> An AAVE or Southern dialect speaker speaking GA as well as a speaker of a New England dialect [..]

I'm assuming you mean speaking perfectly fluent GA but throwing in a few loanwords. Indeed then the speaker isn't using simplified grammar, but they're still signalling that they're a speaker of the language they're importing loanwords from and this leaks into how people assess them -- just like using French loan words is often used (often unsuccessfully) to signal being "cultured".

I initially already said that people who speak AAVE also happen to fall into a socioethnic group who have negative connotations outside of their language. This is perfect evidence for that: speaking AAVE signals you are part of that group, so all biases against that group are applied to you. In that case AAVE itself isn't even relevant and might as well be Mandarin or French (as long as it uniquely signals association with the group).

Heck, you even see white kids try to emulate some form of AAVE to associate themselves with what they perceive as "black culture" (often based on their exact stereotypes).

> But that's not true, as the paper mentions.

It's actually not what the paper argues. Pullum argues against the misconception that AAVE is "English with mistakes" and gives examples how these idiosyncracies GA/RP speakers perceive as "mistakes" actually follow consistent rules.

Note how I said it is "based on" simplified English grammar. Dropping consonants and auxiliaries is superficially a simplification even if it follows rules. The production rules may be actually more complex because these rules come on top of whatever rules there were to begin with, but the produced result is simplified. The outcome is, to a GA but non-AAVE speaker's ears simplified (if only because they don't understand the additional production rules).

> I honestly have no idea how you got this from my comments.

You picked a single sentence from my comment and presented it out of context -- a context in which I clarified the exact meaning of that sentence and rejected what you were arguing I was saying.

I thought it was safe to assume you did this in bad faith. I may have thought wrong, in which case I apologize.

--

To reiterate: the reasons AAVE has negative connotations are twofold:

1. America really has problems with black people. As an outsider the entire situation seems absurd but there are a lot of historical nuances that have ultimately resulted in a standstill where white people pretend they're not racist and black people pretend everybody hates them. This is probably not easy to solve but is the real problem that needs solving (preferably by reducing the racism, not simply using less blatantly insulting language to discriminate black people).

2. AAVE to a GA/RP non-AAVE speaker sounds like a dumbed down version of GA/RP (because they parse it as GA/RP and it's close enough to work in "error compatibility mode"). There is no way to fix this but it's less of a problem if non-AAVE speakers don't already think the "kind of people" who happen to speak AAVE are stupid/criminal/undesirable (see #1).

Trying to fix #1 by fixing #2 or trying to fix #2 in isolation is futile and is simply not going to happen.