate opinions to a narrow acceptable window and punishing those who deviate

3). Banning people who arent trolls or spam

4). Posts that focus more on ingroup virtue signalling(like preaching to the choir) rather than original thought and implementation of ideas.

6

transgendall wrote (edited )

"le Nazis were socialist" meme has come back with a vengeance recently.

I don't like the political compass. it was invented by right-libertarians to make their ideology look good as the "most free", and allows anarchists to cave to cold war propaganda and claim that they're "not like Stalin, I believe in FREE socialism"

we ALL believe in free socialism, it's called "socialism". it's an inherently emancipatory ideology.

the notion that "democratic socialism" is reformist or just social democracy, a la Sanders.

Cuba=democratic socialism

Norway=social democracy

Sanders should've run under the label "New Deal Democrat" to remind the country that we have been here before, that his ideas are not radical in any way at all.

with conservatives (and liberals, everybody right-of-center really), the notion that socialism is just social programs, and that if people aren't struggling they are going to just stop working.

even a UBI isn't socialism.

it's just capitalism + life support

the higher-ups in US conservatism understand this, they know what social democracy is, and they have intentionally dragged the conversation so far to the right that the centrist idea of social democracy is considered crazy and foolishly radical.

the obligation to assert that the socialism you believe in is "democratic" in nature.

socialism: the workers own/control the means of production

how the fuck else would they do it? dictatorship wouldn't be "the workers" controlling it, it would be one worker controlling it. of course it's democratic. or sortition or something. whatever.

"classical liberalism" is a fucking rash that has been going around in the last 5 years, basically a way for talking MAGA hats to smugly insist they are superior to "the political binary", the way libertarians do.

I fucking cannot stand identity politics. people only listen to me about social issues because I'm trans and Native American. it's fucking disgraceful.

I always have to distance myself from the dumpster fire that is intersectionality by calling myself a "marxist-feminist" or a "materialist-feminist" or whatever.

Marxism means everybody is equal, and the more thinkers we have on this problem, the better. yes it's important to trust and listen to marginalized people when they tell us about the nature of oppression. but let's not lose our fucking minds and throw each other under the bus for social capital.

call-out culture. the idea that if somebody says something that isn't PC, it's acceptable to demand your mutuals to unfriend them. this isn't how we build unity. American leftism is a fucking ouroboros at this point.

right-wing people and Venezuela. Venezuela aren't even socialist, and they are being sabotaged by the USA. Trump openly colluded with the Saudi government to lower oil prices to fuck them even harder, last month. the US is blocking all food exports to Venezuela.

basically "how many Latin Americans does the CIA need to kill before you realize socialism is bad?"

arguments over whether Leninism is left-wing or right-wing, like ffs Rosa already wrote her thing outlining this, the USSR is gone, it's not really a productive debate anymore.

nobody on my friends list wants to talk about economics or domestic policy or revolution or anything, they are far more concerned about whether cishet aces count as LGBT (whether not wanting to have sex qualifies you as oppressed) like wtf are you trying to solve by discussing this? if straight people wanted to "sneak in" to our club meetings, they could say they were gay. who fucking cares? cishet aces make up like 1% of aces, who themselves make up like 0.1% of the population. shut up. let's talk about worker cooperatives and civilian militias.

I know I'm gonna get people disagreeing with me on this next one:

I don't like the "fuck men" or "fuck straight/white people" rhetoric one fucking bit.

discriminating against someone based on their sexuality or race is despicable to me. even if it's "punching up", I don't care.

we are giving Alex Jones material at this point. we can't have a movement where we alienate people and make them feel unwanted. white dudes feel like the left hates them because there's tons of this "fuck them haha it was just a joke" haha PRANKD. it's giving Nazis a bunch of dejected white dudes, who feel like they have no place in the left. it fucking proves their point about "white genocide" because we are animus to people who have done literally nothing wrong, in their eyes.

it takes time to develop the nuance and understand privilege, but they're not gonna stick around to learn if we contantly say they are all pigs. for people who think that white dudes hold the keys to society, it seems like shooting yourself in the foot to constantly bash them.

the American left has this whole sociological theory surrounding intersectionality, where they have started treating "gender struggle" and "race struggle" as more important than class struggle. the only way we can conclusively solve the gender/race problem is by first removing capitalism. capitalism is the driving force that perpetuates this discrimination. they can extract more profits from people who themselves are less valuable. those who own the media have an incentive to keep bigotry alive.

that's it for now, comrades.

