Is a lot of Nerd/Geek culture predominately conservative?

[ray245]

Now, I want to start off by saying I don't think the actual geek cultural products, be it comic books, video games, novels, and movies are inherently conservative. I don't think they are nor do they need to be conservative in their outlook to be successful and popular.

What I am asking is whether the fandoms associated with Geek/Nerd culture predominately conservative. Many of those fans tend to be quite negative towards any changes being made to their favourite franchise. Many of the so-called backlash against Star Wars for instance, are examples of fans being upset that it's being overtaken by "SJW" just because of a female lead or POC lead. On the other hand, we also get similar kind of backlash when the prequels were released, with every deviation from the original movies seen as a sign of heresy.

This is not unique to Star Wars. Other fandoms like Star Trek, comic-book fandoms and so forth are also quite negative about any perceived change to the established formula. In Video games, recent controversy about diversifying representation has been met with hostile reactions, especially if the games are rooted in semi-historical settings like World War 2 ( see the outcry about women troops in Battlefield V).

While this does not mean fandoms as a whole are conservative, with a lot of people being perfectly willing to accept change and new ideas without raising much of a fuss, there seems to be an element of fandoms being extremely conservative towards new ideas or changes being made to established formulas. This rigidity to the established formula seem to be something quite inherent to most fandoms in general. There's a very specific idea on how things "ought to be".

Now, I am not sure if this does translate into people's political views, but I won't be surprised if this kind of culture and online community helps to breed a certain kind of conservative mindset towards a variety of things. You can find sci-fi/Geek community that's a lot more open-minded towards new ideas like SDN, but even then, such communities aren't that common.

Do you agree with some of the points I've raised above?

[Jub]

Any group of sufficient size will have a vocal contingent of conservative members which will take it upon themselves to speak for the entire group and be heard. Most groups will have an equal or larger group of progressive members but it's easier for an unorganized group to be against a narrow set of issues than for that same group to all be for a far broader group of changes. Thus you get the illusion that any sufficiently large group is conservative unless said group makes being progressive a core part of its identity.

[Zixinus]

The main that has to be understood that a lot of what was previously "geek/nerd" culture is now mainstream. Star Wars in particular is something that almost everyone has seen and brought SW stuff. Hence, the question itself becomes somewhat meaningless because there is no well-defined group to begin the discussion. Remember, a lot of media is made to be politically-mostly-neutral and thus appeal to the most wide range of people.

Another issue is that there is an anti-diversity sentiment going on that is often expressed by very vocal people. Usually the people crying about "SJWs" (which a made-up slur by them but I digress). These may not be Republican-voting people or Americans at all, they could be English-speaking people from wherever. I can easily imagine most Hungarians (still in the country anyway) would lean heavily in anti-"SJW". So it is even harder to really define what kind of people we are talking about.

This sentiment cannot be completely decoupled from racist/sexist preconceptions, if from actual ideologies. Remember that casual racists/sexists/whatever are a thing, they will deny and avoid association with outright white supremacists advocating racist/sexist ideology but will still hire white people over non-whites, avoid associating with non-whites and so on. This is important to note when discussing modern racism and sexism.

That said, it is hard to deny that certain fandoms were historically dominated by certain kind of people and that may not be accident because the object of the fandom is politicized of appeals to certain demographics (Twilight comes to mind). The notion that there are fandoms that were dominated by white males is a common one and I think the question that the OP really is asking.

But I also have to play devil's advocate here. A little bit. The anti-diversity sentiment also stems from past terrible efforts to enforce diversity rather than inspire it. Token characters, new characters that were badly written (Rey comes to mind), non-white characters "having to" (or not-having) behave in a certain way rather than just being themselves, etc. Then there is the fact that just because your agenda's goals mean well, that still makes it an agenda. Ask about writing strong female characters and you will have a head-on collision about a feminist's female role models SHOULD be (and why isn't your character that?). So there is a backlash against that, and fans really would rather not have their beloved thing be the subject of an outsider's agenda that will alter their thing and otherwise not be part. Which develops an entrenched and hostile mindset that is fostered by racists/sexists (especially casual ones) and not always clear to an outsider.

[The Romulan Republic]

To some extent, yes, it is. I've found that Trekkies in particular tend to be Right-wing (though that's just my impression)- which is downright perverse, given that the Federation is basically portrayed as a multi-cultural socialist utopia. I also think, as I've said before, that the superhero genre lends itself very easily to either libertarian or fascist themes, though it is not inherently either. The action genre also tends to default towards a more Right-wing ideal of the "lone vigilante with a gun solving what the corrupt/incompetent authorities can't", for reasons that should be obvious. Among other examples.

