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

[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.

 

[Superbeast]

snip

You know what, I can't be bothered given your insistence that Will Wheaton is not a nerd/geek - which by the way is also saying I'm not a geek, given I have done far less geeky pursuits than Will has and I also criticise aspects of nerd culture. In fact, given SJWs are a part of geek/nerd culture now for better or worse, you rail on them pretty hard, so by I guess you are hostile toward a community you claim to be a part of now too, just like Wheaton, so you're no longer a geek no matter what your interests are either!

You're also avoiding the substance of the point about the case I brought up to keep focusing on hypothetical procedure rather than actual events.

Clearly this discussion is going to go nowhere and is just going to frustrate the both of us - at the very least it's frustrating the hell out of me. Good day.

 

[Jux]

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?

Am I sure about what? That that hasn't been demonstrated about Wheaton or Day? In so far as this thread goes, yea.

And technically Weaton is just an actor.

I didn't know 'nerd' and 'geek' were professions. I'm not sure what him being 'just an actor' (seriously, did you even read the stuff Superbeast wrote on Wheaton?) has to do with him being a nerd or geek.

Technically I'm just an operator in a power plant, at least professionally. How I pay my bills though doesn't have much if anything to do with my passions.

If ya want to stop here, by all means, don't feel the need to respond, but I prefer to keep my debates public.

 

[LawAndChaos]

Am I sure about what? That that hasn't been demonstrated about Wheaton or Day? In so far as this thread goes, yea.

*sigh* Alright, fine.

I was mostly just being facetious (I think that's the word).

I mean, I know for a fact Wheaton is a Sarkeesian supporter, insofar as he acknowledges she's good for the game industry and is an influential part of it (and ain't that the truth), but like I said, I'm not really arguing for anything pertaining to Wheaton, but initially I was just pointing out the flawed reasoning behind "all vitriol towards nerds and stuff is just critique" since it seemed like that was the direction the discussion was heading.

I didn't know 'nerd' and 'geek' were professions. I'm not sure what him being 'just an actor' (seriously, did you even read the stuff Superbeast wrote on Wheaton?) has to do with him being a nerd or geek.

I'm not pointing out that nerd and geek were professions. In fact you point it out yourself later in the comment.

Technically I'm just an operator in a power plant, at least professionally. How I pay my bills though doesn't have much if anything to do with my passions.

This is what I was basically saying. I feel that using his career is a poor illustration of his passions. The other "nerd cred" stuff that was listed is all fine and good, since I highly doubt he's getting any monetary gain out of it...maybe.

So apologies if I didn't type it out right. Not good with that whole conveyance thing.

Like I said, I wasn't really arguing anything. Just clarifying that not all vitriol is criticism, which is where the discussion looked like it was heading (and a direction I have seen multiple times where the offense-taking axe-grinders come out and lambast how there are so many problems in [x] and then when everyone else thinks it's not worth having long winded arguments over, the common rebuttal is "oh it's just criticism, there's nothing wrong with that")

If ya want to stop here, by all means, don't feel the need to respond, but I prefer to keep my debates public.

Part of it is just the fact that I've accepted the inevitable, so I'm not too keen on digging the holes, due to the fact that there's nothing in gaming communities nowadays but negativity from everything, and the gradual pressure of prudish Western society leading to a very slow but inevitable decline in entertainment media.

 

[Jux]

...but initially I was just pointing out the flawed reasoning behind "all vitriol towards nerds and stuff is just critique" since it seemed like that was the direction the discussion was heading.

Well that's fine, but that wasn't the argument I was making in the first place. 'All' never factored into my point. My point was, and is, that there are a lot of self appointed gatekeepers of nerd/geek culture and that Zontar accusing Wheaton and Day of bandwagoning is a perfect example of that.

It kinda merits examining critique on an individual basis to determine whether or not it's just vitriol being spewed for the sake of it, or if the critique is based on a real desire to improve the culture. I personally feel the former is dwarfed by the latter, if only because it doesn't make much sense for an outsider with no stake in the culture to care enough to pretend to be on the inside just to spew vitriol.

 

[Zontar]

My point was, and is, that there are a lot of self appointed gatekeepers of nerd/geek culture and that Zontar accusing Wheaton and Day of bandwagoning is a perfect example of that.

Hey, if they're going to claim to be nerds (and in one case, the "Queen" of nerds) they're going to have to do a lot more then find ways of making money to convince me. Especially since both are openly hostile towards nerds when they come face to face with them. Until now, neither has done anything to warrant such belief that they are, in fact, nerds, and quite a bit to make one believe otherwise.

It's also ironic you complain about gatekeeping on my part. Last time I checked one of the biggest problems with nerd culture is the fact there's a (thankfully disorganized and done by incompetents) effort to drive nerds out of nerd culture.

