lvxferre

I'm proposing to check their texts out because it's a good way to get theoretical background to back up your beliefs, if you believe in a peaceful transition. (Here's a link to a good one, by the way.)

It's also useful for Marxists, given that Marxism always interacted with other left-wing trains of thought. So by reading this stuff you get a better historical context on why Marxism defends some policies instead of other policies.

It's less complicated than it looks like. The text is just a poorly written mess, full of options (Fedora vs. Ubuntu, repo vs. no repo, stable vs. beta), and they're explaining how to do this through the terminal alone because the interface that you have might be different from what they expect. And because copy-pasting commands is faster.

Can’t I just download a file and install it? I’m on Ubuntu.

Yes, you can! In fact, the instructions include this option; it's under "Installing the app without the Mullvad repository". It's a bad idea though; then you don't get automatic updates.

A better way to do this is to tell your system "I want software from this repository", so each time that they make a new version of the program, yours get updated.

but I have no idea what I’m doing here.

I'll copy-paste their commands to do so, and explain what each does.

sudo curl -fsSLo /usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/mullvad-keyring.asc
echo "deb [signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/mullvad-keyring.asc arch=$( dpkg --print-architecture )] https://repository.mullvad.net/deb/stable $(lsb_release -cs) main" | sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mullvad.list
sudo apt update
sudo apt install mullvad-vpn

The first command boils down to "download this keyring from the internet". The keyring is a necessary file to know if you're actually getting your software from Mullvad instead of PoopySoxHaxxor69. If you wanted, you could do it manually, and then move to the /usr/share/keyrings directory, but... it's more work, come on.

The second command tells your system that you want software from repository.mullvad.net. I don't use Ubuntu but there's probably some GUI to do it for you.

The third command boils down to "hey, Ubuntu, update the list of packages for me".

The fourth one installs the software.

In response to such critiques [concerning the decline of quality], Reddit spokesperson Rathschmidt said he did not “know of an industry benchmark for scoring content quality”.

My sides went into orbit. It's a Reddit spokesperson acting like the worst of the Reddit userbase: being passive aggressive and using appeal to ignorance, at the same time.

This will probably not help OP, as he's asking for an Android client.

Desktop users: install Firefox, uBlock Origin, then add reddit.com to your personal user filters. This way you can still access Reddit if you really want to, but it'll make you think twice before proceeding.

So why isn't my glass of Campari drifting randomly across the table, under Brownian movement??? [/shitty drunkard joke]

Serious now. On economic matters I think that you're right.

You probably know it, but just in case that you (or anyone reading this, who might agree with you) don't: give the texts of The Fabian Society a check. They're rather close to what you're proposing with a peaceful transition; I have my criticisms against it as a Marxist strictu sensu, but I bet that you'll have a blast with it.

Applying the concept from the micro (enshittification of the platforms) to the macro (enshittification of the economic system) is brilliant.

That could work too. In both cases you get the word being formed in the spoken language, and then interfering on the spelling only afterwards. The difference is if defining the word syntactically (like I did) or phonologically (like your reasoning leads to).

[Kind of off-topic trivia, but for funzies] I've seen similar phenomena in other languages, like:

• Italian - "per questo" (thus, therefore; lit. "for this") vs. *perquesto
• Portuguese - "por que" (why; lit. "for what") vs. "porque" (because)

Both of our explanations would work fine for those two too, mind you; they both sound like unitary words and behave as such. (e.g. they repel syntactical intrusion).

I don't think that there is one yet, otherwise it would get famous. Not sure though.

I'll use spoiler tags to reduce visual clutter for other posters.

How is that?

comparing old claim vs. new claim

Here's your old claim: "This is exactly what is already happening with Scots and American English". This was uttered as a reply to "I don’t think that some sort of “international English” would be a threat to the local varieties that you mentioned".

As such, in the context you were initially saying the same as American English is a threat to Scots, and any sort of «international English» dialect would be the same.

Now here's your new claim: "I was specifically referring to Scots words and phrases disappearing from use and even British English words being replaced with americanisms [SIC]." You're shifting the claim from a "general threat" to "words and phrases", and "Scots" to "Scots and even British English".

As such, yes, you are shifting the goalposts. (Not that it matters as I debunked both the old and new claims.)

So what you’re saying here is that American media is, in fact, threatening Scots albeit indirectly?

So what you're saying here is that you're functionally illiterate?

Seriously. Learn to read dammit. I'll even help you out.

Spoonfeeding time

• SSB happens to adopt American media words and expressions, for the reasons already stated. SSB is not itself threatened.
• SSB threatens Scots. And due to the threat, it leaks SSB words and expressions into Scots, including the ones that SSB adopted from American media.

Prevent SSB from displacing other varieties from the equation, and Scots survives; perhaps adopting one or two American words, but that's no biggie, vocab comes and go. Remove American media from the equation, and Scots still meets a sticky end because it's still being cannibalised by other British varieties.

As such, no, American media is not even an indirect threat in this case. It might be to AAVE or Appalachian, dunno; but not to Scots.

The threat is from whatever is whatever "a Brit" is expected to speak when being "a proper Brit"; formerly RP, nowadays SSB. It's ultimately that meme of "national identity", not global matters.

