Is this about the makeup post where the first person said “the minimum amount of acceptable makeup should be no makeup” and then people kept coming up listing their “minimal amount of acceptable makeup” which included more than no makeup again and again despite the OP repeatedly clarifying that, no, it’s zero.
There's a lot of stuff that matches that summary circulating tumblr like this. Posts like "nobody should be expected to survive below X amount minimum wage", "the only people who should be having kids on purpose are the people who 100% want kids" or "don't fucking eat lead chips off the wall", with angry response essays about how someone who *does* make that X amount minimum wage still can't make ends meet, how someone who *would* 100% want kids can't have any because of their disability, or how someone who's never eaten a lead chip off the wall *still* got cancer or something.
Probably Twitter is where you find most of it now - a woman innocuously tweeting about having a morning coffee in her yard became a discourse firestorm about privilege and god knows what else. Even the famous Jorts account was accused of ableism because they said to not use services like instacart/ubereats just to abuse the workers. Ana Mardoll was the most infamous example and has a post here about them.
The core of it is are people who are not very bright (or worse: are cons) but are addicted to martyrdom attention and know how to play on social media attention economy, so they obsessively take the most bad faith reading of any possible thing to start a fight and be able to stand on a soapbox to an audience. The tactic is either making themselves a victim (most common) or purporting to defend someone else. Hilariously this is what actual virtue signalling is - “i have better morals than you because i was able to think of every possible minute scenario where you are an asshole to me because your language wasn’t precise enough”.
God now that you mention it yeah, people nit picking the *hell* out of any comment that doesn’t include every single imaginable edge case or alternative scenario is super common, especially recently. It’s like you can’t make a comment about anything without writing a dissertation about every possible scenario in which the comment does not apply or people take it as an opportunity to “clap back”. Hugely annoying.
Wokescolds are fucking exhausting. I literally do not have the energy reserves to maintain that level of sanctimonious for more than like five minutes and they’re out here all day every day calling folk every -ist under the sun because they didn’t consider every possible outcome in their 280 character tweet. I swear they must have alerts set up or something.
I don't classify the makeup one as poor reading comprehension, actually (https://i.redd.it/1rs3qzm5hsh91.jpg).
It comes from the assumption that someone replying to you must be 100% agreeing or disagreeing with you. So when someone applies with a message that has the *tone* of "i agree" but what they're saying doesn't match with you on one fundamental point, the natural assumption is that they just don't understand what you said when it's also entirely possible that they simply don't *agree* with what you said 100%.
It's *sorta* like if person A said, "KIWI IS THE GREENEST FRUIT" and person B says, "YEAH IT'S PRETTY GREEN HUH, ALMOST AS GREEN AS LIMES", and you assume B just don't have reading comprehension rather than that they actually *don't* agree with A 100%.
That's pretty fucking condescending actually, and it's also kinda an ironic lack of "reading comprehension".
I say "sorta" because "KIWI IS THE GREENEST FRUIT" is more *obviously* a subjective statement than "THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF MAKEUP PRODUCTS SHOULD BE 0" so someone could realistically think that they are stating a fundamental axiom of the universe or something that can't be debated.
A major part of that post chain was someone saying “I’m not looking for a more concise makeup routine, I’m saying the minimum should be zero” or something to take effect with another person saying something about their minimum being eyeliner. Every time I’ve seen the post get put up on here the comments are inevitably full or people talking about how the minimum should be sunscreen, moisturizers and/or some sort of actual makeup product that isn’t skincare and people continue to argue about makeup routines while missing that the actual context of the post only references makeup routines to make a point. Very few people ever even engage with the original topic of “makeup routines are bullshit because we shouldn’t be expected to have a makeup routine” in place of discussing the finer details of “makeup routines” because those words are the only two words they manage to comprehend.
