• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Talking accross the table is rude (Language Discussion)

Ok, now you are the one that is rude. There are so many different cultures in the US and so many different languages. Yes the majority of people here speak English but there are many people that speak many different languages. Even if those people are fluent, it is always going to be easier for them to speak in English. You are just being a rude, pompous jerk if you are saying that everyone around you has to speak in English.
Okay, I may have not expressed what I meant in my last sentence the right way. I didn't literally mean that you shouldn't speak in your language. What I meant was 'not across the table'. I think the major concern of this thread is talking in a different language in a way that makes it irritating and disrespectful to the other people around you, just like I said before. Obviously I won't mind people talking to each other the way they want, but just don't make it appear rude. Suppose two of your friends just started bluffing some stuff in their language while you were talking to them. I don't see how 'OK' this is.
 
Why do so many people compare this situation to whispering?

While whispers generally are so other people don't hear the conversation, it isn't necessairly and isn't generally the case when two people speak in their language around people that cannot understand it.

If I meet a Québécois overseas, fuck me, it is in french that I will speak to him with a total disregard of paranoid people around that might believe I am speaking behind their back.
 
Why do so many people compare this situation to whispering?

While whispers generally are so other people don't hear the conversation, it isn't necessairly and isn't generally the case when two people speak in their language around people that cannot understand it.

If I meet a Québécois overseas, fuck me, it is in french that I will speak to him with a totally disregard of paranoid people around that might believe I am speaking behind their back.

i only speak english, but i agree with you entirely.

i liken it to speaking about anything with an outsider-unfriendly lexicon; pokemon, physics, construction, etc. if you engage in a conversation about those things, people who don't know much about your topic won't have any idea what you're talking about, but that doesn't make it rude by any stretch.

if i meet someone else who plays world of warcraft (and there arent too many people around of course HEH) i will definitely start talking to them about it! other people aren't going to know what we're talking about but that doesn't mean i should avoid it!
 
if i meet someone else who plays world of warcraft (and there arent too many people around of course HEH) i will definitely start talking to them about it! other people aren't going to know what we're talking about but that doesn't mean i should avoid it!

Oh god my roommates both play and are some sort of raiders or something on WoW. They go off on max this buff that purple and blue items blah blah blah. The one of them takes on the same damn dragon guy every other night and is a DPS or something. It's like speaking a whole new language!
 
It's a fine line but I think that if they get offended and try to make you out to be racist or culturally insensitive they are either extremely ignorant or have something to hide. When accused of racism most people tend to back off and having a reputation for being a racist is probably just not worth it.

I had a friend who is a white caucasian male and is fluent in mandarin chinese and I also have a friend who is of Han Chinese background but was born in Australia. We were eating at a chinese restaurant and the waitress tries to flirt with my chinese friend and my white friend says something along the lines of "You dirty little slut" in mandarin chinese. I had no idea what was happening and neither did my chinese friend.

We got kicked out and couldn't get our money back but it was still pretty funny.

@Lexite
Stop trying to be a fucking civil rights freedom fighter for fucks sake
 
@Lexite
Stop trying to be a fucking civil rights freedom fighter for fucks sake

Not that this even is a civil rights issue to begin with, but now that you have brought it up, if you don't appreciate the rights that you have in the US then you are a fool. Excuse me if I actually care about civil rights and show appreciation for them. And I do find this very ironic considering other things people on this forum say in complaint about me. Now stop trolling.
 
@lexite
Actually, no. If you think that the USA has civil rights then you're the one trolling. Due to the war on terror and the Bush administration Americans have less and less rights.

Misunderstanding leads to fear which leads to factions which leads to racism, culturally insensitive behavior and eventually even violence. Why do you the that the Jews are always persecuted?

They speak Hebrew in public, favour only their own and marry only their own. Other people interpret this as a threat and persecute them. It's important that if you're going to live in another country to be able to speak the language fluently and not to exclude others by talking in another language while you're with them.
 
What the hell are you even talking about? And yes we have civil rights, students are allowed to stand in the "free Speech" areas on college campuses and literally say "death to America" and that the terrorists bombing the twin towers was a good thing and we need more of that. If this country will allow people to publically say that this country needs to be destroyed then yes we have freedom of speech. Stop trolling and actually learn something since you clearly lack any common sense.

And what in the world are you talking about with the Jews? If you knew anything about history you would know why the Jews are persecuted, and no it is not because they speak Hebrew and only merry their own race. Many other cultures do the same, most Asian cultures do the same, the Dutch merry the Dutch. For the most part, the vast majority of races stick to their own race. So what in the world are you talking about?

Stop trolling already.
 
@lexite
Actually, no. If you think that the USA has civil rights then you're the one trolling. Due to the war on terror and the Bush administration Americans have less and less rights.

Misunderstanding leads to fear which leads to factions which leads to racism, culturally insensitive behavior and eventually even violence. Why do you the that the Jews are always persecuted?

They speak Hebrew in public, favour only their own and marry only their own. Other people interpret this as a threat and persecute them. It's important that if you're going to live in another country to be able to speak the language fluently and not to exclude others by talking in another language while you're with them.

Wait, how do we have less rights because of the "war on terror"? (Which I totally disagree with, by the way.) That doesn't even make sense to me. The only way I can see that we have less rights is if our current rights are changed by say, an amendment or something.

And, Jewish people aren't the only people who speak their own language in public. And, not to be stereotypical (although it's hard not to be here) most Caucasian Americans marry Caucasian Americans. Same with what Lexite said about the Dutch and so forth.

Jewish people aren't the only people persecuted, you know.
 
Open your eyes, read the papers, watch the news.
The government has permision to tap into your phone, use it to locate you and listen to your conversations when you aren't even having a phonecall. You

I used the Jews as an example, they're a minority in every country except israel and they refuse to assimilate.

