"Owning"

[scottdisco]

Good points from both of you - London is not Britain, of course, but gang violence here does (with some justification* of course) tend to receive more meedja coverage than it does when it happens elsewhere in the country.

*not implying that it's worse when a kid in London dies than when a kid in Brum or Glasgow or anywhere else dies - I just mean that the overall numbers of serious crimes are going to be higher because of the far greater population, before you take anything else into account. And yes, in London serious gang violence is overwhelmingly committed by black youths/young men against other black youths/young men.

obviously if it was the same amount of white kids being stabbed to death in south London we would be getting far more coverage. though the issue does receive a fair bit of attention tbf, speaking in British media terms.

Grizzleb very true about gangs and class of course, Glasgow notorious for its knife culture and just to expand a wee bit still into 'our' area of northwest island Europe, Limerick in the Republic of Ireland has a reputation for gang crime arguably many more times greater than its population would perhaps suggest.
(this is before getting into internationalised organised crime gangs, etc etc, admittedly.)

a lot of street gangs in the most murderous provincial British cities (ie your Nottinghams, Mcrs, Brums) tend to be comprised of a lot of minority ethnic members, granted, although Lpool is a notable exception to that.

Multinational corporations that employ geeks ARE implicated in violence, btw, thread.

naturally. (a hearty at that, obviously, but, naturally, yes, you are correct here of course.)

(reading this back w my casual usages of 'notorious', 'reputation' etc, i do sound rather breathless and tabloidese :slanted: hmm )

 

[nomadthethird]

Nomad, the average "geek" is probably not some kind of amoral computer science genius who earns a five-figure salary designing missing guidance systems or whatever it is you're getting at. To me, the word broadly implies someone with poor social skills and an unhealthily obsessive interest in a subject or hobby most people would regard as either arcane or boring. Such people are generally more likely to earn a modest living doing a more or less menial job or holding a very junior academic tenure - or to be unemployed altogether, perhaps still living at home - than to be raking in mega-bucks working for Haliburton.

As for "reverse racism arguments" in this thread, I'm not going to bother asking you what you're not going to bother about. You're just obsessed with this idea that all (white) British people are frothing, paranoid racists.

I'm not talking about Bill Gates. You don't have to be Bill Gates to participate in capitalism. It's a little ridiculous for anyone to throw stones when they live and work in that glass house, don't you agree? I mean, really, the idea that a word is all about capitalism in some special way that others aren't? Surely you don't agree with that?

I made a modest-to-moderate living myself once but I'd never pretend I wasn't involved in capitalistic enterprises that link up to violence on a global scale.

Anyway, I have no preconceptions about British people, I barely know any. But it does seem that any time anyone mentions or confronts casual racism on here, the "reverse racism" argument is immediately furnished as proof that the pointer-out-of-racism is *actually* the one being racist against whites and particularly white men, who also have it rough. I've seen too much of this in my own country not to recognize it for what it is.

It's just silly-- sure, there are whites who have it rough. To point out that racism exist, especially institutionalized and normative racism of the type we've seen in this thread, is not to say otherwise. It's simply to point out that racism exists. The defensive posture that inevitably results is strange-- why not just say, "oh, you know, I hadn't thought of it that way... here, things aren't really considered in those terms..." or something?

 

[Tentative Andy]

Nomad, the average "geek" is probably not some kind of amoral computer science genius who earns a five-figure salary designing missing guidance systems or whatever it is you're getting at. To me, the word broadly implies someone with poor social skills and an unhealthily obsessive interest in a subject or hobby most people would regard as either arcane or boring.

Yeah for sure, good points. But (and maybe this just goes to show that the term is actully kind of flexible not so well defined) to me a geek in the strong sense of the term would also imply someone being of above average intelligence and having a willingness, even a compulsion to study and work very hard.

Based on this and personal experiences with friends and others, I'd err towards saying that the average geek might have a reasonably well-paid job (though not always a dramatically well-paid one, and not often a 'high-power' sort of position) but nevertheless be likely to feel unhappy in some aspects of the entirety of their lives.
Of course, this is all from anecdote and guesswork and I've not really seen much statistics on the question.

I also think it's worth mentioning that, even in the last 2 or 3 years, on-line culture (including gaming culture) has moved so much more into the mainstream and become woven into the fabric of many people's everyday lives. I'm not saying that this totally a positive thing, but it does perhaps mean that being interested in these kind of areas isn't as automatically socially isolating as it might once have been.

 

[scottdisco]

Yeah for sure, good points. But (and maybe this just goes to show that the term is actully kind of flexible not so well defined) to me a geek in the strong sense of the term would also imply someone being of above average intelligence and having a willingness, even a compulsion to study and work very hard.

Based on this and personal experiences with friends and others, I'd err towards saying that the average geek might have a reasonably well-paid job (though not always a dramatically well-paid one, and not often a 'high-power' sort of position) but nevertheless be likely to feel unhappy in some aspects of the entirety of their lives.
Of course, this is all from anecdote and guesswork and I've not really seen much statistics on the question.