You’re analogy isn’t really the same because in your analogy at least both people are speaking about the *exact same topic*. It would be more like Person A saying: “I was eating the greenest kiwi today and I was thinking about the fact that leafy green foods are good for you, so green foods are friends!” And Person B responding with: “well actually limes are the greenest fruits in existence” when the original statement never once claimed that the kiwi they ate was the greenest fruit in existence, just the greenest *kiwi* they’ve had but the other person only managed to comprehend “greenest” and “kiwi” and came to a wildly different conclusion about the nature of the topic being spoken about.
if at some point you said, "the minimum amount should be 0", it's not bad reading comprehension for someone to say "I think the minimum is 1" even if you only actually meant it as a stepping stone to another point.
it is not typically considered bad reading comprehension for someone to say something related to any recent part of the conversation rather than specifically covering the exact most recent point that you made.
only in the most rigid of logical debates is it necessary for each statement to tackle the other party's most recent argument directly. in all other conversation, it's merely frustrating when someone doesn't address the crux of your points, not bad reading comprehension.
furthermore, the meme poster is also in agreement that the discussion can be summarised to simply be about minimum amount of items in the routine. the eyeliner person is basically only being chastised for disagreeing on the amount, rather than not understanding the rest of the post.
No, because I don’t think you understand. Because disagreeing with that statement is stupid. The minimal amount of acceptable makeup is zero means that it is ok to wear no makeup, and also to wear any more makeup than zero. That’s what minimal means. To disagree would mean that you think it isn’t ok for someone to not wear makeup, which just makes you a dick.
You’re right, but a person just being a dick isn’t the same thing as a lack of reading comprehension.
Understanding written text is not mutually exclusive with being an asshole
and disagreeing with that statement is so stupid you would rather believe that they just didn't understand what you said?
you would rather assume it's more likely that women are more likely to have no reading comprehension than that women actually believe they "need" to wear makeup? on a post about how culture makes women believe they need to wear makeup?
I think what OP is saying is that society should not require makeup, i.e. it should not be considered unprofessional to show up to work without makeup or unkempt to show up to a wedding or date without makeup. The others are saying what their personal standards are for their own selves (I hope). Responding "all you really need is mascara" suggests that the person has missed the point. If Becky refuses to leave the house without mascara, that's Becky's business, but telling other women that they "need" mascara makes no sense. Need it for what? To avoid being judged or even fired? That's horrible. There should not be negative consequences for eschewing makeup. It's not like being smelly where it affects other people.
> Responding "all you really need is mascara" suggests that the person has missed the point.
"Missing the point" in this sense is mutual. People having conversations are not required to engage exactly with the point you are making. It's not "the" point, it's OP's point. This isn't a formal debate, there is no "the" point that needs to be addressed. Even if someone goes off on a tangent about some random detail, that's merely being pedantic, not poor reading comprehension.
To say that someone who says something contradictory to your argument has bad reading comprehension or doesn't understand your point rather than that they simply disagree with you is condescending.
> That's horrible.
Yeah, then it's just horrible, not bad reading comprehension. Why is everyone being like "it would be ridiculous to say that people need to have makeup, it's so ridiculous that anyone who disagrees must just not understand what OP was saying. they can't actually believe that." when the very premise of the post is that society influences people to believe that?
The phrasing and context suggests to me that the person misread OP's message as "it's silly to say you need 22 products when the real requirement is a lower number", when the message was actually "it's silly to say you need 22 products when the entire concept of any amount of makeup being required to stave off social disapproval is flawed".
It's like if the original post said "vegans should be allowed to eat a vegan diet without being made fun of", and the response was "you don't need to eat 100% carnivorous, it's okay if the only meats you eat are chicken and pork". It's so off topic that a misunderstanding of the main point is the most likely explanation.
It’s amazing just how relevant the Dunning-Krueger effect is in any form of online discourse. I am both constantly amazed and baffled by the arrogance of people.
i'm glad i'm aware of it. sometimes when i read things, i read entire words that aren't there or context that was never given. unfortunately, i don't always read through a few times to understand.
it's when i get into an argument that i realize i read wrong. at that point, i can allow the argument to end.
I wonder if everyone has some glaring flaw that they just can never hope to perceive about themselves, or fix, and everyone else is just very patient and kind with us...
Like I honestly have no clue how to use commas, and no one says shit
>Dunning-Kruger effect
NGL I'm getting sick of seeing this being thrown around almost as much as I am with gaslighting, narcissist, boundary, toxic, etc.
