That’s literally what I said? Besides, I thought you were “bowing out” to avoid a raving lunatic like me.

Whatever, dude. Looking at your page, you clearly just like to argue with folks. Obnoxious.

I know how to use a dictionary: see the previous points in my “masters thesis”. 🙄

I think your point it also willfully ignoring touch-reading like braille, but I digress. I’m employed and have a life, so I no longer want to engage with some internet troll 🤷‍♀️

You’re the one who entered a discussion thread? Ofc you’ll get discussed with. That’s not toxic—and me being frustrated and calling you out for being a troll isn’t either.

Hey dipshit, you’re clearly here to argue and not have a proper discussion. I said the primary definition followed by the modified ones based on subtext.

And iirc, the original post I saw was expressing frustration at how semantic this argument has grown, not ableism.

Sight words here and there isn’t understanding phonics and sentence structure. This whole debate essentially boils down to the “phonics vs sight words” debate that’s been pushed in k-12 education lately and it’s frustrating to see people try to discount physical reading as something unimportant. /5

Living somewhere where English is the primary language, you won’t gain much useful data from listening to an audiobook (I’m talking intonation/pronunciation/pacing) bc you’re getting that in your everyday convos. You aren’t getting the visual stimuli from reading, and recognizing a few 4/

Enjoying literature should be accessible to all. Being challenged to think is an important part of stimulating our brains. But there are genuine skills one is missing out if they exclusively participate in one version of consumption. For the sake of argument, if you’re a native English speaker 3/

Usually, this is why we add “functionally” in front of illiterate to differentiate whether or not it’s being used to insinuate someone’s intelligence level vs their legitimate lack of being able to read, for whatever reason that may be. 2/

Definition from the Oxford dictionary: “a person who is unable to read or write”. They then list the secondary definitions that you’re implying, stating there needs to be a submodifier to be offensive.

Don’t try to turn this into an ableism argument: reading is an important, and SEPARATE, skill 1/

Understanding of how English words are built. Esp for language learners, this is an important skill to build: i consider myself pretty proficient in reading German, but my listening sucks because the pacing and pronunciation is there versus being read on a page. /2

I wouldn’t argue that it’s too broad, just that it’s being used incorrectly.

America is in a literacy crisis. Children are not being taught phonics. Yes, a kid who listens vs a kid who reads would both intake the same info, but the reader would take in the spellings and gain a better 1/

YOOOO I LOVE THESE PHOTOS

Plus the AI art for the link…

That sounds delicious. Can you drop the link as to where you got it?

Ahhhh tysm!!!

📸 credit goes to @/marlo.louden on IG!