The Big Picture: With Great Power

[WolfCross]

Subconsciously, I at least think if a person looks like they have the choice to have lots of sex, they probably aren't a nerd. Is that fair? No. But neither is being born attractive. At least let the nerds have something.

Um, no. I've lost 10 pounds in the last month and a half, and I plan to keep running 2-3 miles four times a week and doing crunches, pushups, and chair-dips on the days I don't run until I hit my desired weight (and pant size). I wasn't "born attractive," I've been overweight since I was seven. Watching the fat slowly drain away from my front is a little more than satisfying, I will admit.

In the meantime, I love video games, fantasy films and books, animation, and I plan on joining the friends I made while playing FF11 in FF14 when it relaunches in August. I check my email nearly hourly to see if I've been accepted into the beta yet, so I can join just a bit earlier. I'm chomping at the bit to see the new Doctor Who special in November, and have been satisfying myself with the Classic Who while I wait. Just earlier today I was practicing animation and drawing the human figure by rotoscoping a slow-motion video I downloaded from YouTube of Shaolin monks doing flips and kicks, while on my other monitor streaming Fullmetal Alchemist on Netflix. I've seen Brotherhood through to the end, so I was just wanting to watch the original series to see the differences between the two. I was wanting to get through D-Gray man, but for some reason in the second season Netflix only has the subbed version, and I can't exactly listen to subtitles while animating. And last week I was marathoning the Phantom of the Opera and Into the Woods because I rediscovered how much I love musicals.

Those are my interests, that's what makes me a "nerd." If I do continue to lose weight, what does that have to do with anything? Robin Williams named his daughter Zelda, because he loved the idea of naming his daughter after a beautiful and admirable princess. While he may not be the sexiest man in the world (though not totally repulsive, either) he is extremely charismatic, and looking at him the first thing you wouldn't think is "Oh, he's a nerd." And then look at Vin Diesel, probably the only video game nerd who's actually managed to pull off the self-insertion dream in both the forms of blockbuster movies and AAA video games.

Nerds are not defined by any physical characteristics. Just because you're physically attractive doesn't affect your ability to love games or fiction, and nor does being physically unattractive necessarily mean you are more likely to enjoy those things. We are bound together by our compulsive and sometimes indescribable love for our fandoms and fantasies. And I'll be damned if I let some little peon tell me that my getting into shape somehow jeopardizes any of my passions.

I didn't claim it "jeopardizes your passions" in any way. Being attractive doesn't mean you can't be a nerd, it means people are automatically going to be more skeptical about it. It's not fair, but it's life.

I go to the gym 3 - 5 times a week and I'm a computer programmer.

There is a marked difference between a geek and a nerd IMO. Liking comics, anime, etc. is one thing, but you're not a nerd. You're a geek. Maybe I have the terms flipped around? To me a nerd, in definition, lies solely in terms of computers, physics, math or other pursuits; it's a byproduct of losing yourself in what you do, often at the expense of a lot of things. Often friends, family, romance... sometimes hygiene (anyone who has done 4 - 5 years in Computer Science knows how some people smell). There is nothing glamorous about it and you don't do it because you want to, you do it because you have to.

I know this has nothing to do with bob's video.

Been reading a lot of Maddox there bud? You're practically quoting him there.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

I don't feel like we have the power, it's just we are a demographic that can be targeted. If geeks really had the power then we'd get a fan friendly version of the Transformers movies, instead it's fans be damn lets blow up crap for the heck of and leave people wondering which robot was which character.

Sure occasionally a geek makes it to the top like Peter Jackson but I don't think it's because Hollywood has embraced the geeks just that Hollywood has learned it's easier to target geeks than Joe Average. Joe Average might not be buying movie tickets like he used to but you put out enough nerd bait and they will line up to get in.

I will totally agree that as geeks we should be a friendlier group. Sure I might know anime from back when you had to find sub-titled bootleg copies at a convention, but that's no reason not to welcome in the people who are just learning about the great stuff anime has to offer.

