The Internet, and social discourse itself, I fear, have passed me by. I have always considered myself a literate person with excellent reading comprehension, but these days I feel like an anachronism ejected from my timeline and shunted into some crazed alternate reality where everyone uses the same words I have always spoken and understood to speak a foreign language.
Case in point: Today, I asked Karl Urban fans if they thought his options as a leading man/co-lead would dry up if The Boys tanked. A fairly straightforward query, I thought, but none of the answers I've gotten to date address the question I asked. Instead, they all insist that since Amazon has already greenlit a second season before airing the first episode, The Boys is not a flop. That's great. I hope it's true because I want Karl to be swimming in work, but that's not what I asked, and what's more, that reasoning is fallacious. Amazon greenlit the second season because of the huge hype generated by the nerd mags and sites, but there's no guarantee that the first season won't drop and go over like a cholera fart at the collard festival.
Am I going senile? Are the younger generation just that lacking in critical thinking, or has the art of discussion taken a lateral move that my aging brain can't follow? How do they read, "If The Boys tanks, will Karl's career as a lead be finished?" and think, "The Boys won't tank" answers the question? It's related, certainly, but it's not an answer save by implication. Since The Boys won't tank in their estimation, Karl's career will be fine, but that assumes facts not yet in evidence and fails to address the possibility that it will. Yet these opinions are handed down as though they were writs of law, truths That Are Known, and it makes me want to gnash my teeth and retreat into bewildered, muttering misanthropy.
Case in point: Today, I asked Karl Urban fans if they thought his options as a leading man/co-lead would dry up if The Boys tanked. A fairly straightforward query, I thought, but none of the answers I've gotten to date address the question I asked. Instead, they all insist that since Amazon has already greenlit a second season before airing the first episode, The Boys is not a flop. That's great. I hope it's true because I want Karl to be swimming in work, but that's not what I asked, and what's more, that reasoning is fallacious. Amazon greenlit the second season because of the huge hype generated by the nerd mags and sites, but there's no guarantee that the first season won't drop and go over like a cholera fart at the collard festival.
Am I going senile? Are the younger generation just that lacking in critical thinking, or has the art of discussion taken a lateral move that my aging brain can't follow? How do they read, "If The Boys tanks, will Karl's career as a lead be finished?" and think, "The Boys won't tank" answers the question? It's related, certainly, but it's not an answer save by implication. Since The Boys won't tank in their estimation, Karl's career will be fine, but that assumes facts not yet in evidence and fails to address the possibility that it will. Yet these opinions are handed down as though they were writs of law, truths That Are Known, and it makes me want to gnash my teeth and retreat into bewildered, muttering misanthropy.
Tags: