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 attac

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.