I also think it's worth mentioning that, even in the last 2 or 3 years, on-line culture (including gaming culture) has moved so much more into the mainstream and become woven into the fabric of many people's everyday lives. I'm not saying that this totally a positive thing, but it does perhaps mean that being interested in these kind of areas isn't as automatically socially isolating as it might once have been.

this is all a very nice rejoinder to some of the horribly ham-fisted and simplistic templates i was chucking around earlier w abandon i must say.

 

[Slothrop]

Btw - are we still talking about the original 2 Woebot posts here, specifically
a) 'own' coming from gang culture would be more of an example of capitalism infecting everything than it coming from online gaming - I can't really see the sense of this but I'm not clear whether he means that gang culture is the capitalism doing the infecting or the thing being infected with a KKKapitalist notion of ownership and
b) gang members are - on the face of it - more threatening than spotty nerds. Which, given the qualification, seems reasonable - the fact that someone may or may not work for a morally dubious corporation doesn't give them quite the same level of immediate personal threat as the fact that they do engage in violent criminal activities...

 

[Mr. Tea]

There's been a great deal of goalpost-shifting in this thread. On the first page someone mentioned "gamers", namely people who spend a lot of time playing video games, especially online multiplayer ones. To me, that brings to mind the image of someone who is probably male and probably a teenager, of no specific ethnicity or social class (globally, the most game-mad country is South Korea, remember). The male-teen image is of course a stereotype but probably not an unjustified one, I think. Then gamers became generic "nerds" or "geeks" who subsequently crystalised into grown men (implicitly assumed to be white) with master's degrees in electrical engineering building superweapons for BAE Systems or what-have-you. That's quite a jump.

• Firstly, for what reason does an enthusiasm for video games make someone great at programming or impart any other skill attractive to an employer? I've completed both Half-Life games on 'hard' and I still can't program for shit. In the same way that the average boy racer isn't necessarily an expert auto engineer and that you don't need to be a freshwater ecologist to go fishing at the weekend. In fact if you're glued to a screen and bashing merry hell out of your keyboard every spare minute you get, that's not going to have a positive effect on your school or university grades, with concomittant impact on your overall chances of getting a well-paid job.
• Secondly, you don't even need a PC to game online these days, as modern consoles are build with multiplayer internet gaming in mind.
• Thirdly, the falling price of computer hardware and broadband means you don't have to be especially privileged (by developed-country standards) to get online, whether your main interest is gaming or whatever.

I think the words "nerd" and "geek" are so vague and mutable as to be practically useless here. Says the guy posting on a forum at 12.30 am...

 

[grizzleb]

I dunno what about me pointing out that you equating gangs with black people was a bit off the mark, is me saying that you're being "reverse racist"?

I mean, the person whom the comment originated from is british, I think, so I think it's a reasonable enough point to make that his remarks didn't necessarily have racist connotations. Nothing about reverse racism in anything I've said...

 

[zhao]

Zhao, dunno if this is the same where you are, but in Britain anti-Chinese and anit-Japanese racism is still tolerated where anti-Afro-Caribbean or anti-Indian/Pakistani racism wouldn't be. It's fucked up...

 

[scottdisco]

There's been a great deal of goalpost-shifting in this thread. On the first page someone mentioned "gamers", namely people who spend a lot of time playing video games, especially online multiplayer ones. To me, that brings to mind the image of someone who is probably male and probably a teenager, of no specific ethnicity or social class (globally, the most game-mad country is South Korea, remember). The male-teen image is of course a stereotype but probably not an unjustified one, I think. Then gamers became generic "nerds" or "geeks" who subsequently crystalised into grown men (implicitly assumed to be white) with master's degrees in electrical engineering building superweapons for BAE Systems or what-have-you. That's quite a jump.

tbf, i know Nomad's been busy on this thread, but i don't quite see it like that myself. i think the crucial leap in the thread from this pov occured from page 1 onward when she asked WOEBOT about gangs/geeks, and perhaps didn't 'get' that WOEBOT might well have understood (though i know i shouldn't claim to speak on his behalf) very well the equally capital-infused, macho-in-different-ways (if you like) basis of gangs and computer gaming (to repeat my clumsy phrasing from earlier), but was purely more uneasy because of the inherent personal violence in, say, a drug dealer's daily trade, which you obviously can't say of an online multiplayer gamer.

then all tangential hell broke lose from around page 3 onward, granted (including Nomad getting more broad brush; and, for the record, i thought her post on page 4 where she addressed why she appeared to conflate gangs w non-white people in an earlier post was good), which is, of course, the beauty of this board and generally speaking to be expected on any thread.
the stuff about racism was certainly interesting if hardly what WOEBOT set out to discuss!

it's not like generally if a thread moves off the original point it's normally a problem; heck, most everything on Politics descends into the unique evil of Israel sooner or later

Zhao: that was published in 2000?


oh but it's the great Alan Moore so he's probably making some realllllly clever point. oh well done Alan Moore.

prick.

 

[droid]

Er... its a pisstake, and an appallingly ironic example for Zhao to pick. Whoever wrote those notes is a cretin. Moore probably would have done it with a black character but I imagine the US publishers wouldn't let him.

