Your thoughts on... Nerd/Geek culture of today.

[Superbeast]

+EDIT++

I think this is in line with Newclassic's nudge, it's got naff-all to do with Gamergate.

Well for one perfect example there's the "white male terrorist problem in tabletop gaming" smear job that's as laughably bad as it is ludicrous.
[video snip]
That's just what I could find within links to tabs I already had open for other materials (I'm looking through the guy's videos for his 40k related material). I didn't even need to spend 20 seconds looking this up.

Now, this doesn't speak to everything in the original "white male terrorism problem" document, however one of the major accusations in the piece is indeed true (the one about setting human rights precedent).

Article:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/taking-a-stand-against-abuse-284204591.html

Court decision:
http://www.manitobahumanrights.ca/publications/legal/garland.pdf

This is what your source labelled "she has a mental illness...she's actually crazy...As in "we the jury find the defendant" all within the opening 2 minutes of the video. Clearly said source is poorly researched - given a legal court-equivalent body explicitly did NOT find her crazy, which was part of defence against her accusations.

To head off your initial response, I am aware the same person you linked did a second follow-up video on this. I started to watch it too, to make sure I was not being uncharitable with my interpretation of his first video that you linked. It came as a complete surprise to me that, funnily enough, he disagrees with the legal findings (sarcasm).

The tagline is "Bullshit ignored is apparently bullshit legalized now!" and begins his examination with "[I would retract]...but this case is a bit different" "The kind of fucking crazy on display here" "quite a disturbing read". Also his conclusion even 5 minutes in is plain wrong - it is not the Human Rights Tribunal that sends someone to jail, that would be the Federal Court of Canada sending the sanctioned to jail for Contempt of Court for failing to comply with the Tribunal's ruling. It is also not true that it does not have to abide by ANYTHING a court otherwise does (emphasised as in the video). There is a different standard of evidence and it is a less formal setting, but it is still all done under oath, its decisions are reviewed by the Federal Court of Canada, it is chaired by a Judge, and the only places you can appeal its decisions are the Federal Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Canada - i.e. the higher courts, and (in this case) has the same authority as a standard court. For someone being as pedantic as the gentleman in the video, it is a rather major miss-step, especially as it is what he uses to deride the entire structure of tribunals and the finding throughout the rest of the 35 minute video.

++EDIT 2++

Personally, this is why I feel there are some issues in nerd culture. Even confronted with legal documentation of a specific issue someone will pump out a 35 minute video to "disprove" a court case to save face over a prior 54.5 minute video, rather than accept that there are unsavoury characters within nerd/geek spaces and that the culture does nothing to discourage their actions.

 

[Zontar]

Personally, this is why I feel there are some issues in nerd culture. Even confronted with legal documentation of a specific issue someone will pump out a 35 minute video to "disprove" a court case to save face over a prior 54.5 minute video, rather than accept that there are unsavoury characters within nerd/geek spaces and that the culture does nothing to discourage their actions.

The problem isn't that there are unsavoury characters in within nerd/geek spaces like all others without any single exception, the problem is that many from outside those spaces paint it as being exclusively so. The point remains the initial op-ed was very much filed with what cannot reasonably be considered anything reflecting reality. Either that or the person in question doesn't seem to follow basic human behavioural patterns.

The point is many people hate nerds and geeks, and are more then willing to lie, make things up and generally not be honest about how things are to make things look bad overall instead of it being the exception to the rule.

Also, I'd like to point out the Canadian Human Rights Commission is a laughing stock here. It's an organization that has been grandfathered into remaining in effect long after its purpose has become obsolete, and 90% of the time they get a job it's something that would be humours if it wasn't for the fact it's tax payer funded and despite officially being non-partisan is anything but.

 

[Superbeast]

The problem isn't that there are unsavoury characters in within nerd/geek spaces like all others without any single exception, the problem is that many from outside those spaces paint it as being exclusively so. The point remains the initial op-ed was very much filed with what cannot reasonably be considered anything reflecting reality. Either that or the person in question doesn't seem to follow basic human behavioural patterns.

