Day: August 14, 2016

Anonymous:

why do black people use you in the wrong context? such is “you ugly” instead of “you’re ugly” I know u guys can differentiate, it’s a nuisance

leaper182:

deelaundry:

badgyal-k:

kingkunta-md:

miniprof:

rsbenedict:

prettyboyshyflizzy:

you a bitch

It’s called copula deletion, or zero copula. Many languages and dialects, including Ancient Greek and Russian, delete the copula (the verb to be) when the context is obvious.

So an utterance like “you a bitch” in AAVE is not an example of a misused you, but an example of a sentence that deletes the copular verb (are), which is a perfectly valid thing to do in that dialect, just as deleting an /r/ after a vowel is a perfectly valid thing to do in an upper-class British dialect.

What’s more, it’s been shown that copula deletion occurs in AAVE exactly in those contexts where copula contraction occurs in so-called “Standard American English.” That is, the basic sentence “You are great” can become “You’re great” in SAE and “You great” in AAVE, but “I know who you are” cannot become “I know who you’re” in SAE, and according to reports, neither can you get “I know who you” in AAVE.

In other words, AAVE is a set of grammatical rules just as complex and systematic as SAE, and the widespread belief that it is not is nothing more than yet another manifestation of deeply internalized racism.

This is the most intellectual drag I’ve ever read.

Respect Black languages and dialects 2kforever.

And I find it ironic that a complaint about “improper” use of the word “you” includes the use of “u.”   

I keep remembering the example where kids are shown two pictures, one of a person eating, like, a bag of Doritos, and a person who isn’t, and telling kids, “One person is currently eating Doritos, and one person eats Doritos frequently.”

And the way to differentiate there is that “She is eating Doritos,” because, well, she is. She has the bag in her hand. She is eating the Doritos at the moment.

But, “He be eating Doritos,” shows that he eats Doritos regularly.

Anonymous:

hillary literally defended someone that raped a child, A CHILD. that is a bad person, jfc.

finite-dreams:

roachpatrol:

brainyisalwayssexy:

desidarling123:

You’re referring, I assume, to the subject of this meme:

This is literally a very short google search anon w t f 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/ –> READ THIS BUT FIRST:

tldr;

(A) She was appointed as her client’s attorney by the court system; she did not volunteer for the case.

(B) She asked to be removed from the case because she was grossed out by it, but the judge denied her request.

© She didn’t “free” her client; she negotiated a plea deal for jail time, LIKE EVERY DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO DO.

(D) If she did not zealously advocate for her client, or purposely tanked the case, she would have faced disbarment from the legal profession. (SHE WOULD HAVE LOST HER JOB)

(E) In the 1980 audio interview, she talked about how her client somehow passed the polygraph that she’d hoped would have helped prove his guilt, and then laughed while saying that since then she never trusts polygraphs, ever.

(F) Even the picture used is not the actual victim, and you can be damned well sure they used a tearful angelic blonde little white girl to drive the hate.

but tldr; yes she defended a child rapist , no she didn’t really have a choice despite finding the case disgusting, because as a civil attorney YOU LEGALLY STILL HAVE TO REPRESENT THEM NO MATTER HOW ICK IT IS (this is what LAWYERS DO, they have NO CHOICE). She was essentially forced into it by her firm, and she made the guy take a polygraph test hoping that would prove him guilty. But when it didn’t prove him quilty (since he passed the polygraph ) she said she forever lost her faith in those tests. 

Also, just FYI, in case you’re looking for a law degree, please know that this is STILL required of attorneys today. If you request to get removed from a case because you don’t like it and the court keeps you on you are legally bound to do so irrespective of how you feel about it.

No one is saying that every it of what that man did isn’t super horrible or gross. 

But …

being legally bound to defend a rapist 

? being an advocate for rape. 

Also – bit of history for ya– despite this one gross case (among other civil cases no doubt) the Rose Law Firm she working for was known for actively taking cases for and defending groups like The Black Panthers. #tbt

Please do REBLOG/SIGNAL BOOST this post – the amount of anon messages I’ve gotten in the last 24 hours about this exact topic is uncanny. 

People need to know the truth.

i’m really relieved to hear this 

the greatest success of the republican party this election has been the demonization of Hillary Clinton, to the point where people actually believe she’s on the same level as trump.

she isn’t.

betterbemeta:

at the heart of the gross outcry over ‘censorship’ in videogames where a developer has chosen to sometimes not go with the d-grade fanservice panty peek is the idea that a lot of straight men are used to getting porn for free. Sure, they pay for a video game but that media has the added bonus of being inundated with images of women that are there for little other reason than to arouse them. if not be wank material, to be a kind of weird cushy window dressing, that a world that a straight man ought to want to escape to is one where all women are there for his comfort and pleasure.

And this is seen as a targeted-marketing strategy, that ‘sexy’ designs with little actual womens’ sexuality in them focus test well with men who are raised to see those images as normal and inviting. That other kinds of images of women are seen as less inviting or even hostile after being spoiled for so long. But let’s not call it a marketing strategy for a second? lets call it that straight men are used to getting free sex-and-machismo gratifying materials with almost everything they purchase. Or even randomly see, if billboards with 10-foot-tall lounging bikini ladies are anything to go by.

And that’s not even to go into the amount of men that think they are entitled to a woman’s sexual or intimate labor, especially a sex worker’s, for free. They may justify it with shit like ‘I paid for dinner, and she didn’t even go down on me,” or “I paid to get in to the club, why won’t you give me a dance?” or whatever. Or even in the realm of total creepzone, the culture of men online who take illicit photographs of women, share their ex’s nudes, publish revenge porn, whatever. Even to the places where artists are drawing explicit material and a huge amount of people refuse to pay up, want freebies. Or they just go to someone who has already paid for the material and get them to share it online when its against the artist’s policy. Or they shave the watermarks off. stuff like that.

it all stems from that sex and sexual imagery, especially from women, is seen as ought to be free or else a free perk of another purchase. And the conventional wisdom goes that if your stuff doesn’t include sexy material for them, you’re losing potential consumers, so it needs to have some, and not alienate those same audiences in the same product. So it self-perpetuates. Men expect porn for free because providing porn for free is a way to make men buy it because men expect it because its a premium for them to buy it because men expect it, etc.

breaking that cycle, even for a totally unrelated, non-progressive reason is not ‘censorship.’ not any more than including it is “freedom of expression.” What companies ‘express’ by including pointless boner fuel is that they think only straight men’s moneys are important, and that those moneys-bearers see getting free pinups or just outright softcore with everything like needing a toy in their happy meal or a prize in their cereal box.