Does the classification of "Geek" mean anything any more?
There's still a vital sub-culture here that hasn't been fully absorbed by mainstream
32.4% (12)
32.4% (12)
Not as much as it once did. Our properties have been taken by so many others that they lost some meaning
45.9% (17)
45.9% (17)
No. Too much has been absorbed by others that the classification is now meaningless
21.6% (8)
21.6% (8)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Does the classification of "Geek" mean anything any more? Bonus Question: Do you resemble a "Geek"?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Addendum_Forthcoming:

FalloutJack:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

Then, I think we're on similar wavelengths here. The trend we're noting here is not one that we like, clearly. There is a case of trying to classify that which is entertaining (ALOT of what is entertaining, in fact) as geek, but it's not. It's some kind of disingenuous PC shift, and I don't like it because everyone tries to shove you into the hole. And I have a feeling that you are saying this is just as bad as all the people who call screeching rage-o-holics autistics, when I'm the genuine article and am eloquent enough in conversation. It just isn't right.

Kind of? Personally I'm just annoyed that the self-awareness is lacking. The 'geek divide' is no less tribalistic than rival FC pubs having a brawl before a gsme. It's an outlet of both belonging to nothing in particular and the capacity of diminishing personal ownership of wilful tribalistic instincts you give in to.

What is fashionable is merely class hierarchy of consumption. And how many people in this thresd who describe thrmselves as being, somehow, 'physically geek'? Or 'looking normal'... and yet a 'geek'? Or have pretended geek has some fucking transcendental 'core' ... yet, like Kant's perfect will, they can't fucking show me.

People should grow up rather than kid themselves.

Wait, that happens before a game? I thought it was after, or possibly during.

Anyway, since when have people demonstrated a great self-awareness at large? I'm fairly certain that alot of people would be very different if they were aware of how much of a dingus they can be. I mean, look at Kim Jong Un, whose haircut matches his personality.[1] If he got just a little real perspective, he'd be so speechless that it would be 20% quieter in North Korea.

[1] As in, extremely rigid and terrible.

Dreiko:

The distinction is entirely on whether this encyclopedic knowledge is obtained purely out of voluntary love or as a necessity.

If you learn those 2000 names as a means to an end because you wanna achieve something outside of knowing them, be it to get a diploma or to understand history or what have you, you are using them as a means to an end, as a tool. So, yeah, that's not a geek.

If some random person who isn't "getting payed" somehow through this endeavor, still learns them, out of pure unadulterated passion, for no reason other than his love for historical names or what have you, divorced from other contexts, not as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself, then that person is indeed a geek.

Geekness entails selfless love and passion for something you have encyclopedic knowledge about, not just purely having this knowledge.

It's cute you think your average researcher get paid anything meaningful. I know post-docs in the sciences who are tossing up living in their cars.

I see what you're doing here, but let me rephrase why I think it's wrong.

One: "I do plenty of things I like without pay."

Two: "That if you don't have a love of history or historiography, you won't be good at it."

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Dreiko:

The distinction is entirely on whether this encyclopedic knowledge is obtained purely out of voluntary love or as a necessity.

If you learn those 2000 names as a means to an end because you wanna achieve something outside of knowing them, be it to get a diploma or to understand history or what have you, you are using them as a means to an end, as a tool. So, yeah, that's not a geek.

If some random person who isn't "getting payed" somehow through this endeavor, still learns them, out of pure unadulterated passion, for no reason other than his love for historical names or what have you, divorced from other contexts, not as a means to an end but as an end in and of itself, then that person is indeed a geek.

Geekness entails selfless love and passion for something you have encyclopedic knowledge about, not just purely having this knowledge.

It's cute you think your average researcher get paid anything meaningful. I know post-docs in the sciences who are tossing up living in their cars.

I see what you're doing here, but let me rephrase why I think it's wrong.

One: "I do plenty of things I like without pay."

Two: "That if you don't have a love of history or historiography, you won't be good at it."

No, no, I didn't mean literally earning money, this is why I put it in quotation marks. It's a term referring to anything outside of the joy of knowing this thing for the sake of knowing it and how fun it is to know it and that stuff. Earning a diploma or something else is within the definition of using that knowledge as a means to an end.

Anyhow, the point I was making is that it's the combination of both having encyclopedic knowledge and having this knowledge as an end in-and-of-itself that makes the activity into a geeky one.

Everyone does casual stuff they like without getting payed but seldom do they go as in-depth as one would to get a diploma, hence they're not geeky.

As for your point regarding being good at it or not, well, you certainly do need a modicum of love for your job to do it well no matter what it is, so I kinda guessed at that. I am not against letting people who work at their fields claim geekhood if they so choose. It's just that typically most people in academia tend to learn stuff cause they have to, at least in part. If they truly love every single paper they ever need to read to graduate, then props to them, but I don't think that's the most common of occurrences.

FalloutJack:

Wait, that happens before a game? I thought it was after, or possibly during.

I'm not discounting the possibility of all three after what I saw as a kid, tbh. I'm not sure how their stadiums stand up to the abuse. They practically have to corral them into the stadium to keep the two groups separated on a scale I haven't seen since the stockyard autions in rural Australia. It's like watching tens of thousands of sheep passing wash trough lines before going to the abattoir.

