Seems like this sort of statement gets thrown around a lot outside of the Pit. Is there a policy as to whether it is considered a personal insult?
We don’t have a specific policy, but I would probably mod-note that in GQ.
Seems like an obvious insult to me. I can’t claim to be the role model for such behavior, but it’s usually best to assume that you have a writing-for-clarity problem than to assume the other person has a reading comprehension problem.
I might or might not in GD and Elections depending on context. It’s the sort of thing I’d like to see discouraged because it tends to lead to an escalation of tensions in a thread.
Also, what’s the point of it? It adds nothing to a thread and just detracts from debate.
It helps ID those who combine hazy writing with insufficient self knowledge.
I don’t understand what you mean.
True, but on the flip side, there’s a persistent practice on this board of posters who come into a thread without really reading the previous posts, and essentially repeating what someone else has just said as though it were some kind of revelation, or ignoring a point that was already addressed. Yes–not really the same issue, but it’s understandable why someone could get frustrated.
Sort of depends on the situation. If I write something and fifteen people misinterpret me, I’ve probably stated my point poorly. But if fifteen people respond appropriately and the sixteenth completely misunderstands, chances are that person either didn’t read carefully, or is just bad at reading.
Of course, in that case I wouldn’t say “you have a reading comprehension problem”, because it crosses the insult line. I’d probably say something like “you seem to have misunderstood my point. Please read it again YOU SYPHILITIC PUS-BRAINED TROGLODYTE AUSTRALOPITHECUS.”
Yeah, that isn’t a comprehension problem. That’s literally a not reading problem.
While there are some debaters here who I think don’t actually spend any effort at all to understand someone else’s points - like all those other people are just this annoying background noise that gets in the way of hearing themselves speak - I think more often the phrase is used to describe someone who simply doesn’t agree with its user. “What do you mean you don’t agree with me! But I’ve written the same argument nine times! You must not understand how right I am, you moron!”
I got pissy recently because someone for the THIRD time said I said something I most definitely DID NOT say. And they weren’t the only one. I got mod noted. Fair enough I suppose.
But for a bunch of supposedly smart people, all you all can’t read for crap sometimes.
Hell, I might have even inspired this thread
As it happens my reading comprehension is better on paper or on tablet than it is on my desktop. And I don’t use my tablet here.
But my impression is that the reading comprehension line comes up when somebody has stated something once. News flash: you need to repeat your central point if you want it conveyed here. But if a poster doesn’t understand something you have said twice, say it two times again really clearly in separate posts, then quote your wonderful prose and their obtuseness. Hilarity ensues. Of course this behavior is more appropriate for the pit.
Also, I’ve heard that if you want a central point conveyed here, you need to repeat it.
But seriously, IF you have said something that is pretty much X or not X and you said X and somebody goes off about how your idea about not X is stupid…well, it doesn’t bother me if they get bitch slapped for reading comprehension problems and definitely not if they are being snarky about it and not just carrying on the conversation.
I don’t know. I mean, what’s the point? Does it add anything to the thread, or is it just a distraction?
Perhaps my thesis is difficult to understand…
A: “Carlos Mendoza is the greatest baseball player in history!” [repeated 9 times]
B: “No, actually he’s a pretty terrible player.”
A: “You have a reading comprehension problem!!”
I just wonder when “it doesn’t add to the thread” became a moderatable offense.
So much of how the moderation works now are enforcing the complaints I had back in 2009, when I was told that I was too much of a pollyanna.
ISTM the usage I see most often is when somebody makes a contentious point, then somebody else doesn’t buy that their evidence proves their conclusion. The former then not-so-stealth insults the latter with the “reading comprehension” comment. The underlying message being: My evidence and logic and persuasive writing is soooo strong as to convert any died-in-the-wool (e.g. Democrat) to a card-carrying (e.g. Republican). If you’re not so converted on the spot, you must have a reading comprehension problem. Sorry, in my book that’s simple partisan name-calling.
Good ol’ **billfish678 ** had a different issue the other day IMO. He got wrapped up when somebody misunderstood (inadvertently or deliberately I cannot know) his comment, then others kept responding & piling on based on *that *poster’s misstatement, rather than to billfish’s original comment.
Hell, I never knew I was either good or ol’
And in THAT case I think saying your “reading comprehension skills suck donkey balls” is fair game.
You didn’t cite which thread, which spares me from reading it, but could you be more clear on what “got wrapped” means here.
Because on that situation, particularly for the OP, it means "being extraordinarily annoyed at where the thread-drift has gotten to, each drift maybe a semi hijack, and the intellectual integrity of the argument is shot to hell.
For intellectual paths not more or less directly from, but either returning to OP or sticking to a point (a good drift)–even to OP’s annoyance who I think should get deference when poking in and gently saying “I’m here, um, this is what OP was about,” as I’ve tried with success or not at a number times. But OP runs the risk of junior modding. That’s why they call it thread-drift, and this is the Internet. Sometimes the odor of YouTube comments drifts in, but there-but-by-the-grace-of-God SD stands apart.
If you need to know, its in the General Questions section of the forum about “The Gold Standard”.
Somebody asked if the gold standard had any traction these days intellectualy speaking.
PS. That thread probably did NOT inspire this thread as I did NOT (I think) pull out the ol’ “reading comprehension” complaint.
Myself and a few other people noted that the gold standard had one advantage. That it was harder to manipulate the currency. Myself and others ALSO noted that there were plenty of reasons why a gold standard was a bad idea. Nobody was arguing that a gold standard was a good idea.
After about the third time of someone arguing a variation on a point I did NOT make AND claiming that I thought the gold standard was a GOOD idea…I kinda lost it.
I WAS USING CAPS a lot…so I GUESS that was yelling…AND I FUCKING cussed a bit…so that WAS BAD too…so I got MODDED…and even though I feel violated I didn’t BITCH at all about it then and there.
Now you know the rest of the story (RIP Paul Harvey).
“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.”[indent]-- Lewis Carroll
The Hunting of the Snark[/indent]