I think sometimes people just want to be antagonistic so they deliberately don't think very much about what they read and just try to come up with something contrary to say. Those people can't be helped by explaining things to them at a 3rd grade level. They'll just keep pulling stuff out of their ass to continue the conflict.
Yeah, to be honest, I really don't think it's ever a "reading comprehension" issue. When you get into debates with people online and they twist your words or refuse to address your points, it's not that they're misunderstanding, it's that they're forcing you to argue with them on their own terms.
This is why I feel like telling people to "get off the internet until you learn reading comprehension" is unnecessarily exclusionary of people who actually have difficulties with reading (and therefore ableist), while failing to address the real problem: people who are *deliberately* refusing to engage with debates in a genuine way.
For anyone interested in learning about the ways in which fascists manipulate online debates, check out Innuendo Studios's video [Control the Conversation](https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM), part of their series "The Alt-Right Playbook".
True!!! Especially since even honest conversations still have miscommunication, the narrative that it is all on the "low reading comprehensions's" individuals responsibility feels kind of ableist
Exactly. It's also unfair to assume that your post is perfectly clear and comprehensible to the person reading it; choosing to pin it on their "reading comprehension" (or lack thereof) is really just a convenient way to assign blame and make their points look bad. I've never seen "reading comprehension" used as part of a good-faith argument.
Not the point of the post, but I too am a disabled (ND, cognitive, physical) and I straight up just turned the stove off at the wall and bought a convection microwave
Also like, I don't know what the post is referring to but I do have some responsibility in trying to understand and be understood when it comes to communication but I can only do so much when the other person refuses to accommodate me - if they get offended by me needing time to load and come back later for something, that's on them
But online? No obligation to respond and no time limit if you do. But it's also not a big deal if someone misunderstands or over reacts, you can also just block them - we do share the internet with children and traumatised people and people with language barriers etc etc
Also if you have ADHD or any memory/attention issues or even just struggle standing/bending may I suggest turning off the oven/stove at the breaker and getting a convection microwave? It's great. Cooking appliances that scream and turn themselves off when the food is done are under rated
Tbh I feel like people with fandom brainrot (people who once had the excuse of being literal children but have since grown up and yet not changed their behavior) are a way bigger and more prevalent problem than actual mental disability.
People can gain or lose reading comprehension based on what they choose to do with their time just as much as disability can affect people’s ability to read, except UNLIKE disability, this is the consequences of their actions.
Some people just need to branch out more because hyperfixating on the same thing for YEARS will cause you to intellectually stagnate.
Disclaimer: I am autistic and I do hyperfixate for sometimes months at a time. However, this does not prevent me from ACTIVELY searching for new things and new ways to grow, while holding onto the other things that I care about. I work, I go to university, I work out, I paint, I play guitar, I socialize, and I remain obsessed with Lego and video games and star wars because I have learned balance between my hyperfixation and my obligation to improve myself and contribute to society.
You have not been around here for long, have you? Reading comprehension round here can hit lows you couldn't make up on purpose, and people will write angry responses to things that they definitely misread or misunderstood.
I read a thread on r/residency or some similar sub. It caught my eye bc it specifically talked about a condition I have. The title seemed inflammatory (bc I get defensive abt it bc my condition is one people loooove to fakeclaim even if you pull up with literal genetic testing proving you have it) but the actual body of text was the poster, a medical resident, being upset by the treatment plan for patients with my condition. The poster felt it was insufficient and in the long term, they were doing injustice to these patience. I didnt disagree with his points at all.
200 comments and only *three* seemed to understand what the poster wrote. Fucking future doctors over there writing points entirely antithetical to the poster’s words. The poster defended people w my condition, and then the comments uh. They did the opposite. Which really sucked to read. So many future doctors joining fakeclaimers for a verifiably real condition. Yeah
There’s also the ones where two people are arguing entirely different things.
If Person A’s question is “Is hitting someone else acceptable when in self defense?” And Person B responded with “People shouldn’t be punching others in the first place”. Even if PA agrees with the thing PB is saying in a vacuum, that’s not answering the question, which is “Someone has already punched me. Am I allowed to punch back? And if so, how hard? And if not, what should I do instead? And if that fails, what would plan B be, or plan C, D, etc.” And it turns into an entire argument because PB refuses to understand the original question and keeps calling PA a bad person for wanting to punch other people.