As to why speculative fiction attracts these people- I don't know that it does so more than society in general, though I suppose the stereotypical nerd (a loser/loner young white man who has trouble with women) fits the profile for Right-wing extremism or incel/MRA bullshit pretty well. Speculative fiction also lends itself well to providing premises for power fantasies, or to the "evil races" trope, both of which fit with Right wing politics fairly well. Beyond that though, the Right, particularly the Alt. Reich, tends to be a disproportionately loud and visible part of any community- trolls are good at monopolizing attention. Generally, I find that if you go to the Facebook page for a franchise like Trek or Who, discussing the hiring of a new female actor or director in a traditionally male position, you'll find that the positive smilies/"likes" vastly outnumber the negative responses, but the comments are more or less invariable dominated by Right-wingers whining about "SJWs" or whatever. In short, the Right-wing bigots are the ones motivated to actually express their opinions at length, and they dominate the conversation (or, sometimes, they conduct organized troll/bot campaigns).

The Alt. Reich also tends to try to coopt other peoples' ideas or groups and make it their own, and they're damned good at it, unfortunately. I honestly can't think of a better way to describe it than a cultural cancer, at this point. Or maybe "cultural imperialists", though they are more concerned with seizing control of their own nations' cultures than conquering others'.

I also think the companies are to some extent to blame. Big corporations in general are going to have an incentive to favor Right-wing politics. And some (particularly the superhero comics) pander very heavily to the angry/insecure adolescent male virgins, hence the endless grimdark, toxic masculinity, and objectification/abuse of women. And it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle, I think- the companies think that these people are their only audience, so they pander to them. Which discourages a larger audience from reading/viewing their products. And then eventually some of those fans grow up (physically, if not emotionally), get jobs with the companies, and start producing official content. So it becomes even more entrenched.

There's pushback, of course- particularly the surge in female action leads lately, which I applaud. So its not all one side dominating the genre. But I can see how one might get that impression, at times.

[Elheru Aran]

I don't know that "Nerd/Geek culture" is conservative politically; I think it's more a case of a wide spectrum within the broad culture itself, and if politically conservative individuals are louder than others, it's because they put in the effort to BE loud.

That said I do think there is a tendency to not like change in their beloved media. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are probably pretty much the definitive version... yet there are some who don't like them because they changed some material from what Tolkien portrayed in his books. I don't think this is exclusive to geek culture though, I'm sure there are people who complain when the soap operas get a new cast for example, or their favorite cooking show changes tack, whatever.

[ray245]

I don't know that "Nerd/Geek culture" is conservative politically; I think it's more a case of a wide spectrum within the broad culture itself, and if politically conservative individuals are louder than others, it's because they put in the effort to BE loud.

That said I do think there is a tendency to not like change in their beloved media. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films are probably pretty much the definitive version... yet there are some who don't like them because they changed some material from what Tolkien portrayed in his books. I don't think this is exclusive to geek culture though, I'm sure there are people who complain when the soap operas get a new cast for example, or their favorite cooking show changes tack, whatever.

The thing is, being loud does allow them to shape the dynamics of the fanbase. It can put newcomers off from being a part of the fandom. Sure, their voice might be drowned out if there's a huge influx of new/younger fans to the fandom, but that's not something that is guaranteed.

Also I wonder if there's some crossover behind the conservative attitude towards their favourite shows/novels and outlook in life. If you are someone incapable of tolerating changes being made to something dear to you, even if it is just a piece of entertainment, it's not going to be easy for someone to adapt to changes that is going on in real life.

[The Romulan Republic]

Very true. One could go so far as to argue that fear of change is the primary ideological or psychological foundation of conservatism.

[TheFeniX]

"Cultures" in general are conservative. You become a fan of something because there are aspects of it you like. Threatening to change the things you like is probably going to annoy more than a large portion of your consumer base.

There's plenty of "nerd" examples, but then there's "Friends": an enormously popular U.S. 90s sitcom. Changes, either way, concerning the relationship of Ross and Rachael were met with multiple angry letter writing campaigns and even death threats. It didn't matter if it was them breaking up or getting (back) together. The shipping of Monica and Chandler, the possible shipping of Joey and Rachael: whatever. American audiences are batshit about fictional relationships.

You also have to deal with a sense of ownership of a property. Something like Friends dealt with it, but the smaller the starting fanbase, the more pronounced it will be as those original adopters are pushed aside for the new/expanding audience.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg, I fucking loath fan entitlement complexes, where they think that they personally are owed subservience by the show (never mind all the other fans who have their own wishes). Especially when it extends to acting like they are entitled to every aspect of the stars' private lives, and that the actors should be grateful to their fans.

