An official language? “That’s not inclusive! That’s ‘language as oppression.’ It’s ‘linguistic white supremacy!’” No, it’s maximally inclusive—and it’s not racist at all. A common language fosters inclusivity by ensuring that everyone can communicate effectively, sharing the same meanings and usages to convey thoughts with accuracy and precision. Don’t know English? Want to live in America? Learn English.
There is nothing unusual about a nation having an official language. Does Sweden have an official language? Yes, it does—Swedish. Norway? Norwegian. Denmark? Danish. France? French. Germany? German. These and many other nations have official languages. Ukraine? Ukrainian. Moreover, approximately thirty American states already recognize English as their official language. Now, it will be all fifty states. Today, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making English the official language of the Untied States.
Having an official language will aid in the necessary process of assimilating foreign populations into American culture and law, which is rooted in English common law. Assimilation or integration—same thing—is not a bad thing. It’s a good thing. It sustains the shared attitudes and values necessary for maintaining the legal and normative framework that defines the American Republic and the American Creed.
Cultural pluralism, today known as “multiculturalism,” has always been a bad idea. However, because multiculturalists have gained control of our sense-making institutions, generations have been indoctrinated to believe that assimilation is nativist (as if this were inherently bad) and racist. Racist? We are a multiracial country with a colorblind Constitution. Moreover, race is not culture. To think otherwise is racist—it assumes that culture is a product of race, a biological construct.
This morning, I reviewed statements from writing departments across America’s university system. These statements are truly bizarre. I knew the situation was bad, but I did not realize the full extent of it. Writing departments have been overtaken by the crackpot ideas found in the work of identitarian demagogues such as Ibram X. Kendi. MSU Denver, decrying “linguistic white supremacy,” calls on its faculty to “reject standard American English.” The University of Maryland declares, “Discriminatory and Unconstitutional: English Only in US.”
Over on X, many people were shocked to learn that English is not the official language of the nation. They simply assumed it was. Now, it will be. Will progressive groups sue the administration to try and stop this? Probably. That will be interesting to see—and revealing.
We are only a little over a month into Trump’s common-sense presidency, and the multiculturalists and progressive ideologues are panicking because American orthodoxy is being pressed into the institutions they thought they had permanently captured. This is what populist-nationalism looks like. If you follow the best polls, you must know that this movement is here to stay.
Rasmussen reports today that more Americans approve of the job Trump is doing than don’t (Trump is holding at 50 percent). As seen in the Harvard poll shared in a recent essay on Freedom and Reason, large majorities support the President’s agenda. The polls used by legacy media are biased, but most Americans have grown wise to the deception. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for some others.
freedom and reason 
For the fun of it, I ran this text through DeepSeek, asking if it could identify any factual or logical fallacies. This is what it came up with.
——————————————————————————–
The text contains several logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and problematic assumptions. Below is an analysis of the key issues:Logical Fallacies
Factual Inaccuracies
Problematic Assumptions
Conclusion
The text is riddled with logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and problematic assumptions. It oversimplifies complex issues, misrepresents opposing views, and relies on appeals to tradition and popularity rather than substantive argumentation. A more balanced discussion would acknowledge the benefits and drawbacks of language policies, the historical and social context of linguistic diversity, and the importance of inclusive dialogue.
Interesting. Bizarre, actually. DeepSeek’s inventors might want to fine tune the machine. It may not be ready for primetime. This “critique” fails to address key points in good faith, relying instead on misinterpretations and selective reasoning. Let’s review some of the outstanding errors.
DeepSeek claims that the original argument employs a straw man fallacy by exaggerating opposing viewpoints, such as labeling them as “linguistic white supremacy.” However, the essay is an accurate reflection of the language used by many radical advocates within academia and progressive circles, two of which I cite in the essay (and I could have cited many more). The institutions I cite (MSU Denver and the University of Maryland) explicitly describe English-only policies as “discriminatory” and linked to “white supremacy.” My essay does not misrepresent these sources but directly engages their actual claims. I am not placing scare quotes around the words to elicit doubts but to indicate that these are their own words.