 

[Gindil]

you have really lost me siding with that women/pop culture critic and feminist. Sorry but if you really do buy into all her crap. Im not not falling into that trap. the double standards are amazing.

I actually think comments like this are part of the problem, it's basically saying that due to one person badly arguing a point that it is inherently wrong. Anita's videos are terrible for a myriad of reasons, but there is an underlying issue of anti-women culture in videogames and only by educating others will it have a chance at being resolved. Now she isn't educating people directly, the way she tries to get her point across is terribly confusing. But the hatred associated with her as a woman gamer talking about feminism, even before most people had even seen the videos highlights the inability of male gamers to deal with women as gamers with their own opinions.

She takes the stories of games so horribly out of context that it's questionable that she's a gamer. She uses so many buzzwords, that it's beyond ridiculous. She based an entire narrative out of her own conclusion that no one can discuss save her followers and everyone has a secret meaning for these words and what she said or didn't say.

She doesn't represent woman gamers. She represents herself and got paid to play video games through deceit. No one cares if she's a female gamer. They care that she's horribly misrepresenting video games to push her own agenda.

Also... I dislike when people say "I know girls who play CoD", I think the potential for a more widespread and socially acceptable female gamer culture lies in games designed specifically for women. Of course this is based in my own experience and observations that your average woman will go towards the more calm and recreational type games as opposed to the more hardcore competitive style ones.

Yes, and there are girls who play Dark Souls. But if your first inclination is to tell the world that you're a "girl gamer", you're identifying yourself as nothing more than a child who wants to play a few games. Most people just like games and talking about the Portal or Chrono Trigger mythos. Your gender need not apply.

The Sims, it's a popular franchise among women, it up until this point has been a single player experience. EA had stated that it intends on making the Sims 4 an Online Game. Despite all the warnings up until this point... It may be a step in the right direction. Do you know the kind of crap women put up with to play The Sims 3? It was insane, tons and tons of expansions, DLC, glitches to the roof, and they still loved it. But making The Sims 4 online, adding a social MMO element to it, and possibly live fixes for errors...

Don't get me wrong EA are evil money grubbing so and so's, but it could be a decision that brings to light the potential behind the female gamer as a consumer. EA could make a good decision.

I'm sorry but... How do women in Sims 3 deal with a lot of crap? I'm aware that the Sims games have more women playing than some other games out there. And after the entire fiasco with DRM for the Sims... Why would you want EA to go and redo the mistake that caused them to win the Golden Poo twice in a row?

 

[hiei82]

So we should be like Nerdfighters?

Or should we be like Love and Tolerate Bronies?

I think we should go the first route, but I'm cool for whatever man. It's your playground too, just don't forget to be awesome.
(I've just stared watching all of Brotherhood 2.0; I'm starting to like it. Plus I wonder what this discussion would be like in your pants...)

Edit: and, by random happenstance, there is a French the Llama profile pic above me. I am without words

Or there was until I got a low content warning (oops)... I guess I should have put more than an "I agree with everything Movie Bob had to say" comment huh?

Anyway...

Yeah; Brotherhood 2.0 is awesome. Enjoy (and good luck) making your way through it.

As for the topic at hand, I think we need to be an amalgamation of Bronies, Nerd Fighters, Whovians - who (and yes that who is a pun) are known for their pretty open minded positions - and a lot of the other tolerant factions of geek culture/fandom. I don't know if it will happen, but I sure hope it does.

Spoiler: BTW: For anyone who isn't aware of Nerd Fighters"

 

[The Apple BOOM]

Does this mean I can finally post ponies as legitimate reaction pictures? No? Ok...

 

[xaszatm]

You know, you countered my argument with the exact argument I was making? I wasn't saying we should BAN saying these words. I was saying that such attitudes SHOULDN'T be the normal thing.

