Bigotry and prejudice. Not necessarily uneducated, but certainly poorly educated.
People who litter. Throw their rubbish out the window of the car. Or who throw rubbish in public, like into drains or sidewalks.
It’s in the mentality, and I say the lack of education is the reason for it.
It’s sad to see the people of my country do this, and to see it with your own eyes.
I see this in a lot of places I do work:
Toolboxes covered in union stickers, AND Trump stickers…
Racists benefit from worker’s rights too.
Biden is at least nominally pro-union (he isn’t really pro-union, but nominally.) Trump is overtly anti-union.
Not trusting in science.
Edit: Since there are many comments, I would like to clarify my statement. I meant that you should rather trust scientists, that the earth is round / that there is a human-made climate change, etc. and not listen to some random internet guy, that claims these things are false although he has made no scientific tests or he has no scientific background. I know that there are paradigm shifts in science and sometimes old ideas are proven to be wrong. But those shifts happen through other scientific experiments/thoughts. As long as > 99 % of all scientists think that something is true, you should rather trust them then any conspiracy theorist…
The irony!
Trust what? Many scientists will quite justifiably have completely opposing views (do vaccines cause autism for example).
That’s unironically the point. Science should not be blindly trusted.
i mean i get the impulse, but if we were to blindly trust any sort of knowledge system, science is the one to trust, right? like, any downsides of trusting scientific consensus are necessarily larger when trusting information sources that aren’t scientific, and if you follow through with trusting science blindly, you might ignorantly begin to believe that empirical testing and intellectual honesty is necessary for determining the truth of your beliefs!
Coming to absolutes and never admitting your faults
Thinking about different languages in the terms of “useful” or “useless” according to the number of speakers they have.
Edit: What I mean specifically is not for someone to want or not to personally learn a language, but if the existance in itself of a language is more or less valuable according to how many people speak it (per example and as I explained below, believing that Occitan’s existance is useless because there’s already French to talk to Occitan people with, who already understand it). Yes, this happens.
Why does this show lack of education over lack of interest in linguistics? I’ve studied linguistics, and I don’t categorize languages that way, but I could see how a pragmatist wouldn’t see value in learning Esperanto or Papiamento.
I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am not talking about a wish to learn a language, but to consider languages as useful or useless in regards to their entire existence.
This is unfortunately not very uncommon in people of European countries who look down upon regional languages, stating that their existence or that learning them is useless (not for them only, but for anyone) just because you can already do the task of communicating with others through the national language (per example, considering the existance of the Occitan language useless because the people of everywhere where it is spoken can already understand French). This is done by people who not understand (or even worse, who don’t care about) the value that exists in language from a cultural perspective.
So interesting. Thank you for the perspective.
Thank you.
I know this all sounds like Mandarin to most of the userbase of this place (which I suppose to be mainly from the US and alien to the politics of places where big regional languages exist in the same space than even larger national languages), but it’s not only the attitude of some regular people but also of some major political forces. Just a few months ago, a far-right party in Spain vowed to shut down the Academy of Valencian Language if they ever reached power (something I suppose a linguist like you would never approve), under the excuse of its existence being “a threat to national unity”.
Nationalism: not even once.
