Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cappyjon431;***730
It was an enjoyable read, but from an academic perspective it was a classic case of an author (not a a social scientist) holding a deep seated belief and then using slipshod research to support his belief and justify his thesis.
Enjoy it for what it was--a quick and entertaining beach/pool read with a smattering of interesting factual information combined with some commercial (remember "sex sells") anecdotal evidence.
|
Cappy, you nailed it. His premise was that age-segregated communities are bad for society and that people who live in them are selfish, nihilistic and uninvolved in the community. Although many people in TV volunteer for a host of causes, he didn't seek out the easy-to-find givers.
He painted TVers as pot-smoking, sexaholics who sit around and play video games, ignoring the legions who are attracted to TV for the healthful sports, recreation, learning college and clean social clubs it offers, as well as the fact that their grandchildren love to visit.
He focused on the night-life set, as if-- rather than being a minority subset-- they were the typical Villager, as if the majority don't gladly head home when the venues close at 9 p.m., tired from a vibrant day of healthy and social activity.
Although I haven't met any, I don't doubt that there are pot-smoking, sexaholic, video-game zombies living in our midst. It's no wonder that he was able to find them. That was his premise, and proving it was his mission.
Had he set out to discover the typical Villager, he wouldn't recognize the place he described.