What was it you said earlier about native English sneakers [SIC] putting words in each others [SIC] mouths?

I was not putting words in your mouth. I was highlighting that this is an implication of what you said. What I was contemplating, back then, was that Anglos might do something like this:

further reasoning

• [Alice] I like bananas.
• [Bob] U liek bananas than I assome u haet apples Y U HATE APPLES ALICE?

Two different cans of worms; in one you're looking for the implications of what another person said, in another you're making shit up.

But let's play with the later a tiiiiny bit. If I were to do the later, here's how it would sound like:

"You're blaming American media because you don't really care about Scots; Scots is just a convenient sacrificial lamb for you nationalists to find some overseas threat to your Reich and its Reichsprache [heil ~~the queen~~ the king!]. That nationalism is also the reason why you're treating American English and British English as if they were dialects, as you nationalists hate when people notice internal variation of your languages. «Noooo! We're an united Folksreich! One British English, One British People!».

...I'm not doing it though. I do have grounds to call you illiterate, disingenuous, or even potentially an irrational, as you're clearly unable to follow a simple reasoning. However, I don't have the ones to call you a nationalist. But it should give you an idea of what I originally meant by putting words onto the others' mouths.

Side note: in that quote you're diverting the focus and distorting what someone else said. Should I take it as a sign that the concept of intellectual honesty is a bit too complex for you?

Nice ad hominem.

No, that is not an argumentum ad hominem. If you want to call out fallacies, at least learn to identify them, otherwise you'll vomit stupid shit like this.

why this is not ad hominem

An ad hominem here would be "your claim is incorrect because you are a layman". That is not even remotely close to what I did; instead I wrote a big wall of text, with reasoning and sourced data showing that your claim is incorrect. There's argumentation there, not just a "u layman than u're arguement is invalid lol lmao".

I'm highlighting that you're a layman and listing those three points to show why "as a native" is not a valid way to strengthen your own claim. It's shitty reasoning; I could've said instead that it's a combo of appeal to authority and anecdotal evidence (it is, both), but simply calling out fallacies is less useful for people reading this than saying why they're bad.

---

Here comes the cherry on the cake:

Let's pretend for a moment that your claims weren't completely bollocks, and that you aren't totally scapegoating American media for what's a shitty phenomenon that would happen even without it. No, let's pretend that it's incontestable truth.

Even then, you still consistently failed to use this to back up your original claim, that boils down to a hypothetical "international English" being a threat towards Scots.

If anyone reading this wants to defend the claims that the muppet above is backing up, be my guest, and I'll be happy to reply you, as long as you have basic reading comprehension and aren't disingenuous (unlike the poster above). However, I'm not going to bother further with him.

They're still providing the code for people who buy the compiled software. And they are not restricting their ability to redistribute that code. So it's still compliant with the GPL in the letter. However, if you redistribute it, they'll refuse to service you further versions of the software.

It's clearly a loophole because they can argue "ackshyually, we didn't restrict you, we just don't want further businesses with you, see ya sucker".

This is likely the last reply that I'm going to arse myself with. The reasons should become evident across the comment.

I was specifically referring to Scots words and phrases disappearing from use and even British English words being replaced with americanisms.

You're disingenuously (or worse, idiotically) moving the goalposts from your earlier claim, that contextually conveyed that "American English" (bloody umbrella term, you likely mean General American) was directly threatening Scots (false).

That said, addressing your new claim poorly disguised as the old one: the reason why Scots and most British varieties are picking those words and expressions is not American media itself, it's Southern Standard British English (SSB) and perhaps SSE. And SSB picks words and expressions from every bloody where, including American dialects.

SSB picking new lexicon is a natural and expected process for any living variety, not part of the problem; that variety is thriving, prestigious to the point that your likely next king (prince William) speaks it, it's slowly displacing RP's role as standard due to societal changes, and it has enough of an international presence that even some L3 muppet across the globe might use it as reference pronunciation. It is not at risk of being displaced, not even lexically.

What is part of the problem is that SSB is cannibalising other varieties spoken in the islands. You can literally see it in those maps:

Source for those maps.

In layman-friendly words: the speakers of those local varieties aren't "urrm" (arm) or "sliver" like some American "youruberr". They're saying "ahm" (arm) and "splinter" like mid-high class Londoners.

(And the only exception in those maps that shows a feature from SSB being displaced instead of displacing is the [ɑ:]→[a] usage in "last", that still has nothing to do with typically American [æ].)

Before you complain about including phonological data instead of just lexical one, given that your new claim was about "words and expressions": when it comes to language displacement, both walk side-by-side.

This absolutely is happening; as someone from Scotland, I have seen it first hand.

Your "as a" = "I'm expecting you to be gullible trash and «chrust me»" backfires badly here. It shows that, as a layman, you're perhaps in the worst position ever to get a clear picture of what's happening, for three reasons:

• biased sampling - you aren't basing your conclusions on wide data, but on anecdotes
• ideological bombardment - remember when I said that "governments love this shit"?
• the de facto standard language of your government is the lingua franca - so it's hard for you to gauge why English is threatening those local varieties, and if that threat would apply to a hypothetical "International English" or not.

I stopped reading here as Brandolini's Law is a thing.