Musically, you?ll be expected as a geek to declare that Radiohead is the greatest band of the 20th, 21st, and for that matter any other century. Failing that you have to at least acknowledge They Might Be Giants as ?teh awesome?. If you don?t appreciate either of these bands then obviously you like Britney Spears or N?Sync.
I didn't take well to that. I don't know what Firefly is, I've never heard of Joss Whedon and I can't stand Terry Pratchet. Does this mean I'm not a Geek?
I have never understood why people need to be different all the time. Trying hard to be different makes you just as bad as the people who follow what everyone else is doing.
Personally I just try to enjoy what I like and have never felt the need to do something because everyone else is, but also have never felt the need to do the opposite of something because everyone else is. In fact I'd go as far as to say the latter is more stupid than the former.
As it stands I'm not a geek. I like a lot of things that would be considered 'conformist' but really I just like those things because they appeal to me. People need to get off their high horse about that kinda thing.
I believe if you posted a stereo type thing like that link about any other "clique" and put it on said "cliques" forum you would get basically the exact same remarks. everyone conforms whether they think they are trying not too or think they are doing what they want. deep down everyone is trying to either make people be like them or be the same as someone or everyone else.
Pfft, geeks have a limited scope. They are themselves, sheeple, in the sense that they are aware of the controlling influence but do nothing to stop it. That is why you never hear of GEEKS taking over the Earth, do you?
Right, your tone and body language made it perfectly clear. Seriously, I literally couldn't fucking tell if it was a joke or an actual misunderstanding. Personally, I hate not understanding a message on the internet due to the fact that I only have text to work with.
You're right about one thing: I am not and will not be part of a group of condescending elitists.
SakSak said:
President Moocow said:
Well that's the funny thing that's demonstrated through the articles: You're not a geek because of your interests but rather your attitude.
It's not geeky, but it's bullshit. If you really didn't care about the world's opinion regarding what you get called, you wouldn't ask if you're geeky in fact you wouldn't even bring it up. The mere fact that you seek to understand IF you are geeky means that you DO care about what the world thinks of you (also you're a human being). We all naturally care what others think of us and we use that information to better ourselves. Attempting to repel ANY judgment makes you a stagnant unchanging creature. Another of the blogposts in what geeks like (about "status quo") touches on the geek's innate nature to resist change.
Seriously though, if you're looking at this list as a self-validation list of traits, you're doing it wrong. It goes beyond that. It doesn't explain what makes a person a geek, it explains the MENTALITY of a geek, how they think, why they think that way and highlights the amusing paradoxes (like the post about sex).
Azure-Supernova said:
Also I'm now quite insulted by the article.
Musically, you?ll be expected as a geek to declare that Radiohead is the greatest band of the 20th, 21st, and for that matter any other century. Failing that you have to at least acknowledge They Might Be Giants as ?teh awesome?. If you don?t appreciate either of these bands then obviously you like Britney Spears or N?Sync.
I didn't take well to that. I don't know what Firefly is, I've never heard of Joss Whedon and I can't stand Terry Pratchet. Does this mean I'm not a Geek?
Why would you feel insulted? They didn't target you. (Psst, "geek" is a label, not a person). Trying to validate yourself by saying "oh well they said you have to be X in order to be a geek and I don't like X therefore I am not a geek!" only highlights your insecurities and fear that someone could label you as a geek. Going in with a defensive attitude just doesn't really work.
Also, you missed the point: He was saying that geeks are extremely strict about conforming and will reguard people only if they CONFORM to CERTAIN ideas. It's about CONFORMITY. Geeks love CONFORMITY, Joss Wheadon is just an example used to illustrate that point. I'm amazed at how often people nit-pick the examples without trying to understand the meaning behind it. Anyways, the point is, nerds and geeks hate conformity but they have strict guidelines that you have to conform to if you want to join their non-conforming group (god knows why the hell you would want to). I also have my point that might ask your question since apparently you need someone else to validate wheather or not you're actually a geek, I'll say this:
- Knowing who Joss Wheadon is doesn't make you a geek; It makes you someone who knows Joss Wheadon's work.
- Not knowing who Joss Wheadon is don't make you less of a geek; It makes you someone who doesn't know Joss Wheadon's work.
- Eating pizza in the morning doesn't make you a fucking geek; It makes you someone who likes to eat goddamn pizza in the fucking morning.
See where I'm going with this? What you like doesn't make a difference.