Really? Because when I read this...

So...because it was always a cesspool, we should be proud of it? We should be proud that online gaming is full of misogynistic, racist, homophobic garbage? The fact that we are trying to get rid of this is a bad thing? Is really asking people to think before they open their mouths special treatment? To show common decency? To realize that other people are PEOPLE?

...you come off as if you were advocating that certain attitudes/comments/ect. should be censored or that "we [should] tr[y] to get rid of th[ese]" kinds of things, i.e. ban them from being expressed online.

It shouldn't be normal for online game chat to dissolve into such a cesspool. And there is a difference between banning something and showing that we don't like something.

First off, who are you to decide that everybody else should conform to your sense of decency? Second off, who is this "we" because while I might not like what is sometimes said online, I'm not about to advocate that a person shouldn't be allowed to say it.

You are free to say mean, rude, nasty things and I'm free to call you out on such behavior.

I agree.

Also, you really need to eat your own words. If you say that because I want to censor words (which I DIDN'T say, by the way), I will be leading to a slippery BAN EVERYTHING mantra but then in another response say that nothing will come from the cesspool of the internet, you leading a double standard.

What are you even talking about? How is it a double standard for me to say that what your advocating is censorship and that XboxLive conversations won't result into Federal Laws on minority rights? The first thing is just an observation and commentary on your idea of how XboxLive should operate and the second response is where I pointed out that you were bringing up red herrings because XboxLive chat won't result into federal laws for Minority rights.

It's not a slippery slope here, but it is here thing.

Huh? I think you might want to go back and reread that last part because, "but it is here thing" doesn't make sense as a sentence.

Also, you seem to get the idea that such name calling should be normal because its on the internet. Well, what happens if ANYONE does the garbage they do in a public place like the mall? or at stores? They will be probably kicked out for "disturbing the peace." So, why is it when the internet does it, it's suddenly censorship? It's not.

What? Are you not aware of groups like the WBC, Neo-Nazi marches, EDL, Canadian "feminist" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80][footnote]I'm not saying that they represent all feminist in Canada, though this video is what I imagine a lot of youtube arguments would look like in real life.[/footnote], political protest, and the various other forms of communication that people express in public spaces?

As for your comment about the internet and real life, the difference is also while I might not be able to say whatever I want in a mall, I most certainly can go in my backyard and express whatever opinion I like. The same can not be said about limiting what people can say on Xboxlive, because its not as if your saying that Xbox should create certain channels for kids where in which there would be rules on language, but you are stating that ALL of the Xboxlive channels/groups/parties/whatever should be subject to having their language monitored.

I can understand if for example you wanted to make it that games rated E should have "cesspool" free XboxLive communication do to the rating of the games and the likelihood that children will play them, but you seem to want to not just stop there, but also target games that are rated T, M, or even A as well and treat those people the same way you would treat children. The last thing people need is for you to play parent to groups of people that are old enough to buy the game in the first place[footnote]Before it is brought up, it falls upon to buy age appropriate games for their kids and to not just ignorantly buy games rated M for kids that are 8 years old. Video games are not a substitute nanny.[/footnote]

Okay, can you not do the point by point thing? It's generally very distracting and makes not want to read your response. In any case...

Once again, there is a difference between BANNING something and saying something shouldn't be allowed. BANNING means I forcibly remove someone from the conversation. Saying "that is inappropriate and you should feel bad" is telling someone that that attitude shouldn't belong here. You are still there and you can respond in however way you want. In fact, I probably will move to another server where there isn't such nonsense. I'm trying to say the latter should be implemented more. This is NOT banning as the person who is saying the statement in the first place is not forcibly removed.

