Categorizing people as “losers” carries a strong presumption that they would be better off not being losers, that they ought to be doing things differently. But, accordingly, I would be highly disinclined to apply this label to apparently happy, contented people. [You’ve figured out a way to have fun and enjoy life? You’ve got your shit together in my book]. The drive to call out “loser”, it just seems like so much vestigial adolescent mentality bullshit.
Yeah, for someone who so commonly ascribes to leftist causes and politics, he’s weirdly conservative.
I am not sure this is the right question to ask. Let’s apply the veil of ignorance. Suppose before you were born, you were told by Fortuna that you were destined to be a happy and content person. But you could choose whether you wanted to be a happy and content “loser” or a happy and content “non-loser”. The definition of “loser” here is purely conventional to make things easy.
I suspect that most people would prefer to be a satisfied non-loser than a satisfied loser.
But seriously. Membership in a particular organization or participation in some hobby or other is not in and of itself a criterion for loserdom. The real question is whether a random draw from some group has a higher chance of producing a “loser” than a random draw from the general population or from another group. I stipulate there are lots of awesome furries, SCAdians, LARPers, Trekkies, SDMBers, Randroids, or whatever.
But is their membership less likely to be losers than the general population? I think there is some consensus on it, but it is an empirical question. I probably won’t get any funding from the NSF to research it, sadly.
Well, it might be partially generational. I’m older than the Furry generation.
The thing is, I’m not the only one sees people going around in chainmail saying “forsooth” and talking about their broadswords and thinks they’re kind of goofy. If you want to do it, do it, but I get why anyone believes they’re entitled to tell other people what they have to think about it.
Wouldn’t surprise me a tad! We almost lost a site we’d booked because the owners had a bunch of Civil War reenactors use the place and they decided it would be a good idea to add verisimilitude to their reenactment by pouring buckets of pig blood around and strewing random strings and piles of entrails. In Sacramento. In summer. 100+ degree F heat for those unacquainted with the area. Apparently the smell was horrifying for weeks afterward and the poor owners were concerned we might do something similar. Had to do some serious talking and took them to a couple of fighter practices before they settled down and realized that we’re not into stanky pig parts lying about. That was some fun, I can tell you. An autocrat’s work is never done!
Oh, and for those being dismissive of the SCA, you might keep in mind that the chain mail (more often plate armor, actually) is actually functional and that honest to gosh medieval weapon fighting (not choreographed, not staged, using inch thick rattan for swords instead of steel) is a major component of our events. The fighters are serious about what they do and it’s a very strenuous sport–there are no end of “point and laughers” who’ve been courteously invited to borrow armor and try their hand against an experienced fighter. Fifty pounds of armor is no joke, and armor bites given by a suitably skilled fighter are an effective method of quelling supercilious know-nothings who think SCA fighters are a buncha costumed pansies. FTR, I knew a guy who could do standing backflips in full armor, and several others who’ve won dance competitions while still armored and just off the field. If you think this is nothing, try dancing a galliard in your favorite workout clothes, imagine the fifty pounds of metal armor instead and then get back to me.
We had an incident at a war down in southern Oregon where some liquored up locals tried to crash the gate–as we were getting them to leave a pistol fell out of the car and they threatened to come back later for some serious mayhem. We contacted the local sheriff’s office, they sent out a deputy who told us that since they only have three deputies total patrolling all of Josephine County (about 1650 square miles) they expected us to do “whatever you have to do to protect your people.” We kinda looked at each other and wondered “dude, did we just get a license to kill from the county cops?!” We put some of the bigger guys (6’2"-6’6", 220-300 lbs) out at the gate with live steel weapons (these boys don’t keep froufrou toys around, we’re talking serious swords with razor edges) just in case the idiots came back but luckily (for them!) they elected to stay home. Just as well, the guys were wearing their breastplates and it’s likely that 16-14 ga steel would probably protect them pretty effectively from a small caliber handgun–long enough to disable the shooter, anyway.
Laugh at the Wiki pictures all you like, there’s a lot of substance to the SCA…
I think they’re goofy too, absolutely. I’m even likely to good-naturedly make fun of them, in the appropriate context. But I think of goofiness as something rather different from loserhood (for example, I don’t think the connotations of loserhood I listed above attach to goofiness).
I’d just like to point out that I’ve never called anybody a loser, although I’ll admit I did snigger in a room full of “Furries”, and say that Hostile Dialect was a little sensitive and premature, for jumping down my throat.
p.s. I love the way these Pit threads sometimes go off on wild tangents, while the more conscienscious Dopers try to tend them like bonsai trees, and bring some sort of order back to them.
Please carry on.
Funny you should mention that. There is a lot of substance to the SCA, but fighting is absolutely not one of these areas. Western martial arts happen to be one of my personal interests that intersects with the SCA. I have posted my thoughts on it occasionally over the years.
All of this unity among reenactors is heartwarming. But when the vampires and LARPers crash Pennsic, there is blood on the walls.
Apparently Diogenes has no clue about anything any more.
When we ask historians about the contemporary methods the Druids (or whoever) used to weave ropes and move stone blocks and build Stonehenge, who does he think we ask? Adult professionals in suits who sit in libraries and look things up on Google? No — we ask people who get out there day after day and preserve the knowledge of old technologies, like how to strip flax into fibers and dry it, how to braid ropes, and so on.
When we want to understand the context of an ancient battle, who knows best? Adults who are solemn and mature, who read scholarly sources and who aren’t “losers?” No, we ask the people who — for whatever reason — obsess about that time period, that battle, the technologies and the strategies involved. I don’t know why anybody would spend a weekend in the cold and damp reinacting the siege of Constantinople, but God bless 'em, they do, and our understanding of history is increased immeasurably by it.
