Tressie MC mentioned this a few weeks ago (I think?), but I find my students really struggle to distinguish description from endorsement, and REALLY struggle if the author is playing devil's advocate or using hyperbole or other non-straightforward rhetorical devices to make their point. e.g.,
I've been running into a lot of young people online not understanding the difference between description and endorsement. Like when explaining that telling people to try to survive in the face of mental illness without systemic change will mean some people will not survive, taken as endorsing the
I asked the same thing bsky.app/profile/emse...
I showed Atomic Cafe to a class last year and they didn’t get that it was satire.
Jc, don't let them near lolita!
Could this be influenced by the opinions of real-world pundits becoming more stupid and dishonest, making parody less identifiable to people who have never known a world where the distinction was obvious?
Not just college students. I have been through this problem with my brother (63), my father (100, but it started in his 80s), my former roommate/dear friend who is brilliant in many ways but cannot read intent in anything now ...
Yeah my wife teaches a lot of satire and the kids come away from the books like “ah yes we should all get the internet implanted in our brains, that *would* be good for society.”
... the other day they read a chapter pointing out drug policy hypocrisy that set up alcohol as a newly discovered drug, "whiz," and described its harms, etc, to put it in contrast with criminalized drugs, and judging by their comments, a number of them did not understand that.
That kind of thing is on vivid display here at Bluesky.