I would think that intuitively the simplicity of a language is defined by the simplicity of the rules necessary to produce it. To non-AAVE speakers AAVE has th

I would think that intuitively the simplicity of a language is defined by the simplicity of the rules necessary to produce it. To non-AAVE speakers AAVE has the appearance of simplicity because its productions "look like" simplified English. This is actually what Pullum debunks in the article: the rules to produce "simplifications" like dropped consonants and auxiliaries are actually complex (i.e. it's not at all arbitrary as you would expect if it had less rules). But even if we put all that aside and assume you (and the racists you're being lumped in together with based on that assertion) were right. How exactly is "simpler" worse? Is Finnish superior because it has fifteen noun cases? This is basically the line of thinking that resulted in generations of English students being tortured by self-styled (prescriptivist) "linguists" who were convinced that English is only "correct" when you try to pretend it is actually Latin (giving us nonsensical rules like "don't split infinitives" and "no dangling prepositions" -- although they are entirely based on limitations of Latin).