I'm not even American I can't believe you guys don't even know what's happening in your own country, did you guys ever hear of the Patriot Act? Maybe you should read up first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Heres an excerpt from above article:

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overbroad in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns.[1] The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9, 2006.

Slowly but surely your government is snatching your rights away.
 
Yes I know very very well that the US is taking our rights away, I know more so then you do since I am in the country. I can name over a dozen ways where the US takes our right away, but I still show appreciation to the ones that I still have and I will fight for those rights. I want this country to give us back the rights that we are losing and I will keep the hope that I will have my rights that are written on those very old documents.
 
Yes I know very very well that the US is taking our rights away, I know more so then you do since I am in the country.

um being in a country doesnt mean you know the inner workings better than an outsider. in many cases, the opposite holds true. the bulk of americans are too blind to even realize what was stripped from them in exchange for 'safety'.

regardless, your 'at least we still have some rights!!!' argument actually makes me sad. i got unhappy when i read it, because it was a reminder that people like you actually exist.
 
Despite the fact that this topic has gone completely off-topic, I would just like to point out that the "rights" that the Patriot act would seem to take away were in fact never legally rights in the first place. Perhaps they should have been, but they weren't. I'm not giving any opinion on the matter, so please don't assume my opinion based on the previous statement of fact and start trying to argue with me.

On-topic, as an American in China I don't hesitate to speak English with any foreign friends I have. It's more comfortable for me, and more comfortable for them. I don't see why the insecurities of Chinese people around us mean I should have to talk in Mandarin just so they are sure we aren't insulting them. If you view that as a "slap in the face," get over it.

Interestingly enough, I have the exact opposite problem of X-Act, in that as a Whitey in China, people assume I can't speak any Mandarin and will start a doomed attempt to converse in English. Sometimes I reply to them in Mandarin (when I'm in a hurry), other times I'll act like the French guy and let them practice their English for a while. I don't see how I'm rude for thinking that when they start talking English to me they want to talk in English.

Concise version: people are most comfortable talking in their native language. They can and will do it in front of you, even if they are simply talking about the weather. Yes, it's possible they're insulting you, get over it. The only way I see the US ever adopting an "official language" is if they start getting sued into oblivion for not requiring every safety sign etc. to be printed in every language imaginable.
 
Despite the fact that this topic has gone completely off-topic, I would just like to point out that the "rights" that the Patriot act would seem to take away were in fact never legally rights in the first place. Perhaps they should have been, but they weren't.
Explain. As far as I know, the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments are rights.
 
I'm trying to construe what you could possibly mean. The patriot act doesn't actually violate any of those amendments.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Patriot Act does not contain a single provision which violates this amendment in any fashion. The only thing I can possibly make sense of here is if you claim that the Patriot Act is encouraging enforcement based on religious affiliation.

Fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here you're on slightly firmer ground...at least I can tell what point you're trying to make. I think. The key words in the fourth amendment however are "unreasonable" and "probable cause." These are obviously not very specific or very restraining terms. The Patriot Act takes a much looser interpretation of probable cause or unreasonable search than was typical previously, but does not actually violate the fourth amendment in that regard. The other point you could make is that the section of the amendment pertaining to specificity has been violated in regards to the wiretapping. This, however, falls outside the scope of the amendment, as your conversations are going through other people's wires. As such they are not your effects, and therefore don't get the protection granted under the fourth amendment.

Fifth: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First and foremost, included within the fifth amendment is a wartime exception. Second, keep in mind that detainees kept for extended periods of time without being charged are foreign citizens held outside the country. Foreign citizens in foreign countries are not subject to the protections granted to US citizens within the US by the US constitution.

Sixth: see 5th.

----------------------------

If you wanted to make a GOOD argument, you would argue that the Patriot Act was violating the constitutional right to privacy. That would have led to a more interesting argument based on whether privacy was in fact a constitutional right. As it is, you made a bad argument. I admit that the Patriot Act dances right up to the line and abuses loopholes that at times probably goes completely against the spirit of certain sections of the constitution. Politicians are good with loopholes.
 
Fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Here you're on slightly firmer ground...at least I can tell what point you're trying to make. I think. The key words in the fourth amendment however are "unreasonable" and "probable cause." These are obviously not very specific or very restraining terms. The Patriot Act takes a much looser interpretation of probable cause or unreasonable search than was typical previously, but does not actually violate the fourth amendment in that regard. The other point you could make is that the section of the amendment pertaining to specificity has been violated in regards to the wiretapping. This, however, falls outside the scope of the amendment, as your conversations are going through other people's wires. As such they are not your effects, and therefore don't get the protection granted under the fourth amendment.
Katz v. United States

"we have expressly held that the Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements"

From the same ruling, on the subject of going through someone else's phone lines,

"[t]he premise that property interests control the right of the Government to search and seize has been discredited."



Fifth: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First and foremost, included within the fifth amendment is a wartime exception. Second, keep in mind that detainees kept for extended periods of time without being charged are foreign citizens held outside the country. Foreign citizens in foreign countries are not subject to the protections granted to US citizens within the US by the US constitution.

Sixth: see 5th.
I don't recall a declaration of war being issued.

And some were US citizens
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld



If you wanted to make a GOOD argument, you would argue that the Patriot Act was violating the constitutional right to privacy. That would have led to a more interesting argument based on whether privacy was in fact a constitutional right. As it is, you made a bad argument. I admit that the Patriot Act dances right up to the line and abuses loopholes that at times probably goes completely against the spirit of certain sections of the constitution. Politicians are good with loopholes.
We have had the right to privacy through the 14th amendment since Roe v. Wade, perhaps earlier.
 
Back
Top