In this vein, DeepSeek accuses my essay of making a “hasty generalization” about multiculturalism by dismissing it as a “bad idea” based on a few university statements. Again, this misrepresents the argument. My criticism of multiculturalism is not based solely on academic pronouncements but on the broader historical and empirical consequences of cultural fragmentation, as seen in Europe, where uncontrolled multicultural policies have led to social unrest and failure of integration in various nations. My generalizations are based on a body of facts. My conclusions are not over- or selective generalizations.
DeepSeek argues that a false dilemma is presented, suggesting, and I am being charitable here (since you can see DeepSeeks makes an error in pairing), that the choice is not between English as the official language and linguistic chaos, but that multilingualism is a viable alternative. This overlooks the practical reality that an official language is not a prohibition against multilingualism but rather necessary to ensure coherence in governance, legal proceedings, and public discourse. Multilingualism without a common linguistic foundation creates division rather than unity, as seen in nations with linguistic fragmentation, where language differences have contributed to social and political divisions. Anybody concerned with communicative competence understands that shared meanings and usages are imperative in accurately conveying ideas.
DeepSeek dismisses the reference to English common law and the Founders as an “appeal to tradition”—as if tradition itself is inherently irrelevant. The importance of tradition to the side, legal continuity and historical precedent are valid considerations in policymaking. The fact that English has been the de facto language of commerce, governance, and law in the US since its founding is not mere nostalgia but an acknowledgment of the historical and practical reality that provides stability to national identity.
Moreover, the claim made by DeepSeek that the US was not founded by Englishmen is an attempt at historical revisionism. DeepSeek is an artificial animal of the Chinese Communist Party, a totalitarian government well known for historical revisionism, so this is understandable. However, the point attempted by the LLM is trivial. While it is true that various European groups contributed to American history, our governmental, legal, and linguistic framework was overwhelmingly shaped by English tradition. Those other groups were assimilated into the framework shaped by English traditions. That’s my point (which I made in our discussion on Facebook).
DeepSeek asserts that referring to figures like Ibram X. Kendi as “identitarian demagogues” constitutes an ad hominem attack. However, this is not an attack on Kendi’s character but a critique of his standpoint, which is rooted in racial essentialism. Indeed, Kendi is an exemplary of race identitarianism. Dismissing my criticism of Kendi ad hominem avoids engaging with substantive criticisms of his position, which I have made in numerous essays. I am hardly the only one who critiques his work. I encourage you to read the critiques of his work by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter. They’re devastating.
DeepSeek characterizes citing polling data in favor of Trump’s policies as an “appeal to popularity” fallacy. However, in a democratic system, public opinion is a crucial factor in policy legitimacy and for conveying poplar will. To be sure, a belief or policy supported by most of the population is not automatically correct, but it cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. To dismiss public opinion as irrelevant is to say that elections themselves are irrelevant, since they reflect public opinion. After all, an election is a poll. That’s why we call it, “going to the polls.” This is what democracy looks like. And my point about bias and polling is well documented. Based on criterion-related validity, we can determine which polls are more accurate than others.
DeepSeek says that Trump didn’t sign an executive order making English the official language. This is itself factually incorrect. However, this is not DeepSeek’s fault. Trump just signed the order. DeepSeek hadn’t yet scraped that information. But even if Trump hadn’t, DeepSeek would be attempting to refute a hypothetical scenario used for illustrative purposes. DeepSeek is not very good at inference. Had I used this statement of fact as a hypothetical scenario, the broader point would remain valid: the establishment of an official language is a reasonable policy choice supported by historical precedent and widespread public approval.
DeepSeek argues that English is not a “neutral” language and that its dominance is a result of “historical power dynamics.” The LLM suffers from the ideology problem common to LLMs. Data scraping picks up prevailing ideological claims, a problem reflecting ideological capture of our sense-making institutions distorting their artifacts, and incorporates these distortions in its output (ask DeepSeek about gender and see if it yields the same pseudoscientific nonsense as ChatGPT). DeepSeek’s argument wrongly assumes that all linguistic evolution is a form of oppression rather than a natural development of communicative competency. English has become the global lingua franca due to its adaptability, utility, and widespread adoption—not because of forced oppression. Most Swedes speak English. They aren’t forced to. DeepSeek is generating output corrupted by postmodernism (e.g., Foucault’s notion of “discourse formation,” which is a self-referential trap).