With that in mind, the double standard I'm talking about should be clearer. You were saying I was advocating censorship of the internet and that my ideas would eventually go there. The above paragraph should make what I was trying to say clearer. In the same response, you said that I was giving too much credit to internet trolls because I thought that they were going to pass misogynistic laws. Again, I'm never said that or was trying to say that. I was trying to say that there is usually an underlining connection between what people say and what people do. The double standard was saying that my ideas would lead to censorship laws while also stating that the cesspool (is there another word for this? I can't think of any and it's starting to get old) people state will have no affect on laws being made.

Which, in addition to being a double standard is wrong as America just recently and is currently facing many laws that have HUGE racist and sexist undertones. North Carolina is trying to pass an Anti-Islamic (I believe it's anti-Shari specifically but I'm not 100% sure). Is video game chat the cause? Of course not, but it is showing a symptom of the problem.

And yes, I'm aware of those forms of public communications. But that isn't a comparable to something akin to an internet video game chat. You do realize that such forms of public communications have rules and regulations to follow, right? And that they still have consequences. It might not be legal consequences but social ones, but consequences all the same. Compared to someone not being able to harass others. Note that I'm not saying that he was engaging in name calling, but harassment as I know that there is a difference.

I believe that's really all I have to state on the matter. Understand that I'm not stating I want to start grabbing a banhammer and go crazy when every cracks a joke or says a bad name. Also, I have a tendency to skip words when I'm typing so that explains any English mistakes in my posts.

For example, in the first sentence of this reply, I ask that you not reply to this post in a point by point format. I'm not saying that you can't do that. You are free to do it. I'm just asking.

 

[idodo35]

well bob words of wisdom as usual, wish someone would actually listen to u...

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Turning something trivial and fun into a political battleground is like turning an oasis into a wasteland and then calling it peace.

 

[TomWest]

In connection to the Tropes vs Women reference, I don't take Alisia Sarkeesian seriously.

Watch her episode, then Facts vs Women and you'll see why.

Dear God. I just wasted several minutes of my life watching Feminism vs. Facts, the supposed take-down of Ms. Sarkeesian's post, and Thunderf00t's either trolling or stupid, I can't tell which.

His main argument for the first part of the video is that those males going out to rescue the poor abused women is an expression of men's love, and that if she's against that, she's also against hospitals and police that also help save the poor and helpless.

He either can't understand the entire point of Ms. Sarkeesian's video, or he's deliberately chosen to miss the point. Either way, the point is that *games aren't reality* and he looks rather pathetic missing that central point. The authors of the game *choose* to make the women the victim, a point that Ms. Sarkeesian makes in the parts of the video he quotes! He basically ignores what she says, treats it as if the women are actually kidnapped, and now what are the game authors to do, have the men do nothing?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't take the level of stupid (perhaps because I suspect it's deliberate).

If it still isn't clear that deliberately choosing put women in peril in so many games reflects a problem, let me take another, slightly more amped up example (for emphasis).

If every single book by an author featured a child being raped, or in danger of rape or having to be rescued from rape, you'd probably consider the author pretty skeezy. After all, there's just something a little off about this *chosen* obsession, even if it fits the plot in each book. Even if the child knifes the would-be rapist in the end and even if there's any amount of in-book justification. Defenders can say that child-rape happens in real life. They can say that it helps the author sell more books. They can say the child even did in the bad guy herself in a book. They can say it helps add a level of tension as a child is in danger.

But it doesn't matter. I think we'd all recognize that what the author *chose* to put on the page reflects something in the author himself (that we'd prefer not see the light of day).

The pervasive abuse and victimization of women in many games is exactly the same, writ slightly smaller. It's a reflection of the the author's sensibilities that women are not agents in their own life. Or as she puts it, they're objects, not subjects.

In each game, you can justify it a hundred ways from Sunday, but it doesn't diminish the fact that having it so utterly widespread reflects a deep level of attitudes towards women both in the creators and consumers of games. I'm sorry, but there's not much way around it.

There may well be cogent criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian's work out there, but dear God, Feminism vs. Facts wasn't it.

