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

Alan Shutko

Explorer
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.

Yes. If you want realistic portrayals of people, you need to go to at least a dramedy. Sitcoms stereotype and asking them not to is like asking reality tv to have redeeming value.

This topic has nothing to do with tabletop gaming, btw, and should be moved to Misc. Geek.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Leviatham

Explorer
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.

I don't reprimand adults. In fact I rarely even reprimand children.

If I had to do anything near a reprimand I'd do it in private, so rest assured, it really wasn't meant to come across like that.

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.

I haven't said there aren't. I maintain the majority are.

Also, Dr Who is not a sitcom and is not about geeks. The Doctor is a hero who happens to be a geek (of sorts. I'm not sure he's got a hobby he's passionate about. As far as I can see, the only thing that makes him a geek is his choice of clothing. But that is a full thread on itself.) and his geekiness is not an issue, or made an issue of.

In BBT, A Town Called Eureka and others, geekiness is *precisely* the point of the characters and the foundation to laugh at them.


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.

They are irrelevant to the thread, though. They are neither characters in a sitcom, or famous for being geeks. They're famous for being scientists. Being a geek is a byproduct of their passion for science, not the reason they have to be scientists.

As role models, they are indeed some of the best ones out there.

And they're making films about supergeeky stuff like LotR and The Avengers which are turning out to be increibly popular mega-blockbusters!

And I cringe at the irony that some people *love* those movies today when they used to bully people into Fantasy or Comics 20 years ago.

Again, though, those are not portraying geeks under any light. They're subjects geeks were interested in before they became mainstream. If they weren't already... Methinks LotR has been mainstream for a long time, as have The Avengers.

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!

And I am not arguing with the fact (because it is) that we have it better today than 10 or 15 years ago.

I am arguing the fact that we still don't have it good enough.

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.

So someone thinking that people who paint minis because that's what they've seen in movies is not evidence?

In the circles I move where there are no gaming/comic books geeks (for example my circle of fellow psychotherapists) people do think of us like Sheldon or similar.


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'.

Then be flabbergasted because there are people out there (a lot of people) who do believe those archetype apply.

Also I have read a few forums in which parents associate and can see similarities between Sheldon and their autistic child.

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.

There is. Look outside the geek circles and you'll find plenty.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
They are irrelevant to the thread, though.

Of course they are. Whether or not geeks are portrayed well or catered to in the wider media is totally relevant to the overall thrust of this thread, which has developed beyond your original post as conversations are wont to do.

So someone thinking that people who paint minis because that's what they've seen in movies is not evidence?

It's one teeny tiny bit of evidence; it in no way approaches your evidentiary burden for your claim. Without wanting to exacerbate that whole line-by-line quoting thing, an anecdote is not data; and you saying that evidence exists is not itself evidence. I've not seen this evidence that the majority of people think that geeks are like Sheldon Cooper. Therefore I do not believe that they do.
 

Leviatham

Explorer
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.

Buffy, Bones, Dr Who and A Town Called Eureka are not sitcoms. Far from it.

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.

I see exaggerated versions of geeks in the IT Crowd. I don't find them insulting or demeaning.

It's not the exaggeration, is the way it's handled.

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.

Dangerous ground to even consider a woman who says "You like painting minis? You must be a virgin like the guy in the movie too right?" could be an indicator that she's attracted to you... I am not even going to go there.

Certainly it opens up the conversation in a much more flirtatious direction

I pray never to be around you when a conversation opens like that. I fear there would be more chances of it ending badly...

the guy shouldn't have been so quick to take it as an insult. Rather take it as the joke it was intended.

Why? Because everything should be funny to everyone else? Because we should be happy and find funny that we're compared to a rather sad and cheap character in a rather sad and cheap movie?

As I said earlier, you're welcome to let people treat you like that. I won't.

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.

And who decides what is the "slightest thing"? You?

What is "the slightest thing" for whom and why? Do you know why people get insulted and why? Do you know their reasons?

No. You know some things don't affect you. That doesn't mean they don't affect other people and measuring that effect by your own benchmark and perspective denotes an intense lack of empathy.

People are entitled to feel hurt for whatever reason. You don't have to know the reason or understand it, but that doesn't mean you have any right to belittle those reasons or berate them. And they fact that you don't understand or know those reasons doesn't make them any less valid either.
 

Leviatham

Explorer
Yes. If you want realistic portrayals of people, you need to go to at least a dramedy. Sitcoms stereotype and asking them not to is like asking reality tv to have redeeming value.

This topic has nothing to do with tabletop gaming, btw, and should be moved to Misc. Geek.

Actually asking sitcoms to have well written and well portrayed character is simply asking them to up their quality.

There are comedies out there that do it. Why not BBT or The Guild or A Town Called Eureka?
 

Leviatham

Explorer
Of course they are. Whether or not geeks are portrayed well or catered to in the wider media is totally relevant to the overall thrust of this thread, which has developed beyond your original post as conversations are wont to do.

Then I'll stop discussing it there. I am not interested at the moment in discussing the portrayal of geeks generally. It wasn't my aim.


It's one teeny tiny bit of evidence; it in no way approaches your evidentiary burden for your claim. Without wanting to exacerbate that whole line-by-line quoting thing, an anecdote is not data; and you saying that evidence exists is not itself evidence. I've not seen this evidence that the majority of people think that geeks are like Sheldon Cooper. Therefore I do not believe that they do.