No. They made a show. If you enjoy it, you can choose to see it. If not, you can choose not to. That is the extent of your obligations to one another.

The only exception to this is cases where fans are mislead by false advertising or something. Then you have a right to be angry, because you've been sold something under false pretenses. But that's usually more likely to be the fault of the marketing department than the writers, directors, or actors, I'd think.

[Elheru Aran]

The only exception to this is cases where fans are mislead by false advertising or something. Then you have a right to be angry, because you've been sold something under false pretenses. But that's usually more likely to be the fault of the marketing department than the writers, directors, or actors, I'd think.

And, perhaps, when a promising show is nipped in the bud rather unfairly. Firefly is probably the ur-example of this.

Executive Meddling, I think, is also something of a legitimate reason to get upset at whatever you find it in, although of course it can be hard to tell whether it's actual meddling from editors, producers, whatever versus the creators just declining in quality.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only exception to this is cases where fans are mislead by false advertising or something. Then you have a right to be angry, because you've been sold something under false pretenses. But that's usually more likely to be the fault of the marketing department than the writers, directors, or actors, I'd think.

And, perhaps, when a promising show is nipped in the bud rather unfairly. Firefly is probably the ur-example of this.

Yeah, that's fair.

Executive Meddling, I think, is also something of a legitimate reason to get upset at whatever you find it in, although of course it can be hard to tell whether it's actual meddling from editors, producers, whatever versus the creators just declining in quality.

Sometimes, "executive meddling" has actually benefitted a story. It can screw things up, of course, and its frustrating as hell from the perspective of the creators, but as you say, its hard to tell sometimes who did what, and ultimately, film and television and game design at least are generally collective endeavors (its different with a novel where there's a single author, who then gets their work mauled by an overly-aggressive editor or something).

[Elheru Aran]

The only exception to this is cases where fans are mislead by false advertising or something. Then you have a right to be angry, because you've been sold something under false pretenses. But that's usually more likely to be the fault of the marketing department than the writers, directors, or actors, I'd think.

And, perhaps, when a promising show is nipped in the bud rather unfairly. Firefly is probably the ur-example of this.

Yeah, that's fair.

Of course, that can go completely the other direction; don't we complain about how some Browncoats are a bit insane about the whole matter, and one would think that after the show's been off the air for, what, nearly twenty years? they'd give the whole "Bring Firefly Back" thing a rest particularly now Ron Glass has passed and Wash is dead in-universe to boot. So, yeah.

But at least cases like Firefly aren't *super* common. Most networks do give most shows the justice of at least one season to show their potential. TNG for example was a bit of an abrupt departure from TOS, but it had the benefit of a built-in fanbase and very positive reception so that even though its first season was nothing to particularly write home about, they managed to carry it off. Of course that was in the 80/early 90s. Now that streaming media is a thing, it's quite possible we may see a lot more short-lived shows that simply flop due to lack of attention because people don't watch the networks nearly as much, and then get picked up by providers like Amazon or Netflix and continued there. Arrested Development is a good example of this, though it wasn't quite "short lived", getting four seasons originally IIRC and only being continued for one.

One does wonder what would have happened if Netflix had been around when Babylon 5 was playing, though... it would have been lovely if they had been able to pick that up and throw their resources behind it.

[TheFeniX]

Ugg, I fucking loath fan entitlement complexes, where they think that they personally are owed subservience by the show (never mind all the other fans who have their own wishes). Especially when it extends to acting like they are entitled to every aspect of the stars' private lives, and that the actors should be grateful to their fans.

For most mediums, I agree. No one can edit my B5 DVDs to make them more EXTREEEEME or something. But WRT to video games, I have paid money for products that no longer function as they were originally released or originally were intended to release.

I can't play the Team Fortress 2 copy I paid money for. Friendly Fire is dummied out and now it's all about unlocks and stupid shit like hats. Since the original no longer exists, it's as if Lucas gave me copies of the SW:Special Edition (how nice) and destroyed my original copies (not that nice).

EA promised server cvars to disable unlocks in Battlefield 2. They didn't provide any. Servers that hacked in the unlocks were blacklisted by EA. So I had to play their "do X to unlock Y" minigame under false pretenses.*

While I don't agree with it, I can understand why the fatnerd contingent in gaming gets so riled up. They are consistently ignored, ridiculed, and/or lied to consistently in a medium they were invested in before it started making billions.

The only exception to this is cases where fans are mislead by false advertising or something. Then you have a right to be angry, because you've been sold something under false pretenses. But that's usually more likely to be the fault of the marketing department than the writers, directors, or actors, I'd think.

