We are being laughed at. A ranty article purely for debating purposes.

[haakon1]

She wasn't obnoxious, she just wasn't funny and cracked a joke

Either obnoxious, or she herself is socially awkward and didn't realize her joke was rude. (I admit, that's pretty darn socially awkward, but awkward happens.)

Actually, at a bar in London with co-workers some 13 years ago, I remember a openly gay Canadian co-worker (I'm American and straight) making a similar joke that I must be a virgin (at age 30). I was offended and didn't laugh, but I rolled with it enough to say, "No, I'm not, as long as women count." He and everyone else laughed, and it didn't seem like a huge deal. Hmm, perhaps I'm not that socially awkward.

Anyhow my takeaway -- if you're going to hang out in British pubs, you're going to have to learn how to be made fun of without losing your dignity. It's just the culture, so far as I could tell.

 

[haakon1]

Gay men used to be portrayed ... as effeminate people who like to wear female underwear or dress up as drag as alter egos.

Then things started to change and now we have gay characters a lot more often without the stereotyping nonsense we used to see. Homosexuality is a non-issue. It just is.

In America, the most popular guy on Facebook has used his celebrity to call for marriage equality, by saying so directly and by casually mentioning his husband Brad quite often, making it "no big deal" to his millions of followers.

If only George Takei, who played Sulu in "Star Trek", could do the same to change attitudes about geeks.

 

[Leviatham]

How well do we have to know you to participate in this discussion? You get evaluated on what you present, and you choose how much or how little you do so. You don't get to require that posters in your thread get to know you first.

You don't have to know me (as any other here hasn't) but if you're going to pass judgement, you're going to be corrected or enlightened by me. I haven't taken issue with people who've made assumptions, it is to be expected in any forum, don't take issue with me clarifying and making my position clear, even if that position is revealing aspects of my personality.

I dispute that. I do not believe that anybody real actually believes that somebody like that exists - even conceptually - any more than they believe Basil Fawlty, Arnold Rimmer, or Baldric do.

And a post that happened after this disproves that.

Just because you don't believe something doesn't make that true.

Exactly! That was precisely my point! Geeks have very positive role models. The Doctor is the ultimate geek, and he's a practically a national icon.

And not every geek is portrayed in the same way. That is just fact.

I've never seen Eureka, and have never commented on it. I've commented on BBT because I have seen it, and still don't agree with you. Yes, it's different to Doctor Who (otherwise it'd be the same show). No, I still don't think it mocks geeks, however many times you ask me.

You're entitled to disagree. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Because it's not communication. We're both just repeating ourselves over and over.

And, as I said earlier, that is where the conversation ends.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Leviatham]

I don't know you, but I was only commenting on what you provided directly in this thread. I could not imagine you laugh at yourself when your entire premise (and thread title) is that we should not be laughed at.

That is because there are boundaries that should not be stepped over. I can laugh at myself, that doesn't mean you can (and I don't mean you personally, I mean the general "you").

My friends can laugh at me, and even they do so with care as there are things that are not to be laughed at. That doesn't mean a work colleague could laugh at the same thing.

Sorry if I misrepresented your true views. The breakdown in communications is because you say geeks are not respected in one breath, then laud Black Adder for its disrespect of the rich, the elite, the poor, the peasants, the French, the military, etc. You take umbrage to the perceived disrespect of one show, while your favorite insults others. Then you ask why laugh at anyone, but you laugh at yourself. It's all been quite confusing.

Blackadder disrespects everyone, not just the rich or the military, and it does it to a degree that no one can identify anyone else with those characters. You might be able to identify some traits, but not all of them (at least I can't).

The difference between the thought behind the characters in Blackadder and the characters behind BBT or A Town Called Eureka is inmense!

You've explained your position a bit better by focusing on stereotype portrayal. I can see that, but any comedy is going to use well-known stereotypes to draw a laugh. I see that as a requirement for mainstream comedy. Shows that do not follow this time-tested formula can be great, but they usually have limited appeal.

And even that formula can be applied with greater taste and talent and stereotypes an be better used. And I think demanding that things are treated with more respect is not just our right as consumers, is our duty.

Like the Young Ones. One the surface it's a show about four stereotypes: the hippie, the cool guy who's not cool, the violent punk, and the hypocritical activist. But the stereotypical roles those characters fill are, respectively, Bedraggled Mother, Disaffected Father, Quarreling Brother and Sister. The surface stereotype vs. the role fulfillment turned many people off the show.

And can you see that depth in BBT? or in A Town Called Eureka?

I can't.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Leviatham]

<<They are all mega smart but socially awkward. Most of them have problems interacting with women, they are clumsy, have a poor sense of etiquette, have even poorer social skills.>>

Dude, the geek stereotypes exist for a reason. I'm not Sheldon Cooper, but at one point or another, each of these things has been said about me, and not without some justification.

Heck, your first sentence was pretty much every report card I got in Elementary School.

To me stereotypes exist because they're the simplest and easiest representation of something. Of anything, really.

That doesn't make them right. Actually, like any generalisation, makes them very, very flawed.

That doesn't stop people believing that the stereotypes apply.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Every group is the butt of jokes. Let's see ... Friends ... the most popular comedy of recent years. We were laughing at the popular rich girl, because she was stereotypically shallow, flighty and ineffectual, the handsome jock, because he was stereotypically dumb, and the neurotic guy and science nerd because they both acted according to stereotype too.

It's not reasonable for you to expect that geeks should be excepted just because you identify with this group.

 

[Leviatham]

Every group is the butt of jokes. Let's see ... Friends ... the most popular comedy of recent years. We were laughing at the popular rich girl, because she was stereotypically shallow, flighty and ineffectual, the handsome jock, because he was stereotypically dumb, and the neurotic guy and science nerd because they both acted according to stereotype too.