...Only more blood.

It's amazing the ways we want to inspire utterly irrational hatred of what are ostensibly neighbours.

The thing is Australia is a 'sporting nation' and we never have problems like the UK do despite practically having the same cultural background and constitution. The only real difference is having less Protesta--oooooh.

Nvm, I'll leave that in WW! :3

Anyway, since when have people demonstrated a great self-awareness at large? I'm fairly certain that alot of people would be very different if they were aware of how much of a dingus they can be. I mean, look at Kim Jong Un, whose haircut matches his personality.[1] If he got just a little real perspective, he'd be so speechless that it would be 20% quieter in North Korea.

True enough. Honestly, as a board gamer predominantly I'm utterly fine with "geek" of that type of thing is going 'mainstream'. No board gamer who is not an arsehole I've met is complaining about our quickly growing numbers. The only people complaining are those douchebag gamers saying how 'feminazis are taking away our games because they're saying I shouldn't be mouthing off bigoted bullshit to other players to throw them off during tournaments' crowd.

Fuck those wankers. The less of them, the more people that will play in tournaments. And basically even WotC picked up on that, given how numerous competitors to the former near monopoly on the tournament scene have risen, and the sudden massive popularity of competitors like Netrunner who wisely thought; "Hey, instead of driving away customers and fans, maybe we should keep the people that actually make the atmosphere fun?"

I like having more people to have fun with.

Alien concept, I know.

Dreiko:

No, no, I didn't mean literally earning money, this is why I put it in quotation marks. It's a term referring to anything outside of the joy of knowing this thing for the sake of knowing it and how fun it is to know it and that stuff. Earning a diploma or something else is within the definition of using that knowledge as a means to an end.

Anyhow, the point I was making is that it's the combination of both having encyclopedic knowledge and having this knowledge as an end in-and-of-itself that makes the activity into a geeky one.

That's kind of a silly description, however. I went for a trip major in History, Psychology, Sociology in my first degree for a reason. I liked all those things. I got multiple jobs in/implementing all three of those things I learnt. History is not about having an encyclopaedic knowledge. As I said before, I prefer historiography to history. The schools of thought, mechanics and the philosophy behind academic history writing.

I have the tools to dissect a topic through what I learnt and expand upon it in an academic fashion suitable for things like academic journal articles. Doesn't inform me that I "simply know a lot about something" ... I've written large essays on the history of historiography. How they alter academic writings of a time and place, how they are influenced by sociological factors of a time or place.

Does that sound like someone who doesn't like history? Moreover, just how well do you think someone who doesn't like history will put up with doing that?

I understand the concept of studying something for a job ... but not specifically studying something you dislike or have no inclination towards solely for a job.

I like history. I am really good at writing about it academically. I am gifted at approaching the same topic from multiple historiographical approaches to reveal multiple aspects of that topic that might not otherwise be considered or contemplated in academia. That seems pretty 'geek' to me by your description, but honestly I'm an intellectual lightweight compared to the academic calibre of some people I have met. That's the cold, honest truth.

But then again, like any academic pursuit, the pursuit of knowledge itself is lifelong and one full of humility.

One of the reasons why I like history is precisely because it's a lifelong dedication that lay its worth on the fundamentals of information transfer, meaningfulness and how it relates to the human being the ever-growing past. The purpose of history and how it might shape opinion, and deals with fantastically difficult concepts such as the impossibility of truth, requiring infinite regression and (re)examination. You have a duty to truth, but due to even the language that you write it in must colour the perception of it as future generations absorb your works through a very different sociological environment.

That interests me. Because humans are infinitely interesting. How is that meaningfully different from being a 'geek' yet not fundamental to being a historian?

[1] As in, extremely rigid and terrible.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

People should grow up rather than kid themselves.

Hey now, being a perpetual manchild is the new orange.

McElroy:
Hey now, being a perpetual manchild is the new orange.

I'd agree if it wasn't always the case that there was a certain degree of 'manchildness' that has always been there.

Ultimately whatever 'mainstreaming' there is is precisely because the internet is showing us how you can like """geek""" things and they're not just for arseholes. Or that it's quite okay to be a woman, or LGBTQ, or not wear sandals everywhere, and still be a 'gamer' and go to tournaments, and be socially functional.

So lo and behold more people experience them, and like them, and form weekly board gaming groups. Like accountants, and shop assistants, and teachers, and uni students, and kids, and all sorts of people can somehow manage to sit at a table, game with someone, and not be manchildren.

To put it plainly, board gamers who game a lot as one of their primary social activities are essentially any person that has at least a minor speck of the control freak. Because they have activities built on rules that require participation and teamwork, and lying to the faces of your friends, family, partners, and possibly even your kids and manipulating them as part of the mechanics and do it well (Like any of the Resistance games as their near solitary mechanic). But beyond that, the average board gamer you meet and see in person or online is not the stereotypical that guy or that girl that somehow drains fun out of the room and is a comedy fascist.

They introduce people to board gaming, and they have fun and they allow others to have fun, and everybody remembers having fun. And there's nothing wrong with that going 'mainstream'.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here