Re: OP
Um, No, Bob.
I mean it would be great if it were true that we, the once-oppressed geeks now have the power to change society via the influence of our mighty culture. As one who was a geek in the 80s when the pre-Revenge-of-the-Nerds portrayals of us were either the comic relief or the psychopathic bad-guy, I would very much like to say we won. As it is I personally consider myself one of the custodians of social equality, regardless of what power I have, because I really don't want anyone else to have to endure the bullshit I experienced. As one who's (still white, male, cis-gendered but also) atheist and crazy[footnote]Major depression. Diagnosed. Lived with it all my life. It's called anaclitic depression when I'm trying to impress someone with fancy words.[/footnote], the national mainstream of the US still has plenty of inclination to marginalize me and my kind. But here are the things:
Firstly, the geeks haven't won yet on account of the media focusing on our interests, any more than the glass ceiling is gone for blacks on account that Obama is president. Exhibit A in this case is the SOPA hearings in the House of Representatives last year. Not only were tech and internet interests (and public interests) excluded save for one brave Google lawyer, but practically everyone in the House was desperate to qualify "Well I ain't no nerd" as if being tech savvy automatically made you one of the geeks, and as if having such knowledge was a disgraceful trait. We geeks are still the intellectual weirdos, partly due to an anti-intellectualist movement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism] within conservative ideology (which is a topic of its own).
Exhibit B is the homogenization that is occurring to many of the intellectual properties that are being featured as part of geek culture. The new Star Trek movies are hardly Star Trek, the character studies, futurist exploration and ethical dilemmas as we knew and loved from from TOS and TNG[footnote]I have to rely on the reviews, including yours, for the second one. I haven't seen it yet, and given what the consensus was, I have little reason to bother.[/footnote](which is what I was hoping to see by number two of the reboot). Rather, they were action movies with Star Trek hallmarks, much the way that the new Tomb Raider was a cover shooter featuring Lara Croft (and I expect Thief to be a shooter featuring Garret). The IPs are from geek culture, but the releases themselves are targeted more towards a less-intellectual mainstream. And that's because...
And secondly, the people participating in the geek culture is not the geeks, it's the old jockish (at least jock-sympathetic) mainstream. Originally, only a small select set of computer users played games, and now almost everyone has a console in-house. Everyone plays games. But this is not because there was a sudden population explosion of geek (If only! Cloning.), but because games are able to appeal more to the mainstream. The same with superhero comics. The same with science fiction and fantasy movies (that is movies with sci-fi and fantasy hallmarks), and with all these people comes the usual fare of human behavior, including bigotry, misogyny, brutality and belligerence. You are correct in assuming that geeks are subject to the same human foibles as anyone else, but to depend on us and the power of our culture to change human behavior is overly idealistic. Look at the beatifications, allegedly the core of Jesus message, and then look at how often those are actually referenced when someone does something or says something in Jesus' name. Jesus was the king of culture and yet he was only able to influence things so far.
Our tendency towards indiscriminate jackassery is (so the current sociological explanations go) due to specific instincts that we have, one of which is to divide ourselves into small groups. We're not into being a citizen of the world or even an American or a Bostonian (San Franciscan, myself) but we identify our fellows by faith, political ideology, sports team, hobby group, street name and so on until there's less than a hundred people in our tight little band, and at that hunter-gatherer level, we have the tendency to feel all the other people (if one would call them that) must die for being abominable and deviant.
Our ambition of a pluralistic and tolerant society is not impossible. But we're still figuring out the particulars behind how to affect such change. Granted, lots of power is to be had through divisive ideologies, and those who are so profiting are going to fight with every last bit of strength and money to keep their cash cows. But we're better at sustaining large pluralities now than ever before, and we can expect this trend to continue.
238U