I see this a lot in media criticism. People complaining about “plot holes” or something just not making sense, meanwhile it was explicitly pointed out or explained. I’d blame people being on their phones or something, but the truth isn’t that sympathetic.
A good example is Titanic where people keep saying Jack could fit on the door, despite the film showing him trying to get onto the door and almost capsizing it, so he leaves it alone to ensure Rose’s safety.
What is buoyancy?
Even if he could fit on it, calling it a plot hole still doesn’t make sense to me. I’d way sooner assume the character is just a chivalrous idiot that died for no reason, which does fit his characterisation and the plot of the movie.
Also clearly people who have never fallen out of a two person canoe/kayak and tried to get back in without tipping the whole thing over.
People weren’t on their phones when they saw the Stormtroopers let the rebels get away from the death star so they could track them, heard one rebel say “they let us get away from the death star so they can track us,” and then spent 50 years joking about how awful stormtrooper aim is
deleted by creator
Another one of my favorites: when people read between lines that aren’t there.
I said what I said, not what you heard.
Now we’re arguing about what I said even though it was 5 seconds ago.
Irl I often repeat what other people say in my own words and ask them if that’s what they believe. It both helps me understand where they’re coming from and confirm I get them
On the Internet I almost never do.
Communication is a two way street. You can be as explicit as you want but if people are trying to win an argument instead of have a discussion they’re going to misconstrue what you’re saying more often than not.