Depending on the space I think there are different types of issues - some issues can transcend all sub-nerd hobbies, but in many cases problems with the computer gaming community are different to problems with the tabletop gaming community, which in turn are different to the problems in the card game community. These days I very rarely see someone from outside either a sub-hobby or general "nerd culture" comment on anything - most often it is people from within, who are then "othered" as outsiders by certain overzealous defenders.

It is hard to take the claim that "filed with what cannot reasonably be considered anything reflecting reality" seriously in light of the fact that one of the claims was tested at virtually the highest legal level. It is reasonable to be sceptical of the other claims, they experiences only provide anecdotal evidence, but it is wrong to be dismissive of them.

The point is many people hate nerds and geeks, and are more then willing to lie, make things up and generally not be honest about how things are to make things look bad overall instead of it being the exception to the rule.

I don't think they do. It seems to be less of a cause of bullying in school these days (parter is a teacher). You won't get abuse hurled at you in the street for wearing nerd-brand clothing. I no longer feel the need to conceal my nerdy hobbies (though that might just be because I'm an adult and both I and others care less about the associated social stigma than when I was a teenager many years ago).

The fact these types of things come up again and again and again, whatever the niche, indicates that there may be some sort of prevailing issue, even if it is only held by a minority of the "community". I find that a far more likely outcome than random, repeated attempts to smear the name of "nerds" for some arbitrary reason of hatred - especially when it is coming from within rather than without.

Also, I'd like to point out the Canadian Human Rights Commission is a laughing stock here. It's an organization that has been grandfathered into remaining in effect long after its purpose has become obsolete, and 90% of the time they get a job it's something that would be humours if it wasn't for the fact it's tax payer funded and despite officially being non-partisan is anything but.

I don't think sexual harassment is ever humorous, I find the general principle that justice is taxpayer funded to be admirable rather than abhorrent, and that whether it is partisan from the government or not has any bearing on the case mentioned.

 

[Zontar]

I don't think they do. It seems to be less of a cause of bullying in school these days (parter is a teacher). You won't get abuse hurled at you in the street for wearing nerd-brand clothing. I no longer feel the need to conceal my nerdy hobbies (though that might just be because I'm an adult and both I and others care less about the associated social stigma than when I was a teenager many years ago).

That doesn't change the fact that nerds and geeks, actual nerds and geeks and not people who are jumping on the nerd culture bandwagon like Wil Wheaton or Felicia Day, do have a serious problem. The media still loves portraying nerds and geeks as at best children who never grew up, and you have professionals within the news industry openly calling for bullying against nerds and geeks to put us back in our place.

Nerd culture going mainstream was something quite a few people wanted to see be made separate from nerds.

I don't think sexual harassment is ever humorous, I find the general principle that justice is taxpayer funded to be admirable rather than abhorrent, and that whether it is partisan from the government or not has any bearing on the case mentioned.

The problem is that isn't at all what the Human Right Commission does. They actually almost never even touch on sexual harassment (that almost always goes straight to the courts with no middle man). What they do most of the time is bring people in for saying something that someone (who almost always is missing exactly 33 bones) took offence to. The Canadian Human Rights Commission isn't about upholding the law, it's about trying to police society outside the framework of the constitution. Or at least that is what it has become. Which is why it has a downright abysmal rate of courts throwing out their rulings due to violating the constitution or the bill of rights.

I don't know how things are in the UK, but in Canada our HRC is only respected by two groups: themselves and the Federal Liberal Party. That's about it.

 

[GestaltEsper]

So...has geek/nerd culture ever done something positive/worth taking pride in? I'm starting to wonder why so many take up the label if no one has anything good to say about it.

 

[Zontar]

So...has geek/nerd culture ever done something positive/worth taking pride in?

Has any group that isn't doing what they do professionally done something worth taking pride in? Because outside of the very rare case of people doing charity for significant amounts of their free time I honestly can't say "yes" to any group that comes to mind.

 

[GestaltEsper]

So...has geek/nerd culture ever done something positive/worth taking pride in?

Has any group that isn't doing what they do professionally done something worth taking pride in? Because outside of the very rare case of people doing charity for significant amounts of their free time I honestly can't say "yes" to any group that comes to mind.

