hey, I was reading your posts on the use of 'reading comprehension' and found them really enlightening. I'm wondering, are there similar undercurrents to how people use lack of reading comprehension to describe the tendency for people to read and interpret in bad faith online, or are they different things grouped together under the same label?
hm yeah i would say there are some similar undercurrents happening. i think glibly mocking [a lack of] reading comprehension in response to a bad-faith/hostile/animous/etc engagement (like eg. the trend of replying with 'reading comprehension questions' that aim to glibly point out logical flaws in the initial response and present it as obviously ridiculous and overblown) is falling back on that same discursive construction -- that a lack of 'reading comprehension' is embarrassing, that reading something poorly or wrongly is something you should be sure never to do in public, and whoever can score the most Reading Comprehension Points in the argument wins the discourse.
i also just find it, like, unfunny and boring. even in genuinely bad-faith interpretations of a post, it has an air of smugness to it that i find really off-putting -- it's a very, like, you sir have won the internet for today-type tone. and there are multiple cases where i've seen this Ha Ha No Reading Comprehension thing deployed to suggest that someone reading between the lines of a claim made in a post to point out eg. particular biases, particular suggestions of bigotry, that the post doesn't explicitly name but are certainly discursively present is obviously being dense or hysterical; it's an easy win in a discourse where to name something as eg. subtly racist, transphobic, misogynistic, etc., is already presumed to be hysterical overreaction by people who know better than to outright name it as such but are still predisposed to view it in that light when given the opportunity to do so covertly.
(eg: op says X; a responder points out that X implies Y and is emerging from a discourse of Z; op laughs at them by claiming that they only said X and if you're seeing Y or Z then you clearly have no reading comprehension because X without Y or Z is obvious to op's often already biased audience and the conversation is shut down.)
it's got a real like, deployment of Facts And Logic feel to it; i don't think it does a good job in actually engaging with the responder and understanding where their interpretation is coming from, which can ofc be chalked up to the fact that that's literally not what it's supposed to do -- it's supposed to get a fun dunk in and make the initial responder look silly. i more than understand frustration at people reading your posts in bad faith and i can't fairly be mad at people for lashing out about it -- i've done it before! -- but, like. i think we should just try and steer clear of discursive constructions which reify the stigmatisation of poor reading comprehension (or mediation of tone on the internet, which is also at play here).
Have been think for while, but will try put in words:
Misuse "reading comprehension" so much is part of broad trend.
Broad trend of use common ableist n classist misconcepts as default reaction.
Sure, on rare time - Magz have blame "reading comprehension" offhand.
Though, is of repeat what other say - like script.
Aside: Which very ironic. Often am mention have issue understand or misread or of logic from disability. Have issues end up mean take more time think n more try be careful. Am imperfect tho.
Moreso than if make offhand comment ...
Bigger issue is when let ableist n classist misconcepts go unchallenged.
When misconcepts materially affect how interact with others,
Am often ask bare minimum.
Not ask of "completely wipe from vocabulary".
Instead, am ask of realize extent that ableism become normal to self n why.
To challenge n change what seem "normal" in whatever way can.
:: Yet criticize what seem "normal" in ableism, always become boogeyman of "people think 'stupid' is slur". A discourse n interpretation so disingenuous n outdated. Outdated of early 2010s Tumblr, when most youth not had vocabulary for "ableist microaggressions being common". As people fear n refuse even question what they think normal, common, inoffensive.
Untrue conclusions as result: - Questioning subtle ableism must be a ""chronically online"" viewpoint divorced from reality. - Is "Bad" re-assess ones viewpoint on intelligence as a marker of value for life.
To not question why ones first reaction, is mistake.
When extend idea of "unintelligence as fault" to actual political stance and political analysis, is mistake.
If everything to blame on lack skill (or disability), there can be no nuance n weighted stance. Just surface level analysis with bigoted implications.
Things that are not inherently "reading comprehension" issues:
every type of ignorance
bad faith interpretations
not try question bias
strangers refusal understand what other people say without being combative
It rarely is because of "just not having skill to understand text"
Still, when is "reading comprehension issue":
Like OP say - of make it shameful to have honest mistake or lack of reading skill, not help that.
Instead, shamefulness of reading skill alienate comrades that do need accommodation.
Those comrades need compassion extend to them.
While, not realistic for accommodation be provided by every random tumblr user;
can at least disengage or point toward something that could accomodate.
In material effect, is pattern of misuse "reading comprehension" and "anti-intellectualism" and "illiteracy" for both:
Everything Annoying Online
Actual Ignorant Malice
Making actual meaning of impacted reading skill, instead be for more inflammatory use n scapegoating.
Disabilities and disenfranchisements that actually get take advantage of n discriminated of n being more likely poverty,
become about ... fandom discourse, discourse bait, and annoying strangers.
Wrongful use: Statics of actual illiteracy rates n lack of resources, being for "why all bad things happen actually".
Is when access of resources, texts, dense materials are almost never provided in digestible or accessible formats n places or alternatives.
When claiming to have issues reading or have disability or actual illiteracy n needing Simple English or equivalent is automatically seen as false.
Wrong reasoning being:
There been people that were disabled or lower economic class that could do everything without accommodation.
Wrong excuse: "but there are annoying people that do weaponized incompentency n are anti-intellectualism tho"
Bad Effect: To punish n alienate a whole class of people that *do* need help.
Disability n circumstance is spectrum n diverse. It not matter if there some "Very Intelligent" cognitively-disabled poor people. we should not use other people capabilities as metric nor use respectability politics.
Worse:
The language of eugenics n "normalcy" as good, escalates when unchallenged.
Of blame inferior genes, smooth brains, brain damage, and degeneracy.
Even worse:
People and words open to reactionary politics.
That when it become problem. As it have for long time.
