I don’t disagree with the message but with linguistic implications. There ain’t nothing with with double negatives (see what I did there?). Many languages and dialects have it as default or even mandatory. This doesn’t apply to the example but making it about double negative is classiest
I’m sure this will be interpreted as being pedantic on my side but either way: It’s a pedantic talking point that double negatives cancel each other out. “I don’t see nobody” would mean that I see someone. This is empirical and demonstrably false. Since the head line is “double negatives”, it is heavily implied that the logic on the board applies to all double negatives which is wrong. Of cause you could construct a scenario where the teacher will show other examples where the negative doesn’t cancel each other out but the negation is expressed in multiple ways. This is a very unlikely reading
I don’t disagree with the message but with linguistic implications. There ain’t nothing with with double negatives (see what I did there?). Many languages and dialects have it as default or even mandatory. This doesn’t apply to the example but making it about double negative is classiest
If it doesn’t apply, then can’t you just let us have the meme and move on? Is it that important that you have to well actually us on a stupid meme?
personally, I think it’s always fair game to “well actually” something which itself has “well actually” energy.
Let the mob decide.
i am one with the mob
I think the more important criticism is really that they don’t care if they’re fascist anyway
Yeah, true.
The thing is that “double negative bad” is a pedantic talking point. Sorry for making you aware of that.
ftfy
I’m at a loss as to where in the meme it suggests that double negatives are bad?
What I see is someone demonstrating to someone else on how to convert a specific double negative into its simplest and most direct form.
I’m sure this will be interpreted as being pedantic on my side but either way: It’s a pedantic talking point that double negatives cancel each other out. “I don’t see nobody” would mean that I see someone. This is empirical and demonstrably false. Since the head line is “double negatives”, it is heavily implied that the logic on the board applies to all double negatives which is wrong. Of cause you could construct a scenario where the teacher will show other examples where the negative doesn’t cancel each other out but the negation is expressed in multiple ways. This is a very unlikely reading
My language (Slovenian) has double negatives and even so I refuse to use them.