True, but like I said in the part you cut out, I don't get why people'd willingly indoctrinate themselves in a group where, as can be seen by this very topic, no good things can be said.

 

[Zontar]

True, but like I said in the part you cut out, I don't get why people'd willingly indoctrinate themselves in a group where, as can be seen by this very topic, no good things can be said.

Because it's not about the good or great things that are done. It's about the ability to easily find people who share your interests in the same way you do. Being a geek or a nerd is an attitude that all humans has towards something that's specifically focused on a subset of topics, and how much one immerses themselves into said topics.

It's like those people who are really obsessed with food. You know, foodies. It's a descriptor for behavioural patterns towards certain things that are used for simplicity's sake. Often they originate from outside sources (basically you don't choose to be a nerd, you're identified as one) before eventually expensing into being more then that.

 

[Jux]

So basically you don't have any evidence to contradict my observations?

...that's not really the way it works. If I say "I've observed that overwhelmingly, Trump supporters are racists and neo Nazis with about as much sense as a clam." and someone asks me to provide evidence for this observation, just reiterating "It's what I've observed" is just going into the realm of 'well that's like, my opinion bro'. It's not on him to provide evidence to disprove your assertion, this is debate 101.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

Jux, we already got a message ending the conversation [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.938029-Your-thoughts-on-Nerd-Geek-culture-of-today?page=8#23646768]. This isn't starting again because it'll probably get this thread closed.

 

[Jux]

My post has nothing to do with Quinn or gamergate though, I don't see the issue.

 

[Superbeast]

That doesn't change the fact that nerds and geeks, actual nerds and geeks and not people who are jumping on the nerd culture bandwagon like Wil Wheaton or Felicia Day, do have a serious problem. The media still loves portraying nerds and geeks as at best children who never grew up, and you have professionals within the news industry openly calling for bullying against nerds and geeks to put us back in our place.

Nerd culture going mainstream was something quite a few people wanted to see be made separate from nerds.

And this is why I dislike certain aspects of "geek/nerd culture". Will Wheaton and Felicia Day are "jumping on the cultural bandwagon"?

Will Wheaton who was a main character in Star Trek; who went to work for a company product testing computer video editing software; voice acted in cartoons, video games, sci-fi & fantasy audiobooks, and anime; has done video podcasts for the NASA rover landing and a variety of Sci-Fi cast & crew interviews; who is an avid D&D player, including playing live in front of an audience at PAX 2010, 2011 & 2012, being Dungeon Master of a series of D&D Online quests, and having a column in the D&D magazine; hosts a show about playing card, board and dice games and playing them with celebrities; has written a comic book; wrote a column for a video gaming club magazine; is just "jumping on the band wagon"? What the hell do you have to do to count as a geek or a nerd these days?

The problem is that isn't at all what the Human Right Commission does. They actually almost never even touch on sexual harassment (that almost always goes straight to the courts with no middle man). What they do most of the time is bring people in for saying something that someone (who almost always is missing exactly 33 bones) took offence to. The Canadian Human Rights Commission isn't about upholding the law, it's about trying to police society outside the framework of the constitution. Or at least that is what it has become. Which is why it has a downright abysmal rate of courts throwing out their rulings due to violating the constitution or the bill of rights.

I don't know how things are in the UK, but in Canada our HRC is only respected by two groups: themselves and the Federal Liberal Party. That's about it.

I'll take your word with a little suspicion, knowing your position on Canadian politics from threads around the time of the Canadian election, but even if what you say is entirely true, this case has never been appealed - which if it was complete bull as well as being precedent-setting I am certain a lawyer would agree to take on the appeal pro-bono/reduced rate for a major portfolio boost.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

It's funny that "Nerd culture" is designed by and marketed to people who wouldn't have a clue which end of the protractor to shove up their ass... :|

Now it's just a canard for alt-left and alt-right to try and drag bystanders into their endless shitflinging.

 

[Zontar]

What the hell do you have to do to count as a geek or a nerd these days?

