> There's no doubt AAVE sounds, to users of SWE, like a "dumbed down" version of the language. So we are in agreement. > But as the essay points out repeatedl

> There's no doubt AAVE sounds, to users of SWE, like a "dumbed down" version of the language. So we are in agreement. > But as the essay points out repeatedly, the irony is that it's the SWE-users who are demonstrating ignorance. Because they don't speak AAVE and thus parse it as GA/RP/whatever. Yes. > AAVE is just close enough to SWE to trigger the cognitive biases that trick people into making judgements they aren't qualified to make. In other words: non-AAVE speakers look at AAVE and see broken GA/RP/whatever. So we are in agreement. EDIT: I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but: I'm not saying AAVE is dumbed down GA/RP; I'm not saying AAVE is unsophisticated; I'm just saying that how non-AAVE GA/RP speakers perceive AAVE is a result of their inability to speak AAVE (mixed in with the racial problems in the US because AAVE usage signals race) and that the gut reaction "semi-intelligible = stupid" is not unique to English or a race thing. EDIT2: Also, for the umpteenth time: I'm not disagreeing with the article. I didn't comment on the article. I commented on someone (flagged) who disagreed with the article and actually argued that treating AAVE as a "real language" would result in bad consequences. Apparently my comment was deemed interesting enough to be detached, which is why you think I'm responding to the article itself.