the people who add 'reading comprehension questions' onto posts really are the most condescending people imaginable. if you were a teacher talking like that, your students would daydream about you dying badly
They're deliberately condescending, that's the implied message of the format. They're assigning some portion of the readership the role of idiot middle-schooler struggling to keep up.
You'd might as well tell riot cops that tear gas hurts your eyes too much or cirque de soleil performers that their backflips are too impressive or a chef that the sous vide is too melt in your mouth delicious.
Reading comprehension questions:
Did the original poster criticize the format because they believed the condescension was accidental, or because deliberate condescension is obnoxious?
In school, reading-comprehension questions are presented alongside the text and assigned to all students. In this format, why are they instead introduced only after disagreement and framed as remedial work for “middle schoolers struggling to keep up”?
By framing disagreement as a failure of reading comprehension, what roles does the poster assign to themselves and to dissenting readers? Critically evaluate whether that framing addresses the disagreement or merely dismisses it.
Does my use of this format suggest that I misunderstood your point about intentional condescension, or that I understood it and am demonstrating why it's fucking obnoxious?
Unclear but I assumed the latter.
They're not only introduced after disagreement. They are used pre-emptively, sometimes. A good faith response would discuss how even the pre-emptive uses are meant to get ahead of future disagreement, so the substance of the question is largely unchanged, but this is about as much effort as I put in grade-school.
You're failing the format a bit with this one. The believability of this as a reading comprehension question is strained when I already answered this one before you asked it.
Your questions demonstrate that you've misunderstood my point. Whether or not OP and you recognise that the condescension is deliberate, you are emphasising how condescending and unpleasant it is for the putative reader assigned the role of middle-schooler ("your students would daydream about you dying badly"). You are reinforcing the reason why it's used. This is why I said you'd might as well tell "cirque de [sic] soleil performers that their backflips are too impressive" etc etc. You are affirming that their goal has been achieved and will continue to be achieved.
This is one of the reasons I mind the format somewhat less unpleasant, I think. They're an obnoxious format to use, but the kinds of questions you ask still exposes very clearly your understanding of the discussion, and it can be messed up. Writing out an obnoxious list of questions still requires engagement, which is a step above most obnoxious rhetorical techniques.
You showed a reasonable understanding of the discussion, but please remember to answer every part of each question.
In question 2, you correctly noted that the format may be used pre-emptively. However, this does not address the distinction in the prompt.
In question 3, you identified the roles being assigned but skipped the evaluative step. The prompt asked whether that framing addresses disagreement or merely dismisses it. Restating the descriptive portion does not complete the analysis.
In question 4, you correctly recognized that the condescension is intentional, but treated its successful delivery as evidence of misunderstanding. That does not follow. A reader may fully understand the tactic and still object to deliberate patronization.
Overall: C+
P.S. Your concluding comment offers a useful qualification. Had you incorporated that point into your answer to question 3 and used it to evaluate whether the format engages with disagreement rather than merely dismisses it, your response might have reached a B-, or even a B.
In question 4, you correctly recognized that the condescension is intentional, but treated its successful delivery as evidence of misunderstanding.
Well, no, right? If you read again, you'll notice I didn't actually answer question 4 properly at all (depending on how your interpret "my use" anyway). I said your questions demonstrate misunderstanding (that is: the specific questions you chose to ask), not that your communicated condescension evinced misunderstanding.
That was the lead in to the final comment: that the specific questions and the way you ask them force the writer to engage with the subject and ensuing discussion, and lay bare their own thoughts on the matter. This is, or can be, fertile soil for further discussion, even by simply answering them in semi-good faith, as you yourself recently demonstrated well picking apart this obnoxious twat.
That is, obviously, a separate matter from whether or not they are obnoxious, and there are certainly other methods to have viable discussions. Still, as far as rhetorical tumblrisms go, its one of my least hated for that reason.
Your subsequent explanation demonstrates B-level understanding of the material, with flashes of A-level analysis. Unfortunately, that reasoning was not included in the submitted answer. I am bound by the rubric and cannot award retroactive credit for work completed outside the margins.
