Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"Five Reasons Geek Culture Should Go Away"
Splitting this from the SA megathread, because it was getting lost in it.
http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/five-reasons-geek-culture-should-go-away
Read this before commenting, please. It's a short read.
1. Geek culture is escapist.
Actually, entertainment in general is escapist. Escapism doesn't just take the form of living on a spaceship in the far future, it also takes the form of a genius snarky detective who cracks cold cases, as well as those stand-up jokes in which you get to give hell to that annoying guy at the office without getting in trouble with your boss.
The entertainment industry in general does better when there are economic downturns. There's a reason for this.
2. It's simplistic.
Once again, the same could be said of all entertainment. I don't know how many times I've commented about sitcom character casts that feature a stupid and clumsy but well-meaning dad, a mom who's the voice of reason and annoyed all the stupidity but is easily distracted by chocolate and jewelry, and a bratty son who enjoys gross things for novelty value and wears muddy shoes inside the house without abandon.
3. It's dogmatic.
> Geeks are obsessively protective of their fandoms.
Once again, this applies to everyone, and those things they care about.
That said, maybe geeks shouldn't care so much about their fandoms, as it's just entertainment/stories/fiction/wishful thinking. Then again, the same could be said of sports fans too. And you should see how much people can argue over music tastes...in any generation. This behavior is by no means limited to geeks.
4. It's sexist.
The sexist-ness (for lack of a better word) of major media closely mirrors that of society itself. A lot of classic superheroes were created decades ago, so it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of them are men. For a good example, see the page picture and caption here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass .
That said, I do still halfway agree with this. The gender difference in occurrence is being gradually minimized, which is a good thing, and goes against your point illustrated by a large number of Marvel movies with male leads. However, there is a lot more fanservice involving female characters than involving male characters, along with lots of double standards of portrayal, aesthetic appeal, and such, and then there's the moë movement in animé and manga, with all its criticisms.
5. All this stuff was better when it was cheap.
I don't really have any useful response to this either way, as I know very little about moviemaking budgets.
http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/five-reasons-geek-culture-should-go-away
Read this before commenting, please. It's a short read.
1. Geek culture is escapist.
Actually, entertainment in general is escapist. Escapism doesn't just take the form of living on a spaceship in the far future, it also takes the form of a genius snarky detective who cracks cold cases, as well as those stand-up jokes in which you get to give hell to that annoying guy at the office without getting in trouble with your boss.
The entertainment industry in general does better when there are economic downturns. There's a reason for this.
2. It's simplistic.
Once again, the same could be said of all entertainment. I don't know how many times I've commented about sitcom character casts that feature a stupid and clumsy but well-meaning dad, a mom who's the voice of reason and annoyed all the stupidity but is easily distracted by chocolate and jewelry, and a bratty son who enjoys gross things for novelty value and wears muddy shoes inside the house without abandon.
3. It's dogmatic.
> Geeks are obsessively protective of their fandoms.
Once again, this applies to everyone, and those things they care about.
That said, maybe geeks shouldn't care so much about their fandoms, as it's just entertainment/stories/fiction/wishful thinking. Then again, the same could be said of sports fans too. And you should see how much people can argue over music tastes...in any generation. This behavior is by no means limited to geeks.
4. It's sexist.
The sexist-ness (for lack of a better word) of major media closely mirrors that of society itself. A lot of classic superheroes were created decades ago, so it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of them are men. For a good example, see the page picture and caption here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookALevelInBadass .
That said, I do still halfway agree with this. The gender difference in occurrence is being gradually minimized, which is a good thing, and goes against your point illustrated by a large number of Marvel movies with male leads. However, there is a lot more fanservice involving female characters than involving male characters, along with lots of double standards of portrayal, aesthetic appeal, and such, and then there's the moë movement in animé and manga, with all its criticisms.
5. All this stuff was better when it was cheap.
I don't really have any useful response to this either way, as I know very little about moviemaking budgets.
Comments
...well, there's proof for ya that I don't check it.
