Seriously, I got over being a dick about grammar. Grammar is great and all, but it makes language boring and propagates an idea that those communicating outside of being ~grammatically correct~ to be lesser than or somehow unacceptable communicators.
It’s also sort of convenient that people can convince themselves they’re just defending this abstract virtue of good grammar when in fact they’re a-historically hypostatizing the norms of a certain dominant race/class/group and therefore implicitly discrediting the ideas of anyone without recourse to the education and acculturation of that class and encouraging those outside it to internalize that invalidation
I can be convinced that grammar has abstract virtues, but the quote within promotes the idea that grammar oppresses its practitioners with “grammatical correctness,” much in the same way scales oppress musicians and perspective oppresses landscape painters. Semantics and syntax are both foundations of communication and artistic tools - adaptable to the needs of the poet, essayist, fiction writer, and critic. To render them oppressive is to relegate all human interactions and artistic techniques culpable in the hands of propagandists, capitalists, and tyrants. The language is as serviceable to oppressors as it is to greeting card authors and football coaches. If the poet has an ideal to strive toward and must employ a manipulation of syntax that invites co-opting by marketers and dictators, so be it. I think the fundamental argument here is how sacred we allow grammar to be - is it the only subfield of linguistics we can blame for making language boring? Or does it suffer at the hands of those who enforce its rules - self-deputized enforcers all? Few disciplines take such an ass-kicking from the general public, regardless of the fact that what constitutes a solid defense against it is the very thing it generously provides.