5 ms·
I knew, before reading the first line of the article, that he was not suddenly going to change his mind. He managed to go lower than my lowered expectations by
by Typhon 15y ago
I knew, before reading the first line of the article, that he was not suddenly going to change his mind. He managed to go lower than my lowered expectations by saying he had "hit a nerve", which doesn't mean anything about his degree of insight.
The root problem of this debate is that the word « geek » has lost any kind of meaning a few years ago. There is no clear definition of it, and it's become an empty buzzword.
Every time I see the word « geek », it reminds me of Orwell's essay about « Politics and the English Language »
(http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-and-the-english-language.htm http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-and-the-eng...)
« The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." »
Well, the word 'geek' has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies « A bunch of people who do not necessarily share any goal, ideology, cultural references or lifestyle, but that we lump together because it fits our simplistic worldview »
- forensic 15y agoGeeks don't get to define themselves. The word has clear meaning UNLESS you ask a geek. The definition of geek being used is one that comes from wider society, where anyone interested in computer gadgets as a primary life interest is generally classified as a geek. Go meet some non-geeks and you'll quickly learn the proper definition of geek.
- Typhon 15y agoMy claim : There is no proper definition of 'geek'. In order to refute such a claim, you mustn't limit yourself to saying there is one, you must say what it is and prove it is indeed the proper definition of 'geek' Unfortunately, the definition you give is wrong. The word geek used to mean "someone who's passionate about something". It also used to mean something like "freak". In any case, I have seen people whose primary life interests was RPGs or literature be classified as 'geeks'. Also, "computer gadget" in itself is a vague phrase. Lumping together people because they're somehow connected to computers in some way is stupid. What is there in common between a video games producer like Peter Molyneux, a millionaire entrepreneur like Bill Gates, an ideologist hacker like Richard Stallman, an amateur programmer like myself, and a technician that takes care of a university network of computers ?
- forensic 15y ago>"Unfortunately, the definition you give is wrong. The word geek used to mean "someone who's passionate about something". It also used to mean something like "freak". " "used to" >Also, "computer gadget" in itself is a vague phrase. Lumping together people because they're somehow connected to computers in some way is stupid. So you think society's definition is stupid. Ok. The similarity between all those people is that they all are very interested in computers. They are all geeks.
- Typhon 15y ago« So you think society's definition is stupid. Ok » Just because you claim something is "society's definition" doesn't imply it is anyone's definition but yours. « all those people is that they all are very interested in computers » Not necessarily. Not in the same way. Not to the same extent.