This blog is written in en-GB
A blog post asserting the right to write in British English (“en‑GB”) instead of American English sparks a wider look at how language, dialect, and cultural references shape who feels included online. Commenters compare en‑GB and en‑US spellings, idioms, and date/number formats, argue over whether writers should simplify for a global audience, and note how U.S. media dominance has pushed American norms while many users elsewhere still prefer British or “international” English. The thread broadens into linguistics, regional accents, and the politics of language standardization, with most agreeing that preserving variety in English enriches culture even if it occasionally confuses readers.
British vs American English & Cultural Hegemony
- Many defend using en‑GB on personal sites and reject the idea that blogs must conform to en‑US for “inclusivity.”
- Several argue US culture and spelling have become de facto online standards due to media and tech dominance, not superiority.
- Others counter that “International English” is closer to en‑GB than en‑US, and that en‑US is the real outlier in spelling, units, date formats, paper sizes, etc.
- Some non‑US posters deliberately choose en‑GB as a small protest against US political/cultural influence, or because that’s what they learned at school.
Inclusivity, Racism, and Language Choices
- Multiple comments stress that writing in a specific dialect (e.g., en‑GB) is cultural expression, not racism.
- Distinction is made between “non‑inclusive” (harder for some readers) and discriminatory; most see no moral obligation to standardize free, personal writing.
- A few note “inclusivity” can also mean accessibility: idioms and colloquialisms can be harder for autistic readers or for machine translation.
- Some criticize those who demand others change dialect as themselves being non‑inclusive.
Dialects, AAVE, and Non‑Standard English
- Discussion broadens to African American Vernacular English and whether it should have its own tag/standard. Everyone agrees it has real grammatical rules, not just “bad grammar.”
- Comparisons are drawn to Scots, regional British dialects, and sociolects; boundaries between “language” and “dialect” are framed as political as much as linguistic.
- Several celebrate BBC Pidgin, Hawaiian Pidgin, and other non‑prestige varieties as valid and expressive.
Cultural References & Mutual (Mis)Understanding
- The “Accrington Stanley” milk advert becomes a case study in deeply local references baffling even many Brits, and entirely opaque to foreigners.
- Similar confusion is noted around words like “nonce” (crypto vs UK slang), “faggots,” “frown,” and “quite,” which can have opposite senses UK vs US.
- Many argue it’s fine—even healthy—if readers occasionally have to look things up; others say life is short and they’ll simply stop reading if it’s too opaque.
Localization, Locales, and Tech Friction
- Strong side‑discussion on locales: en‑GB vs en‑US vs en‑IE/en‑CA, and how they affect dates, week numbering, decimal/thousands separators, paper sizes, units.
- Several complain that US defaults are hard‑coded in software (keyboards, week numbers, gallons vs liters) and that changing locale often breaks things.
- Some advocate a notional “English (International)” / en‑EU style: ISO dates, SI units, non‑US formats, with en‑US as a special case.