It's not reasonable for you to expect that geeks should be excepted just because you identify with this group.

I haven't said they should be excepted. I have said they (we) should be respected. I don't want to be laughed *at*. I want to be laughed *with*.

I have said the characterisation of geeks in popular media is unhealthy and I have said it can and should be done in a better way.

I don't care how many examples of badly portrayed archetypes are out there, that doesn't make another one right.

I don't want to see any stereotype that is disrespectful to the source and it is always reasonable to "fight" for the corner one's in.

You're welcome to let people think all geeks are like Sheldon or Fargo. I will not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) Re: Basil Fawlty- AFAIK, he was a characature of Torquay hotelier Donald William Sinclair, according to John Cleese and Michael Palin.

2) shows like Big Bang Theory should be welcomed, even if you don't like them. Yeah, stereotypical geeks get made fun of...just like other stereotypical subcultures get lampooned in sitcoms. That is a natural evolution of comedic stereotypes of subcultures...at least in American media. They start off cruel and insulting, then as time goes by, they more closely resemble the comedic roles of the majority culture. Hispanics, Women, Blacks, Jews, Gays, Native Americans- each group has undergone a period of insulting comedic depictions exclusively, to having comedic roles shown that are no different than those open to their Caucasian counterparts.

But part of that equality also means that the other roles are still there...because they're there for the Caucasians as well. If the only comedic roles for Blacks were like the Huxtables, but none of the fools, that would be just as bad as when Blacks could only be fools. Because that would mean we couldn't take a joke.

So, even though I don't watch the show, I am glad BBT is on the air and popular. (And, FWIW, I do know guys who strongly resemble those characters...and some of them are fans of the show.)

I don't think anyone here- or indeed, any of the show's fans- believe hat all geeks are like the ones on BBT. BBT is just the big dog on the block as far as geek-centric comedies go. Cruise deep cable, and you'll find others out there, possibly more in keeping with your concept of what geeky comedies should be.

 

[Morrus]

You don't have to know me (as any other here hasn't) but if you're going to pass judgement, you're going to be corrected or enlightened by me. I haven't taken issue with people who've made assumptions, it is to be expected in any forum, don't take issue with me clarifying and making my position clear, even if that position is revealing aspects of my personality.

And that's fine; it's just that to me it's coming across as you reprimanding me for not knowing you rather than you just clarifying. Maybe one of those "text doesn't convey tone very well" things.

And not every geek is portrayed in the same way. That is just fact.

Well, that's an advancement from "Doctor Who has nothing to do with geeks", so at least we're slowly getting somewhere; as I said, there are some very popular positive geek role models. We also have popular scientists like Professor Brian Cox and Neil DeGrasse Tyson being all charismatic and super-cool all over our TVs and podcasts and things. And they're making films about supergeeky stuff like LotR and The Avengers which are turning out to be increibly popular mega-blockbusters! I still maintain that we (geeks) have never had it so good. And yes, of course not everything on TV is portrayed in the same way. I don't think I or anyone else has claimed they are; it would be a rather dumb thing for me to say!

You're welcome to let people think all geeks are like Sheldon or Fargo. I will not.

The problem here is that you keep treating that as though it's established fact; there are folks here like me disputing the premise, not the argument. If your premise is true (and, honestly, I'm not trying to be difficult here -- I'm jut not seeing any evidence that it is) and these shows do make people think all geeks are like Sheldon, then yes: I'd agree with your position that it's wrong, and needs to be addressed.

The problem isn't that latter bit, though; it's the initial premise. As I said earlier in the thread, I see no evidence that - and indeed would be utterly flabbergasted to find out that - anyone, let alone any kind of majority of people, watches that show and believes for a second that Sheldon Cooper is in any way a real representation of anything, let alone geeks. He's clearly a ridiculous, almost cartoon construct. And if he were to represent something and cause everyone to believe that group of people were all like Sheldon, I'd say 'aspergers' or somewhere on the autism spectrum long before I'd say 'geek'.

Perhaps the answer to this is beyond our ability to investigate right now; we'd need to establish whether or not, as you say, the show(s) make people think all geeks are like Sheldon or Fargo. I see no evidence to suggest they do.

I think in the long run, we can only answer for ourselves and how these shows make us feel individually. None of us here are qualified to speak on behalf of 'people', but we can speak on behalf of ourselves. I personally don't feel mocked or laughed at when I watch BBT; maybe you do. But we certainly can't take as estabished fact the premise that the show makes people think all geeks are like Sheldon without some pretty hefty evidence to back it up.

 

[Bagpuss]

I have said the characterisation of geeks in popular media is unhealthy and I have said it can and should be done in a better way

Actually you haven't you've said the characterisation of geeks in certain shows is poor. ALL of those shows are sitcoms. You yourself have characterisation of geeks in other shows is actually pretty good, like Willow in Buffy or every character on Bones, or most geeks on other dramas, even ones which have comic elements like Buffy or Chuck.

Stereotypes and exaggerations are part of the sitcom format, so you should expect to see exaggerated geek characters, in a sitcom involving geeks, just like say you see exaggerated characters in a sitcom about soldiers like Bluestone 42, for something you can watch right now.

Also going back to the 40 year old virgin incident, your friend missed a trick, if a woman in a social situation is joking about sex with a person she has recently met it could be an indicator that she is attracted to you. Certainly it opens up the conversation in a much more flirtatious direction, the guy shouldn't have been so quick to take it as an insult. Rather take it as the joke it was intended.

Getting insulted at the slightest thing, is a sure sign of social awkwardness. Kind of like getting insulted by how a sitcom portrays a comical character, that isn't a reflection on real life.