Some highlights:
Maybe that's helpful when you're a kid sitting in the lunch room with no friends, but it's not very appealing behavior for an entire culture of putative adults. -- the point of the "its escapism" complaint isn't that escapism is bad, but rather that being so caught up in an escapist fantasy that it matters more to you than your daily life is unhealthy, and that's what this guy sees in geek culture (and for the record, I've seen plenty of it as well)
"But Pete," you say, "it's not just escapism! These stories are full of real-life metaphors about morality/self-empowerment/being a gay teen." And that's true, to a point, but those metaphors are usually reductive, adolescent, and about as subtle as a large green man with anger issues. The Dark Knight got outsized acclaim for its "dark, nuanced" take on moral ambiguity. But remember that boat scene, where a boatload of prisoners and a boatload of normal people each have the chance to blow the other up, and neither side does? That's the kind of "nuanced, morally ambiguous" scenario that a twelve-year old would think up. -- Bang zoom, nailed it on the head buddy! Probably because geeks simply don't know any better they have a way of taking juvenile shit and seeing mounds of depth in it.
I've noticed the lack of a nuanced understanding of things tends to come up whenever you try to discuss things with a geek as well--they'll usually understand things in absolutes and when you try to explain that the world doesn't look like that, they get frustrated, and they commonly misunderstand dialogues that make perfect sense to a non-geek.
Geeks are obsessively protective of their beloved fantasy worlds. That thin-skinned defensiveness was understandable when geek culture was routinely shat upon by the mainstream, but it's a lot less attractive now that geek culture is the mainstream. - Related to this, I've noticed that geeks like to validate their behavior rather than try to improve it. In this very thread for example I've read "So? Sports fans do that too!" So what if they do? That doesn't make it okay for you to do it, any more than the existence of Jack the Ripper makes it okay for all of us to be serial killers.
All this stuff was better when it was cheap. - Or rather, when we could actually afford it.
That's about it, really.
I don't feel like arguing properly against this since people will do it for me anyways and it's not really worth it, so instead:
"That thin-skinned defensiveness was understandable when geek culture was routinely shat upon by the mainstream, but it's a lot less attractive now that geek culture is the mainstream."
"Geek culture was better when it was the underdog; geeks, of all people, should know that sometimes things are worth more when you have to fight for them."
gets validated by giant showers of money, it's starting to seem a little fascist.
Anyway, I think the article itself is kind of silly because it generalizes "geeks" as if they are a monolithic entity. I suppose that there are certainly some people who act in accordance with what they see as "geek" or "nerd" culture, but I would prefer to look such groups like any group of people interested in something. They may have similarities, but I would rather not try to say that all "geeks" are the same any more than I would like to say all so-called "jocks" are alike. Basically, I would like the article better if it were more specific.
In any event, I largely agree with glennmagusharvey about his specific criticisms of this article, aside from the moe part.
rather than try to improve it. In this very thread for example I've
read "So? Sports fans do that too!"
I mentioned sports fans to say that this is not a problem unique to (some) geeks, but also present in people who neither self-identify nor are identified by others as geeks. Not to say that it isn't a problem.
> the point of the "its escapism" complaint isn't that escapism is bad,
but rather that being so caught up in an escapist fantasy that it
matters more to you than your daily life is unhealthy, and that's what
this guy sees in geek culture (and for the record, I've seen plenty of
it as well)
Fair enough.
> Probably because geeks simply don't know any better they have a way of taking juvenile shit and seeing mounds of depth in it.
> I've
noticed the lack of a nuanced understanding of things tends to come up
whenever you try to discuss things with a geek as well--they'll usually
understand things in absolutes and when you try to explain that the
world doesn't look like that, they get frustrated, and they commonly
misunderstand dialogues that make perfect sense to a non-geek.
I'd say there's ways to read depth into just about anything, as often indicated by the number of parodical faux-scholarly analyses of things that ought not to be analyzed in those ways. (A good example of this being Uncyclopedia's "Fisher Price: a Retrospective".)
