to defriend someone for actually using the word 'discusted'?

[LoopaDaLoopa]

In all seriousness. For real. She actually wrote that on her status.

Surely, not unreasonable to defriend?

I have a dyslexic dd, Molly. Thank you for the link, it's fabulous!

Actually I think it's unreasonable whether or not someone is dyslexic.

One of the wisest and most interesting women I ever knew - masses of integrity, enormous common sense and incredibly kind - friended me on Facebook a few years ago, and I discovered her English was atrocious. It was a salutary shock because before then, I'd always equated intelligence with literacy. And that so clearly demonstrated my mistake. Then the above blog post cropped up and I began to feel rather ashamed of my previous impatience with people's spelling and grammar issues.

All someone's literacy reflects, a lot of the time, is what sort of educational opportunites they've had.

Arrgghhh 'new edition' drives me mental!
Also the mix up between his and he's. Eg, he's new pyjamas.

Educational opportunities are definitely at the root of some of the problem, but that's rather too simplistic a solution. As an example, I went to a crappy comprehensive and received no education whatsoever in terms of grammar, punctuation etc. I educated myself.

Furthermore, that (very charming) blog post points out that the author assisted adults who had chosen to improve their previously lacking literacy education. I don't think anyone really objects to the genuinely dyslexic or those who haven't experienced the best educational opportunities.

Certainly for me personally it is the proudly dumb to whom I object. Those who wear their stupidity with an air of achievement and are happy to throw around the words 'swot', 'geek' or indeed 'punctuation police' as if their carelessness is some kind of mark of superiority.

No-one is perfect. As I've admitted, I do know how to spell but my typing is awful, leading to many mistakes. However this is not something I'm proud of and I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to improve. In my experience, dyslexics put a lot of effort into improving their literacy and take great pride in their progress. Let's be honest, the same does not apply to the majority of Facebook's worst offenders.

YY to the objection to the ignorant-and-proud brigade. It doesn't make you a more practical, useful person to have around, any more than being able to spell properly indicates huge intelligence and insight.

Certainly for me personally it is the proudly dumb to whom I object. Those who wear their stupidity with an air of achievement and are happy to throw around the words 'swot', 'geek' or indeed 'punctuation police' as if their carelessness is some kind of mark of superiority

^ Agree with that. Like someone said upthread, who thinks Gawjus is even close???

I don't use FB but if I did I imagine I'd unfriend people for posting things which I found vacuous and/or uninteresting.

and somefink/sumfink
(aware I need to get out more).

Certainly for me personally it is the proudly dumb to whom I object. Those who wear their stupidity with an air of achievement and are happy to throw around the words 'swot', 'geek' or indeed 'punctuation police' as if their carelessness is some kind of mark of superiority.

I've not met any since leaving school, to be honest. But I have to ask: why is that any better than judging another human being on literacy, which is just one facet of intelligence? And that's even without getting into the realms of whether intelligence determines or should determine worth as a person, anyway. Why is it okay to think someone who isn't literate is stupid? The example I gave is of someone who is anything but - and she gave me the biggest hug of my life when I got a good degree class from an excellent university, too. She in no way devalues formal education. She just didn't have the benefit of one herself. So why would I, or anyone else, think the intelligent thing to do was to demean her or what she has to offer, based on her literacy levels? Isn't that... well. Stupid?

Then I would say I don't judge people on their literacy itself, but I do judge those who devalue literacy. I certainly have moments of intellectual snobbery but have admitted on the thread that my husband is practically illiterate. I have never devalued him for this as he has masses of other skills of which I am in awe and we appreciate each other for the different skills we both have to offer. My point is that I'm fully aware that literacy is not the only form of intelligence. However I would never judge anyone poorly who can sew or has other skills to offer that I don't. However I do judge the lazy, the selfish, the rude etc. In turn I have also been judged for my literacy. It works both ways, surely.