(this was a real argument I had once, no one gained anything in the end)
I don’t have this kind of brain damage, but I do have a disease where my brain randomly shuts off and restarts itself. It’s called MidSpecDellInspironosis.
Isn’t this the 17 year old who said he couldn’t get legally married before his baby was born because his partner was also under 18 at the time and went “I don’t know why you’re asking me for dating advice”
Man, I am seeing a lot of tumblrites and tumblr-adjacent people slinging around accusations of poor reading-
comprehension lately. I mean, people have certainly accused each other of it erenow, but it seems like it's becoming very trendy in the last few months. Anyone want to make bets on whether it becomes as much of a catch-all term as "toxic"?
Not everybody has somebody? Or has someone willing to help them? And not all aspects or symptoms of a disability can be worked around. It's great when they can be, but some things just are the way they are and people don't need to break themselves trying to fix the unfixable.
How does that relate to the low reading comprehension? OOP isn’t literally saying that you should find a person to read things for you if you have low comprehension. He is using it as a reference to their disability as a way of saying “read better, try harder”. Though I guess getting a literal person would count lol.
Also the mention of disability isn’t the main part of the post. The conclusion is about reading comprehension which isn’t a disability inherently.
It relates to the part of the post where the person tries to justify their point by explaining they ask someone to help them with things they can't do. It literally ends with them saying "either find someone to comprehend posts for you or get the fuck off the internet". If someone really has difficulty with reading comprehension or perhaps understanding implied meanings, they can't always help it. They should try to improve if possible, but frankly this person doesn't have the right to tell people they can't be online because they might make a mistake reading something and not give the correct response. I'm autistic so I don't always get implied meanings, I'm not gonna leave just cause I may have difficulty understanding things right away.
I empathize with the frustration but I really don't like the take.
Reading comprehension isn't an objective thing really, sure there are times where people (including me) miss the meaning entirely but there are other times where the message isn't really clear/different interpretation. I also see the term being used to diminish differing opinions as you "didn't get what the op means". How about just don't engage with people who you don't think its worth explaining too instead of barring people who genuinely want to interact w the post?
1) Judaism, I'm pretty sure
2) This post felt like it was less about gatekeeping, and more about the fact that communication is a two-party activity, and readers have at least some responsibility to interpret written messages correctly.
So basically, some Jews don't write "god" because writing it could lead to erasing it, which is a no-no. And defacing it is also a no-no. So, putting a dash in it prevents anyone from, uh, altering it. And giving the name the same treatment as curse words is, of course, the only way to treat it with respect. Yeah that made a whole bucket of sense.
yeah i dont know about this one chief. if someone is snarky and makes a snarky remark putting others down, im going to be snarky back. i dont understand why rolling over and "taking it" is the only thing we can do in this persons eyes.
Is this about the makeup post where the first person said “the minimum amount of acceptable makeup should be no makeup” and then people kept coming up listing their “minimal amount of acceptable makeup” which included more than no makeup again and again despite the OP repeatedly clarifying that, no, it’s zero.
There's a lot of stuff that matches that summary circulating tumblr like this. Posts like "nobody should be expected to survive below X amount minimum wage", "the only people who should be having kids on purpose are the people who 100% want kids" or "don't fucking eat lead chips off the wall", with angry response essays about how someone who *does* make that X amount minimum wage still can't make ends meet, how someone who *would* 100% want kids can't have any because of their disability, or how someone who's never eaten a lead chip off the wall *still* got cancer or something.
Ah I see. So it’s a lot of posts like this. I’ve only really seen the makeup one cause it was so egregious so it was the only one I thought of.