When you see someone re-enact a minstrel show as part of a drama, or parody 50's racism on TV does that make them a prick too?

 

[scottdisco]

Er... its a pisstake, and an appallingly ironic example for Zhao to pick. Whoever wrote those notes is a cretin. Moore probably would have done it with a black character but I imagine the US publishers wouldn't let him.

When you see someone re-enact a minstrel show as part of a drama, or parody 50's racism on TV does that make them a prick too?

i apologise Droid.

(i could see it was a pisstake, yes. even i wouldn't go around calling Alan Moore a racist out-and-out. it just made me very uneasy and caught me at the wrong mo.)

 

[droid]

Sorry Scott. I should really be aiming my vitriol at Zhao. Im not claiming any grand profound meaning in that strip, but he has been parodying old comic and cartoon conventions for years, and inserting them as mini-pieces into his larger works... presumably (partly at least) to highlight their failings.

BTW, this is where the name came from I think. Blyton:

 

[Mr. Tea]

I heard Chris Morris actually thinks child abuse is totally hilarious in and of itself...

 

[scottdisco]

I heard Chris Morris actually thinks child abuse is totally hilarious in and of itself...

now now

obviously whilst i'm grateful to Droid for rightly pulling me up over inappropriate language and totally misdirected outrage, that Moore could 'get away' w it (but presumably not w say a black character) certainly does buttress something Zhao said, tbf.

('Chinky' from Blyton's old stories is truth, tbf, yep. mind, wasn't there a 'Nigger' or something in some old British children's literature series, that was the name of a dog or something?)

just one small example, but Abercrombie and Fitch did relent on their Wong tee shirts eight years ago or so, after pressure from various Asian-American groups IIRC, but that someone at A & F thought it would be a winner to put it out in the first place must say something

 

[zhao]

Er... its a pisstake, and an appallingly ironic example for Zhao to pick. Whoever wrote those notes is a cretin. Moore probably would have done it with a black character but I imagine the US publishers wouldn't let him.

When you see someone re-enact a minstrel show as part of a drama, or parody 50's racism on TV does that make them a prick too?

do you think re-enacting a minstrel show without context, without obvious, apparent irony, but with all the racism, is OK to be broadcast on children's hour television?

i wrote those notes. i was offended by this.

please tell me more about how i am over reacting to artistic irony, Caucasian person.

 

[woops]

Er... its a pisstake, and an appallingly ironic example for Zhao to pick. Whoever wrote those notes is a cretin.

Itself a huge slur on people with hyperthyroidism.
Speaking of which, how can people get away with saying such and such is a 'travesty', in this day and age?
I think it's time for cross dressers to get even crosser!

 

[massrock]

Scott was askin about the dog. I guess this is supposedly a historical detail.

 

[zhao]

Sorry Scott. I should really be aiming my vitriol at Zhao. Im not claiming any grand profound meaning in that strip, but he has been parodying old comic and cartoon conventions for years, and inserting them as mini-pieces into his larger works... presumably (partly at least) to highlight their failings.

not everyone knows that he has been parodying old comics for years. there is nothing in this story which gives itself away as parody.

to anyone not familiar with the trajectory of his work, just picking it up, it is simply a period piece done in an old style.

please Droid, tell me that i am wrong to find this offensive.

 

[zhao]

NO, Droid.

the Australian black-face video Harry Connick Jr. slammed a while back was exactly what you describe: reenactment of a minstrel show -- ironic representation of racist entertainment from the past. and much much more obviously ironic than this.

do you think Harry Connick Jr. was over reacting?? do you think he is a "cretin" for speaking out against it???

Host Daryl Somers apologized to Connick at the end of the live show.

"I know that to your countrymen, that's an insult to have a blackface routine like that on the show, so I do apologize to you," Somers said.

Connick said he would not have appeared on the show if he'd known about the skit.

"I just want to say, on behalf of my country, I know it was done humorously, but we've spent so much time trying to not make black people look like buffoons, that when we see something like that we take it really to heart," he told Somers after his apology.

huffington post

Eagerly anticipating your answer, Droid.

 

[droid]

do you think re-enacting a minstrel show without context, without obvious, apparent irony, but with all the racism, is OK to be broadcast on children's hour television?

i wrote those notes. i was offended by this.

please tell me more about how i am over reacting to artistic irony, Caucasian person.

But there is context, there is context throughout Moore's works, Swamp Thing, V, Miracleman (with racist 50's comic book portrayals of the black superhero 'Big Ben' contrasted with the 'real' character). There's a context in the story itself - in its placement and contrast as a minor part of a massive spiritual, sexual and feminist epic.

The irony is obvious - the whole exercise is an attempt to expose and explore the innocence and the offensiveness of 19th/20th century comics. Its a recurring theme in his work. And might I add that Moore has gone to great pains to challenge racism in his work. Years ahead of anyone else in the field.

Its an offensive portrayal of Chinese people - that exactly the point. Have you actually read Promethea or are you still having trouble understanding 'From hell'?

Caucasian person

Twat.