[Ukv]

> Your prior comment was dismissive. [...] Your new comment is broader. [...]

As in the lack of mentioning those "aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations" in my prior comment? Notably my prior comment was replying to your:

> > If it was co-opted, then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understood your point there to be "there wouldn't be enough black people who agree with its supposed alt-right usage to make up to 49%", so I gave two alternate reasons people would agree making with the statement (those unaware of the alt-right usage, and those aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about the literal meaning).

I'm not ruling out that some of the black respondents responded "agree" because they're aware of and agree with the statement's implicature/associations, it was just already the context of the prior comment that there wouldn't have been enough of them alone (for the alt-right associations).

> I don't get it and presume most people wouldn't place that label either. I agree that would be weird.

Similar is the idea here - people can/will disagree with a slogan because of its implicature and associations without disagreeing with its literal meaning.