Actually interacted with geeks and nerds, actually been a part of the subculture, actually not hold hostile attitudes and views towards people who are part of said culture.

Oh boy Wil Wheaton has a C.V. with a bunch of things nerds like. So do a lot of people who neither claim to be nor are seen as nerds. Maybe if he wasn't antagonistic towards nerds and geeks while claiming to be one I wouldn't have a problem with him. Though I noticed you didn't mention Felicia Day, the self proclaimed "Queen of the Nerds" who also hates nerds.

I'll take your word with a little suspicion, knowing your position on Canadian politics from threads around the time of the Canadian election, but even if what you say is entirely true, this case has never been appealed - which if it was complete bull as well as being precedent-setting I am certain a lawyer would agree to take on the appeal pro-bono/reduced rate for a major portfolio boost.

The Human Rights Tribunal doesn't have an appeal proses. The only way to get a ruling overturned is to go to a Federal court and have it judged to have been a ruling which went outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That's it. This is made worst by the fact that evidence is literally meaningless to the Tribunal as anything can be accepted or dismissed regardless of validity, and there is also the problem that while it has legal powers for fines and (if said fines are not paid) jail time, it is not bound by the rules of the judiciary, the constitution or the bill of rights.

It is a literal Kangaroo Court, and a perfect example of this is the fact that between 1977 and 2013 it has a 100% conviction rate. Are you really going to tell me that in 36 years, with countless thousands of cases, not a single one until a minor rule change in 2013 was of an innocent person? Hell, even now the conviction rate is still over 98%. Even the Japanese Judicial system doesn't have such a high rate, and that system is often criticised due to the fact it's openly built with the intent of finding someone guilty instead of being a place where justice is served.

 

[Jux]

Actually interacted with geeks and nerds, actually been a part of the subculture, actually not hold hostile attitudes and views towards people who are part of said culture.

This is exactly the sort of gatekeeping that people are railing against regarding nerd/geek culture in this very thread. Since when are nerds and geeks not allowed to criticize the aspects of their culture they feel needs changing? And who are you to unilaterally declare they're bandwagoners?

 

[Superbeast]

Actually interacted with geeks and nerds, actually been a part of the subculture, actually not hold hostile attitudes and views towards people who are part of said culture.

Oh boy Wil Wheaton has a C.V. with a bunch of things nerds like. So do a lot of people who neither claim to be nor are seen as nerds. Maybe if he wasn't antagonistic towards nerds and geeks while claiming to be one I wouldn't have a problem with him. Though I noticed you didn't mention Felicia Day, the self proclaimed "Queen of the Nerds" who also hates nerds.

So none of his comics work, outreach work, playing computer games, D&D, board, card and dice games with the community count all of a sudden? This is gatekeeping of the highest order, and complete bullshit and perfectly highlights one of the flaws of geek/nerd culture - that because you personally don't like someone, instead of saying "they're an arsehole and I don't like them", you default to "they're not a true geek/nerd so I don't/no-one should like them".

I can go into Felicia Day too if you like, I figured the wall of Will Wheaton's nerdy interests would have been sufficient to show the baseless nature of your claims and so I didn't need to bring her into it too.

The Human Rights Tribunal doesn't have an appeal proses. The only way to get a ruling overturned is to go to a Federal court and have it judged to have been a ruling which went outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. That's it. This is made worst by the fact that evidence is literally meaningless to the Tribunal as anything can be accepted or dismissed regardless of validity, and there is also the problem that while it has legal powers for fines and (if said fines are not paid) jail time, it is not bound by the rules of the judiciary, the constitution or the bill of rights.

According to the information I was reading yesterday, the judgement (and you can query the judgement on procedural grounds of scope) can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals, or to the Supreme Court of Canada. That sounds like an appeals process to me.

I also read that it is bound by many rules that apply to the judiciary - not all, and it is more informal - but all information is given under oath with the same penalties for lying under oath in court, and the Tribunal's decision has to be within the bounds of the legal framework of the Human Rights

The Tribunal has no power of jail time. The only way to get someone sent to jail, is if the Tribunal then takes the sanctioned to the Federal Courts, wherein the Federal Judge can send the sanctioned to jail for Contempt of Court.

