That's it, I am leaving Coke and going to good old American Budlight.

[Day]

This thread reminds me of people that just can't seem to hit the target at a dunking booth. Whatever counter arguments you guys have against blubba are getting lost in your strawmen/ad hominem/semantic nonsense. Just saying.

[TummieGaruda]

Who drinks Pepsi or Coke by itself? Neither side cares about you! Vote third party! Cocktails 2016! USA! USA!

I don't always drink Pepsi, but when I do, I mix it with equal parts Sierra Mist and Mountain Dew.

Also, for some damn reason Pepsi from the soda fountain at Wienerschnitzel tastes so much better than canned, bottled, or any other fast food soda fountain.

[Blubbartron]

not very well =/= not at all. So, those people at least tried to learn some basic English.



7 percent at not at all, but how does that compare to previous years? Where is this huge growth of not at all?

The rest is irrelevant. Being able to speak another language =/= not being able to speak English.

The 8% in 2000 was "less than very well". Understanding the concept of "less than" allows us to find, from the 2013 article, that 7% + 15.4% = 22.4% speaking English "less than very well".

I'll grant you that there's probably a significant margin of error because censuses are easy to fuck up, and speaking English "very well" is incredibly subjective. How many words in a language do you need to know before you say you can speak it "kinda"? I can get the gist of a lot of the romance languages simply because of my familiarity with Latin roots and understanding how languages have evolved, but I wouldn't say I speak any language besides English at all. How that question gets answered depends a lot on the person, with a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Is it really that much of a leap to think that if there are 60 million Americans that speak something other than English as their primary language at home, that maybe 10-30 million of them know English at a less than passable level? And again, how people answer a subjective and invasive question is going to vary dramatically from person to person, and from era to era. If not knowing English were still highly frowned upon (i.e. we were still highly intolerant), that might encourage respondents to lie and say they could speak English well, even if they couldn't.

[zoobernut]

Blub in all this arguing you are failing to realize that A) people are not arguing that knowing and learning English is important and B) why do we need government intervention when capitalism and the free market will either push non English speakers to learn English or push English speakers to learn other languages.

All I can gather from your posts is that you are too lazy to learn another language so you want the government to step in so you don't have to.

[Ksandra]

The 8% in 2000 was "less than very well". Understanding the concept of "less than" allows us to find, from the 2013 article, that 7% + 15.4% = 22.4% speaking English "less than very well".

I'll grant you that there's probably a significant margin of error because censuses are easy to fuck up, and speaking English "very well" is incredibly subjective. How many words in a language do you need to know before you say you can speak it "kinda"? I can get the gist of a lot of the romance languages simply because of my familiarity with Latin roots and understanding how languages have evolved, but I wouldn't say I speak any language besides English at all. How that question gets answered depends a lot on the person, with a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Is it really that much of a leap to think that if there are 60 million Americans that speak something other than English as their primary language at home, that maybe 10-30 million of them know English at a less than passable level? And again, how people answer a subjective and invasive question is going to vary dramatically from person to person, and from era to era. If not knowing English were still highly frowned upon (i.e. we were still highly intolerant), that might encourage respondents to lie and say they could speak English well, even if they couldn't.

You keep lumping ten different things into one.

Speaking a language other than English at home DOES NOT mean they can't speak English.

You even admit "a passable level" and "very well" are subjective so it makes me wonder what are you even trying to argue.

Let's try this:

You have some unknown criteria of how well people need to speak English to be in this country, and think it should be enforced by law.

Yet you are trying to back up your defense of this idea with statistics that you admit are vague and subjective.


So serious question: How do you know that 8% wouldn't pass your criteria and proves your point? And no, meeting some dude that said "hablas espanol?" doesn't count.

[Blubbartron]

Blub in all this arguing you are failing to realize that A) people are not arguing that knowing and learning English is important and B) why do we need government intervention when capitalism and the free market will either push non English speakers to learn English or push English speakers to learn other languages.

All I can gather from your posts is that you are too lazy to learn another language so you want the government to step in so you don't have to.

I've spent the last two posts explaining why your "B" argument is invalid. Go read them.

Also, I'm not a conservative, so I don't know why you seem to be appealing to the "big gubment" argument when I actually prefer big government. I want pot to be legal, more money for teachers and better public education, higher education to be free, universal healthcare for all citizens (illegals can still get emergency care, though I'd prefer if we expedited immigration processes and helped/"forced" immigrants to integrate more quickly), and sky-high taxes to pay for all of it.

[notorious bum]

Culturally-diverse advertising didn't just start happening in the past decade, not even in the past 2; especially for an international brand like Coke. I remember plenty of corny multicultural ads in the 90's. Maybe not in this specific formula of foreigners singing an American song in their own tongue, but plenty of ads featuring hokey peace, love, acceptance, and "wow, this brand is cool for using foreign shit!"

[Ksandra]

Culturally-diverse advertising didn't just start happening in the past decade, not even in the past 2; especially for an international brand like Coke. I remember plenty of corny multicultural ads in the 90's. Maybe not in this specific formula of foreigners singing an American song in their own tongue, but plenty of ads featuring hokey peace, love, acceptance, and "wow, this brand is cool for using foreign shit!"

Coke's commercial in 1971 celebrating diversity:

[zoobernut]

I've spent the last two posts explaining why your "B" argument is invalid. Go read them.

