We Hit Peak 2019

[BmorePat87]

(12-17-2019, 05:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Now you are just going in a circle.

Can't use "articulate" to compliment intelligent people because it is redundant.

But you also can't use "articulate" to describe people whose culture promotes improper grammar because it is offensive.

So when can a person use the term "articulate" to describe a person?  

Or are you saying it can never be used again?  Has it become "the A-word"?

You've unwittingly shown my point.

The word means 

"(of a person or a person's words) having or showing the ability to speak fluently and coherently."

Most people with a high school education are articulate. It's redundant to use it to describe a Rhodes Scholar. One would assume they can speak coherently.

The word is often times attributed to black people by white people because the assumption by those using it is, as you just clearly stated, that black culture "promotes improper grammar". This is the implicit bias.

As noted in the article I posted that you claimed to have read

Quote:“Historically, it was meant to signal the exceptional Negro,” Mr. Dyson said. “The implication is that most black people do not have the capacity to engage in articulate speech, when white people are automatically assumed to be articulate.” And such distinctions discount as inarticulate historically black patterns of speech. “Al Sharpton is incredibly articulate,” said Tricia Rose, professor of Africana Studies at Brown University. “But because he speaks with a cadence and style that is firmly rooted in black rhetorical tradition you will rarely hear white people refer to him as articulate.”

I hope you can use this as a learning experience.