It is a literal Kangaroo Court, and a perfect example of this is the fact that between 1977 and 2013 it has a 100% conviction rate. Are you really going to tell me that in 36 years, with countless thousands of cases, not a single one until a minor rule change in 2013 was of an innocent person? Hell, even now the conviction rate is still over 98%. Even the Japanese Judicial system doesn't have such a high rate, and that system is often criticised due to the fact it's openly built with the intent of finding someone guilty instead of being a place where justice is served.

I would want to investigate this claim before commenting, and I'm tired.

However, I note you're still arguing procedure and not the fact that the events you think are untrue (especially given that source you linked), one of them is provably true. I also note that this last paragraph is a tad irrelevant as a response as I raised the lack of appeal - any appeal, be it scope of jurisdiction, being outside the constitution etc. - which would surely be even easier to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of Canada if this Tribunal's actions are so baseless.

 

[Zontar]

This is exactly the sort of gatekeeping that people are railing against regarding nerd/geek culture in this very thread. Since when are nerds and geeks not allowed to criticize the aspects of their culture they feel needs changing?

That's a pretty odd question to ask given that doesn't relate at all in any way, shape or form to the topic at hand. There's a difference between gatekeeping and observing that someone who has complete hostility towards a group which they also claim to be a part of while not actually acting as a part of said group... is not a part of said group.

If being a nerd was only liking typical nerd works, it would have gone mainstream 30 years before it actually did. There's no gatekeeping in saying someone who is hostile (not critical, hostile) towards a group is not a part of said group.

So none of his comics work, outreach work, playing computer games, D&D, board, card and dice games with the community count all of a sudden? This is gatekeeping of the highest order, and complete bullshit and perfectly highlights one of the flaws of geek/nerd culture - that because you personally don't like someone, instead of saying "they're an arsehole and I don't like them", you default to "they're not a true geek/nerd so I don't/no-one should like them".

I can go into Felicia Day too if you like, I figured the wall of Will Wheaton's nerdy interests would have been sufficient to show the baseless nature of your claims and so I didn't need to bring her into it too.

I'll make a note of it to remember that in the 70s and 80s every single person who liked Star Wars and Star Trek was a nerd. Wait, that's not how it works, and neither is simply making or consuming a few works that nerds like make it so either.

There's more to being a nerd then liking specific works, and there's certainly nothing about being a nerd that involved being hostile towards nerds in general. He's a lot like The Big Bang Theory (ironically enough) in regards to something that the mainstream thinks of as a nerd that nerds actually don't view as such.

I'll say one positive thing about him though: while he's hostile towards nerds, at least he didn't have the audacity to call for nerds to be bullied and put back in their place like the writers at Gawker did.

According to the information I was reading yesterday, the judgement (and you can query the judgement on procedural grounds) can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals, or to the Supreme Court of Canada. That sounds like an appeals process to me.

In theory yes, in practice the Appeals court will only rule on it if the verdict was a case of judicial overreach, and the Supreme Court of Canada has not seen a single case yet.

I also read that it is bound by many rules that apply to the judiciary - not all, and it is more informal - but all information is given under oath with the same penalties for lying under oath in court, and the Tribunal's decision has to be within the bounds of the legal framework of the Human Rights

But not within the legal framework of Canada's constitution or bill of rights, and the legal framework for Canada's Human Rights is not as well defined.

The Tribunal has no power of jail time. The only way to get someone sent to jail, is if the Tribunal then takes the sanctioned to the Federal Courts, wherein the Federal Judge can send the sanctioned to jail for Contempt of Court.

That is only half correct. If someone refuses to pay the fins they've been given, they will go to jail. Now this rarely happens as the amount of money being demanded isn't enough to constitute getting jail time and a record worth the cost, but it does happen once in a blue moon that someone refuses to pay.

However, I note you're still arguing procedure and not the fact that the events you think are untrue (especially given that source you linked), one of them is provably true. I also note that this last paragraph is a tad irrelevant as a response as I raised the lack of appeal - any appeal, be it scope of jurisdiction, being outside the constitution etc. - which would surely be even easier to appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals or Supreme Court of Canada if this Tribunal's actions are so baseless.

