[ncclporterror]

The website argues that using a flag for a language may confuse or even offend users. It argues English would most appropriately be represented by the flag of England, but few people know the flag of England, so English is usually represented by the flag of the UK or the US, neither of which are appropriate because other languages are spoken in the UK and English does not originate from the US.

I would argue that using either the UK or US flag is less likely to confuse anyone than not using any flag, and that anyone offended by this needs to grow a tougher skin.

The fact that any mapping from a language to a flag is to some extent arbitrary does not imply that no mapping at all is better. This sounds like a variation of the Sorites paradox.

Furthermore, I find it amusing that a website dedicated to languages, which are roughly sets of arbitrary conventions we use to communicate, is offended by the choice of another arbitrary convention to communicate.

[jillesvangurp]

I know a person from Ireland that doesn't take well to being associated with the "Butcher's apron" as he refers to the flag of Great Britain. Ireland has its own flag and they are very proud of it. And they'll object to any suggestion that they are English.

And of course England has its own flag, which is not the same as that of Great Britain. And of course quite a few countries still using English because they were formerly colonized/oppressed/etc. (take your pick) and might have a thing or two to say about having to deal with the British flag.

There are a lot more languages than countries. And language variations, dialects, etc. And a lot of flag / language combinations are confusing, insulting, historically incorrect, or not that helpful. Like the British, the French were all over the place and there are lots of places that speak French that don't use the French flag. Likewise Spanish is used all over the Americas. India has about 21 official languages (I think, might be more). One of which is English. So, it's complicated for English and it doesn't really get any better for other languages.

Telling people to grow a tougher skin isn't particularly user friendly or that helpful.

[ncclporterror]

> And of course quite a few countries still using English because they were formerly colonized/oppressed/etc. (take your pick) and might have a thing or two to say about having to deal with the British flag.

What about the fact that their language would be listed as "English", therefore reminding them it originated in England? Is listing the language as "English" significantly different from listing it as "<UK flag> English"? Should we rename the language to "Irish" ? Then what about the inhabitants of Ireland who don't identify as Irish?

You can always take the most offensive interpretation "This flag is claiming that Irish people are English, therefore contribute to historical oppression, etc".

But you can also take a more natural and charitable interpretation, which is that most people associate the UK flag to English, and the flag is therefore a convenient visual indication.

> it's complicated for English and it doesn't really get any better for other languages.

I agree, there is complexity and arbitrariness in any "language -> flag" mapping. I am arguing that you can make practical decisions even in the presence of complexity.

> Telling people to grow a tougher skin isn't particularly user friendly or that helpful.

Arguing you can't do something because someone will be offended is also not very helpful: you can almost always find some offensive interpretation of anything.

[simondw]

> Arguing you can't do something because someone will be offended is also not very helpful: you can almost always find some offensive interpretation of anything

You mentioned the sorites paradox earlier. Do you think it could be applied here as well?

[lolinder]

> you can almost always find some offensive interpretation of anything.

This is the "perfect is the enemy of good" fallacy. We may not be able to find something that is not offensive to anyone in the world, but we can pick a convention that doesn't actively force hundreds of millions of people to identify themselves with colonial powers that committed genocide against their ancestors.

If this sounds hyperbolic to you, I strongly recommend reading up on the history of English treatment of the Irish over the centuries. Then follow that by learning more about African colonization. This isn't just a matter of growing thicker skin, the intergenerational trauma these people feel is very very real.

[LudwigNagasena]

What’s reasonable for some is hyperbolic for others. So it feels like emotional abuse / bullying; or at least as a real world example of a utility monster: Someone gets so much harm from a little inconvenience that all people are supposed to bow down to them.

[lolinder]

As I said:

> I strongly recommend reading up on the history of English treatment of the Irish over the centuries. Then follow that by learning more about African colonization.

We're not talking about some your-grandpa-defrauded-my-grandpa historical slight, we're talking about genocide systematically executed under the authority of that flag. The emotions experienced by these people are in the same category as those experienced by Jews when they see a swastika. If you don't see how that's a bigger deal than you're making it sound then I don't know how to help you.

[LudwigNagasena]

If you don’t see why censoring a British flag that represents a language literally called _English_ seems entirely pointless and laughable to some people then I don’t know how to help you.

[simondw]

> less likely to confuse anyone than not using any flag

This doesn't seem obvious to me. I don't think the word "English" is likely to confuse any English speaker.

> anyone offended by this needs to grow a tougher skin

Are you saying this with the personal experience of being from a country that now speaks the language of its colonizer?

[lolinder]

> Are you saying this with the personal experience of being from a country that now speaks the language of its colonizer?

And to be clear, the US is excluded from this. Our cultural memory of our colonial history is an outlier—for most Americans our sense of our relationship with Britain is more that of friendly rivals than colonizer-colonized. The difference is largely because most of us are descended from the colonists (or people who arrived much later), not from the people that were there first, so the abuses that our ancestors suffered barely even register on the scale of colonial abuse.

That contrasts sharply with how the Irish or most Africans feel towards their former colonial powers. It's hard to feel positively towards a flag that represents a power that repeatedly committed genocide against your people.

[andrewshadura]

To give you an example of flags being offensive: most people who would ever choose Belarusian anywhere in any computer system will find the current Belarusian flag offensive because it represents the government that oppresses their culture and represses people who dare use the language in public.

Another example: a lot of people speak Russian outside of Russia. Many of them have nothing to do with Russia and never lived there, and even without the devastating war that Russia is currently waging against Ukraine they don't want to associate their language with Russia and its flag.

[ncclporterror]

Thanks, these are indeed good arguments. This made me reconsider but I am still not entirely convinced. I would argue that the association of the flag with the current government rests largely in the mind of the reader, not in the convention itself.

[082349872349872]

There's always ISO 639, which has three chances of being acceptable to end users: slim, fat, and none.

What flag would you suggest for http://als.wikipedia.org or http://pdc.wikipedia.org ?

[RobotToaster]

English is the official language of the United Kingdom, so their argument doesn't make sense.

[ncclporterror]

The website makes further arguments: English is the official language in many other countries, therefore choosing the UK is arbitrary.

You could define a complicated rule to make it less arbitrary, but then the choice of the rule itself would be arbitrary. I think the point that any mapping will be to some extent arbitrary is correct.

The problem for me is arguing that because any arbitrary convention will be offending or confusing to some, then no convention should be chosen. As opposed to the practical idea of just picking a convention that makes sense.

[jimbobthrowawy]

The UK, like the US, doesn't have an official language. Though, constituent parts of it have given official standing to other languages.