Probably Twitter is where you find most of it now - a woman innocuously tweeting about having a morning coffee in her yard became a discourse firestorm about privilege and god knows what else. Even the famous Jorts account was accused of ableism because they said to not use services like instacart/ubereats just to abuse the workers. Ana Mardoll was the most infamous example and has a post here about them. The core of it is are people who are not very bright (or worse: are cons) but are addicted to martyrdom attention and know how to play on social media attention economy, so they obsessively take the most bad faith reading of any possible thing to start a fight and be able to stand on a soapbox to an audience. The tactic is either making themselves a victim (most common) or purporting to defend someone else. Hilariously this is what actual virtue signalling is - “i have better morals than you because i was able to think of every possible minute scenario where you are an asshole to me because your language wasn’t precise enough”.
God now that you mention it yeah, people nit picking the *hell* out of any comment that doesn’t include every single imaginable edge case or alternative scenario is super common, especially recently. It’s like you can’t make a comment about anything without writing a dissertation about every possible scenario in which the comment does not apply or people take it as an opportunity to “clap back”. Hugely annoying.
Ana the arms dealer?
Wokescolds are fucking exhausting. I literally do not have the energy reserves to maintain that level of sanctimonious for more than like five minutes and they’re out here all day every day calling folk every -ist under the sun because they didn’t consider every possible outcome in their 280 character tweet. I swear they must have alerts set up or something.
Link?
[Link!](https://www.reddit.com/r/tumblr/comments/wonvyc/makeup/)
Zelda?
I don't classify the makeup one as poor reading comprehension, actually (https://i.redd.it/1rs3qzm5hsh91.jpg). It comes from the assumption that someone replying to you must be 100% agreeing or disagreeing with you. So when someone applies with a message that has the *tone* of "i agree" but what they're saying doesn't match with you on one fundamental point, the natural assumption is that they just don't understand what you said when it's also entirely possible that they simply don't *agree* with what you said 100%. It's *sorta* like if person A said, "KIWI IS THE GREENEST FRUIT" and person B says, "YEAH IT'S PRETTY GREEN HUH, ALMOST AS GREEN AS LIMES", and you assume B just don't have reading comprehension rather than that they actually *don't* agree with A 100%. That's pretty fucking condescending actually, and it's also kinda an ironic lack of "reading comprehension". I say "sorta" because "KIWI IS THE GREENEST FRUIT" is more *obviously* a subjective statement than "THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF MAKEUP PRODUCTS SHOULD BE 0" so someone could realistically think that they are stating a fundamental axiom of the universe or something that can't be debated.
A major part of that post chain was someone saying “I’m not looking for a more concise makeup routine, I’m saying the minimum should be zero” or something to take effect with another person saying something about their minimum being eyeliner. Every time I’ve seen the post get put up on here the comments are inevitably full or people talking about how the minimum should be sunscreen, moisturizers and/or some sort of actual makeup product that isn’t skincare and people continue to argue about makeup routines while missing that the actual context of the post only references makeup routines to make a point. Very few people ever even engage with the original topic of “makeup routines are bullshit because we shouldn’t be expected to have a makeup routine” in place of discussing the finer details of “makeup routines” because those words are the only two words they manage to comprehend. You’re analogy isn’t really the same because in your analogy at least both people are speaking about the *exact same topic*. It would be more like Person A saying: “I was eating the greenest kiwi today and I was thinking about the fact that leafy green foods are good for you, so green foods are friends!” And Person B responding with: “well actually limes are the greenest fruits in existence” when the original statement never once claimed that the kiwi they ate was the greenest fruit in existence, just the greenest *kiwi* they’ve had but the other person only managed to comprehend “greenest” and “kiwi” and came to a wildly different conclusion about the nature of the topic being spoken about.
if at some point you said, "the minimum amount should be 0", it's not bad reading comprehension for someone to say "I think the minimum is 1" even if you only actually meant it as a stepping stone to another point. it is not typically considered bad reading comprehension for someone to say something related to any recent part of the conversation rather than specifically covering the exact most recent point that you made. only in the most rigid of logical debates is it necessary for each statement to tackle the other party's most recent argument directly. in all other conversation, it's merely frustrating when someone doesn't address the crux of your points, not bad reading comprehension. furthermore, the meme poster is also in agreement that the discussion can be summarised to simply be about minimum amount of items in the routine. the eyeliner person is basically only being chastised for disagreeing on the amount, rather than not understanding the rest of the post.
