"audiobooks aren't reading, only reading is reading"
Ok, turns out I don't write books—I type them.
Also guess I'm gonna have to mount brackets to every wall in my house so I can actually hang up the phone, since pushing the lil red button on my screen definitely doesn't count.
Ok, turns out I don't write books—I type them.
Also guess I'm gonna have to mount brackets to every wall in my house so I can actually hang up the phone, since pushing the lil red button on my screen definitely doesn't count.
Comments
The edgelords who land on my feed every few days need to be more consistent with their application of "what words really mean" if they want to be taken seriously.
I don't want struggling new readers to give up growing an important skill because "it's the same thing" becomes popular.
We have a beautiful, vibrant language and we shouldn't sell it short by consolidating words to mean the same.
I am not devaluing how you get your information. The compromise is to reframe the conversation with what you did with the info, for example ...
This phrasing does not need to center on the vehicle of ascertaining information. It highlights impressions, goals, if others can discuss end spoilers.
I don't want kids to stop penmanship exercises because the grown ups say the two are the same thing.
You authored a book. You are an author of.. Is much more marketable than boring ol' "wrote."
Yes, I am a "said is dead" ride or die poet.
No, I am not trying to make dyslexic people feel bad for a flicker of superiority.
I have alot to say about a complex topic. Reductionary takes don't cover all.
The word "read" in particular is used specifically in research, grants, and...
Who thinks most like a reductionary child? Politicians who will use argument to defund education.
I want everyone to consume and think past the information in books. Why can't people see further, the ramifications that will happen, by making reading and listening interchangeable and equivalent?