4

mofongo wrote

Cuba is social democracy, without the democracy.

Also, Marxism does not mean everyone is equal. It's a method of analysis not dogma or principles that have to be learned. What should be drawn from marxism is that everyone is pretty much unequal and that any semblance of equality or equity can only be achieved when the whole system is abolished.

3

ergdj5 wrote

allows anarchists to cave to cold war propaganda and claim that they're "not like Stalin, I believe in FREE socialism"

i dont think i understand what you're saying by this one

3

ziq wrote (edited )

They're pretty much saying Stalin was good and all the bad stuff about him executing and gulaging anarchists, LGBTQs, etc is US propaganda. Would have got my upvote if not for that.

3

ergdj5 wrote

Yeah, same. That one caught me blindsided.

3

ziq wrote (edited )

It doesn't pay to even utter 'stalin' and 'communism' in the same breath imo. That's the real cold war propaganda at play.

1

GaldraChevaliere wrote

That and the goofy "Oh I'm not like the other faggots uwu" shit with defending breeders. I'll stop hating cishets when they stop trying to fucking kill me and my family, thanks. White dudes did it to themselves, no sympathy for lapsing even further into being shitty people because they think there's some sort of fucking obligation for us to like them.

1

throwaway wrote

Whatever floats your boat, just try to remember that skin color and sexuality isn't some sort of faction. All whites and all cis aren't the same, and they aren't involved in some white plot against the rest of humanity. There is no 'they' and 'us' when it comes to skin color (or at least there shouldn't be).

In a way, you're riding the same ridiculous wave as the far-rights that claim white genocide and all, with that statement.

0

GaldraChevaliere wrote

Are you for real? Pretty sure hating cishets for literally enacting policies designed to systemically deny LGBT folk medical and public service access, secure employment and income, and basic human dignity isn't some 'reverse racism' shit. Fuck off with your high horse and your horseshoe theory idiocy. It's straight up lazy.

3

transgendall wrote

oh, another. I am constantly rebutting stats that definitely came from the Black Book.

OVER TEN BILLION WERE GULAG BY STALIN

most of these figures are ridiculously inflated, not to mention that per capita, the US had more people die of hunger during the depression, and today the US has more people detained (involuntary labor and all) than ever were in gulags, even if you do it per capita or percent of the population.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote

People posting textbook objections as if they originated from their own minds or as if they are not the hegemonic position.

1

ziq wrote

Absolutely everyone reading this will assume you're talking about them. How can we kno if our opinions are original? There are no original thoughts.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

The particular kind of thing I had in mind are the thoughtless objections that people hold when they've just been fed an answer to a question and unquestioningly accepted it.

"But if there was communism everybody would be exactly the same and everything would be grey and boring"

"but if there's no profit motive why would people do anything"

"If you don't vote, you can't complain!"

The kind of thing where if you took just a little time to actually engage with the thing you're critiquing you would have far more substantial things to say and wouldn't just be a mouthpiece for the hegemonic position of the space.

Pretty much any of the standard things people say about anti-civ thought are familiar around here.

2

ziq wrote

That is a lot clearer.

Pretty much any of the standard things people say about anti-civ thought are familiar around here.

Or even in regards to the basic definition of anarchy, I'm finding. The "everything is a hierarchy so only things I decide I don't like are unjustified hierarchies" usage seems to be the popular definition.

4

selver wrote

People who constantly just move the goalposts whenever you make a good point.