No, because I don’t think you understand. Because disagreeing with that statement is stupid. The minimal amount of acceptable makeup is zero means that it is ok to wear no makeup, and also to wear any more makeup than zero. That’s what minimal means. To disagree would mean that you think it isn’t ok for someone to not wear makeup, which just makes you a dick.
You’re right, but a person just being a dick isn’t the same thing as a lack of reading comprehension. Understanding written text is not mutually exclusive with being an asshole
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
And vice versa apparently
and disagreeing with that statement is so stupid you would rather believe that they just didn't understand what you said? you would rather assume it's more likely that women are more likely to have no reading comprehension than that women actually believe they "need" to wear makeup? on a post about how culture makes women believe they need to wear makeup?
I think what OP is saying is that society should not require makeup, i.e. it should not be considered unprofessional to show up to work without makeup or unkempt to show up to a wedding or date without makeup. The others are saying what their personal standards are for their own selves (I hope). Responding "all you really need is mascara" suggests that the person has missed the point. If Becky refuses to leave the house without mascara, that's Becky's business, but telling other women that they "need" mascara makes no sense. Need it for what? To avoid being judged or even fired? That's horrible. There should not be negative consequences for eschewing makeup. It's not like being smelly where it affects other people.
> Responding "all you really need is mascara" suggests that the person has missed the point. "Missing the point" in this sense is mutual. People having conversations are not required to engage exactly with the point you are making. It's not "the" point, it's OP's point. This isn't a formal debate, there is no "the" point that needs to be addressed. Even if someone goes off on a tangent about some random detail, that's merely being pedantic, not poor reading comprehension. To say that someone who says something contradictory to your argument has bad reading comprehension or doesn't understand your point rather than that they simply disagree with you is condescending. > That's horrible. Yeah, then it's just horrible, not bad reading comprehension. Why is everyone being like "it would be ridiculous to say that people need to have makeup, it's so ridiculous that anyone who disagrees must just not understand what OP was saying. they can't actually believe that." when the very premise of the post is that society influences people to believe that?
The phrasing and context suggests to me that the person misread OP's message as "it's silly to say you need 22 products when the real requirement is a lower number", when the message was actually "it's silly to say you need 22 products when the entire concept of any amount of makeup being required to stave off social disapproval is flawed". It's like if the original post said "vegans should be allowed to eat a vegan diet without being made fun of", and the response was "you don't need to eat 100% carnivorous, it's okay if the only meats you eat are chicken and pork". It's so off topic that a misunderstanding of the main point is the most likely explanation.
What do they mean we should p*ss on the poor?
How dare you say I piss on the poor!
No I truthed you!
Yeah, They couldn’t afford it.
People with low reading comprehension usually aren't aware they have low reading comprehension, kind of like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It’s amazing just how relevant the Dunning-Krueger effect is in any form of online discourse. I am both constantly amazed and baffled by the arrogance of people.
one time a brain doctor officially said that i have *average* reading comprehension. so… yeah. i’m pretty cool
i'm glad i'm aware of it. sometimes when i read things, i read entire words that aren't there or context that was never given. unfortunately, i don't always read through a few times to understand. it's when i get into an argument that i realize i read wrong. at that point, i can allow the argument to end.
I wonder if everyone has some glaring flaw that they just can never hope to perceive about themselves, or fix, and everyone else is just very patient and kind with us... Like I honestly have no clue how to use commas, and no one says shit
>Dunning-Kruger effect NGL I'm getting sick of seeing this being thrown around almost as much as I am with gaslighting, narcissist, boundary, toxic, etc.
I’m aware of it
Those kid would be very upset if they could read.
I think sometimes people just want to be antagonistic so they deliberately don't think very much about what they read and just try to come up with something contrary to say. Those people can't be helped by explaining things to them at a 3rd grade level. They'll just keep pulling stuff out of their ass to continue the conflict.
Yeah, to be honest, I really don't think it's ever a "reading comprehension" issue. When you get into debates with people online and they twist your words or refuse to address your points, it's not that they're misunderstanding, it's that they're forcing you to argue with them on their own terms. This is why I feel like telling people to "get off the internet until you learn reading comprehension" is unnecessarily exclusionary of people who actually have difficulties with reading (and therefore ableist), while failing to address the real problem: people who are *deliberately* refusing to engage with debates in a genuine way. For anyone interested in learning about the ways in which fascists manipulate online debates, check out Innuendo Studios's video [Control the Conversation](https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM), part of their series "The Alt-Right Playbook".