That said, your two statements here seem to contradict each other--that geeks see excessive amounts of depth yet also lack a nuanced understanding of things.
> Or rather, when we could actually afford it.
They're talking about moviemaking budgets, not DVD and memorabilia prices.
...that said, I'm surprised you don't seem to identify yourself with the label "geek". Unless you take the article to be about comic-book geeks especially, and I know you don't like comic books much.
@LouieW > aside from the moe part
I cited that due to all the stuff I've read that criticizes moë for objectifying women and cute, childlike, and vulnerable. It's not quite the traditional "beauty/daintiness/housewife" objectification, but it could be construed as sexist in some contexts.
I'll agree that geek culture is sexist but it's a symptom of larger sexism in society rather than the actual disease.
The whole 'it was better when it was done on shoestring' budget is of course dumb. Better special effects in fact, do enhance a good film (though they can't save a bad one) which is why directors and viewers want them.
There are problems endemic to geek culture, but these aren't it.
TL DR: This article is stupid and you're stupid if you agree with it.
I'd actually say that one is a symptom of the other. They know "depth is good" so they believe that if they like something, it must be deep. Any analysis they produce is probably just them justifying this position after-the-fact.
Geeks are geeks, and they're all pretty bad--even the anime ones. For as annoying as it gets hanging around people who are overcompensating for the weeaboo stigma, I'd rather hang with that than actual anime fans.
I'm geekish, but I balance that out with a rounded-out real life away from televisions and computers, and when I'm in geek-mode I'm self aware enough to realize how silly I'm being (which is why the tone of my posts sometimes changes so rapidly).
Here I have to disagree. Besides geek media itself being more sexist (superhero comics and "moe" anime are usually worse about women than, say, medical dramas), I've seen geeks themselves (on the internet anyway) advocate more than a fair share of misogynistic attitudes. And of course we have the concept of Rule 34, or how every other internet joke revolves around tits, or the concept of G.I.R.L. (Guy In Real Life), etc.
As I said, I have a life outside of my geek habits and the only place besides the internet I see this much focus and these kinds of attitudes on womanhood is in the rural areas of the Southern U.S.
"depth is good" so they believe that if they like something, it must be
deep. Any analysis they produce is probably just them justifying this
position after-the-fact.
What about the criticism that academics take things too deeply?
> Geeks are geeks, and they're all pretty bad--even the anime ones. For
as annoying as it gets hanging around people who are overcompensating
for the weeaboo stigma, I'd rather hang with that than actual anime
fans. I'm geekish, but I balance that out with a
rounded-out real life away from televisions and computers, and when I'm
in geek-mode I'm self aware enough to realize how silly I'm being (which
is why the tone of my posts sometimes changes so rapidly).
I'll be frank: I can't help but think of your being "married" to Konata, and "channeling" her to the forum through your roleplaying. Though I guess you might just disavow that as an old shame.
> Here I have to disagree. Besides geek media itself being more sexist
(superhero comics and "moe" anime are usually worse about women than,
say, medical dramas), I've seen geeks themselves (on the internet
anyway) advocate more than a fair share of misogynistic attitudes. And
of course we have the concept of Rule 34, or how every other internet
joke revolves around tits, or the concept of G.I.R.L. (Guy In Real
Life), etc.. As I said, I have a life outside of my geek habits
and the only place besides the internet I see this much focus and these
kinds of attitudes on womanhood is in the rural areas of the Southern
U.S.
Actually, I've seen this behavior around high school guys. Snickering about sex and every word that can be vaguely construed as being sexual slang, talking about getting laid, getting some pussy, banging chicks, getting a load of those tits, etc..
I do understand, and actually somewhat agree with, your point about mainstream TV shows. They tend to be neutral or slightly demeaning, mostly in implicit ways, either by starring no female major characters or by putting them in for the sake of having a female character (i.e. token casting). On the other hand, sexism in some subcultures is much more prominent. That said, female characters in some of these media subcultures are more prevalent in general.