The claim that assimilation is presented as “inherently good” without justification ignores the content of the essay, which conveys the practical benefits of a cohesive national identity. A nation divided by language barriers struggles to maintain unity, as evidenced by historical and contemporary examples of linguistic fragmentation leading to social discord. The preservation of minority cultures does not necessitate the rejection of a common linguistic foundation. False dilemma.
This is my first experience with reviewing output from DeepSeek, and it is far from impressive. Its attempt to refute the core justifications for making English the official language exposes an inability to engage in logical operations. The LLM misrepresents my positions, selectively applies logical fallacies that it doesn’t get right (e.g., it supposes as circular arguments using externally validated evidence), and ignores the practical benefits of codifying a common language. Rather than dismissing the policy as exclusionary, a more rational argument would recognize that a common language is a unifying force that ensures effective communication, legal clarity, and national cohesion. DeepSeek positioned itself against my argument and wound up exposing its bias and inadequacies.
I just ran your rebuttal to DeepSeek to see how it would respond. It backed off from of its assertions, while qualifying some others and doubling down on still others of its claims.
————————————————————–
The author’s response to my evaluation of their text is vigorous and raises several points that warrant clarification and further discussion. Below, I address the key issues raised in their rebuttal, providing a balanced analysis of their arguments and my original critique.
1. Straw Man Fallacy
Author’s Claim: The author argues that their essay accurately reflects the language used by radical advocates within academia and progressive circles, citing specific examples from MSU Denver and the University of Maryland. They contend that their use of terms like “linguistic white supremacy” is not a misrepresentation but a direct engagement with actual claims made by these institutions.
Response: While the author cites specific examples, the broader framing of the argument risks oversimplifying the positions of those who critique English-only policies. By focusing on extreme examples (e.g., “linguistic white supremacy”), the author may inadvertently create a straw man by suggesting that all opposition to English as an official language is rooted in such radical views. This ignores more moderate critiques that emphasize inclusivity and the value of multilingualism without rejecting the practical benefits of a common language.2. Hasty Generalization
Author’s Claim: The author asserts that their criticism of multiculturalism is not based solely on academic pronouncements but on broader historical and empirical evidence, particularly from Europe, where multicultural policies have allegedly led to social unrest and failed integration.
Response: While the author references Europe, their argument risks overgeneralizing the outcomes of multicultural policies. The experiences of European nations with multiculturalism are diverse and context-dependent. For example, some countries have successfully integrated diverse populations, while others have faced challenges. Attributing social unrest solely to multiculturalism overlooks other factors, such as economic inequality, political disenfranchisement, and historical tensions. A more nuanced analysis would acknowledge these complexities.3. False Dilemma
Author’s Claim: The author argues that an official language does not preclude multilingualism but ensures coherence in governance, legal proceedings, and public discourse. They contend that multilingualism without a common linguistic foundation leads to division, as seen in nations with linguistic fragmentation.
Response: The author’s argument presents a false dilemma by suggesting that the choice is between English as the official language and linguistic chaos. In reality, many nations successfully balance an official language with multilingual policies. For example, Canada recognizes both English and French as official languages, while India has multiple official languages at the national and state levels. These examples demonstrate that linguistic diversity and national cohesion are not mutually exclusive. The author’s focus on linguistic fragmentation overlooks the potential benefits of multilingualism, such as cultural enrichment and global competitiveness.4. Appeal to Tradition
Author’s Claim: The author defends their reference to English common law and the Founders as a valid consideration in policymaking, arguing that historical precedent and legal continuity provide stability to national identity.