So, video games et al.

*FYI: you can thank fuckers like me for beta testing EAs plan in BF2 for why every single game has unlocks in them now.

[Elheru Aran]

Gaming is a somewhat different proposition from other media, because it's interactive; the viewer/user is thus far more invested. Someone changes a movie, it might suck, but it doesn't affect you personally. Someone changes a game that you participate in... that affects you. So I feel like being somewhat conservative when it comes to gaming is actually worthwhile, because it's pretty legit to not want the industry to fuck you over.

[Crazedwraith]

Ugg, I fucking loath fan entitlement complexes, where they think that they personally are owed subservience by the show (never mind all the other fans who have their own wishes). Especially when it extends to acting like they are entitled to every aspect of the stars' private lives, and that the actors should be grateful to their fans.

No. They made a show. If you enjoy it, you can choose to see it. If not, you can choose not to. That is the extent of your obligations to one another.

This feels tangential to the point. I also think it greatly depends on the context and severity of 'the entitlement' because I feel like that's often to used as a way to shout down people who simply don't like something. A new film or a reboot or whatever. (Chuck had a lovely speech on this in the prelude to his Transformers '07 film review)

There is undoubtedly really such a thing as fan entitlement but the only real example I can think is people who think GRRM owes them the last two ASoIF books for supporting them and GoT so long. (No you don't if you bought a book, watched the show you got exactly what you)

But just someone saying they don't like the way a show/relationship has gone? Not entitlement to me, everyone really is entitled to express their opinion unless they are wandering into abuse/harassment of the people involved (which is always over the line whatever the topic not a fan specific thing) But of course the makers of the show are also always entitled to (and probably best advised to) ignore the fan's views entirely.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, of course. Everyone is free to offer their own opinion, have their own preferences or wish list. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when fans act like it is some sort of injustice or personal attack on them that they didn't get their way. And while not directly related to the Right, I think that there can easily be an overlap (not surprisingly, since one of the cornerstones of the modern Right, bluntly, is the preservation of white/male entitlement)- see Gamergate, for example, where a debate on video games turned into a misogynist political attack on feminist gamers, writers, and activists.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, there's a lot of difference between an individual going "I think the new Transformers movie sucks" and a lot of people saying "the new Transformers movie sucks, Hasbro needs to trash it and do it over because WE say so". It's an assumption that because the fanbase exists, they have to be pandered to.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, there's a lot of difference between an individual going "I think the new Transformers movie sucks" and a lot of people saying "the new Transformers movie sucks, Hasbro needs to trash it and do it over because WE say so". It's an assumption that because the fanbase exists, they have to be pandered to.

Which is generally impossible anyway- fanbases are composed of diverse people with different tastes. Try to pander too much, and you're apt to end up with an incoherent mess that just kisses the ass of whichever group yelled loudest about the last book/movie/show/game. Which since the Alt. Reich is very good at yelling loudly...

[Lord Revan]

Yeah, there's a lot of difference between an individual going "I think the new Transformers movie sucks" and a lot of people saying "the new Transformers movie sucks, Hasbro needs to trash it and do it over because WE say so". It's an assumption that because the fanbase exists, they have to be pandered to.

Which is generally impossible anyway- fanbases are composed of diverse people with different tastes. Try to pander too much, and you're apt to end up with an incoherent mess that just kisses the ass of whichever group yelled loudest about the last book/movie/show/game. Which since the Alt. Reich is very good at yelling loudly...

Right or left it doesn't matter trying to pander to the subset of fandom of the so called "true fans" will always fail as they won't accept anything but exactly what they wanted constraints of time or money be damned and since these true fans are rarely if ever unified beyond thinking that the "current version sucks and I could do it much better" trying to pander to them you end up with at the best case scenario with puzzle where the peices don't fit together properly or more likely with a mess that's self-counterdictory.

[ray245]

Which is generally impossible anyway- fanbases are composed of diverse people with different tastes. Try to pander too much, and you're apt to end up with an incoherent mess that just kisses the ass of whichever group yelled loudest about the last book/movie/show/game. Which since the Alt. Reich is very good at yelling loudly...

Right or left it doesn't matter trying to pander to the subset of fandom of the so called "true fans" will always fail as they won't accept anything but exactly what they wanted constraints of time or money be damned and since these true fans are rarely if ever unified beyond thinking that the "current version sucks and I could do it much better" trying to pander to them you end up with at the best case scenario with puzzle where the peices don't fit together properly or more likely with a mess that's self-counterdictory.

