3 ms·
My 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
by Typhon 15y ago
My 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.