3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhy 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.