The Battle Continues Over "Childish Things"

The recent kerfuffle between Bill Maher and comic fans mourning Stan Lee's passing has illustrated an ugly truth that geeks everywhere continue to face: geekdom is still viewed by some as a sign that society has failed to "grow up."

The recent kerfuffle between Bill Maher and comic fans mourning Stan Lee's passing has illustrated an ugly truth that geeks everywhere continue to face: geekdom is still viewed by some as a sign that society has failed to "grow up."

View attachment 104454
Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​
[h=3]It Started with Stan[/h]The death of comics legend Stan Lee prompted an outpouring of grief and comedian Bill Maher took his passing as an opportunity to take a shot at fandom with an essay titled "Adulting":

"...the assumption everyone had back then, both the adults and the kids, was that comics were for kids, and when you grew up you moved on to big-boy books without the pictures. But then twenty years or so ago, something happened – adults decided they didn’t have to give up kid stuff. And so they pretended comic books were actually sophisticated literature."

The response was swift. Maher admitted the lost 40,000 Twitter followers after his post and that he's still followed by paparazzi asking him about "the Stan Lee thing." In response, Maher doubled down in a scathing attack on geekdom everywhere with a video titled, "New Rule: Grow Up":

"...the point of my blog is that I'm not glad Stan Lee is dead I'm sad you're alive...my shot wasn't at Stan Lee it was at, you know, grown men who still dress like kids...I'm sorry but if you are an adult playing with superhero dolls--I'm sorry, I mean collectible action figures!--why not go all the way and drive to work on a big wheel? Grown-ups these days, they cling so desperately to their childhood that when they do attempt to act their age they have a special word for it now, 'adulting'."

If those statements make your blood boil, you're not alone. The comic book industry's condemnation of Maher's comments were swift and wide-reaching. Stan Lee's estate responded directly to Maher:

Mr. Maher: Comic books, like all literature, are storytelling devices. When written well by great creators such as Stan Lee, they make us feel, make us think and teach us lessons that hopefully make us better human beings. One lesson Stan taught so many of us was tolerance and respect, and thanks to that message, we are grateful that we can say you have a right to your opinion that comics are childish and unsophisticated. Many said the same about Dickens, Steinbeck, Melville and even Shakespeare. But to say that Stan merely inspired people to “watch a movie” is in our opinion frankly disgusting. Countless people can attest to how Stan inspired them to read, taught them that the world is not made up of absolutes, that heroes can have flaws and even villains can show humanity within their souls.

The same criticism has been leveled at all things geeky, including role-playing games.
[h=3]Are Role-Playing Games Childish?[/h]Maher's attack on comics is essentially an attack on geekdom itself; the defense from Stan Lee's estate is an argument for the kind of imaginative storytelling that is at the heart of role-playing games.

In a lengthy response to a Quora question if D&D is "too immature and childish," Jake Harris explained:

D&D is a great game that brings people of all kinds together, for those willing to actually try and enjoy it. It's far from childish. Same with other forms of science fiction and fantasy. I strongly believe that these are lowkey pillars of society, which endure when pop culture constantly waxes and wanes with new trends and interpretations of “pop”. Dungeons & Dragons might have 6 Editions (I'm counting 3rd and 3.5 Editions) and Pathfinder, but its playerbase and rules remain largely the same: sit around a table, and travel to far-off lands, doing what no one else in the world is able to. Maybe you think that's childish. Maybe you could even argue that it is. Fine. I submit that maybe our world needs a little childishness. Maybe if we learn to fight less and play more we might actually get somewhere. If we choose to let the children inside of us inspire ourselves and those around us, we might not be stuck with all the problems we have.

Comedian and actor Patton Oswalt doesn't see a difference between pop culture and geek culture:

...I've got news for you—pop culture is nerd culture. The fans of Real Housewives of Hoboken watch, discuss, and absorb their show the same way a geek watched Dark Shadows or obsessed over his eighth-level half-elf ranger character in Dungeons & Dragons. It's the method of consumption, not what's on the plate.