Every time one of you tries to "defend" your hobbies or your lack of interest in something, you're digging your own grave. Geeks are defined by their attitude, NOT their hobbies. So next time someone calls you a geek, ask yourself "Are they criticizing my hobbies/interests or are they criticizing my social behavior?" Sometimes the answer isn't clear cut, sometimes it's difficult to tell but one thing is for sure: A geek is NOT defined by his/her hobbies.
blue heartless said:
Pfft, geeks have a limited scope. They are themselves, sheeple, in the sense that they are aware of the controlling influence but do nothing to stop it. That is why you never hear of GEEKS taking over the Earth, do you?
Another inspiration. What geeks love: World domination.
I honestly don't even get this one. Somehow nerds and geeks believe that they are going to overthrow society or some shit and I just don't get what the point of it is. Revenge? Inferiority complex? Circle of life?
Musically, you?ll be expected as a geek to declare that Radiohead is the greatest band of the 20th, 21st, and for that matter any other century. Failing that you have to at least acknowledge They Might Be Giants as ?teh awesome?. If you don?t appreciate either of these bands then obviously you like Britney Spears or N?Sync.
I didn't take well to that. I don't know what Firefly is, I've never heard of Joss Whedon and I can't stand Terry Pratchet. Does this mean I'm not a Geek?
Why would you feel insulted? They didn't target you. (Psst, "geek" is a label, not a person). Trying to validate yourself by saying "oh well they said you have to be X in order to be a geek and I don't like X therefore I am not a geek!" only highlights your insecurities and fear that someone could label you as a geek. Going in with a defensive attitude just doesn't really work.
Also, you missed the point: He was saying that geeks are extremely strict about conforming and will reguard people only if they CONFORM to CERTAIN ideas. It's about CONFORMITY. Geeks love CONFORMITY, Joss Wheadon is just an example used to illustrate that point. I'm amazed at how often people nit-pick the examples without trying to understand the meaning behind it. Anyways, the point is, nerds and geeks hate conformity but they have strict guidelines that you have to conform to if you want to join their non-conforming group (god knows why the hell you would want to). I also have my point that might ask your question since apparently you need someone else to validate wheather or not you're actually a geek, I'll say this:
- Knowing who Joss Wheadon is doesn't make you a geek; It makes you someone who knows Joss Wheadon's work.
- Not knowing who Joss Wheadon is don't make you less of a geek; It makes you someone who doesn't know Joss Wheadon's work.
- Eating pizza in the morning doesn't make you a fucking geek; It makes you someone who likes to eat goddamn pizza in the fucking morning.
See where I'm going with this? What you like doesn't make a difference.
Every time one of you tries to "defend" your hobbies or your lack of interest in something, you're digging your own grave. Geeks are defined by their attitude, NOT their hobbies. So next time someone calls you a geek, ask yourself "Are they criticizing my hobbies/interests or are they criticizing my social behavior?" Sometimes the answer isn't clear cut, sometimes it's difficult to tell but one thing is for sure: A geek is NOT defined by his/her hobbies.
Actually the insult lay in that a stereotype is so easily made up of those things... but ummm, you sound like you had fun writing that so I'll let you savour it.
Geeks are just another subculture with their own memes, behavioral norms, cultural touchstones, and group-dynamic expectations. Captain Obvious called, he said something about that article's writer "totally bogarting my style, man."
See what you did? You made the captain so depressed, he had to get high to feel better about himself.
I believe if you posted a stereo type thing like that link about any other "clique" and put it on said "cliques" forum you would get basically the exact same remarks. everyone conforms whether they think they are trying not too or think they are doing what they want. deep down everyone is trying to either make people be like them or be the same as someone or everyone else.
If there is a forum devoted to a specific interest, and you're not the only one posting on it, then you're conforming. Everyone likes things that are familiar and comfortable, so no matter how much they want to be "unique" they will find that there is always someone else with a similar interest. What does make us unique is the combination of things that we like.
While I understand that the word 'geek' has come to mean something else, whenever anyone says geek all I can think of is a circus freak who lives in his own shit in a pigpen biting the heads off of chickens.
I wear pants, just like many people. Point fingers and call me conformist.
While I understand that the word 'geek' has come to mean something else, whenever anyone says geek all I can think of is a circus freak who lives in his own shit in a pigpen biting the heads off of chickens.
I wear pants, just like many people. Point fingers and call me conformist.
I see myself as more of a nerd than a geek, since I try and create things rather than just consuming them all the time. The conformity I have to things is no threat to my self esteem because I see other people conforming by "not conforming" all the time.
Real life example:
HIPSTER GOTH WANNABE: Go play with your cardboard girlfriend you conformist.
