I got the idea from Mancarryingthing's youtube video called "I "love" the way we talk about books". It a 1 minute skit depicting two people talking about books and one of them always finds reasons why the other's reading is "not valid reading". In the end it is revealed that the "insufferable reader" archetype hasn't read a book in a very long time and is just regurgitating stuff he sees online. If you don't get the jist, just watch the video, it is really short and gets the point across way better.

So it got me thinking about how my reading habits wouldn't clarify as "valid reading" in the eye of a person like this. So far I got:

• While I like reading classics it isn't my main genre, so i would probably get called "performative" for even picking them up.
• Some classics I read were written by people who would get deemed "problematic" by modern standards (for being racist, sexist etc..). So for reading them I would also be probably called "problematic" despite not agreeing with any of their views and not supporting them financially either (cuz ykow they are dead).
• I started reading manga this year so that (depending on the type of insufferable reader) would get me called a "larper", since I have only gotten to the more popular titles or a "cheater" as I also add mangas to my reading challanges.
• Since my main genre is fantasy and sci fi and I like to read for fun some would also assume that I am too stupid to read "real literature".

Of course this is all good natured fun, remember to not take anything seriously that people like this say, as you can never do something that pleases everyone. Also don't go on booktwitter, its not worth it.