That times have changed is perhaps best exemplified by the Collins online dictionary, which signified a shift away from Maher's perspective:

Once a slur reserved for eggheads and an insult aimed at lovers of computer programming, geek has been deemed the word of the year by the Collins online dictionary. Less brazen than selfie – which topped the Oxford Dictionaries poll last month – geek was chosen as a reminder of how an insult can be transformed into a badge of honour, according to Collins. In September the dictionary changed the main definition of geek from someone preoccupied with computing to "a person who is very knowledgeable and enthusiastic about a specific subject'', adding geekery, geek chic and geekdom to the fold.

Part of geekdom is maintaining the passion for things we enjoyed as children into adulthood, but it does not necessarily mean that we aren't effectively "adulting." Although geekdom seems to have taken over popular culture, comedians like Maher are there to remind us that not everyone is okay with the takeover.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Besides I think the main difference between your Granny playing card games and someone playing Call of Duty is that one of those people plays their card games only after finishing a whole day of 'Adulting' and the other is a Call of Duty player.

That's a really cherry picked comparison.

Have you seen the blue hairs at a casino shoveling quarters into a slot machine or at a bingo parlor playing over and over? They're the right comparison set to a hardcore "all I do is play CoD" type. Different game but the same basic addiction. I see nothing inherently better at being hooked on bingo or CoD. Lots of people play video games and do a perfectly fine job at living in the adult world.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
It's not that a new market has opened and people are going to more movies today. They're not. In fact, movie attendance has been dropping for decades. In the 50s, the average American went to something like 40 movies a year. These days it's four.

Movies had a much easier market 40 years ago. Most people didn't even have a video cassette recorder or cable. Once VCRs and cable hit, the "let's go to the movies" started dying out. Now with streaming, forget it.


Agreed. But isn't there something stagnant about liking the same things at 15 and at 25 and at 35 and at 45? Can't nostalgia and the effort to re-capture or hang onto childhood be unhealthy?

I generally think so but I think nominally the same hobby could well change over time. I mean, the kinds of games I play now are fairly different than I ran at age 18. I play music but what I find appealing or challenging isn't the same as it was when I was younger. Blues was something I didn't understand and couldn't get into my fingers back then, for instance, and didn't really appreciate it. Now I do.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Again, I suggest that your hesitance to admit Maher is a troll is that you agree with him, or believe that his targets, in this case anyway, are actually worthy of the scorn he's heaping. I'll admit, I don't disagree on these myself for the most part. But I can still see that he's trolling the people he's studying. See also: Cohen, Sacha Baron (thanks for reminding me about him, by the way,) who has done some interesting work with the technique.

The essential technique and attitude involved here is to forgo the rhetorical principle of charity, wherein if you want to pick a fight with some idea, you are obligated to pick a fight with the strongest proponents of that idea you can find. If you think you are the sort that can, as you put it, "take a piss out of particular subject" then you find the biggest, strongest, most well armed opponent of that sort and take that person on, because only by doing that are you really proving anything. In a debate, you only seek out your peers, and you contest with the strongest versions of their argument.

For any position or group or culture, you can always find people that poorly represent the group they are nominally members of, all of the time or some of the time. It's always possible to conduct a ton of interviews, and then selectively edit your footage to only show the people that represent things poorly. If this is your technique for proving something, you can prove anything you care to.

This sort of thing has become normal. Both the left and the right have teams of people now who go out in the world seeking the looniest footage from the most disturbed individuals they can find in order to make those people represent the 'other side'. Then they say to their stalwart partisans, "This is who we are fighting against. Are you not entertained? Are you not outraged now!"

And that is not even the most insidious employment of this technique. A really good one frequently employed is to say nothing about a person at all until they give you the footage that you want, at which time it becomes a story. You can hound a person all you want behind the scenes and never report on their answers or behavior. Eventually, you'll record a slip, and then you make that the thing that the person is known for.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Oooh, a lightning round!

1) Because he is.
2) Yes. (And don't even get me started on that BS can of worms)
3) The comedian interviewing him.

Again, I don't think you understand what we mean by "trolling", which I'll toss out a basic if probably incomplete definition, is basically taking the piss out of a particular subject in a condescending tone, usually for the primary cathartic benefit of an audience that already agrees with you.

Again, I suggest that your hesitance to admit Maher is a troll is that you agree with him, or believe that his targets, in this case anyway, are actually worthy of the scorn he's heaping. I'll admit, I don't disagree on these myself for the most part. But I can still see that he's trolling the people he's studying. See also: Cohen, Sacha Baron (thanks for reminding me about him, by the way,) who has done some interesting work with the technique.