 

[lastjustice]

I was sitting there waiting , and thought to myself so when is the other shoe gotta drop. Where is he going go with this.... Sure enough Bob went into white guilt mode on us. ( Love your normal videos, but this variety isn't really what I come here for.) Look, people are mean, and I get it. I've gotten my ass kicked plenty, and I accept that evils exist in this world. It's not going away. I put out the fires I can, and I don't for one second think I'm going rally the horde into somehow being some kinder gentler world. If pop culture somehow could be lulled into that, all happy music of the 60s would ended war forever. It hasn't, but the good news all bull crap people trolling do can't ruin the world forever either.

It's a fine message at it's core, but takes an entirely too left wing liberal taint I am slightly turned off by. I don't think that gets what we are at all. Let me lay it out for you....Watch these two movies trailers.(interesting both made by WB heh.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6DJcgm3wNY Man Of Steel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A85EtOalcsM Pacific Rim

Man of steel...preaching about us being lead by a better example, and trying stir us into keeping up...not likely, that's not us.

Then watch Pacific Rim, "They thought we'd hide, give up. They never considered our ability to stand,to endure. That we would rise the challenge. We created monsters to fight monsters." That is the humanity I know and love. That is who we are, as conflict and other catalysts inspire our best efforts. Superman's humanity will never exist right along side Gene Roddenberry version. We do our finest work we have something to fight...something to hate even sometimes. (I pity whatever force is foolish enough to anger the collective planet focus solely against it, these aliens would be screwed. ) Nerds have created monsters to fight our monsters, just because we won the day doesn't mean they re going away. Everything leaves scars, has consequences.

As John Steinbeck wrote in the Pearl, Man is half god, half madness. I believe the man was right heh, and I am ok with that. It's all part of the game, and I'm happy fight the good fight in my own way, but I have no delusions I am ever going end evil.(I'm not supposed to even if I could.) I will hold the line, and maintain the balance the best I can. That's when the most interesting stuff happens anyways. The world never done well with monopolies, even one of good.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Good words, hating anyone for irrational reasons is not a thing that should be tolerated.

[small]Hating people for RATIONAL ones, on the other hand ...[/small]

 

[Spearmaster]

With Great Power

MovieBob calls for a new Geek Culture.

Watch Video

"Geek culture" has not gone mainstream. The "geek culture" that is mainstream is only what is being sold to people as "geek culture" by corporations, kinda like what happened to rap music when it went "mainstream", it lost all purpose and meaningfulness and just became a catalyst for business to extract money from the misguided youth of the world.

Trying to say that "geek culture" now needs to be politically correct and that people need to enforce this politically correct ideal would only serve to further destroy what "geek culture" actually is, a culture.

Political correctness is nothing but idealistic and oppressive conformity that is poison to any culture. Political correctness and culture cannot coexist because political correctness only serves to erase anything that identifies a culture. A culture has to be free to define itself, not to be oppressed by sociopolitical conformity, even if someone within that culture desires it.

Don't believe me? Just ask any Native American or African American how well enforcing ideals not of their culture has worked for them.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh believe me, I follow politics closely enough to know this has been the message for a while. But I just try to have a little more faith in my fellow man that this is just the fringe reacting. A vocal minority.

That being said, the more time passes, the more I begin to wonder just how "fringe" it really is. The reaction to this video, combined with a couple other troubling threads I've seen here regarding politics, certainly isn't helping.

It's sadly a fairly ubiquitous sentiment these days. Dr Seuss is getting banned in schools for being liberal propaganda. Sesame Street and the like are coming under fire for preaching "sharing," something that wasn't considered political when I was a kid. Everyone's accused of having an agenda in a massive surge of false equivalence.

More OT: I thought Bob was going a little to far this week. Then I read the comments, and that certainly showed why this kind of video was necessary.

It's pretty much standard that anyone who touches on this topic ends up proven correct by the responses.