this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
1093 points (98.5% liked)
Microblog Memes
5837 readers
1265 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course it is a low confidence answer for that non-English but literate population. I'm not saying that 100% of those called illiterate are actually literate in another language. I'm saying that the statement that the illiteracy rate is as high as posted is likely wrong because it only accounts for English.
The "may" statement you're taking issue with is a quick attempt to find out possibly how big that non-English but literate population might be. Its not a definitive answer. You're welcome to spend your time chasing a more precise number. I'd exhausted my interested when I got my number.
I'm not going to say it was your intention, but it reads like "immigrants are lowering the literacy rate". It's something I've seen too often.
Regardles, from the page you linked:
That would not be explained by a 13.8 percent of foreign-born residents.
The emphasis is because "American" is not the same as "foreign-born resident".
I'm having trouble seeing the mental gymnastics to get that reading when I'm saying that the immigrants are unfairly being called illiterate, when they ARE literate, just in a different language.
I'm discarding any of the statistics from that page I linked because I don't trust their methodology. I linked it not to support OPs argument about the rate if illiteracy, but to discredit it for being questionable based. The stats from my linked page match much of the stats from their linked page. My guess is that both draw from the same flawed measures and should not be trusted.