A good example is Titanic where people keep saying Jack could fit on the door, despite the film showing him trying to get onto the door and almost capsizing it, so he leaves it alone to ensure Rose's safety.

People weren't on their phones when they saw the Stormtroopers let the rebels get away from the death star so they could track them, heard one rebel say "they let us get away from the death star so they can track us," and then spent 50 years joking about how awful stormtrooper aim is

As someone who has 30$ in bills, even they get in the way and manage to be obnoxious. There was a girl in my middleschool who had "a lot* of change and she was constantly miserable. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Irl I often repeat what other people say in my own words and ask them if that's what they believe. It both helps me understand where they're coming from and confirm I get them

On the Internet I almost never do.

Communication is a two way street. You can be as explicit as you want but if people are trying to win an argument instead of have a discussion they're going to misconstrue what you're saying more often than not.

It’s not about reading comprehension, it’s about the reader not understanding the unwritten parameters of the question. That the possibility that neither have greater value exists.

I recall one occasion where something similar happened to me back in middle school. We were learning about probability using dice rolls. One of the questions on the worksheet was (something like) “What is the best way to influence the probability of the dice roll outcome?”

When the question was posed to me I fully understood that there was no way to influence the probability, assuming no influence by external factors, the probability of a given outcome will always be equal. But the fact that the question was posed to me in this way led me to believe that this was not the answer the question was looking for. It implied that in fact there was a way to influence the result, so I got very frustrated in trying to come up with an answer which made sense. In this situation I felt that actually the question was wrong, and got upset that the task I had been set to answer it was impossible to complete correctly. When I realised that the true intent was just to get me to acknowledge that there was no way to influence the result, I felt betrayed by the framing of the question. I knew the answer the whole time, it was obvious, but the framing of the question misled me to believe that was not the intended answer.

The question in my case wasn’t actually an earnest question about probability, the pretext for is was deliberately false. There was no way for me to figure it out using better reading comprehension. The intent of the question can only be realised via comprehension of non-written concepts, essentially being able to recognise when someone is trying to throw you a curveball. It isn't quite the same as just recognising the path of the ball being thrown to you, because in that case it appears to be being thrown away from you.

If you examine the person replying person's responses, that's pretty much where they're at. The whole 'dude is expecting the answer to be their own views' thing is conjecture, what they're expecting is a view given an existing proposition that there is a view to take.

Can't explain that

Most valuable tits are the ones in your hand (with consent).

That's a technic I call learning by figuring out. I realized some time ago that information you figure out yourself lasts longer. When some at work for example asks me something I usually only return suggestive questions. Questions wich if they answer them lead them to the answer of their questions. I always get rolling eyes when I do but it helps in two ways. First is they really manifest the wisdom so they don't need to ask me a second time and second they learn relativly fast that they have to think what to ask me and how anoying it is so they ask less frequently but more specific. People hate it but it is benefical for both sides in my opinion.

You want concave chest craters on your ideal mate?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking.

So.... a dude ?

Going back and realizing you're a dumbass is like 99% of reading comprehension. And iterative learning in general. Assuming you know everything at first blush is absolutely how shit like this happens.

They're fungible, and can be transferred into each other easily. They have the same value but different situational utility.

Value is not and cannot be derived solely based on utility in a vacuum. This is proven by the marginal utility of too many titties. While one pair of titties may have value based on their utility, each subsequent pair of titties decreases in utility, as you only have so many hands and so much time.

Strong grammar skills isn't the same as comprehending, though. Being able to write, being able to write well--is also not the same as comprehending what someone else has written. Let alone what someone means by what they've written.

"thatguyfromthatwebsite" seems to have read and interpreted the language properties of the greentext, but was not able to comprehend it, not able to take one single step beyond the text to what the author intends it to mean.

There's an easy experiment I've accidentally run.

Find a thread with a consensus emotion. For example, say that something is a scam, so you have outrage, mistrust, and scepticism.

Take some words from the opposite emotion, calm, trust, believe. Use them to make a point that agrees with the consensus. Watch the downvotes roll in.

People will focus on the emotions from the individual words and not think at all about their meaning as a whole.

YMMV, but I've had more issues with people being this obtuse here on Lemmy than I've ever seen on Tumblr.

Plus, Tumblr is basically all queer content creators who have been on the site for 10-14 years. Subtext is like oxygen to them at this point.