How do we know so much about the way the ancients would have made flint tools? About the way metal arrowheads were made in a crucible over a campfire? Because people — losers, he says — still do these things.
And if he tries to say that the obession of furry fans contribute nothing whatever to society, I’ll just point at the ones I know who are scientists, geneticists, veterinarians, zoologists, and biologists who — for whatever reason — obsess so much about a particular animal that they study it and further our knowledge of it.
Obsession takes many forms. It’s pure misanthropic pig-ignorance which says “I know nothing about your obsession, I can tell nothing about it except surface impressions, but I have decided that your obsession has no value whatsoever.”
Gene Roddenberry was a “loser” in this regard. His obsession has inspired engineers and astronauts. Diogenes has inspired fuck all.
I realize it’s pointless to reply, but I’m going to do it anyway…
I use ‘tyger’ because I’m not a normal tiger and I’m a giant Thundercats dork. I got it from Tygra. (I also like the William Blake poem, but that’s secondary.)
It’s silliness. That’s different. Why intentionally misspell anything?
Woo! I’ve been updated to mildly silly! Lucky me. :rolleyes:
What do you think the RenFaire people do? No really, guess.
We entertain people. We sing songs and play games and walk around talking funny so people have someone to come and watch.
Huh, how about that.
Eh, I dunno, Fish. I think that’s kind of goofy, in a moment of what is sure to be solidarity with Dio. Why not ask the academic historians? And what about the tons of furries who aren’t scientists?
The thing is, you shouldn’t feel any need to have to justify your (or other people’s) hobbies by such fuzzy external productivity claims. Echoing Silver Tyger above, they have all the justification they need in the fact that they’re fun, at least for the people involved. Fun is a goal in itself; it needn’t be auxiliary to anything else.
Yep. Considering the druids left neither a written nor an oral record of pretty much anything they did, it is hard to believe any claims that reenactors are somehow “preserving” this ancient knowledge.
If you want to understand the context of an ancient battle, you ask people who can interpret the primary sources written by contemporaries. Not rattan weekend warriors.
This is not just goofy, it is kind of absurd.
Did anyone hear something from the corner over there?
No? Just me?
Carry on then.
Remove your whiskers and I’ll kiss and make-up. Or am I your dreaded enemy now?
It is strange. Maybe there are lots of people out there who find the SCA groups odd, just as furries are considered odd. And yet society is perfectly happy to tolerate and even encourage these exact same behaviors… as long as they’re not done for selfish enjoyment. Dress up in chainmail and gad about as if in a medeival fantasy? Ridiculous… unless you’re Viggo Mortensen; then you can expect to be paid millions of dollars for your trouble. Nobody claims that Harrison Ford is a loser because he spent years pretending to be a space pirate and a pulp adventurer. Millions of normal people love him for it.
Furries are of course the worst of the lot. The stereotype is that every one of them owns a fursuit. My god, that’s the weirdest thing ever! --unless you happen to encounter one at a sports stadium, where they’re called “mascots” and are just part of the show. They frolic and cavort, goof around, raise people’s spirits; they’re the living symbol of a beloved sports franchise! They inspire the crowd! They sell merchandise! And they get a paycheck out of the deal.
It’s even worse! Not only do normal people pay to watch others do this… they do it themselves! It’s called Halloween! At any given party you’ll see werewolves and catgirls and pirates and vampires and god knows what else! Is Halloween about weird sex? Yes it is, if you’re doing it right; but that’s not all it’s about. It’s a special time when adults are allowed to have fun and dress up, and the kids can even join in too.
But god forbid anyone should decide to do this sort of thing not for money, not to entertain others, not to participate in a holiday ritual… but simply to entertain themselves. Well, that’s just wrong, isn’t it? What the hell is that about? Good gracious, they’re doing almost exactly the same things that the rest of us pay money to watch, but for their own personal reasons! They’re doing something not because the rest of us want them to, but because they want to! Is that legal?
Hypocrites, hypocrites all.
What’s absurd is the implicit assumption that every historian and every scientist is by definition an ordinary, well-adjusted non-“loser.” Some of them can be just as downright obsessive about their field as any Trek geek.
What’s absurd is the blanket assumption that everybody who has some bizarre obsession with the minute details of a topic must be a “loser” with nothing to contribute.
There is a middle ground, which I feel compelled to point out. Some people with an otherwise unhealthy obsession do contribute. Diogenes uses too broad a brush when he says they’re all “losers.”
Unfortunately, I’ve already spent my SDMB research funds for the year.
However, if we do get funding, I propose we pull random members of the SCA (hypothesized to be loser-dense), and random members of the Dope (not-loser-dense, since Dio et al. are here). We’d need some criteria for defining ‘losers’ versus ‘not-losers’, and I’m thinking we’ll need to use nonparametric statistics, maybe a sign test, unless we can devise a loser-meter. I think I had a loser-meter but I lost it - it figures.
Full disclosure: I am not a member of the SCA, however, I don’t think they are generally losers either. I look forward to the experimental results with interest.
There are lots of other absurd things out there, like Theater of the Absurd. But the fact that they exist does not mean that your claims aren’t worthless.
I have my own pet obsessions, including some of the geeky variety. Jesus shit, my username is a character from the Silmarillion. I do not believe that interest in these things makes me a loser. In fact, by most general social criteria, I am definitely a non-loser.
But I do believe that among my hobbies, a random draw of their participants is more likely to yield losers than a random draw of the general population. It sucks but it’s life.
I’d much rather consult a credentialed historian who actually knows something than go talk to some play-acting LOTR geek who thinks he’s an orc and wants to show me his scabbard.