You're viewing a single thread.
He always strikes me as having become burnt out on actually being a communicator, because he's constantly having to cover and recover the same stuff over and over again, and the only times where he's genuinely having a good time is instances when someone like Stephen Colbert can come out and hit him with an angle he wasn't expecting or that could explain something he had a beef with.
Because it seems like he's just flat exhausted with everyone else just yelling "suspension of disbelief" at him whenever he tries to talk about the actual science of what's going on in media like it's some sort of "The Power of Christ Compels You!" chant to make him shut up about something he's passionate about.
Like sometimes it just looks like people are hating on the guy for engaging with media in a way they don't like.
Like sometimes it just looks like people are hating on the guy for engaging with media in a way they don’t like.
Specifically, he's engaging the public about media in ways they don't like. Nobody would give a shit if he just did it with friends or whatever. Turns out being a public facing "um, actually..." guy about fictional bs isn't a very popular role. Big shocker there.
And? Is there actually anything wrong with it? Is the media he's talking about so shit that an um ackshually is enough to knock it over for people?
It's not morally or ethically wrong; but it's not funny and is well past being annoying. He could state real scientific facts without being a condescending "um, actually..." nerd and then it wouldn't be taken so negatively. Or even just changing from fiction to pointing out inaccuracies in news headlines.
You're missing the point. He's a celebrity that is mostly known for doing a thing most people find annoying. He's gonna get shit for that because most people don't like it. That's all there is to it. Whether he's "right" or they're "wrong" doesn't matter.
I agree about right or wrong not mattering, what I'm saying is that it's only annoying if being reminded that orbital mechanics doesn't work like that is akin to being told for the first time that Santa isn't real.
You clearly don't mind it. Many others clearly do. Turns out what people are annoyed by is incredibly subjective.
What's "suspension of disbelief"?
The amount of bullshit a story expects you to just accept to be able to follow its logic and plot points.
For example, Harry Potter expects its readers to just ignore that magic is physically impossible and that a world like what Rowling describes would have WILD implications for the course of human history that would render notions like "The United Kingdom" and "Trains" and the like probably non-existent in favor of a society that better reflects what those forces would shape the world as.
The biggest suspension of disbelief that HP expects of us is that racism, slavery, antisemitism, torture, ableism, poverty and much, much more are all things we should just accept from a society filled with people that can literally play god.
Accepting that the reality of a story is as described. Magic is real? Sure. FTL? Sure. The colour red makes you fart? Yeah why not? For the sake of the story, I Believe.
BUT the term often gets hijacked by rabid fans trying to justify plot holes, self-contradictions, and nonsensical gobilygook. Suspension of disbelief doesn’t mean I should also suspend all semblance of reason, unless of course there’s a clearly established in-universe justification for doing so.