Wait, that happens before a game? I thought it was after, or possibly during.
I'm not discounting the possibility of all three after what I saw as a kid, tbh. I'm not sure how their stadiums stand up to the abuse. They practically have to corral them into the stadium to keep the two groups separated on a scale I haven't seen since the stockyard autions in rural Australia. It's like watching tens of thousands of sheep passing wash trough lines before going to the abattoir.
...Only more blood.
It's amazing the ways we want to inspire utterly irrational hatred of what are ostensibly neighbours.
The thing is Australia is a 'sporting nation' and we never have problems like the UK do despite practically having the same cultural background and constitution. The only real difference is having less Protesta--oooooh.
Nvm, I'll leave that in WW! :3
Anyway, since when have people demonstrated a great self-awareness at large? I'm fairly certain that alot of people would be very different if they were aware of how much of a dingus they can be. I mean, look at Kim Jong Un, whose haircut matches his personality. If he got just a little real perspective, he'd be so speechless that it would be 20% quieter in North Korea.
True enough. Honestly, as a board gamer predominantly I'm utterly fine with "geek" of that type of thing is going 'mainstream'. No board gamer who is not an arsehole I've met is complaining about our quickly growing numbers. The only people complaining are those douchebag gamers saying how 'feminazis are taking away our games because they're saying I shouldn't be mouthing off bigoted bullshit to other players to throw them off during tournaments' crowd.
Fuck those wankers. The less of them, the more people that will play in tournaments. And basically even WotC picked up on that, given how numerous competitors to the former near monopoly on the tournament scene have risen, and the sudden massive popularity of competitors like Netrunner who wisely thought; "Hey, instead of driving away customers and fans, maybe we should keep the people that actually make the atmosphere fun?"
I like having more people to have fun with.
Alien concept, I know.
No, no, I didn't mean literally earning money, this is why I put it in quotation marks. It's a term referring to anything outside of the joy of knowing this thing for the sake of knowing it and how fun it is to know it and that stuff. Earning a diploma or something else is within the definition of using that knowledge as a means to an end.
Anyhow, the point I was making is that it's the combination of both having encyclopedic knowledge and having this knowledge as an end in-and-of-itself that makes the activity into a geeky one.
That's kind of a silly description, however. I went for a trip major in History, Psychology, Sociology in my first degree for a reason. I liked all those things. I got multiple jobs in/implementing all three of those things I learnt. History is not about having an encyclopaedic knowledge. As I said before, I prefer historiography to history. The schools of thought, mechanics and the philosophy behind academic history writing.
I have the tools to dissect a topic through what I learnt and expand upon it in an academic fashion suitable for things like academic journal articles. Doesn't inform me that I "simply know a lot about something" ... I've written large essays on the history of historiography. How they alter academic writings of a time and place, how they are influenced by sociological factors of a time or place.
Does that sound like someone who doesn't like history? Moreover, just how well do you think someone who doesn't like history will put up with doing that?
I understand the concept of studying something for a job ... but not specifically studying something you dislike or have no inclination towards solely for a job.
I like history. I am really good at writing about it academically. I am gifted at approaching the same topic from multiple historiographical approaches to reveal multiple aspects of that topic that might not otherwise be considered or contemplated in academia. That seems pretty 'geek' to me by your description, but honestly I'm an intellectual lightweight compared to the academic calibre of some people I have met. That's the cold, honest truth.
But then again, like any academic pursuit, the pursuit of knowledge itself is lifelong and one full of humility.
One of the reasons why I like history is precisely because it's a lifelong dedication that lay its worth on the fundamentals of information transfer, meaningfulness and how it relates to the human being the ever-growing past. The purpose of history and how it might shape opinion, and deals with fantastically difficult concepts such as the impossibility of truth, requiring infinite regression and (re)examination. You have a duty to truth, but due to even the language that you write it in must colour the perception of it as future generations absorb your works through a very different sociological environment.
That interests me. Because humans are infinitely interesting. How is that meaningfully different from being a 'geek' yet not fundamental to being a historian?