“Reading comprehension” is starting to become a buzzword like “cognitive dissonance.” It is harrowing how often I’ve seen reading comprehension criticized by people who clearly missed the point themselves. God help you if you venture into Linux communities, there’s some kind of shared brain fog that completely deprives them of the ability to “get” anything that involves context clues.
Right wingers tend to go into the following cycle
1 - get a talking point or rhetorical strategy from Fox News or Alex Jones or whatever
2 - use it en masse against democrats in online debates
3 - democrats and other thinking people call out the disingenuous nature of whatever it is, by using the appropriate term for a fallacy (ie straw man), or creating a new term (like JAQing off), or using a historical quote.
4 - right wingers are too stupid to understand, but they think if they just copy and paste it with different nouns and throw it back against liberals then they have a “gotcha”
Example: remember a year or two ago when this quote from Jean-Paul Sartre started going around regarding fascism?
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
So after a while of this, you started seeing Qultists posting stuff like this
Never believe that woke liberals are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The woke liberals have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Makes no goddamn sense but they didn’t understand the first quote anyway.
I see it as a kind of cargo cult. They see big words like “strawman” or “cognitive dissonance” and think that they hold the power to winning arguments so they use them themselves with no regard gor context.
Any angle that can be used to criticise or defend something will get used by both people who don’t understand it but are trying to use it in good faith, people who do understand it but misunderstand the situation and misapply it, and people who may or may not understand the thing or situation but use it in bad faith.
I hate the word “subjective” now. It absolutely does not mean what most people think it means. And it certainly doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as objective quality/effectiveness, nor that there’s no such thing as good taste.
It’s in opposition to what is objective, I don’t understand how someone could think if one exists the other can’t…
But I also don’t understand why people were eating Tide pods so…
- You can’t define something with “it’s the opposite of something [that you also haven’t defined properly]”
- It’s still not what most people think it is, but
- I really don’t want to be forced to open up this can of worms right now. I don’t have the mental energy
deleted by creator
If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
What did the fist person think it was saying?
Something that agrees with their bigotry I’d assume given the topic
She’s made her tweets protected now so I can’t see the original - sorry.
Tbf, you can be the author of something and also completely fail to correctly cite your own material.
Facts. I wrote a paper about espionage during the Manhattan Project many years ago. Spent a full week focused on it and reading books then wrote the paper. 10 pages iirc. I had to stand in front of a board and defend it. I forgot who Oppenheimer was and bombed (no pun intended) the review.
I hate when I forget basic facts about a topic because I went too in depth about a specific detail pertaining to the topic.
You can read the paper here if you’re interested: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37437247/
deleted by creator
Well it has a conclusion, they just acknowledge the limitations of their study and suggest more research is needed on the subject. That’s a pretty standard conclusion from what I recall of my time in academia! But to make up for wasting your time, here’s my favourite little video that always makes me smile: https://youtu.be/VCKg_tbYjgs help
Yes indeed. The last thing you want to do in a paper is make a conclusion you cannot back up with the data.
And if you have already done the work… there’s no point in not publishing it. Saying what you did and that it gave inconclusive results is still useful because it means that any other work in this area needs to go further, or have a different structure/look for something else.
It is often difficult to get conclusive data. The world is messy and that’s just the reality you have to work with.
I think you’re jumping to conclusion.
Thanks to the person that redacted the handles in that image, we’ll never know the full name of that second person :D
Are you the one that censured the names? If that is the case can I ask for the reason to censur Kristis name as her name in the text is not censurd nor is it or any other in the picture of the paper.
No, I merely steal content from Reddit to get this community up and running. The same question was asked on the Reddit thread and apparently it was censored to comply with Reddit’s site wide rules. I think the paper is considered public information and the Twitter name is considered private by Reddit or something.
It definitely is a good rule, definitely cut down on hate mail, bringing and doxing.
I don’t remember how strong it was, or who was and wasn’t included in it, but I do remember some people really not understanding how to censor stuff.
But anyway you are doing a good job with this sub, I really like it.
Thank you! That’s made my night 😊 I really don’t know what I’m doing or how to do this “right”, so it’s really gratifying to hear someone is enjoying the community.