I noticed something on TV the other day also. While 'picking on' the poorly educated, the underclass or whatever you want to call them is frowned upon, as in this thread, apparently it's OK to rip the piss out of the well spoken Made in Chelsea types, who are, just like their Jeremy Kyle counterparts, no more than a product of their environments. Why is being a snob in reverse somehow more acceptable? Why is judging the wilfully stupid wrong and unpleasantly superior but kids labelling others as geeks, posh, snobs or whatever they're calling it these days more acceptable?

One of my fb friends drives me crazy with this I used to work with her so I know she's perfectly competent and very intelligent yet her fb statuses are full of words like: doovet, gawjus etc...
@ sossages

I think being a snob in reverse is more acceptable for the same reason it's more acceptable for black people to be racist than white, or women to be sexist than men: the group without power en masse is less capable of inflicting real harm on the group with. It's not ideal or pleasant, but nor is it reprehensible in quite the same way - and it does at least potentially have roots in legitimate grievance. It's hard to see that the other way.

I wasn't aiming my comment at anyone in particular, Lily - I haven't had time to read the whole thread as it seemed a relatively mild subject on AIBU, as opposed to say parenting or relationships where a thorough read is always called for - sorry if I've missed a lot.

I wasn't having a go at you, perfectstorm - it's a subject I feel quite strongly about and I'm happy to have a sensible discussion about it .

And I'd disagree that it is more acceptable in reverse - using one to excuse the other is a little bit 'two wrongs make a right', no? Racism is racism, sexism is sexism, prejudice is prejudice of any kind. Furthermore, I'd argue that the' intellectual snobs' (for want of a better term) are the minority in this instance rather than the 'chavs/stupid people' (again, not sure how to categorise them so don't flame me for lack of imagination).

However I don't think there's any need to start any kind of class war about it. If I say something stupid on Facebook or anywhere else, no matter how beautifully punctuated it is, I expect to get a bollocking for it. If you don't want people to pick at your spelling or education, check it before you post rather than give people ammunition.

Was your friend drunk maybe. When I've had a few wines and type, I cannot remember how to spell properly. Although I'm quite a good speller, normally.

Hmmm, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think resentment from a group that have been disenfranchised is understandable, while from the oppressive group it's pretty abhorrent. I don't think the "two wrongs makes a right" argument holds, because pushing back tends to be what effects change.

And I just don't think it's up to me or anyone else to correct someone's spelling or grammar, unless they want it corrected (in my case I do, because my own can be shaky). In fact I think someone doing so is petty-minded for one, and actually a bit of a bully, too, given context for most - though between two happy pedants, obviously it could be a joke or just a point of interest. I'd not do it because, well, it's a small-minded and prissy thing to do, IMO.

I actually find language fascinating - someone corrected someone else online a few days ago for misusing "disinterested" as "lacking interest" instead of "without ulterior motivation" and I was curious, so googled. And I found that the earliest known example of use... was for the disputed meaning. It's something numerous pedantic sites insist is a linguistic blooper, but both Merriam and OUD state it's interchangeable. And it's also a good example of language altering meaning over time. Personally, I find it comical when people use "literally" as an emphatic instead of literal, because the statements that arise are hilarious - "he was literally beside himself!" about a pissed-off footballer, for example. But I also appreciate that language is a living thing, and most people now use "literally" in that way, so really it's altering meaning before our eyes, and that's what language always has done. It's viral; it mutates. Which is me at a tangent; sorry!

I do find it frustrating when people post on MN asking for help for a problem but posting so badly it's genuinely hard to fathom what they mean. But I also get irritated when they're met with a lofty, "Sorry, can't read that solid block of text, especially without spellcheck!" because it's just so unnecessarily demeaning and, well, nasty - why post at all, if that's all you can say? And frankly, you can't leave class out of the equation here either, because the reality is that literacy problems are massively more likely, dyslexia aside, the poorer someone is. It's often a thinly-veiled way a middle-class person can put down a working class one, without other middle-class people pointing out the snobbery. Because it's ostensibly about grammar/spelling instead.

Well again, I'd say the middle classes take their own share of abuse so I don't entirely object to them pushing back .

I haven't read the whole thread yet but just wanted to say YABU.

