I understand that point of view, but desiring the creation of a universal language makes one an aspirational conqueror. The whole premise of 'a universal language for world peace' is oppressive (and for that reason I don't support it no matter the language chosen.)

My reading of Esperanto wasn’t to make everyone have to speak it as their first and only language (though I’m sure some have suggested that), but to make it a simpler more convenient halfway house language that would put everyone at the same disadvantage, if you will. you show willingness to be friendly and negotiate by stepping away from your native language and learning another, but you don’t have to step into another’s native language and accept being at a huge disadvantage, and you don’t have to learn the union of every language of everyone you want to talk with.

It’s an idea that can only really succeed from a combined goodwill not conquering oppression.

All over Europe there isn’t room to put up road signs and menus and instructions in the union of all possible languages visitors could speak. It’s easy to say all visitors must learn the local language, but there’s often some concession to putting up signs in some other languages, Esperanto fits there. All road signs seconded in Esperanto isn’t as good for locals as all visitors learning the local language, it isn’t as good for visitors as signs being in their native language, but it isn’t as bad for locals as one group of visitors expecting signs in their language and it isn’t as bad for visitors as signs being in multiple native languages but not theirs.

Expecting to go anywhere and speak English is rude. Expecting everyone to learn English is unlikely and going to trigger a lot of anger. Also supporting French shows some openness but privileges France in a national way. If you could get language away from nationalism, tourist information in Esperanto doesn’t privilege any one nation.

> Expecting to go anywhere and speak English is rude.

I would just like to clear this up: I do not support the notion of any universal language, and that includes English. My observation that English is relatively more universal than Esperanto is not an endorsement of the premise of universal languages being a laudable goal.

Let me change that, a traveller expecting to go anywhere and speak their native language is rude, expecting all travellers to learn every destination language of everywhere they go is unworkable. Every employee learning the language of every company and customer, also unworkable. A universal intermediate language that isn’t any nation’s preferred language and hasn’t been part of any colonial efforts in the past, is a possible way to dodge both those things. Not rude because everyone’s stepping out of their home language.

But it would have to be grassroots - if the English government mandated that everyone speak Esperanto in school then tried to spread it round Ireland and the EU it would ruin it. Same if the EU adopted it en masse, Brexiteers would reject it on principle. It could only ever happen if it grew in a balanced way where more and more places distributed around the world use it, and more and more people around the world learn it because it’s useful, and it somehow never becomes one country or one group’s unfair advantage. (That is to say, it can’t ever happen).

Would you still oppose a universal language if it was voluntary, not pushed by one nation into others, and not a replacement to primary national languages?

> The whole premise of 'a universal language for world peace' is oppressive

Could you explain that? I see it more in terms of creating a voluntary standard than forcing people to comply.

I think the universal language would gradually extinguish other languages. The more universal a language becomes, the more powerful the network effects get.

Is being extinguished by a universal language somehow worse than being extinguished by a non-universal language?

A non-universal language doesn't imply extinguishing other languages.

That’s how language has worked throughout history. Alexander the Great spread Greek. Rome spread Latin.

Alexander the Great was a mass murderer; Rome was fascist.

One of the worst comments I’ve seen on HN

i posted this as a joke but im not sure if its more or less funny how easy it was for everyone to take it seriously..

And yet, here you are using it to express that sentiment.

Kind of a catch 22 or strange irony about this, but I suppose that is true of the entire philosophical viewpoint being expressed.

in my neck of the woods we call this sort of strange irony humor