ME: But... I just asked you if you were enjoying Fruits Basket, you were just reading it there so I thought maybe you liked other stuff...
The biggest hypocrisy of geeks I have noticed on this site is how everyone claims that people who criticise gamers/gaming should 'live and let live' and yet they love to criticise anyone and anything that doesn't fit their personal taste be it Emo's, tattoos, piercings, guns and whatnot.
I find it depressing that a bunch of people even think that conformity is in any way, bad. Conformity is a result of evolution people, not the mass media, corporations or government or whatever entity you don't like at the moment. You stick to your tribe and you become more like them to fit in more, and therefore become happier. Mimicry and conformity are the foundations of every human relationship ever.
Everyone conforms to some sort of social behavior. If we didn't, societies could not form. The only people who are TRULY independent are those locked up in a mental asylum, or getting psychological therapy 24/7. If human beings could not form cohesive groups or conform and live together with some shared ideals and behaviors, in the best case we'd still be living in caves, and in the worst case we'd have all gone EXTINCT.
Numbers are our strength. The individual human, no matter how strong or smart, needs others. Building the space shuttle is NOT a solo job. Running New York City is NOT a solo job. Building a decent house is NOT a solo job. We NEED each other, we NEED others - to survive, and to have nice things. A lone human being, no matter how strong or swift, is Lion chow the minute he or she goes to sleep on the Savannah. But put TWO humans together, and one can guard the other while the other sleeps.
Look at all the technology around you. Look at all the social institutions around you. Could anyone do that by themselves? Of course they couldn't - it's ludicrous to imagine a lone human being building the world. Even the best architect needs builders and artisans to help them put the house together.
Humanity is powerful because of our numbers, because of our ability to work together. It's not a weakness to be sociable - in fact, it's a strength. Science is also one of those aspects of humanity that benefits from numbers. Imagine if only one researcher knew the secrets of DNA - wouldn't get very far researching it now would he (or she)? But if thousands of researchers are researching on DNA, then they will get very far in much less time.
So - to summarize - unless you live in the jungle with no clothes or technology of any sort, then you owe a debt to society and to your fellow man. And even IF you lived in a jungle with no clothes or technology, you'd still owe a debt to your mother who gave birth to you.
Society is a great thing. Human beings have accomplished so much. We know more about the universe than ever before, and our accomplishments were only possible due to our numbers.
Now I'm not suggesting that we should all be like ants and obey whatever the government tells us. But by being reasonable, pleasant and sane to others, and by obeying some social norms, your chances of having a happier, more successful life increase. My own experiences with "nerds" or anti-social people like Goths and loners has led me to believe that they actually really do what human contact and support and friends, but their inability to blend in has led them to become frustrated - and in a classic display of Nietzsche's "slave morality", they angrily denounce what they can't have.
No, no - the average "loner" or misanthrope WANTS friends. They just simply can't get them. Your average Goth isn't "mis-understood" - just disliked. And a truly wise, intelligent outlook on the world would realize that your fellow human beings are to be embraced. For it is only TOGETHER that we can achieve something or worth or value.
Unless you're a nihilist. In which case, I must ask, why do you bother to do anything? Nihilists believe there is nothing of worth in this world - so I wonder why they bother even trying to keep themselves alive. The most logical course of action for a nihilist is suicide. Which is why I'm not a nihilist and I don't advise anyone else to be.
I guess I might be more of a nerd than a geek. Or maybe someone could invent some new insult for me that I can try to reclaim for myself. (Note, this is irony, not a request, I have already collected more than enough insults in my life.)
I think that Batman is one of the most pointless things ever and it gets more pointless and silly the more dark and philosophical it gets. Terry Gilliam and Joss Whedon are okay but a bit sometimes lack substance and trade a bit too much on their charming kookyness. I prefer Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch. Also, Picard forever and stop obsessing about Star Wars. It's not worth it.
well this forum has a bunch of conflicting opinions on fuckin' EVERYTHING so I don't know how accurate that is. Then again I'm not sure how many people like me there are on this forum that care less about the "videogame" aspect of it and more about the "other random topics that warrant discussion" area. Of course the STEREOTYPICAL geek is going to be conformist, stereotype ANYTHING, geeks included, and conformity is going to be a factor because the very nature of stereotyping is applying the same common qualities among a large group of people who hold certain similarities by assumption. Though "geek" is a term for a stereotype, so maybe the author meant "only the geeks that fit all geek stereotypes." in which case they're just pointing out the obvious
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.