My son is severely dyslexic and even as a child, is judged for his mistakes. I'm sure he'll continue to make spelling/grammar/pronunciation errors well into his adult life. It's such a shame that he will have to deal with this kind of judgemental superior smugness. Normally coming from people who have nothing better to do than get uptight about this sort of petty nonsense.

It's this kind of attitude that reduces my beautiful, witty, intelligent dyslexic friend to tears on a regular basis.

I also object to the term "thick". There are many forms of intelligence. I would argue that learning a set of symbols by rote doesn't exactly prove much at all. For example, there is emotional intelligence, one of my son's attributes. He wouldn't 'defriend' for someone who made a mistake, for example.

There are many ways to learn...not just the method used in the majority of schools. There are also many reasons why people appear uneducated. Perhaps they didn't get the right start in life? Perhaps they were bullied throughout school which may have hampered their learning? Perhaps they had low self esteem which wasn't dealt with?

I am actually very DISCUSTED with the attitude of some posters on this thread.

Loopa I have seen this in my facebook feed recently too. I wonder if it's the same person?

But they do it from a position of relative privilege. I think snobbery aimed at keeping people with less than you subjugated is less acceptable than those with little mocking people with more.

Whethergirl - I agree.

I don't tend to correct on Facebook or Mumsnet myself, but I do wonder why it's so hard for some posters to read back what they have written and see how badly they have presented their point. As I've said, if I had done the same I think it's perfectly reasonable for someone to pull me up on it.

But they do it from a position of relative privilege

I think that's a different argument and far more about class, and also one that positive discrimination and hideous 'quotas' have changed the parameters of hugely. There are plenty of 'rich' kids who've suffered abuse or lack of access to opportunities despite their ostensible wealth. In my own case, as a child a number of red flags were ignored because we lived in a bigger house.

I'd argue that the grammar/spelling issue can be separated from the class issue. There can be a common denominator in terms of educational opportunities but it's not blanket - see Harry Enfield's 'Tim Nice...' for example. The middle and upper classes are not excused from ridicule when they make stupid mistakes - arguably they are penalised even more for it. I don't really care who makes the error or where they come from but I still don't like it.

And Whethergirl, I don't think anyone on here is having a go at the genuinely dyslexic.

perfectstorm Your posts are spot on. I have saved that link about literacy privilege.

Also using words like "gawjus" is usually just being intentionally playful with language; people do it on Mumsnet all the time: "luffly," "naice," etc. It may be irritatingly cutesy or twee, but it is not ignorant.

Whenever these threads come up, as soon as someone mentions dyslexia or other learning difficulties, then people rush in to say, "oh that's not what I meant, I mean all the other people who make these mistakes."

And most all of those "other people," as perfectstorm has explained, are not at fault, either. I work with an organization that runs an adult literacy program. Some of the people in the program have learning difficulties; some have disadvantaged backgrounds; many have both. Yes, they are motivated to improve, but even after finishing the program and making great strides, most would likely still not be able to meet the standard many on this thread are using as a baseline.

And another thing: we are all born with certain talents and gifts. Some people have a natural gift for language and fluency; many don't. It is much harder for those who don't to develop higher functioning language skills. I took piano lessons for years; I am an abysmal pianist because I have very little musical ability. Lucky for me that is something that I am able to hide because it is not needed in everyday life.

And Whethergirl, I don't think anyone on here is having a go at the genuinely dyslexic Even so, it's the same attitude that can affect dyslexic people. My son does not go around wearing an "I am dyslexic" badge.

It's like saying: "AIBU to defriend someone because they put up a photo of themselves and they look ugly." Judging someone on their intelligence is on a par with judging someone for their looks, race, physical abilities etc.

I think that's reaching a bit. I'm not saying people can choose to be intelligent or not, but they can choose not to be wilfully ignorant. I've been very clear that those are the ones I'm judging. Admittedly in the wider world it can take a while to work out who's who, but certainly on my Facebook list there are people who delight in their 'chavviness', who think it's cute to be stupid. I abhor that attitude, in the same way I abhor those who choose to look down on those of a different race, who choose benefits as a lifestyle because they are lazy, or who think drinking and driving on a regular basis is just fine. None of that has anything to do with how those people look.