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
Honestly, some things don’t require as much thought as you’re putting into this. That’s the beautiful (and yes, confusing/conflicting) thing about language: it’s flexible when you need it to be.
Nailed it!
The thing is that “double negative bad” is a pedantic talking point. Sorry for making you aware of that.
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
Honestly, some things don’t require as much thought as you’re putting into this. That’s the beautiful (and yes, confusing/conflicting) thing about language: it’s flexible when you need it to be.
In the meantime, just enjoy the meme! 😊
ftfy