There
are
two
prominent
paths
for
explaining
why
words
mean
what
they
do.
There
are
prescriptive
paths
that
bind
words
to
what
they’ve
meant
historically,
and
descriptive
paths
that
say
words
gain
meaning
based
on
how
they’re
used
by
real
people.
I
tend
to
play
at
being
a
descriptive
definer
—
rather
that
than
the
alternative
of
being
a
language
hall
monitor
—
but
there
are
some
limiting
words
that
really
bring
out
the
grammar
alt-right
in
me.
Take
literally.
Not
literally,
you
can’t
take
literally
literally,
but
virtually.
At
some
dark
moment
in
our
collective
history
the
word
literally,
generally
understood
as
a
decidedly
non-figurative
“that
thing
right
there”
sort
of
word,
became
its
own
foil.
Literally
literally
came
to
mean
something
closer
to
figuratively
or
virtually,
because
that’s
how
idiots
young
adults
on
the
cutting
edge
of
culture
used
the
word.
The
prescriptivist
in
me
would
jump
out
and
say
that’s
not
what
literally
literally
means,
just
go
look
in
a
dictionary!
Alas,
Marriam-Webster
has
given
in
to
the
decadence
and
accepts
literal’s
literal
and
virtual
meaning.
Around
this
point
you
might
be
thinking
to
yourself
“Chris,
what
the
hell
does
this
have
to
do
with
the
law?”
My
answer:
it
literally
has
to
do
with
chicken
wings.
NYT
has
coverage:
In
an
opinion
heavy
on
chicken
puns,
a
district
court
judge
ruled
on
Tuesday
that
the
boneless
wings
at
Buffalo
Wild
Wings
could
indeed
be
called
wings.The
order,
in
a
lawsuit
filed
by
a
Chicago
man
in
2023,
was
dripping
with
skepticism
at
the
claims
that
the
chain
was
misleading
consumers
about
its
boneless
wings.Judge
John
J.
Tharp
Jr.,
of
the
United
States
District
Court
for
the
Northern
District
of
Illinois,
dismissed
claim
by
Aimen
Halim,
saying
it
“has
no
meat
on
its
bones.”
The
judge
upheld
Buffalo
Wild
Wings’
argument
that
the
“wing”
in
the
name
doesn’t
refer
to
the
anatomical
wing
of
a
chicken,
but
rather
the
style
of
cooking
the
dish.
Forgive
my
french,
but
that’s
fucking
stupid.
Grinding
something
up,
maybe
battering
it,
then
deep
frying
it
isn’t
“winging”
it,
and
we
need
to
stop
pretending
like
it
is.
Or
do
you
mean
to
tell
me
that
McDonalds
can
rebrand
their
hash
browns
as
“Potato
Wings”
and
no
one
will
bat
an
eye?
If
you
ever
tell
some
Nonna
that
the
Arancini
she’s
making
legally
qualify
as
risotto
wings,
you
should
fully
expect
a
video
of
her
beating
you
with
a
spoon
to
end
up
on
the
Italian
equivalent
of
World
Star
Hip
Hop.
The
judge
makes
the
analogous
argument
that
a
patron
ordering
Cauliflower
wings
(an
item
offered
on
the
menu),
wouldn’t
think
that
the
dish
has
bones
in
it.
First,
the
example
is
very
apples
to
oranges
considering
cauliflowers
don’t
have
bones.
Second,
this
failure
in
reasoning
has
to
involve
ignoring
the
reasonable
person
standard.
A
reasonable
person
wouldn’t
think
“Oh,
the
wing
here
refers
to
the
cooking
style”,
they’d
think
“This
place
is
about
to
up
charge
me
on
cauliflower
nuggets.
I
deserve
this.
Stupid
Stupid
Stupid!”
Because
that’s
what
cauliflower
“wings”
and
boneless
“wings”
are
—
glorified
nuggets.
It
is
a
shame
that
we
can’t
even
rely
on
judges
to
speak
truth
to
Big
Chicken™.
There
are
many
pressing
issues
that
need
to
go
to
the
Supreme
Court.
This
is
one
of
them.
A
case
came
out
of
Ohio
where
a
man
was
injured
because
he
ate
an
order
of
Boneless
wings
that
he
reasonably
presumed
didn’t
have
bones
in
them.
The
state’s
Supreme
Court
decided
that
it
was
entirely
reasonable
that
boneless
wings
could
have
bones
in
them.
That
is
literally
beyond
all
reason.
We
have
courts
telling
us
both
the
“Boneless”
and
the
“Wings”
in
boneless
wings
are
just
vibe
checks?
Remember
when
the
energy
drink
company
was
successfully
sued
for
millions
over
falsely
advertising
that
Red
Bull
gives
you
wings
in
a
New
York
court?
We
used
to
be
a
proper
country.
Now,
more
than
ever,
we
need
to
Make
Wings
Great
A…damn
it,
the
grammar
alt-right
in
me
almost
seeped
out
again.
Boneless
Wings
Are
Still
Wings,
Judge
Rules
[New
York
Times]
Earlier:
‘Boneless’
Wings
Can
Have
Bones,
Declare
Committed
Textualists
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.