I don't want to give this racist the time of day, but I will use this opportunity to say a couple of things. People's regional dialects often get "stronger" when they are in the region of their native dialect. AAVE speakers also often code-switch between *multiple* dimensions 1/
So, a white New Yorker might sound way more "New York" in NYC than they do in their new home of CA. Speakers of AAVE doesn't just switch regionally, though. They often switch between broad AAE/AAVE, regionally-specific AAVE, as well as varieties of "Standard American." 2/
AAE/AAVE originated in the South & has then developed different regional varieties after diaspora. However, the rich oratorical tradition of AAE/AAVE carries a lot of the Southern tradition, such that an orator from Illinois might sound more "Southern" when giving a speech. 3/
Ingarham is clearly just a racist. 1st, Mr. Sellers is *from the South*. 2nd, even non-Southern AAE/AAVE speakers might sound more Southern when giving a speech to a Black audience. Given some of our best American orators have been AAE/AAVE speakers, people should know this. 4/
People pulled this same garbage w/ Barack Obama. They accused him of being a fake when he code-switched from "Standard American" to AAE/AAVE. They also accused him of faking a regional dialect both in broad speeches & when he was in the South. It's all linguistic racism 5/
Tucker Carlson most recently went on a rant about Obama's "accent" during John Lewis's funeral, calling the "accent" fake and Obama "Mr. Hawaii Guy." If Fox News were generally interested in AAE/AAVE code-switching they would have figured it out by now. But they're just racist.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Unofficial poll for Black people only. Comments are very welcome.
Did you ever use the word "woke" to positively describe a white person?
regardless of whether you, personally, used the term, was there ever a time when you heard people say "woke" and you interpreted it in a positive sense?
regardless of the original meaning, let me ask about right now: when you hear the term "woke" from politicians or journalists, do you feel like the connotation is:
The responses to this tweet reveal a phenomenon that is pretty unique to this site. People seem to forget principles of natural language, such as the fact that we often speak in general terms. If we made these same demands in real life, our communication would break down
Imagine if I said, in real life, “Dogs are so friendly!” and then someone interrupted me to say, “Well, actually, what you’ve said is inaccurate and implies that all dogs are friendly when, in fact, some dogs are not friendly at all.”
“I love beaches.” “All beaches? Some have mudflats that people get stuck in & die”
“Driving sober prevents car crashes." “Well, not all accidents are caused. . . ”
“Human beings cause climate change.” “All human beings? Let me issue a corrective. Some human societies. . . ”
People can do what they want with their bodies, but "my body, my choice" does not apply when your body is a vector for an infectious disease that has the capacity to collapse hospital systems. If that were the case we'd be riddled with measles and tuberculosis.
When we're talking about an infectious disease, it's not just your body.
Frankly, as a TB survivor, I find this hilarious. The minute I was diagnosed, I was placed in the hands of public health & was required by law to do everything they said. Including taking drugs for 9 months that impaired my liver function & gave me serotonin poisoning.
It's good to talk about politically effective language. It's also important to not dismiss POC and/or LGBTQ scholars' paradigm-shifting approach to language. If it were just white cishet scholars suggesting new terms, that would be one thing, but that's not what's happening
For example, I personally wouldn't define the efforts of scholars of color to change certain linguistic frames as "exclusionary language adopted by an insular set of hyper-educated people." They're working on reframing academic fields traditionally dominated by whiteness.
Does that mean that every expression gaining traction in academia will have equal success in general political discourse? No. But this has never been the case. And this doesn't just apply to socio-cultural terminology, but to all academic terminology.
The correct way for an analytic philosopher to answer the question, "Why do you cite primarily white men?" is that the field has been, due to discrimination, dominated by white men. However, that has thankfully been changing and they now seek out female scholars/scholars of color
If you're only working on analytic philosophy up to a certain point in time, there will be mostly only white men to cite. This historical trend is worse in analytic philosophy than other fields, like continental philosophy, history, & English. However, again, it is now changing
There are plenty of female scholars/scholars of color in the fields of bioethics or climate ethics or ethics more broadly. Many have been game-changers. There's really no excuse to not seek them out.
Hi Abigail, since you take issue with my interpretation of the bill, can you, as Senator Hawley's press secretary, offer a justification for tying the benefits to the number of parents, rather than the number of children?
It's an empirical fact that such a provision would disproportionately help white families over families of color. But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say this is not the intent.
What is the intent then? Why does a single parent get less than a couple?
Oh, and for the record, I called Josh Hawley a racist because he is a racist.