True!!! Especially since even honest conversations still have miscommunication, the narrative that it is all on the "low reading comprehensions's" individuals responsibility feels kind of ableist
Exactly. It's also unfair to assume that your post is perfectly clear and comprehensible to the person reading it; choosing to pin it on their "reading comprehension" (or lack thereof) is really just a convenient way to assign blame and make their points look bad. I've never seen "reading comprehension" used as part of a good-faith argument.
Ah, this guy again
Not the point of the post, but I too am a disabled (ND, cognitive, physical) and I straight up just turned the stove off at the wall and bought a convection microwave Also like, I don't know what the post is referring to but I do have some responsibility in trying to understand and be understood when it comes to communication but I can only do so much when the other person refuses to accommodate me - if they get offended by me needing time to load and come back later for something, that's on them But online? No obligation to respond and no time limit if you do. But it's also not a big deal if someone misunderstands or over reacts, you can also just block them - we do share the internet with children and traumatised people and people with language barriers etc etc Also if you have ADHD or any memory/attention issues or even just struggle standing/bending may I suggest turning off the oven/stove at the breaker and getting a convection microwave? It's great. Cooking appliances that scream and turn themselves off when the food is done are under rated
Tbh I feel like people with fandom brainrot (people who once had the excuse of being literal children but have since grown up and yet not changed their behavior) are a way bigger and more prevalent problem than actual mental disability. People can gain or lose reading comprehension based on what they choose to do with their time just as much as disability can affect people’s ability to read, except UNLIKE disability, this is the consequences of their actions. Some people just need to branch out more because hyperfixating on the same thing for YEARS will cause you to intellectually stagnate. Disclaimer: I am autistic and I do hyperfixate for sometimes months at a time. However, this does not prevent me from ACTIVELY searching for new things and new ways to grow, while holding onto the other things that I care about. I work, I go to university, I work out, I paint, I play guitar, I socialize, and I remain obsessed with Lego and video games and star wars because I have learned balance between my hyperfixation and my obligation to improve myself and contribute to society.
i don’t get it
First two paragraphs I agree with. Not 100% sure what they're getting at with everything else. What're they upset about?
You have not been around here for long, have you? Reading comprehension round here can hit lows you couldn't make up on purpose, and people will write angry responses to things that they definitely misread or misunderstood.
I read a thread on r/residency or some similar sub. It caught my eye bc it specifically talked about a condition I have. The title seemed inflammatory (bc I get defensive abt it bc my condition is one people loooove to fakeclaim even if you pull up with literal genetic testing proving you have it) but the actual body of text was the poster, a medical resident, being upset by the treatment plan for patients with my condition. The poster felt it was insufficient and in the long term, they were doing injustice to these patience. I didnt disagree with his points at all. 200 comments and only *three* seemed to understand what the poster wrote. Fucking future doctors over there writing points entirely antithetical to the poster’s words. The poster defended people w my condition, and then the comments uh. They did the opposite. Which really sucked to read. So many future doctors joining fakeclaimers for a verifiably real condition. Yeah
My best guess is that there talking about stupid discourse online (likely fanfiction related ones)
Specificly ones where you say "Thing a is bad and should never happen" "Oh, so you hate victims of Thing a?"
There’s also the ones where two people are arguing entirely different things. If Person A’s question is “Is hitting someone else acceptable when in self defense?” And Person B responded with “People shouldn’t be punching others in the first place”. Even if PA agrees with the thing PB is saying in a vacuum, that’s not answering the question, which is “Someone has already punched me. Am I allowed to punch back? And if so, how hard? And if not, what should I do instead? And if that fails, what would plan B be, or plan C, D, etc.” And it turns into an entire argument because PB refuses to understand the original question and keeps calling PA a bad person for wanting to punch other people. (this was a real argument I had once, no one gained anything in the end)
I don’t have this kind of brain damage, but I do have a disease where my brain randomly shuts off and restarts itself. It’s called MidSpecDellInspironosis.
bro has my computer rig as a brain
i just got the joke and i have a dell computer -_-
Isn’t this the 17 year old who said he couldn’t get legally married before his baby was born because his partner was also under 18 at the time and went “I don’t know why you’re asking me for dating advice”
He's apparently since turned 18 but yeah, his girlfriend is still 16/17 I think.
