@SNLPitchFAIL@fairyfemmes It does not have the same abliest meaning in AAVE. Declaring it a slur and saying black folks can't object is the epitome of white supremacy. The word didn't start out a slur and just because it is one in the UK does not make it one in AAVE.
@hrbooth20 @JoeyyGlobal @fairyfemmes Wait so it's ignorant to not know it's a slur in the UK but it isn't ignorance to not know it has a different meaning in AAVE. That's some white supremacist logic right there. I guess it's ok to erase black culture if you can blame black folks for being "ignorant"
@PaxDomini0 @loudnewsnet @law_sdb @JohnCornyn It is the job of the speaker to be clear in their intent. Not the job of the reader to guess it. He could have avoided all of this with a simple "bad precedents should be struck down" The fact that he didn't reflects on him, not us.
@PaxDomini0 @loudnewsnet @law_sdb @JohnCornyn The issue is on his end. It's a poorly constructed statement that can easily be read as support for segregation. Now do implies an action that should be taken. It doesn't auto convey "strike down bad precedents."
@FlimflamSlim@SerialCarpens @law_sdb @JohnCornyn You know what would have been a better tweet? Literally saying bad precedents should be overturned. The way that sentence is constructed it can legitimately be read as support for segregation. And anyone who wants it to return will read it as support.
@PaxDomini0@1836_republic @law_sdb @JohnCornyn A smarter man would pick cases that weren't so obviously racially charged. You can claim that what he means and only means is that some precedences should be broken but that isn't the only way to read his tweet. Nor will it be the only way to read his tweet.