Personally I can't wait for something else to take over consumer culture, because the sooner it happens the sooner these type of people will focus on something else and let nerd culture get back to being the way it was before we got into this odd state where things nerds like are popular but nerds are still social pariahs who get all society's problems blamed on by those who aren't blaming them on immigrants.

 

[Erttheking]

^This.

It's 9 pages of people messily appropriating a culture they're not equipped to understand, so they've just relabeled their existing consumer culture. I guess it's more appealing to think of social issues and obsessive interests in terms of "Nerd", but unless you have the intelligence to back it up, fuck off.

YEAH! If you don't bite the heads off chickens you can't call yourself a geek! And unless your IQ is a specific unspoken digit, you don't get to call yourself a nerd!
Yeah! Arbitrary and completely moronic rules!

If you're not intelligent, and interested in "nerdy" pursuits, you're not a nerd. You can call yourself one, but then, you can call yourself an apricot if you really want to. Both ways, you'll sound absolutely ridiculous. Getting huffy about it doesn't help your case.

Enlighten me. What IQ is required to be a nerd? 120? 130? At what point do you qualify? Is there a test I can take? I'm just wondering, because the gatekeeping rules around nerds seem to change every three seconds.

 

[Erttheking]

^This.

It's 9 pages of people messily appropriating a culture they're not equipped to understand, so they've just relabeled their existing consumer culture. I guess it's more appealing to think of social issues and obsessive interests in terms of "Nerd", but unless you have the intelligence to back it up, fuck off.

YEAH! If you don't bite the heads off chickens you can't call yourself a geek! And unless your IQ is a specific unspoken digit, you don't get to call yourself a nerd!
Yeah! Arbitrary and completely moronic rules!

If you're not intelligent, and interested in "nerdy" pursuits, you're not a nerd. You can call yourself one, but then, you can call yourself an apricot if you really want to. Both ways, you'll sound absolutely ridiculous. Getting huffy about it doesn't help your case.

Enlighten me. What IQ is required to be a nerd? 120? 130? At what point do you qualify? Is there a test I can take? I'm just wondering, because the gatekeeping rules around nerds seem to change every three seconds.

It really helps if you're at least smart enough to know the difference between "gatekeeping" and a definition.

That's not an answer. Please answer my question directly. Or is that the only qualifier.

Also the definition of nerd is "Nerd is a descriptive term, often used pejoratively, indicating that a person is overly intellectual, obsessive, or lacking social skills." So you seemed to have missed a few qualifiers. Plus there's the fact that there's the official definition of words and the unofficial definition of words, and the unofficial definition of nerd is something that varies from person to person. And to be perfectly frank, people were never using the official definition of nerd anyway.

So it doesn't matter. Your definition isn't correct. Oh and let's not pretend "If you're not X you're not Y" isn't gatekeeping. That's a textbook example of it.

 

[Erttheking]

^This.

It's 9 pages of people messily appropriating a culture they're not equipped to understand, so they've just relabeled their existing consumer culture. I guess it's more appealing to think of social issues and obsessive interests in terms of "Nerd", but unless you have the intelligence to back it up, fuck off.

YEAH! If you don't bite the heads off chickens you can't call yourself a geek! And unless your IQ is a specific unspoken digit, you don't get to call yourself a nerd!
Yeah! Arbitrary and completely moronic rules!

If you're not intelligent, and interested in "nerdy" pursuits, you're not a nerd. You can call yourself one, but then, you can call yourself an apricot if you really want to. Both ways, you'll sound absolutely ridiculous. Getting huffy about it doesn't help your case.

Enlighten me. What IQ is required to be a nerd? 120? 130? At what point do you qualify? Is there a test I can take? I'm just wondering, because the gatekeeping rules around nerds seem to change every three seconds.

It really helps if you're at least smart enough to know the difference between "gatekeeping" and a definition.

That's not an answer. Please answer my question directly.

This isn't a high school debate, I gave you the answer you deserved. I've read nine pages of people who (to be blunt) are really CLEARLY no one's idea of a "nerd", try to cling to "Nerd/Geek Culture" like it's a real thing.

Nerds are a real thing, and have been for a long time. 'Revenge of The Nerds' though, wasn't about a bunch of people like 99% of you on this site. Not even close. Maybe the social lives have some parallels, but do you think you're part of the brightest group "in the school?" Really?

I've read 9 pages, and it hasn't been bright.

If you're going to be like that and not give answers, why even bother replying to me in the first place? Hey, I don't even like nerd culture that much. I'm sick of everyone having inflexible definitions of nerds. The problem is that you're doing the exact same thing. Same animal, different skin.

