Now, don’t be scared, everyone… but this week, we did NO QUESTIONS.
It’s not our fault! Actually, it’s completely our fault. We got pretty distracted by a spirited debate on the nature of the word “geek.” Yes, yes, it’s been done to death ,but there’s actually some interesting and fairly original thoughts in this discussion. So check it out! Enjoy!
LINKS:
And this restaurant is still great. The Chicken Roulades is amazing!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
So let me point this out.
Your “core competency”, as we annoyingly say in marketing, is interesting conversation between Tony and William.
The point of drawing questions/topics out of The Hat is to spark such conversation. I posit that it IS possible for you two to have an interesting conversation without input from your listeners. (Though we certainly appreciate the ability to provide input.)
New Vegas – YES
Which way did you go in the main story?
The Man IS trying to keep the Snarfblats down.
Let me give you an example of what I think William might be mildly touching on with what he’s saying.
In the special features for Fallout: New Vegas there’s a brief interview with Mathew Perry, who voiced Benny Gekko in the game.
Part of the reason Mathew Perry is voicing for this game is that he was a HUGE fan of Fallout 3. He went onto the Ellen DeGeneres show and gave her an XBox 360 and a copy of the game so he could share it with her and talked about how much he loved that game.
BUT, in this interview, on a Fallout: New Vegas disk that only people who have paid extra to get it with the game. He is a gamer, who publicly expressed his love of a particular game, talking to other gamers.
BUT, while talking in this interview about how much he loved Fallout three and how much TIME he spent playing it…
He suddenly stopped and, with a sideways glance at the camera, assured the watcher that it’s okay, because he HAS (in fact) been on dates.
Really?
Really??
Seriously Mathew Perry. Fuck you.
I’ve only just noticed the formatting errors on the above post.
Sorry if it came off as confusing, I got a call in the middle of writing that.
Yeah, that story does illustrate much of what I was trying to say.
I just realized that I can’t see the script anymore on Google Drive. Was it taken down? I went in after listening to this episode to read any changes you had made and its not showing in my shared docs anymore.
Nope… it’s still there… and you’re still listed as someone with access.
Sir Guido, make sure you’re logged in under the same email address you were before. I had some trouble getting it to work for me, as well, until I logged into a different email.
I tried all of them, and I still don’t see it. I’ll keep puttering.
Popped up just now. Not sure whats up with my GDrive. Weird.
Bon.
A catatonic state is how I’ve been making my way through my work days of late….
Personally I suspect the reason all the responses were so positive is due to the the mind control messages that you’ve embedded in the audio and which play during the catatonia phase of listening to the podcast.
Frog/Sausage: For some reason when William first mentioned Tony playing both of these parts; I immediately thought of sausage made from frogs. *sigh* Sometimes I even disturb myself.
Tony: You’ve always been a little funny.
Chopping trees: Did you really chop down a tree? Was it a cherry tree? Could you not tell a lie about it?
Congratulations on your ninth anniversary!
100 things you must eat before you die? Did you discuss this on the podcast previously and I’ve just forgotten?
A video game recommendation for me? Really? Oh and now you’re going to leave me hanging till next time?
Dresden Files: Magical overkill, ha! And yes, complications/mistakes are what make stories interesting.
Geeks: William did you perchance watch this video ( Why it’s awesome to be a nerd) by Wil Wheaton before recording this episode?
Nerd vs Geek: I think that’s rather much a regional colloquialism. Additionally, I don’t think the loss of status is really tied into definition and your hypothesis that geeks want the definition to include as many people as possible is wrong. Rather they are more likely to narrowly define being a geek to exclude as many people as they can, specifically to differentiate themselves.
Nope… hadn’t seen that video… but I like it!
Indeed, many people who consider themselves geeks or nerds want to differentiate themselves and/or perhaps feel as though they belong to an elite group, but this actually supports my assertions regarding the role status plays. I didn’t mean to suggest that the “being a geek is just being passionate about something” definition is an attempt to construct a “big tent” for geekdom. The point I was trying to make is…
OK, first take your point about a geek wanting to feel like they belong to an exclusive group. Next, add that in spite of their somewhat superior feeling in belonging to this group, they and/or people like them are actually ridiculed by the larger culture. What will this geek do? It’s true that they don’t want everyone trying to be them, because if that happened they’d lose their “specialness”. But being misunderstood is one thing, and being marginalized is another. The former may make you a social outsider — which you can imagine others thinking is cool even if they aren’t hip enough to be an outsider themselves — but the latter makes you a social outcast — putting you in a “social pit”, as it were. What I’m suggesting is that defining geek as “someone who has a passion for something” is an effort to fill “the pit” and put geeks on a level social playing field with everyone else. Once this is accomplished, there are still many ways for them to be social outsiders, they just don’t have to be social outcasts anymore.
All of that said… I think when Wil Wheaton uses this kind of definition, he’s looking to be neither a social outcast or a social outsider. I don’t think Wil is elitist about geekdom in the slightest. He’s like… an evangelist for geek who wants to make everyone a born again geek and through some kind of nerd faith healing rid them of their joyless, fun-banishing cynicism. This explains, actually, why Wil defines the terms this way, because he wants people to connect — or re-connect — to what is likely a childhood passion and learn to be playful with it again. I think he, too, would be better served focusing on the playful rather than the passion, but I understand his definition given what his goals are. I still think others, though, like the “passion” definition for the reasons I’ve already described — not so that they’ll be accepted, but so that they won’t be summarily rejected.
Alright, here’s how Google docs works. You can make a document public, so anyone can see and edit. You can share the link so that only those with the link can see (or edit, if you wish). Or, you can grant access to specific Google (gmail, essentially) accounts. Their access rights can be tweaked, so there’s a bit more too it, but that’s the cliff notes.
I’m organizing a big UAT effort at work using Google docs, let me know if I can help you guys.
I think geeks/nerds are both less socially acceptable for the reasons William was say, and more acceptable than they used to be both because of the association with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and the fact that their interest in stories and memes is a way to sell things (look at what’s playing at the movies).
I also think the less acceptable and more likely to be bullied has to do with gender associations. Traditionally the “real,” the factual and the true has been thought of as a male realm, while the fictional, artifice, and deception are linked with the female. This shows up in lots of stories, and shows up in people’s fears of stories (19th century–novels were a bad influence because associated with women writing and reading them–no such association with essayists). When my son was in elementary school I remember the librarian telling parents that boys liked nonfiction, girls liked fiction (certainly not true of my son). Acting/Performing–anything with a costume has a stereotype of effeminacy for guys
And then sports is associated with outdoor, physical activity, etc. (Despite the fact that I’m sure a lot sports fans aren’t also participants.) Geeks are thought of as indoor types–in the home (female space). Not muscled, pasty skinned, glasses wearing….
I sometimes wonder if the extreme reaction to people like Anita Sarkeesian, or more generally the misogyny in gamers is partially related to being defensive about masculinity.
I meant the misogyny in some part of the gamer community if that wasn’t clear. Because I generally agree with the idea that geeks tend to be more accepting of identity blurring (including gender).