this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
100 points (91.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47155 readers
879 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I mean the whole school I went through kept nailing in our heads how much a foreign language would benefit you. I guess this went under the noses of whoever like teaching kids to balance a checkbook.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] justdaveisfine@piefed.social 66 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In my own experience, if you pick up another language but don't use it on an at least a semi-regular basis, your skills in it get real rusty real fast.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Everyone coming up with conspiratorial reasons why this is not the case but it's much simple than that. It's not feasible and it's expensive and the returns aren't really worth it.

Kids in school have a bunch of other subjects they have to learn besides foreign languages. You can add one or two languages but then at some point you will need to remove other subjects to add more or you need to keep kids in school even more. Both are not really feasible. Then you need to hire teachers for all these new languages which most places won't do.

Another issue is with the way they teach languages in schools. They expect you to pass a test and not actually learn the language so a lot of the languages will not "stick" as the students lack immersion and practice with that language. I can speak for myself, I have learned two languages besides my native language in school: French and English. I had French since 2nd grade, which is 10 years of French classes and English since 5th grade which is 7 years of English classes. Today I can speak English fluently and like 3 words of French. The difference was that I was always immersed in English, though video games, movies, songs and so on. Not so much with French. I have noticed the same pattern with most of my friends and family members.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (14 children)

Do Americans really not learn any other languages in school? I was under the impression that Spanish lessons were part of the public school system down there. I’m not trying to be rude I’m genuinely asking

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Because the system is designed to make it so you never leave and you never have the upper hand.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

English has 1.5B fluent speakers spread across the entire globe. Hardly an insular language.

This is far more about discrimination - freezing migrant families out of public sector jobs and services, segregating English speakers from minority speakers, abolishing First Nations language and culture.

Also very important to keep Americans from reading foreign language press.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry, but I really am failing to make the connection between how learning a second language as an optional class leads to "freezing migrant families out of public sector jobs and services". You don't even need to speak English to access those most of the time. In my city, nearly all public services are available in English and Spanish at the minimum, and frequently Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russian as well.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I really am failing to make the connection between how learning a second language as an optional class leads to “freezing migrant families out of public sector jobs and services”.

American public school kids don't normally get access to electives until at 6th grade (sometimes not until 8th or 9th grade depending on the state and district). So "optional" in theory is a deliberate effort to delay bilingual learning in practice.

Mono-lingual populations are more easily primed towards hostility against minority speakers. So your senior staff is biased towards English as a primary language when hiring the next generation of public workers. And these workers are increasingly both unable and unwilling to provide services in secondary languages. This creates a natural barrier for any minority speaker from even interacting with public bureaucracies.

In my city, nearly all public services are available in English and Spanish at the minimum, and frequently Chinese, Vietnamese, and Russian as well.

Bigger and more egalitarian cities, with large minority-language populations can staff their departments with fluent minority-language speakers. And under more liberal and egalitarian governments, they do. But as the population grows more reactionary, these kinds of skills get drummed out of the bureaucracy.

This isn't even a new problem in government.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told 2,500 troops Tuesday about the foreign-language skills he championed as a congressman, an active-duty Army officer was complaining about the paucity of military personnel who can speak anything other than English.

But it has become an increasingly domestic issue, as fascists take command of the bureaucratic core.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 13166, which designated English as the United States’ official language. This Executive Order is no longer theoretically in effect, and existing federal civil rights laws and regulations require language access for individuals with limited English proficiency in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.

Nonetheless, numerous federal entities are pursuing policies prioritizing English as the only language, effectively reducing or eliminating Spanish.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It hasn't really been an economic necessity or cultural priority like other countries.

Most countries who have a population who speak more than one language usually either have a variety of languages spoken within/near the country or rely on ESL speakers to participate in the international workforce.

With English being the current lingua franca, Americans already know the current dominant language. There is really only one major language which is relevant to neighbors, but Americans are usually in the more dominant economic position and there is a cultural aversion to adopting Spanish more.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 11 points 2 weeks ago

This is the correct answer.

If you live in SE Asia for example you speak your local language at home but you need to learn English for work.