Which makes for a good question, when you're just naturally casting female characters because you think they would be cool, even if it might be motivated by a subconscious desire for fanservice, does it count as sexism? And what if you're really not using them for fanservice anyway, but you inexplicably have a bunch of female characters? Is Touhou sexist? And what about female characters that star as main characters and drive the plot and are not meek/subservient at all, but are also portrayed with fanservice aspects? I actually pondered this last thought in this thread.
That's kind of an example of an "un-nuanced understanding" right there (though the people back on TVT were far worse about it than you seem to be). You're presenting the idea that I either have to love those stories and stand behind them 100%, or else that they're an "old shame." They are neither. They are simply there.
That's just being a sophomore. They'll grow out of it. I hope.
stand behind them 100%, or else that they're an "old shame." They are
neither. They are simply there.
Dude, don't use a bullshit cop out. What's the point of writing a story if you the author don't have feelings for it one way or the other?
And most geeks with stymied social lives are also in that age group.
> That's kind of an example of an "un-nuanced understanding" right there
(though the people back on TVT were far worse about it than you seem to
be). You're presenting the idea that I either have to love those
stories and stand behind them 100%, or else that they're an "old shame."
They are neither. They are simply there.
So...
1. What sort of "un-nuanced understanding" am I exemplifying?
2. By "stories" do you mean Lucky Star or your Lucky Star self-insert roleplaying?
3. What exactly is your opinion on the latter?
So you never do anything that doesn't have a point, where you stop caring once it's over? You never played Pac-Man? You never motorcycled down a road just for the sake of driving? You've never shitposted?
I honestly couldn't care less about what bloggers think about my nerdcore lifestyle.
I'm more concerned about the people who claim they're geeks. That shit pisses me off, yo.
I already answered this: your "they must be an old shame" statement implies that if they're not, then I must stand behind them, without allowing for other possibilities, situational contexts or that I could simply hold neither view. A completely black-and-white outlook is pretty much the exact opposite of a nuanced understanding.
The self-inserts.
They were good until they became routine.
implies that if they're not, then I must stand behind them, without
allowing for other possibilities, situational contexts or that I could
simply hold neither view. A completely black-and-white outlook is pretty much the exact opposite of a nuanced understanding.
> your statement implies
...actually, I did not. You were the one to assume that I was thinking with a black-and-white outlook, while I was prepared for any number of different answers, including:
* "I stand behind it."
* "I'm embarrassed by it."
* "It was interesting at first but got bored of it."
* "It was funny for trolling people but it got old."
* "It was an exercise in role-playing that I did for practice."
* "I was a big fan of Lucky Star at the time and am no longer."
* "I still do it and am actually developing an entire setting based on that premise."
In light of this, would I be wrong to say that you were the thinking simplistically in this case, presuming that I would see you as either fully supportive of or thoroughly discrediting the self-insert roleplaying, without a middle ground?
Always thinking in black and white. Just like a geek.You'd be right to say I was being simplistic.
I cited that due to all the stuff I've read that criticizes moë for objectifying women and cute, childlike, and vulnerable. It's not quite the traditional "beauty/daintiness/housewife" objectification, but it could be construed as sexist in some contexts.
I think that is definitely a valid point and in many ways I agree. I guess part of my issue with the "moe fluff" criticisms I have seen have been that they have been directed at shows like Haruhi and K-On!. Sure, moe plays a part in those series (much more so in the latter than the former), but I do not think they are all moe, nor do I believe they are somehow bad for the industry (i.e. the whole "moepocalypse" idea).
I should probably note that since slice of life shows tend to feature at least some of what many consider "moe elements," I have somewhat of a skewed perspective here since the existence of such series is to some extent related to the fate of shows with "moe elements." In any event, I probably am more concerned with this than I really should be.
Forzare,
Always thinking in black and white. Just like a geek.
Haruhi is clearly not just moë content. You have Mikuru who seems to be intentionally set up to be moë, but you also have (based on what I've read of the show) the coldly detached observer Yuki and the irritatingly-high-on-life Haruhi.