It's not even about them shouting the loudest. It's about what exactly they're shouting about/demanding producers pander to them. A lot of those demands often boils down to "we want more of the same" from previous titles/movies/books. Film Sequels in the past were often lowly regarded movies that recycle the same plot/style again and again until the fandom got bored of it.

It's the demand for formulaic ideas/tropes that's something common in a lot of fandoms. Take the fantasy genre for instance, with a lot of repeated tropes ( which can often be seen as racists and misogynistic). Any attempt to break away from those tropes ( especially in the bigger titles) are seen in a hostile light and trying to take fans away from their comfort zone.

It feels as if a lot of content aimed at geek culture in the past ( and perhaps today as well) is all about trying to create that sense of comfort zone for the fans. While we do get new books/series/movies/games that tries something different all the time, there's still an element of traditionalism in what we would call geek-culture.

[The Romulan Republic]

The kneejerk tendency towards "They changed it so its ruined!" in a lot of fandoms is deeply troubling, even if not directly related to the alleged dominance of conservatism (though as I said, I can see possible indirect links). I want to yell at these people: "Is that REALLY what you want? To get your same dose of comforting formula every day, never to see it grow or become something more?" And if it is, then why not just watch the original again and again, rather than demanding new material that's the same, but different (and then whining when its not exactly the right ratio of same-to-different).

It especially pisses me off in Doctor Who, because while the Who fandom is overall actually one of the less toxic ones I've encountered, Doctor Who more than maybe any other major franchise has lived and thrived as long as it has precisely because it frequently reinvents itself.

[Gandalf]

I always assumed that a lot of the conservatism in nerd/geek cultures came from the fact that people's identities are tied heavily to specific IPs, and perhaps specific interpretations of them. Some people use their fandom of specific things as a substitute for character aspects,* so any change makes people feel threatened and uncomfortable.

*Think of the confluence of tough guy acting around more militaristic fictions.

[Vendetta]

But I also have to play devil's advocate here. A little bit. The anti-diversity sentiment also stems from past terrible efforts to enforce diversity rather than inspire it. Token characters, new characters that were badly written (Rey comes to mind), non-white characters "having to" (or not-having) behave in a certain way rather than just being themselves, etc.

On the other hand, the difficulty in telling when someone is making exactly those criticism in bad faith means that a lot of them just get written off as trolling.

If you want to make claims like "Rey is a badly written character" you need to do a lot more than say it, you need to produce an in-depth examination of the writing and show why it is bad on the level of movie writing and not just "because it doesn't match my preconceived ideas about canon", which is not a serious argument that real people will pay attention to.

If you just say it with no further support, you are open for dismissal on the basis that you are making the criticism in bad faith.

[ray245]

On the other hand, the difficulty in telling when someone is making exactly those criticism in bad faith means that a lot of them just get written off as trolling.

If you want to make claims like "Rey is a badly written character" you need to do a lot more than say it, you need to produce an in-depth examination of the writing and show why it is bad on the level of movie writing and not just "because it doesn't match my preconceived ideas about canon", which is not a serious argument that real people will pay attention to.

If you just say it with no further support, you are open for dismissal on the basis that you are making the criticism in bad faith.

But sometimes it could be simply due to people being too lazy to elaborate further. Not everyone is interested in having a sustained online debate about a movie.

It's more telling if you look at the source of their criticism. Are they objecting to something because what they've seen is a deviation from an established norm?

[Elheru Aran]

On the other hand, the difficulty in telling when someone is making exactly those criticism in bad faith means that a lot of them just get written off as trolling.

If you want to make claims like "Rey is a badly written character" you need to do a lot more than say it, you need to produce an in-depth examination of the writing and show why it is bad on the level of movie writing and not just "because it doesn't match my preconceived ideas about canon", which is not a serious argument that real people will pay attention to.

If you just say it with no further support, you are open for dismissal on the basis that you are making the criticism in bad faith.

But sometimes it could be simply due to people being too lazy to elaborate further. Not everyone is interested in having a sustained online debate about a movie.

It's more telling if you look at the source of their criticism. Are they objecting to something because what they've seen is a deviation from an established norm?

Canon IS "an established norm". So yes, I think it's fair enough to point out a deviation from that norm even if it's new canon. If all First Order officers suddenly show up with bright red bow-ties in Episode IX, that's a legitimate deviation to point out and object to.

And let's be frank, "being too lazy to elaborate further" is a valid reason to dismiss a point unless it's clearly self-evident, like the bowtie example. Just saying "Rey sucks" is pointless and demonstrates that the commentator isn't invested in further discussion. Saying that "Rey sucks because x, y and z" shows that the commentator has put some thought into it and is actually trying to support their argument, thus would probably be worth engaging.