But he is not asking questions in a condescending tone. I would suggest that it is probably you framing it in your head as being a condescending tone because you dont like the guy. Thats just a normal human thing to do.

It is not condescending to ask someone who claims that their holy text is literally true to explain something from it, or to ask why what they say is different to what that text says, or to ask why current federal policies are based on a Bronze age philosophy that the founding fathers specifically hated.

Maybe the Senator is right, maybe there should be an IQ test for people that want to run for public office.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
That's a really cherry picked comparison.

Have you seen the blue hairs at a casino shoveling quarters into a slot machine or at a bingo parlor playing over and over? They're the right comparison set to a hardcore "all I do is play CoD" type. Different game but the same basic addiction. I see nothing inherently better at being hooked on bingo or CoD. Lots of people play video games and do a perfectly fine job at living in the adult world.

Except that one person is at the end of their life and the other is at the beginning. Its kinda like comparing apples to elephants.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Really? Seriously? Surely you haven't had such a comfortable life.

I'm not the guy you responded to, but here's one from 1978: my family fled our mountain home in southern Arizona to a safe location (a family property 150 miles away) after my parents, who were artists working in silver jewelry at the time were accused of witchcraft by a local fundamentalist christian cult. The call that evening was from a friend who was at the event where it was decided that "action must be taken" followed by suggestions they set our house on fire.

So in 1978 I and my family were called witches and threatened with being killed. We left at 2 in the morning and the next time my folks returned it was to vandalized property to work out the sale of said property.

Good enough for you?

Well said. It certainly puts a perspective on these other '1st world' problems.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
For any position or group or culture, you can always find people that poorly represent the group they are nominally members of, all of the time or some of the time. It's always possible to conduct a ton of interviews, and then selectively edit your footage to only show the people that represent things poorly. If this is your technique for proving something, you can prove anything you care to.

Yes, I forgot one of the most significant factors of trolling: substituting the lowest-hanging fruit possible as representative of the whole.

But he is not asking questions in a condescending tone. I would suggest that it is probably you framing it in your head as being a condescending tone because you dont like the guy. Thats just a normal human thing to do.

It is not condescending to ask someone who claims that their holy text is literally true to explain something from it, or to ask why what they say is different to what that text says, or to ask why current federal policies are based on a Bronze age philosophy that the founding fathers specifically hated.

I think you are ignoring the condescension due to your own biases. Trust me, it's there. It might be occasionally be subtle (not that subtlety is a particular hallmark of Maher's oeuvre) but it is there. In the tone of voice, the choice of words, the facial expressions (which are a particular hallmark of Maher's oeuvre), the body language. And as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] so keenly points out, it's also present in the editing; the simple choice of subject. "This is who leads their religion," he says sneering, not literally of course but in the fact that of all the Christian pastors and priests he could have interviewed he chooses the scummy megachurch huckster. "These are their beliefs," he adds with a chortle, again not literally but sub-textually when he chooses to show off the obviously fringe wackos and their "humans rode dinosaurs" nonsense.

Note the emphasis on "their"; remember that the audience for this movie is not religious people. It is "let's laugh at the silly monkeys in the zoo" level of cathartic, mean-spirited pablum.

Trolling, in another word.

Maybe the Senator is right, maybe there should be an IQ test for people that want to run for public office.

IQ tests are total garbage; the joke from this bit was that the Senator inadvertently dunked on his own intelligence, with the unspoken subtext from Maher (editing!) being that maybe it should a requirement.
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
I think you are ignoring the condescension due to your own biases. Trust me, it's there. It might be occasionally be subtle (not that subtlety is a particular hallmark of Maher's oeuvre) but it is there. In the tone of voice, the choice of words, the facial expressions (which are a particular hallmark of Maher's oeuvre), the body language.

Yeah, that is pretty weak sauce. It is not what he said, it is how he said it. That is what is known as 'mind reading' look at his face, he obviously is thinking something bad. Humans are really bad at mind reading.