Definitions of words change. When I say something is purpled, I do not mean it is being stained with blood. Because that's what it used to mean. Nerd has changed very much. In the same way that a certain N-word was used as an insult, people have been making movements to reclaim the word that was meant as an insult to them. Oh, and you don't know what people on this website are like. You can't get a 100% accurate take on them just via forum posts. What's more, your original definition of nerd was inaccurate in the first place.

See, here's the problem. You're saying that people aren't nerds based a definition that no one really uses anymore. That definition of the word nerd? It's dead. So yeah. I really dislike where nerd culture is now...but we're all nerds. No changing that, no matter how many definitions you put up.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I tried to keep it simple and say that the unofficial term was used and couldn't be pinned down. You didn't respond to it. Don't blame me for feeling that a more in depth explanation was needed

Hm...No. Geek culture has a lot of problems with it. But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time. The dictionary says otherwise? People don't care what the dictionary says, they assign their own meanings to words. It's why literally is basically it's own antonym now. You can say that nerd only exists to scorn, common use of the word begs to differ, no amount of pulling up definitions will change that.

 

[Terminal Marque]

Snip

I tried to keep it simple and say that the unofficial term was used and couldn't be pinned down. You didn't respond to it. Don't blame me for feeling that a more in depth explanation was needed

Hm...No. Geek culture has a lot of problems with it. But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time. The dictionary says otherwise? People don't care what the dictionary says, they assign their own meanings to words. It's why literally is basically it's own antonym now. You can say that nerd only exists to scorn, common use of the word begs to differ, no amount of pulling up definitions will change that.

Nerds aren't an object of ridicule? Rich, successful nerds, sure, but you can just append any noun after "Rich, successful" and get the same result.

Ree: Caitlyn Jenner.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I tried to keep it simple and say that the unofficial term was used and couldn't be pinned down. You didn't respond to it. Don't blame me for feeling that a more in depth explanation was needed

Hm...No. Geek culture has a lot of problems with it. But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time. The dictionary says otherwise? People don't care what the dictionary says, they assign their own meanings to words. It's why literally is basically it's own antonym now. You can say that nerd only exists to scorn, common use of the word begs to differ, no amount of pulling up definitions will change that.

Nerds aren't an object of ridicule? Rich, successful nerds, sure, but you can just append any noun after "Rich, successful" and get the same result.

Ree: Caitlyn Jenner.

Nowhere where they used to be. And to be perfectly frank I find that nerds do more horrible things to other nerds than people outside the group ever do.

 

[Terminal Marque]

Snip

I tried to keep it simple and say that the unofficial term was used and couldn't be pinned down. You didn't respond to it. Don't blame me for feeling that a more in depth explanation was needed

Hm...No. Geek culture has a lot of problems with it. But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time. The dictionary says otherwise? People don't care what the dictionary says, they assign their own meanings to words. It's why literally is basically it's own antonym now. You can say that nerd only exists to scorn, common use of the word begs to differ, no amount of pulling up definitions will change that.

Nerds aren't an object of ridicule? Rich, successful nerds, sure, but you can just append any noun after "Rich, successful" and get the same result.

Ree: Caitlyn Jenner.

Nowhere where they used to be. And to be perfectly frank I find that nerds do more horrible things to other nerds than people outside the group ever do.

In two posts you've gone from "But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time."

to

"Nowhere where they used to be" and some version of "They're doing it to themselves".

Which do you actually believe to be the case? Then we can get on with why you're wrong.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I tried to keep it simple and say that the unofficial term was used and couldn't be pinned down. You didn't respond to it. Don't blame me for feeling that a more in depth explanation was needed

Hm...No. Geek culture has a lot of problems with it. But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time. The dictionary says otherwise? People don't care what the dictionary says, they assign their own meanings to words. It's why literally is basically it's own antonym now. You can say that nerd only exists to scorn, common use of the word begs to differ, no amount of pulling up definitions will change that.

Nerds aren't an object of ridicule? Rich, successful nerds, sure, but you can just append any noun after "Rich, successful" and get the same result.

Ree: Caitlyn Jenner.

Nowhere where they used to be. And to be perfectly frank I find that nerds do more horrible things to other nerds than people outside the group ever do.

In two posts you've gone from "But nerd being an object of ridicule? Nope. It hasn't been that way for a long time."

to

"Nowhere where they used to be" and some version of "They're doing it to themselves".

Which do you actually believe to be the case? Then we can get on with why you're wrong.

I made that post nearly a week ago. I didn't exactly remember it. Allow me to clarify. Yes sometimes people still poke fun at nerds. This rarely happens anymore, to the point where I don't really consider it to be a trend to worry about. It's barely a thing. Nerds lashing out at other nerds? Well...let's just say that there's a reason my resentment to the online gaming community grows every day.

Please. Tell me how I'm "wrong" as you so eloquently put it.