3 ms·

His anecdote is irrelevant to bullying, not to the bullying of geeks.

by James_Duval 13y ago

lucian1900 13y ago
To both, because it is an anecdote. Plenty of poor geeks get bullied too.
- James_Duval 13y ago
  Anecdotes and anecdata can be ignored from a statistical point of view, when determining the truth of a statement about a population, it's true, but people can still illustrate a point with an anecdote - and the anecdote is not central to his post's argument, it's just an illustration. What he is suggesting is that both privilege and a lack of privilege (he mentions homosexuality as an example, poverty might be another example) are more important than "being a geek" to whether you get bullied. When you are called a geek, consider what the aggressor means by that; is it that s/he considers you overly-effeminate? That you can't afford to take part in social activities, making you an outcast? Or perhaps that you have opportunities and a position in the mainstream which they can't have? That is all the author is saying (I think, I may have mis-read or read selectively). They're not saying that poor geeks don't get bullied.
  - pekk 13y ago
    Sure, people are bullied for having qualities that are inherent to being a geek, or very strongly associated. But not for actually being a geek. What? That's a meaningless distinction. Of course bullies do not necessarily use the word 'geek,' that word is a product of people trying to carve out a measure of societal and self-respect by claiming the label (like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity). It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
    - James_Duval 13y ago
      Why is that a meaningless distinction? A quality can be necessary for being a 'geek' without being sufficient for it. >It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'. I agree. However, those qualities can be found in many different populations, and as geek is roughly approximated to "X qualities + intelligence" the question I feel as though the author is asking is whether the "+ intelligence" part of the definition is useful. >(like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity) I agree very strongly with this.

His anecdote is irrelevant to bullying, not to the bullying of geeks.

lucian1900 13y ago

To both, because it is an anecdote. Plenty of poor geeks get bullied too.

James_Duval 13y ago
Anecdotes and anecdata can be ignored from a statistical point of view, when determining the truth of a statement about a population, it's true, but people can still illustrate a point with an anecdote - and the anecdote is not central to his post's argument, it's just an illustration. What he is suggesting is that both privilege and a lack of privilege (he mentions homosexuality as an example, poverty might be another example) are more important than "being a geek" to whether you get bullied. When you are called a geek, consider what the aggressor means by that; is it that s/he considers you overly-effeminate? That you can't afford to take part in social activities, making you an outcast? Or perhaps that you have opportunities and a position in the mainstream which they can't have? That is all the author is saying (I think, I may have mis-read or read selectively). They're not saying that poor geeks don't get bullied.
- pekk 13y ago
  Sure, people are bullied for having qualities that are inherent to being a geek, or very strongly associated. But not for actually being a geek. What? That's a meaningless distinction. Of course bullies do not necessarily use the word 'geek,' that word is a product of people trying to carve out a measure of societal and self-respect by claiming the label (like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity). It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'.
  - James_Duval 13y ago
    Why is that a meaningless distinction? A quality can be necessary for being a 'geek' without being sufficient for it. >It's far from true that nobody is attacked for having qualities encapsulated in the word 'geek'. I agree. However, those qualities can be found in many different populations, and as geek is roughly approximated to "X qualities + intelligence" the question I feel as though the author is asking is whether the "+ intelligence" part of the definition is useful. >(like others have claimed 'queer' - a closely related concept given that all these targets are lumped together as bottoms for the purposes of imposing domination with impunity) I agree very strongly with this.