If you already speak English at home then you already know how to speak English at work.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There is really only one major language which is relevant to neighbors

Spanish

French Canadians would like to have a word with you

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 4 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

They could, if they were economically relevant on the continent. Spanish and Portuguese are far more relevant when interfacing with international trade in the Western Hemisphere.

I pointed out cultural reasons for maintaining a language as well. The USA, as a country, has no current cultural reason to have portions of the country maintain a different language.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] rockandsock@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago

If you don't live in a border state the chances of using a second language enough to really learn it well and become proficient are really small unless you have close family members that speak it.

I took a couple of years of Spanish in high school but live about 12 hours from the Mexican border so I didn't use it enough to retain much.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Hah!

We can barely teach kids English.

Why?

The answer is Republicans want to fund Christian schools instead, with various variations of extra steps.

[–] mrmisses@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Because it would upset the racists (republicans)

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago

Learning a second language might open perspectives and expose children to ideas. The GOP can't afford such smart kids.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I know it varies from state to state, but where I’ve lived it’s an “elective” in that you got to pick which language to take of the available options (some schools might only have two choices, others four or even five), but taking a certain number of foreign language credits was required for graduation. If you wanted to go beyond the minimum and had room in your schedule you could.

[–] Nemo@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

Same way where I grew up in South Dakota, except each school only taught one language.

[–] InvalidName2@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

When I was a kid in public school, everybody had to take a foreign language, the elective part was that we had a choice as to which language we took. Some chose French. Some chose Spanish. If you came from money, you also had the option to take foreign language courses at participating colleges, which opened up a lot of other options like German, Japanese, and Latin, amongst others.

Has that changed? Or perhaps it's different in different jurisdictions?

For me personally, I wish Latin had been an option for me, as it's used extensively in biology and it would have been incredibly helpful. In terms of foreign language courses I've taken, I've had Spanish, French, and German. I don't use any of them, except on rare occasion I'll hear/see something in Spanish that I can vaguely understand the highlights of given enough time. French is pretty much 100% useless in my day to day life. German has been helpful once or twice when watching a movie or listening to music, but otherwise, useless as well.

Keep in mind, however smart you are, most people are not that smart. They'll never be curious enough or smart enough to learn another language. They don't have enough exposure to another language to really remember it. It's basically of waste of their time and educational money. I'm all for teaching these things in schools as electives, but forcing kids to learn multiple different languages? I think we should have universal/single payer healthcare, better medicare/medicaid, free school lunches (and breakfasts), true livable minimum wages, and a myriad other things first.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

In Canada when I was growing up, if you didnt take french immersion, they made you take 1 french language class a year up until grade 10.

They also taught Japanese in my highschool and for senior year if you'd taken them all you could go on a trip to Japan.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

For me personally, I wish Latin had been an option for me, as it's used extensively in biology and it would have been incredibly helpful.

My wife and I studied Latin in middle school and high school.

My kids were also able to take Latin in school.

Rather than list all the benefits of learning Latin, I found this, Top 10 Reasons For Studying Latin, which says it better than I could.

I would struggle to translate anything today (although I still know that all of Gaul is divided into three parts), but I know I have benefited from an improved understanding of English grammar and vocabulary.

Fight for Latin in your schools!

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 weeks ago

Because education in the USA is a sad joke? Republicans have been hollowing out education for the past 5 decades or so and they worked hard trying to shove fundamentalist christianity in schools and science classes specifically

The US is tucked and can get fucked

[–] splendid9583@kbin.earth 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'm 1.5 Gen immigrant to the US and idek Cantonese/Chinese volcabulary outside of basics, like 2nd grade level words, so I'm probably gonna be speaking a weird Canto-glish to my future children, or maybe just English only 🤷‍♂️

I even struggle to talk to my parents lol

[–] StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Around me, the only language spoken with any frequency other than English is Spanish. In a half dozen different varieties. Even that wasn't all that common until, maybe, 10 years ago. About midway through President Trump's first administration.