Not sure what you'd consider evidence, but here are some links to articles and forum posts in which comparisons are made (some to be taken with a pinch of salt). If they're not enough, I need to know what you need, though.

http://www.geekosystem.com/big-bang-theory-love-hate/
http://www.ugo.com/tv/11-reasons-geeks-hate-the-big-bang-theory?page=3
http://cliqueclack.com/p/big-bang-theory-hates-nerds/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.304640-Why-do-some-nerds-hate-Big-Bang-Theory?page=1
http://ifanboy.com/articles/199683/
http://forum.the-big-bang-theory.co...ody-know-anybody-that-is-really-like-sheldon/
http://www.ucsdguardian.org/arts-en...ulture-it’s-just-a-big-bang-bust#.UXLpgMu9KSN
http://blogs.redeyechicago.com/geek-to-me/2011/12/29/the-big-bang-theory-and-the-nerd-myth/

And lastly, but probably the best one: http://butmyopinionisright.tumblr.com/post/31079561065/the-problem-with-the-big-bang-theory


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member

Ok, I think I see the disconnect. What do you consider that to be evidence of?

We're looking for evidence that the show makes people think that geeks are like Sheldon. All that is is evidence that a handful of people have issues with the show.

The only thing that could possibly be valid evidence is something we don't have. A widespread survey of done kind. Otherwise we can spout opposing anecdotes until the cows come home, but they don't constitute meaningful data. Hell, I met someone who thought Australia was in the northern hemisphere once; that's not evidence that people in general think that.

As I said before, we're after data, not anecdotes. Anecdotes can be entertaining, but they're utterly insufficient.
 

Leviatham

Explorer
Ok, I think I see the disconnect. What do you consider that to be evidence of?

We're looking for evidence that the show makes people think that geeks are like Sheldon. All that is is evidence that a handful of people have issues with the show.

The only thing that could possibly be valid evidence is something we don't have. A widespread survey of done kind. Otherwise we can spout opposing anecdotes until the cows come home, but they don't constitute meaningful data. Hell, I met someone who thought Australia was in the northern hemisphere once; that's not evidence that people in general think that.

As I said before, we're after data, not anecdotes. Anecdotes can be entertaining, but they're utterly insufficient.

As my mother says, there isn't a deepest deaf than that who doesn't want to hear.

I give up!
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
As my mother says, there isn't a deepest deaf than that who doesn't want to hear.

That's not fair, dude - and fairly insulting. You asked for a debate, not an audience. And you made claims which you haven't supported by any evidentiary standard. Characterising disagreement as wilful deafness is disingenuous as hell. Nobody has been unreasonable here, and I certainly don't deserve a comment like that.
 
Last edited:

Bagpuss

Legend
Buffy, Bones, Dr Who and A Town Called Eureka are not sitcoms. Far from it.

Which is the point. In programs that aren't sitcoms you tend to get more rounded and developed characters, the geeks in these programs are generally more simpathetic and their character flaws are less exaggerated.

I see exaggerated versions of geeks in the IT Crowd. I don't find them insulting or demeaning.

It's not the exaggeration, is the way it's handled.

Really there is very little difference in how they are handled it seems to me it is more a matter of taste for you.

Dangerous ground to even consider a woman who says "You like painting minis? You must be a virgin like the guy in the movie too right?" could be an indicator that she's attracted to you... I am not even going to go there.

I pray never to be around you when a conversation opens like that. I fear there would be more chances of it ending badly...

Really, because trading friendly insults is a pretty common chat up technique used by both men and women.

Why? Because everything should be funny to everyone else?

No because normally people don't insult people to their face, unless it is done as a friendly jest, or their has been some angry build up before hand. Hence it probably wasn't intended to cause offence.

Because we should be happy and find funny that we're compared to a rather sad and cheap character in a rather sad and cheap movie?

Have you even watched the movie? The "virgin" in it, was the most likable character of all his male companions, for his naivety round women, he was the most caring, and least chauvinistic male character in the film. Sure he painted miniatures and was a virgin at the start of the movie. But he wasn't a bad stereotype, he was handsome, caring, had a job wasn't overweight, in fact his only problem was his naivety around women. It's hardly a terrible stereotype.

As I said earlier, you're welcome to let people treat you like that. I won't.

No but you will assume the worst about them based on a joke they make.

And who decides what is the "slightest thing"? You?

Societal norms, like I said before people rarely throw insults at strangers, unless some argument has heated up before (or you've cut them up in traffic). There are a couple of occasions this happens, one is banter between friends, and the other is towards people you are attacted to in jest.

No. You know some things don't affect you. That doesn't mean they don't affect other people and measuring that effect by your own benchmark and perspective denotes an intense lack of empathy.

I get where you are coming from, just

a) I don't agree with you.
b) Pretty much most of the rest of society doesn't agree with you.

I'm trying (like other people in this thread) to show you that.

People are entitled to feel hurt for whatever reason. You don't have to know the reason or understand it, but that doesn't mean you have any right to belittle those reasons or berate them.

I do though. Have that right. Free speech and all of that. No one has taken away the right to offend (well okay they have in the UK, but there are attempts to get that stupid law repealled).

And they fact that you don't understand or know those reasons doesn't make them any less valid either.

Perhaps not, but you know when BBT is hugely popular, especially among geeks, I think it does make your opinions about it a little less valid.
 

Remove ads

Top