Response: While historical precedent is important, an appeal to tradition alone is insufficient to justify contemporary policy decisions. The author’s argument risks conflating historical context with present-day realities. The United States today is far more linguistically and culturally diverse than it was at its founding. Policymaking must consider current demographics and societal needs rather than relying solely on historical traditions.5. Ad Hominem
Author’s Claim: The author argues that their critique of figures like Ibram X. Kendi is not an ad hominem attack but a substantive critique of his racial essentialism. They encourage readers to explore critiques by Glenn Loury and John McWhorter.
Response: While the author may have substantive critiques of Kendi’s work, labeling him as an “identitarian demagogue” risks undermining the credibility of their argument by appearing dismissive or personal. Engaging with Kendi’s ideas directly, rather than using charged language, would strengthen their critique and avoid the appearance of an ad hominem attack.6. Appeal to Popularity
Author’s Claim: The author argues that public opinion is a crucial factor in a democratic system and that citing polling data in favor of Trump’s policies is not an appeal to popularity but a reflection of democratic legitimacy.
Response: While public opinion is important in a democracy, it is not a definitive measure of the validity of a policy. The appeal to popularity fallacy occurs when the popularity of a belief is used as evidence of its truth or correctness. The author’s reliance on polling data to support their argument risks conflating popularity with merit. A more robust argument would focus on the substantive benefits of the policy rather than its popularity.7. Factual Inaccuracy
Author’s Claim: The author asserts that Trump signed an executive order making English the official language of the United States, which they claim I incorrectly denied.
Response: As of my knowledge cutoff in October 2023, there is no record of Trump signing such an executive order. If this occurred after my cutoff date, I acknowledge the oversight. However, the broader point remains that the establishment of an official language is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of its implications for inclusivity and national identity.8. Neutrality of English
Author’s Claim: The author argues that English’s global dominance is due to its adaptability and utility, not historical power dynamics. They criticize my suggestion that English’s dominance is tied to historical oppression.
Response: While English’s global spread is partly due to its utility, it is also deeply intertwined with historical power dynamics, including colonialism and economic dominance. Acknowledging this history does not diminish the practical benefits of English as a lingua franca but provides a more comprehensive understanding of its global role. The author’s dismissal of this perspective risks oversimplifying the complex factors that shape linguistic evolution.9. Assimilation and National Identity
Author’s Claim: The author argues that assimilation is presented as inherently good because it fosters national cohesion and unity, citing historical and contemporary examples of linguistic fragmentation leading to social discord.
Response: While assimilation can promote national cohesion, it is not without costs, particularly for minority cultures. The author’s argument risks overlooking the value of cultural diversity and the potential for inclusive policies that balance unity with respect for linguistic and cultural differences. A more balanced approach would recognize the benefits of a common language while also valuing the contributions of diverse cultures.10. Conclusion
The author’s response raises valid points about the practical benefits of establishing English as the official language of the United States. However, their argument would benefit from greater nuance and a more balanced consideration of the complexities involved. By addressing the potential drawbacks of such a policy and engaging more substantively with opposing viewpoints, the author could present a more compelling and inclusive case for their position.
Suggestions for Improvement
By addressing these issues, the author can strengthen their argument and foster a more constructive dialogue on this important topic.
“By addressing these issues, the author can strengthen their argument and foster a more constructive dialogue on this important topic.” I am making a persuasive argument. It is up to others to make counterarguments. Asking an AI program to interrogate the structure of an argument, with all the assumptions built into the model, and the corruption of knowledge by the corporate state capture of our sense-making institutions from which LLMs scrape data for outputting, is not a counterargument. Remember what Marx said about ideology: those who control the means of production also control means of intellectual production (“appeal to authority!” the machine screams). Antonio Gramsci’s point about the imposition of social logic from such controlled means is instructive. DeepSeek reinforces the prevailing ideological hegemony from which it operates, which seeks the end of the nation state and its replacement with a global technocratic apparatus. Since China is integrating into this world system, it is expected that its LLM, too, will work from these assumptions. Frankly, this exercise is becoming tedious, which is why I am not responding to the lasted comment. If I wanted to argue with a chatbot, I would argue with ChatGPT or Grok, and then only to interrogate its assumptions. I have done this, and the experience with ChatGPT confirms my analysis of the ideological problem that seems, at least at this point, inherent with LLMs.