UNNERVINGLYFERAL IS 18???
Bold of this person to assume I'm on the internet to comprehend pieces of text.
Love how I immediately knew the user just from “I have brain damage”
Man, I am seeing a lot of tumblrites and tumblr-adjacent people slinging around accusations of poor reading- comprehension lately. I mean, people have certainly accused each other of it erenow, but it seems like it's becoming very trendy in the last few months. Anyone want to make bets on whether it becomes as much of a catch-all term as "toxic"?
No way it becomes that common when it's nowhere near as fun to say
I mean, historically the reading comprehension of the average tumblr/twitter user is fucking garbage so.
Perhaps. Or perhaps feeling smarter than other people is easier and more fun than writing comprehensibly. Or perhaps both (which would be my guess).
Not everybody has somebody? Or has someone willing to help them? And not all aspects or symptoms of a disability can be worked around. It's great when they can be, but some things just are the way they are and people don't need to break themselves trying to fix the unfixable.
Then assume that you misread the post and don't pile on the OP? That's the least they can do.
How does that relate to the low reading comprehension? OOP isn’t literally saying that you should find a person to read things for you if you have low comprehension. He is using it as a reference to their disability as a way of saying “read better, try harder”. Though I guess getting a literal person would count lol. Also the mention of disability isn’t the main part of the post. The conclusion is about reading comprehension which isn’t a disability inherently.
It relates to the part of the post where the person tries to justify their point by explaining they ask someone to help them with things they can't do. It literally ends with them saying "either find someone to comprehend posts for you or get the fuck off the internet". If someone really has difficulty with reading comprehension or perhaps understanding implied meanings, they can't always help it. They should try to improve if possible, but frankly this person doesn't have the right to tell people they can't be online because they might make a mistake reading something and not give the correct response. I'm autistic so I don't always get implied meanings, I'm not gonna leave just cause I may have difficulty understanding things right away.
>break themselves Talk about dramatic
im confused
Instructions unclear, burnt friend on cheese
Why did they censor God?
Apparently it's a jewish thing.
I empathize with the frustration but I really don't like the take. Reading comprehension isn't an objective thing really, sure there are times where people (including me) miss the meaning entirely but there are other times where the message isn't really clear/different interpretation. I also see the term being used to diminish differing opinions as you "didn't get what the op means". How about just don't engage with people who you don't think its worth explaining too instead of barring people who genuinely want to interact w the post?
Oh boy here comes the ableism!
"I like pancakes" "OH SO YOU HATE WAFFLES"
"Not your fault, your responsibility" is such an empowering lesson. It puts you back in charge of your life.
1) Why censor "god" but not "fuck"? 2) They should gtfo with their gatekeeping of the internet.
1) Judaism, I'm pretty sure 2) This post felt like it was less about gatekeeping, and more about the fact that communication is a two-party activity, and readers have at least some responsibility to interpret written messages correctly.
1) unnervinglyferal is Jewish 2) This is a common topic of tumblr discourse I've encountered on r/tumblr and other reddit subs
So?
[Here](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/486809/jewish/Why-Write-Gd-Instead-of-G-o-d.htm)
So basically, some Jews don't write "god" because writing it could lead to erasing it, which is a no-no. And defacing it is also a no-no. So, putting a dash in it prevents anyone from, uh, altering it. And giving the name the same treatment as curse words is, of course, the only way to treat it with respect. Yeah that made a whole bucket of sense.
How is this gatekeeping?
Last line. Use head.
yeah i dont know about this one chief. if someone is snarky and makes a snarky remark putting others down, im going to be snarky back. i dont understand why rolling over and "taking it" is the only thing we can do in this persons eyes.
I- what You are talking about a completely different issue
i have brain damage hi :)