Most schools encourage kids to take a language, but they are kinda a use it, or lose it thing. Unless you just happen to be part of a community or household that speaks a language other than English, you are unlikely to need it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 5 points 2 weeks ago

We needed ~"3" levels of language classes to graduate in my school (7th and 8th grade effectively counted as 1 level, so it was really 4 years). You could elect to take extra if you wanted.

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Go on radio.garden and try to find non-english music. My point is it's wild how much English has become a common language worldwide, even if it's not the first language

If every state had a different language they'd be more like europeans that have second and third languages as a normal thing. But it's almost all English, everywhere all the time unless you are near Mexico.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you guys not have any language classes in the public school system at all in the US? Not trying to be rude I just dont know how things work there

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The problem in the US is that besides English, you might be exposed to some Spanish. And not much else unless you seek it out. Or have immigrant friends. Without consistent practice, and some more native speakers, any learned language just rots away.

I learned German for several years in college. It was fun. Went to a local brewhouse with my classmates and talked in simple german while we had dinner, it was a good time. Now, other than my own attempts at saving my whithered skill, and a couple bedtime songs for my kids, I don't use it.

And even when I was better at it, using it as a tourist in germany was moderately helpful, but it wouldn't have been nearly enough skill to pass any kind of immigration language proficiency exams.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

this makes no sense to me, aside from english we don't teach languages because it's immediately useful in daily life, we teach it because it's good for your brain and it's good for the entire population to have some ability to use more languages.

Like, how useful do you think spanish is in northern europe? Not very! and yet most people here learn it in school.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

Although it's been shown learning another language as a child changes the way your mind works, there's only so much money in the teaching budget and so many hours in the day. Conservatives want to take both from our kids, for their own ends, so justifying the value of the resources to the student is a perennial challenge.

Given the low proficiency of current grads with their first language, and basic skills like punctuation and spelling, I say we're a LONG way before we can open a second language in the curriculum.

[–] Hikermick@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

To be fair it's tough to be proficient in a language you don't get to use. In some places in the US, there's plenty of Spanish speaking people. Other than that not so much.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 5 points 2 weeks ago

Because school in the US isn't about creating a well educated population.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I'd say because half of america's goals involve not understanding other cultures and believing whatever nonsense the corporate overlords want to say about them.

I still have to laugh at when american's went on chinese tiktok to work around the possible bans, and the chinese were all like "wait, you really do have to pay out the nose for an ambulance ride, I thought that was propoganda by our government" meanwhile a lot of american's were learning half of the horrors of china were extremely overstated or manipulated.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

Rednote's been a fascinating natural experiment in cross cultural communication that we need to repeat at scale

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

meanwhile a lot of american’s were learning half of the horrors of china were extremely overstated or manipulated.

Crazy how quickly the Chinese travel vlogs get demonetized on YouTube. Google execs really do not want you knowing how nice East Asian cities are.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

As someone who is Chinese and living in the US, Americans who have not been to China overestimate its shittiness and people who have been to China once or twice overestimate its glamour. Outside the cities, the rural areas can be real shit-holes. I've been to a tea plantation where there were a total of six electric plugs in the entire village and the toilets flushed with a bucket which had to be filled from a pump outside. It's not the level of rank poverty you see in many developing countries, far from it, but it's a lot worse than even the poorest parts of Appalachia in the US, where at least people usually have electricity and running water.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Outside the cities, the rural areas can be real shit-holes.

One of the more notable achievements of the last two decades of Chinese economic improvement has been the degree of urbanization, particularly in the western end of the country. This used to be a point of criticism among western economists (Chinese Ghost Cities being a popular meme during the '00s/'10s). Now we just don't talk about Chengdu or Lhasa or Lanzhuo at all.

It’s not the level of rank poverty you see in many developing countries, far from it, but it’s a lot worse than even the poorest parts of Appalachia in the US

In my experience, having done a little traveling through Appalachia and the northern end of the Gulf Coast, urban migration has solved a lot of the back country issues by hollowing out the country's interior. If we didn't build a highway through a chunk of the state, people just stopped living there.