And as [MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] so keenly points out, it's also present in the editing; the simple choice of subject. "This is who leads their religion," he says sneering, not literally of course but in the fact that of all the Christian pastors and priests he could have interviewed he chooses the scummy megachurch huckster. "These are their beliefs," he adds with a chortle, again not literally but sub-textually when he chooses to show off the obviously fringe wackos and their "humans rode dinosaurs" nonsense.

Well for a start he does not just talk to scummy megachurch hucksters, although from the name alone "mega" church these are obviously not your mom and pop corner churches, he talks to normal christians as well. My favourite was the Priest he talked to outside the Vatican in Rome. That guy is probably the best antidote to the Mega Church hucksters and Dinosaur riders but he does not get cut from the film. Did you know that Jesus is the sixth saint that christians in Rome pray to?

Note the emphasis on "their"; remember that the audience for this movie is not religious people. It is "let's laugh at the silly monkeys in the zoo" level of cathartic, mean-spirited pablum.

Trolling, in another word.

Maybe you could tell Doctor Futurity, who almost got lynched by a so called church, about the 'silly monkeys" that Mahar was trolling.

IQ tests are total garbage; the joke from this bit was that the Senator inadvertently dunked on his own intelligence, with the unspoken subtext from Maher (editing!) being that maybe it should a requirement.

The "unspoken subtext' is a moment of silence where the viewer gets to reflect on what was just said. But I suppose that you could hear the trolling in that silence.

I will certainly finish watching the movie tonight because it will be interesting to see some other religions. But as there had been a real lack of trolling so far once again I have to default back to my suspicion that "Trolling" is something you use to describe someone that you dont agree with.
 

Gradine

The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Yeah, that is pretty weak sauce. It is not what he said, it is how he said it. That is what is known as 'mind reading' look at his face, he obviously is thinking something bad. Humans are really bad at mind reading.

It's not about reading his mind and you know it. The rules for judicious editing to make a point are pretty damn well codified, and humans are deceptively good at reading between lines, between body language and obvious facial expressions (like Maher constantly mugging for the camera). But this is just me repeating myself because instead of arguing the legitimate points you created a strawman, low-hanging fruit to attack instead. Pretty weak sauce indeed.

Wait... what type of behavior did we establish this was a prime example of again?

Maybe you could tell Doctor Futurity, who almost got lynched by a so called church, about the 'silly monkeys" that Mahar was trolling.

This only makes Maher's trolling more indefensible. You're right in that some of these people are actually deranged to the point of being dangerous. Reducing them to "silly monkeys" to point and mock, which I argue is exactly what Maher is doing, is equally as dangerous because it makes us less likely to believe in the actual threat they can represent. Kind of like how most everyone treated incels as a joke until they started killing people.

The "unspoken subtext' is a moment of silence where the viewer gets to reflect on what was just said. But I suppose that you could hear the trolling in that silence.

Again, I don't understand how you don't. Are you really trying to argue that this was a point presented neutrally, without comment, for the viewer to decide how they feel? Seriously?

I will certainly finish watching the movie tonight because it will be interesting to see some other religions. But as there had been a real lack of trolling so far once again I have to default back to my suspicion that "Trolling" is something you use to describe someone that you dont agree with.

Except I don't disagree with it, which is something I have said multiple times and am actually starting to get frustrated with how often I'm forced to repeat it. My problem is not with the message at all. Organized religion is deeply problematic and damaging in a lot of significant and major ways. It is with the methods and tactics involved; namely, in this case, trolling. Maher is a troll. Religulous is trolling. And trolling is, at best, a worthless tactics (preaching to the choir, as it were, except being a :):):):) about it), and at worst is actively counterproductive.

But the fact that you keep falling back on the same faulty suspicions which I've refuted time and time again, I can only conclude that the opposite is true; that you are refusing to see the trolling for what it is because you agree with it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
It's not about reading his mind and you know it. The rules for judicious editing to make a point are pretty damn well codified, and humans are deceptively good at reading between lines, between body language and obvious facial expressions (like Maher constantly mugging for the camera). But this is just me repeating myself because instead of arguing the legitimate points you created a strawman, low-hanging fruit to attack instead. Pretty weak sauce indeed.

Wait... what type of behavior did we establish this was a prime example of again?

Well by the definition: I disagree with you, so that means that I must be Trolling you.

Maybe this is a good place to stop. Thank you for the discussion and the movie recommendation.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top