Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
You can read "The Paranoid Style In American Politics" from 1964 for some insight: https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/
It's written at a higher than 6th grade target, so it might be a challenge for anyone who's not used to that. Please give it a good faith effort to read.
Thinking about it, the low literacy rate in the US might be an aggravating factor. Something like half of US adults cannot read at a 6th grade level. That's going to hurt their ability to deal with complex topics.
You know, you lose a lot of people with comments like that, talking down to everyone. You've provided a source that makes a lot of good points, but that's some alienating phrasing that'll make people feel you're elitist.
On the one hand, you're right.
I wrote that bit because when I was reading the linked article, it felt harder to read and understand than what I'm used to. So it wasn't really coming from malicious elitism.
On the other hand, I want to live in a world where people don't feel insulted (even when it was by accident, like here!) and just completely stop listening. I know I do it too, but it sucks.
Especially with the "elitism" facet. Sometimes other people actually are better than us on whatever topic. That's okay. Like if we were talking about math and you were like "This uses some complex algorithms so it might be hard to follow if you haven't done more than algebra in a few years" I'm not going to be mad. What would I even be mad about?
I'm sorry for assuming your intentions were less than innocent and positive. I also want to live in that sort of world, and I hope it didn't seem like I was jumping on your case or calling you a jerk. I just think it's important to choose our words in a way that encourages people to read. Too often people think they're bad at reading or math or something and so they avoid it, when it should be more like singing; it doesn't matter if it sounds good, we sing as a manner of expression. Reading should be for everyone. But, I was misguided, and you weren't disagreeing with that notion, and so I'm sorry.
It is very rare for anyone on the internet to apologize or admin fault. Well done. Thank you. I understand your intent and I'm not mad. Apology accepted.
Oh no. Telling the truth alienates all of the idiots? We should really coddle them more, because that's what's important- their feelings.
"Read at a 6th grade level"
I thought it worked like, when you know how to read, you know how to read, and if you don't, you won't.
There are different reading levels, but I don't know a lot about them because I'm not in education.
You can probably recognize it even if you never thought about it before. "See spot run" or "Green eggs and ham" are very simple texts. Something like "the Great Gatsby" or "the Hobbit" are more complex, and a 2nd grader would struggle to read them even if they technically know how to read.
Technical manuals, works on a specialist topic, or .. my knowledge fails me a little here, but like more complicated novels, may be more advanced. More advanced in vocabulary, sentence structure, and things like symbolism, metaphor, or whatever cool shit House of Leaves was doing.
I don't know how legit this site is, but it seems to cover the topic https://www.weareteachers.com/reading-levels/
I think this is a sample of a text written at the 6th grade level https://www.oxfordonlineenglish.com/english-level-test/reading . I looked it up when that article about how most adults can't read and comprehend at that level was going around.
The Great Gatsby is shit, and the Hobbit is even worse. It doesn't affect the situation here, but just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.
So reading level is basically a stupidity meter. If you can read this text, you're a moron. But you're less of a moron if you can read this text.
I don't think we're really on the same page. Literacy and intelligence aren't the same thing. But if you take nothing else away from this, I think you got the "higher reading levels are more complex" thing. Maybe.
Also I think you have a typo and one of your
canshould becan'tBold of you to assume I have a point, and that's not a typo. That's the duality of existence.