Chinese rural communities have experienced a similar hollowing out, particularly in the 80s and 90s when the prosperity on the coasts fully eclipsed the poverty of the western interior. But because agricultural labor was seen as critical to social stability, the state simply refused to let people leave. The end result was an enormous black market population that became a nightmare to manage. And so the late Deng and Hu governments (and early Xi government - although by then much of the work was done) spent a significant amount of resources and labor back filling rural development. Hu, in particular, was a champion of the rural west thanks to his policy of low taxes and high investment.

This didn't eliminate the developmental black holes on the Chinese map. But the expansion westward was its own kind of economic revolution. One that culminated in a virtual elimination of the poverty the country had become known for during the Reagan Era.

The difference in approach - demanding people move to the cities rather than demanding public spending move to the country - is a critical point of divergence between American Neoliberal and Chinese Socialist domestic policies.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I do have to agree with you there. Though too much urban migration does come with its own problems. Chief among them that I observe is that it severely depressed wages and lack of work. China is moving through its own sort of gilded age right now with rapid technological advancement and extreme inequality.

For a purportedly socialist country, China lacks a lot of state infrastructure that comes along with that. The USSR guaranteed work and bread, at a minimum (mostly), but in China, a curious sight emerged which I observed in some of the poorer neighbourhoods of Hangzhou: old people pushing around carts of discarded cardboard boxes and tin cans. They weren't employed as cleaning workers. They were collecting these to sell for their recycling value. And even though the Westerner might laugh at the notion of making a living collecting literal garbage for pennies, it only takes fourteen pennies to make a yuan and ¥5 will buy a bowl of rice, fending off starvation for another twelve hours. Now, homeless people collecting rubbish to sell for scrap does also happen in the US, but the US at least doesn't claim to be a socialist country.

China has no functional social safety net, government assistance is minimal, and workers are exploited by a ruling class of wealthy elites with minimal interference from the state, in a shockingly similar way to capitalist countries. You cannot even form a real trade union in China, because all big companies are already "unionised" with workers represented by farcically corrupt organisations which work in tandem with the capitalist bosses.

I will give one more example: Coco is a nationwide chain of beverage stalls which sell tea, coffee, and juice drinks. I walked past a location in Shenzhen which was advertising that they were hiring. Their offer of pay: ¥200 a day, for a 10-hour shift, six days a week. In one of the most expensive cities in the country. I took a photo of this but I couldn't find it to post.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zlatiah@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think this is a matter of the microeconomics concept of "scarce resources"? It'd be lovely if everyone in the US learns at least Spanish. But school can only teach a limited number of subjects, so in the US where most people don't need to use anything other than American English, it might be argued that it is more beneficial to spend more time on, say, STEM and history, rather than getting kids to learn Spanish/German/Chinese... I guess there are foreign language electives for that reason? They are still highly valuable after all

Besides, learning and teaching a foreign language is hard lol. China used to (I've heard rumors that some places changed, not 100% sure) require mandatory English education from 1st grade elementary... social issues with the English teacher expats aside, the English literacy rate in China still looks like that. There are even multilingual countries in Europe where a good number of people struggle to learn/speak the other national languages so... Even if the US wants to do it, it's not that straightforward

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 weeks ago

the idea that learning languages is particularly difficult seems like an anglophone invention to me, english is a completely standard mandatory subject in most of the world and in many countries a lot of kids learn 2 more languages on top of that.

Here in sweden it's 100% expected that you speak fluent swedish, english, and can make yourself somewhat understood in at least one other language (usually spanish or german, it's no different than being expected to know maths and science.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] crwth@piefed.zip 3 points 2 weeks ago

The college I graduated from required a year of foreign language for graduation -- actually take it and pass, not just test out of it.

OK, that's not quite true. For some reason, the mathematics department was grouped with the languages for purposes of this requirement, so you could take a year of calculus in lieu of a foreign language if you preferred.

Unless you were a math major. Classes in your major didn't count, so all math majors absolutely had to take a foreign language.

Unless you were a dual major like math-physics. Dual majors could apply classes from both majors towards distribution requirements. I knew several "math" majors who took just enough physics classes to qualify as a dual major for the express purpose of not having to study a language.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Americans always have the upper hand in other countries by simply speaking English louder and slower until our needs are met.

load more comments
view more: next ›