Also, I'm not a conservative, so I don't know why you seem to be appealing to the "big gubment" argument when I actually prefer big government. I want pot to be legal, more money for teachers and better public education, higher education to be free, universal healthcare for all citizens (illegals can still get emergency care, though I'd prefer if we expedited immigration processes and helped/"forced" immigrants to integrate more quickly), and sky-high taxes to pay for all of it.

Even if you are not conservative the argument is still valid. There is no reason to need government intervention. You never explained why my B argument is invalid. I specifically said that this country could move towards a dominant language other than English if it made sense for the country and economy.

[Draginhikari]

I can't believe this is even an issue. I can't even come up with words to even makes sense out of this.

[Pirian]

I wasn't suggesting the market wasn't there - I was suggesting the market was so small that it wasn't worth the cost of marketing towards such a small demographic. Their isolation and difficulty in trying to function in America without English was the pressure that got a lot of them to learn English in the past. As proven by empirical data, that market grew enough that it makes up a substantial percentage (e.g. nearly 10% in Texas, which is a lot of people), and therefore worth the cost to market towards them. The pressure is diminishing, and therefore fewer people will bother learning English. That's why the argument of "people will learn English anyway" is null and void.

No, it's not that the market has grown to the point where it is worth it to market towards them, it is a combination of the cost of marketing directly to individual in general that has gone down, and the marginal revenue of advertising to each non-English speaking individual is much more lucrative due to a saturated English speaking market.

[Blubbartron]

You keep lumping ten different things into one.

Speaking a language other than English at home DOES NOT mean they can't speak English.

You even admit "a passable level" and "very well" are subjective so it makes me wonder what are you even trying to argue.

Let's try this:

You have some unknown criteria of how well people need to speak English to be in this country, and think it should be enforced by law.

Yet you are trying to back up your defense of this idea with statistics that you admit are vague and subjective.


So serious question: How do you know that 8% wouldn't pass your criteria and proves your point? And no, meeting some dude that said "hablas espanol?" doesn't count.

Yeah, I'm just going to go back to ignoring you. Every time you reply you fail to understand the message, and simply resort to attacking me because you either can't or won't understand a relatively simple concept. I have already admitted on several occasions that speaking another language primarily does not mean they can't speak English. Why can't you acknowledge the simple and obvious premise that, of those people who don't speak English as their primary language, some (likely significant) portion is doing that because they don't know enough English and therefore can't? That's rhetorical, by the way. I don't care what your excuse will be.

[ronin sparthos]

Culturally-diverse advertising didn't just start happening in the past decade, not even in the past 2; especially for an international brand like Coke. I remember plenty of corny multicultural ads in the 90's. Maybe not in this specific formula of foreigners singing an American song in their own tongue, but plenty of ads featuring hokey peace, love, acceptance, and "wow, this brand is cool for using foreign shit!"

Was this commercial really supposed to accomplish anything other than a heartwarming show of an American ideal of multiculturalism? It's a Superbowl ad and like all superbowl ads we're supposed to feel all American inside before watching people tackle the fuck out of eachother. It's a bit hokey and the patriotism angle can be grating, but it's expected.

[Ksandra]

Yeah, I'm just going to go back to ignoring you. Every time you reply you fail to understand the message, and simply resort to attacking me because you either can't or won't understand a relatively simple concept.

Please tell me where I attacked you. There isn't a single insult in that post. Asking questions is attacking?

Why can't you acknowledge the simple and obvious premise that, of those people who don't speak English as their primary language, some (likely significant) portion is doing that because they don't know enough English and therefore can't?

When did I ever not acknowledge that there are people who speak poor English? We don't need to do any kind of assumption on people who speak other languages in the home because you already provided the statistic of the "not very well" and "not at all". 8% is going to be 8%, inside the home, outside, wherever. I don't know why in the home matters at all if we already know the 8%.

My question has been how does that 8% compare to last year or the year before because your argument is that it is a suddenly growing problem. That's not an attack. I want you to back up your defense of claiming it's a recent issue.

[Day]

[archibaldcrane]

Pretty much.

[Myrrh_Quetz]

I'm loving this. Blubs constant "Attacking me" thing for people responding to him is hilarious.

Blub> What's 2+2?
Anyone> 4
Blub> Jesus christ, stop attacking me and answer my question.

[Day]

I'm loving this. Blubs constant "Attacking me" thing for people responding to him is hilarious.

Blub> What's 2+2?
Anyone> 4
Blub> Jesus christ, stop attacking me and answer my question.

Congrats on some form of irony I guess.

I don't know maybe it's the xenophobic bigot in me, but I really don't understand what the issue is with requiring immigrants to speak/read/write, what is, the last time I checked, the generally accepted and used language in this country, and also the one we are using to communicate right now. I really don't know why that seems absurd to anyone, and why everyone seemed to put their obtuse helmet on in this thread. If I move to France it would seem reasonable for me to learn French, and I really don't see me shitting bricks over it being a requirement for citizenship or whatever the hell.

Fuckin Murrica I guess, I don't know. I'm pretty fucking liberal, but I mean damn.

I'm also not raging out over the ad or anything just don't understand why what Blubba is saying seems so totes crayons to you guys.

[ronin sparthos]

The issue is that it's a non-issue. When you come to America and realize everyone is speaking mostly English and the online medium is dominated by again - English, you tend to simply buck up and adapt to the majority language of the country. There is no need to make English a requirement when it's already de facto the official language.

Old immigrants and the stubborn may resist but the children of these immigrants tend to acculturate by nature of schools. They also get the added perk of being bilingual.

[Deadgye]

Yes it fucking is.

My college disagrees. Fucking diversified education curriculum classes.