Here's the problem though, the cost makes it prohibitive for someone to even appeal a decision unless it's on principle. Despite there being no one who publicly supports this part of the Tribunal: defendants do not have their legal council provided. It's all, 100%, out of pocket, while the plaintiff is the one who has a state supported legal council. With how much this costs, the fact that the assured guilty verdict is often less then an 8000$ fine, and the appeal also costs the defendant out of pocket to go through the proses, the only times people tend to attempt an appeal is either when they get a rare fine that makes attempting to do so worth it, or if they don't care about the money and are doing it on principle.

This problem would be much easier to deal with if the Tribunal was actually a proper part of the judicial system and followed ALL the rules legal entities in this country are supposed to, but that is not the case and until the day someone forces the Supreme Court to actually do something about it that isn't going to change.

 

[LawAndChaos]

This is exactly the sort of gatekeeping that people are railing against regarding nerd/geek culture in this very thread. Since when are nerds and geeks not allowed to criticize the aspects of their culture they feel needs changing? And who are you to unilaterally declare they're bandwagoners?

You know this has come up again and again and again.

"Why are you against criticism?" is frequently brought up when someone makes the claim of hostility, in particular nowadays towards "nerd culture" stuff.

When there are groups that are overtly hostile towards the "nerd culture" and "nerdy things" it's always translated as "criticism."
Like how apparently the gaming industry has a huge problem with women, and when people say 'god I'm so tired of all this' the immediate response is "what's wrong with criticism? These are things that should be addressed."

Over, and over, and over again.

Even those who would take a stance that is inherently dishonest (sweeping generalizations and stereotyping in particular) are just "criticizing the problems that are clearly there, why are you against criticism?"

This seems to be a very common statement.

What I think is being stated here is that those who are clearly hostile towards the group they claim to associate with are doing so purely for lip service, and therefore should not be considered a part of that group, since they clearly do not consider their peers within that community to be peers, but instead something to be sneered at or looked down upon.

Like critics who base their criticism on intellectual dishonesty or bold-faced lies, while at the same time claiming to be "one of you guys, I just want to make everything better for all of us."

Not making an argument, just making, I dunno, clarification, I guess?
I'm trying not to go too deep into this rabbit hole, I think that nerdy stuff is either on its way back to the fringes or becoming washed of its color until it becomes the flavorless gruel everyone craves nowadays, so I'll continue to stew in my nihilism and despair while everyone else can hash it out.

 

[Jux]

What I think is being stated here is that those who are clearly hostile towards the group they claim to associate with are doing so purely for lip service, and therefore should not be considered a part of that group, since they clearly do not consider their peers within that community to be peers, but instead something to be sneered at or looked down upon.

Which hasn't been demonstrated in the least regarding Wheaton or Day. As Superbeast said, people can say 'Yea, I think Weaton is an asshole, I don't like him' without trying to delegitimize his nerd cred and play gatekeeper.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Which hasn't been demonstrated in the least regarding Wheaton or Day. As Superbeast said, people can say 'Yea, I think Weaton is an asshole, I don't like him' without trying to delegitimize his nerd cred and play gatekeeper.

You suuuuuuuuuuuuure?

And technically Weaton is just an actor. He does what he does professionally, so whether or not you want to make the claim that his career is his passion, well, as you like. Whether or not he's a nerd, well I don't know the guy well enough.
I'm conceding either way cuz like I said, I was kinda just clarifying, not making an argument, and I'm not about to start googling.

I've already accepted the fate of nerd culture and it's inevitable decline into rice gruel, so there's not much of a point to argue what problems things have, since it's already been declared a problem as a whole in need of massive fixing, with those fixes being 1:1 male/female ratios, the destruction of fan-service as a whole, and so on. In the end it's just something I always had trouble accepting, since it seems illusory and the cases of it isolated, but I've come to view it as inevitable at this point, so I'll be bowing out.

If there's any discussion to be had, I'll have it through PMs, and not clutter up this discussion with my own.