The bar has been lowered so much that I wouldn’t be surpised to learn that some of them couldn’t even read.
I don’t think Diane Feinstein could really even comprehend anything at the end.
We should be careful about language like “can’t read,” when discussing taking away rights though. There are blind people who literally “can’t read,” but can comprehend information in an equivalent format and who’d be much more competent than someone like Feinstein.
Out of curiosity, what word do you use to describe the act of run fingers over brail characters to process their meaning?
We do not know exactly how many people can read Braille, but at one point it was estimated to be 10% of blind people could read Braille. So 90% of blind people cannot read Braille. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0145482X211071125?journalCode=jvba#:~:text=Another source for the 10,the United States” (p.
Braille is also expensive and takes up significantly more paper. It is more time consuming to use. Compared to audiobooks, Braille is typically considered inferior and outdated in many circles. I already knew about Braille before I commented, yes. Reading should not be the bar to deny someone rights. It also was a classic racist tactic too. It’s a bad thing to advocate for (denying rights based on reading ability).
